Hi, I saw your comment at Talk:Michael_Crichton#POV_that_Crichton_is_wrong and was wondering if you'd like to participate in WikiProject on shoring up one of Wikipedia's great weaknesses (how ideas can be "ganged-up" on and effectively shut-out), as you put it there.
If I can drum up enough interest, I'll start a project like WikiProject horse training, but hopefully it will attract more participants, last longer, and have greater effect. -- Uncle Ed 14:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
A user seems bent on reverting to a version repeating unnecessarily that he is Korean. I don't see why his nationality needs be in the first line at all. I've reverted to an intro I made which I think is a lot nicer; but this person seems to show up each night and revert it. Since you also seemed interested in making a neutral article, I thought you might be able to share your input, or help improve it even better. The other party's version also (unfortunately) doesn't seem to flow as well (in my opinion)... I have a feeling this individual is alone in his opinion, and is going against the consensus. If you could watch this page I'd appreciate it. — LactoseTI T 05:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
"Gichin Funakoshi (船越 義珍 Funakoshi Gichin, 1868– 1957) was a karate master who formally introduced karate to the Japanese mainland in 1921. He was born in Okinawa, but spent most of his life living in Japan."
71.124.36.224 05:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Glad to hear that you felt my (very minor) edits were useful. I'm afraid, though, that I don't have any inside information about Linda Ham. Although I'm keenly interested in NASA and particularly in Mission Control, I don't have any sources of information apart from the usual, which you seem to have covered very well already. You might well be able to find the answer to those sort of questions by simply contacting NASA's Public Affairs Office, though.
The article is shaping up very well. I might pitch in a little more here and there if it wouldn't be stepping on your toes. MLilburne 14:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello. Thanks for you comment on my talk page, but as you can see from LactoseTI's comment, after reviewing the contributions from IP in question, he admits he "jumped the gun a bit", which is fair enough. While I do understand the fustration of vandal fighting it is important to ensure that good faith editors (whether logged in or not) are not caught up in the crossfire simply because they edit from similar geographic areas. However, my main point at the time was to correct the misunderstanding that uncited material must be tagged and should not be removed, as that was the basis of his warnings to the IP in question. While some editors choose to tag uncited claims, they are not required to do so, and in the case of uncited critism about living people, it must be removed. That is why I removed the section you tagged in Michael Crichton, as tagging was not the correct option in this case. WP:BLP is very clear on this matter - if it's critism about a living person and uncited, remove it. When it comes to non-living people, the rule isn't as absolute, but straight removal of uncited material is still perfectly acceptable hence why I pointed out that the warning someone for taking such actions (which are justified by one of the core policies) wasn't the correct thing to do. I tend towards the stricter side of requiring immediate references, only adding {{ fact}} tags to minor details, but as I pointed out to LactoseTI, even for those taking a less strict view, tagging must only be a temporary measure, because in the end, it must boil down to one thing - "cite or remove". Regards, MartinRe 12:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I saw your report on WP:AIV. Kindly keep in mind that you need to warn users before you report them on this page. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 12:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Nice work. I like quality new contributors to wikipedia (like myself) Ernst Stavro Blofeld 14:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
your edit in my page is non factual and is in fact bad faith in itself, i consider it a vandalism to my page. I was concerned with the libel in it after revewing WP:BLP concerning some other case (being on the other side). No, i'm not the same as mantanmoreland... that's ridicilous and bad faith too since it's obvious we're not, though I've become interested in some of his interests and vice-versa, that's true. Amoruso 23:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
As to sources, the material about Weiss' education and early jobs probably comes from Weiss' blog. http://www.gary-weiss.com/bio.htm
Blogs are not always reliable as sources, of course, but it isn't clear to me why anybody would suspect Weiss of lying in the particular respects at issue here (do you really pad your resume by pretending to have working at a newspaper in Hartford, Conn.?). -- Christofurio 01:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
(removing edit by confirmed sockpuppet of User:Wordbomb)
Re [1] You reinstated a bad faith vandalism warning from the anon user in question. I and an administrator had removed personal attacks. The page of the anon user in question was semiprotected to prevent reversion of the personal attacks. Please desist from edits of that character. Thanks. -- Mantanmoreland 07:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Re [2], use of the term "self promotional" is on the cusp between aggressive POV-pushing and vandalism. Please stop.
Also, re your various comments on the Gary Weiss talk page and elsewhere (such as use of the phrase "bad faith " in [3]), please refrain from personal attacks and ad hominem comments, and please address your comments to the article and not the editor. -- Mantanmoreland 11:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Greetings, Cla68. I saw your afd for the Gary Weiss. My concern is that it links to a non-Wikipedia site for its evidence. Technically, we're not supposed to accept off-Wikipedia evidence. What's worse, that particular site tries to "out" some Wikipedia members, posting alleged personal information and libel against them. By an earlier arbcom ruling, links to "attack sites" can be deleted by anyone, and although the page you link to isn't really problematic, the site arguably is.
For both those reasons, I'm going to remove your link. It's nothing personal, and I don't have a stake at all in whether the Gary Weiss article should be kept or not. Feel free to summarize the info from that site into the afd page. All the best, – Quadell ( talk) ( random) 17:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm curious whether I'm one of the alleged "three socks" to whom you refer in the Afd. For what it's worth to you, I'm nobody's sock. If you're determined to believe I am, I suppose you can. I'm just curious about the reference. -- Christofurio 14:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Cla, could you say what you meant this by comment, please? "Now that 'high administrator' protection for that article has apparently ended, we can methodically work on ensuring that the article belongs on Wikipedia ..." SlimVirgin (talk) 19:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Re yer note on my page, I appreciate the civil tone but to be frank I simply don't believe any cleanup is necessary and that the article is fine as it is. This is a basic brief journalist bio written in neutral tone and is comparable to similar journalist bios. See Gerald Posner, Penny Lernoux and pretty much every other journo biog you can find. Posner's doesn't have a single cite and the source is obviously his website. I fail to see how festooning Posner's bio with cites and footnotes pointing to his site adds much value and it is the same for Weiss. I simply took the bio data out of that website [7], and you are right that the site is down. I agree that the libel suit does not belong, as it is undue weight at the current length as well as anything shorter. It is fairly brief as is and I can't see much point in cutting, except maybe the quote.-- Mantanmoreland 10:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I fixed as much concerns as possible. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 21:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Cla, I have to tell you once more that it is a violation of Wikipedia policy and a blockable offense to post or restore comments that seek to "out" another editor, whether accurately or otherwise. Please don't add or restore such comments again. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 09:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Cla68, read this entire page very carefully and consider taking directions on what to do on wikipedia from someone else besides the 2 editors that have an usual interest in this matter. Read all of antisocialmedia.net's front page, you'll find answers, troubling ones, to your questions 71.70.155.234 04:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
A while ago, you were so good as to take a look at my article on Glynn Lunney and offer some suggestions. I was wondering whether you would be willing to do so again. It is now up as a featured article candidate, but has rather a shortage of reviewers, perhaps due to the specialised nature of the topic. If you have the time to take a look at it and either support or object, I would be very grateful. Thanks. MLilburne 09:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the barnstar, and still more for the advice and support that you've offered at various stages of the FAC process. It was the Linda Ham article that first gave me the idea and the hope that I could actually get Glynn Lunney all the way to featured status. My next project is Chris Kraft, but I'm planning to take a long hard look at Space Shuttle Columbia disaster over the Christmas holidays, and see what I can do. MLilburne 10:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I'm acting as advocate for an editor who has been having issues with Mitsos. As part of the DR process, we have opened an RfC in order to get community input on behavior that several users feel is uncivil and biased. Seeing as how you have interacted with Mitsos in the past, we would appreciate any input you may have on the matter. Please visit the Request for Comment page and leave your thoughts. Thanks very much, → Bobby ← 16:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I had picked up your name on the Allied war crimes during World War II page. I saw in the history that Mitsos had changed your edit with the explanation " rvv this is vandalism the article is blanked" even though your revision clearly wasn't blanked. When I looked at it more closely today, I saw that Mitsos was probably referring to an earlier edit by another user, even though his edit summary made it look like he was accusing you. Sorry I contacted you about this; I should have looked at the history a bit more closely. That being said, if you want to head over to the RfC, I'm sure the community would appreciate your comments. Cheers, → Bobby ← 13:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Cla68, I am not sure if this is the place to do it but I wanted to express my gratitude to you. I am just a user here, no edits. I somehow picked up on a recent confrontation you had with another editor, Mantanmoreland, and it got interesting enough that I dug deeper and deeper trying to follow the story (and learning how Wikipedia works and the terminology in the meantime). Let me say as an outsider that it is clear what is going on. Not just clear but blatant. It has totally changed my view of what has happened to Wikipedia at this stage in its development.
But all is not lost, as long as people like you take principled stances even when the time/effort/headache cost is hard to justify. Every society big and small absolutely needs people like that. I don't know if you are actually involved with the military in real life or if this is just a hobby but I'd like to think you are. I remember having enjoyed the movie "A Man for All Seasons" about Sir Thomas More and my username is a quote from that (albeit misconjugated), "To stay silent is to give consent" . I can't think of a situation more apt. Obviously nothing earth shattering is going on here but most systems are corrupted/killed by a thousand paper cuts while decent people stand by and do nothing.
The people involved in this argument may think they smoothly "handled" a situation by using Wiki legalese and being persistent and watching each other's backs but they are wrong. They have made a minor spectacle of themselves.
Anyway, I got carried away. I just wanted to say thank you for your efforts. It moved me enough to write. I am sure for every one person who says it, there are a hundred who think it. QuiTacetConsentiret 23:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
As a courtesy, I wanted to draw advise you of my response to your comments in AN/I, in case you're not monitoring that page.-- Mantanmoreland 15:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Dear Cla68,
I noticed that you have a lot of experience with getting articles to FA status. I have been working on the Ohio Wesleyan University page article and am trying to get it to FA status. I was wondering if you could provide some advice on how the article can be improved? Also, any contributions to it will be even more appreciated! Thank you so much for your time! I greatly appreciate it! WikiprojectOWU 01:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
You have made an entry on my talk page regarding Rex Germanus ( talk · contribs) original report [10] on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. He has filed another report there since. Please check the case again, and update your comments. Thanks in advance. -- Matthead discuß! O 22:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your helfpul edits to the article. This is the kind of help that will get the article to FA status. Thank you again! WikiprojectOWU 01:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Dear Cla68,
Happy New Year! And thank you so much once again for you very helpful comments. I included all of them and I included numerous suggestions made by various reviewers. Do you mind taking a look one more time at the article Ohio Wesleyan University. Any comments will be very much appreciated!!! WikiprojectOWU 19:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the cites that he's an Eagle Scout, but please format them properly. You may want to add them to his main artilcle too. This Eagle Scout list is a featured list, so the cites need to be in a standard format. Rlevse 03:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
We actually have discussed removing some trivia on the Southwest Airlines article - I invite you to join the discussion. Cheers! -- Matt 15:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Dear Cla68,
Thank you again for leaving me feedback for the Ohio Wesleyan University. I addressed the two concerns regarding the lead paragraph and the referencing that you brought up in January. Thank you once again! I just nominated the article in the FAC process. LaSaltarella 19:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
By the way, are you an admin? If not, would you like to be? If so, I'd be happy to nominate you. —wwoods 20:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your helpful comments on my ANI posting regarding User:Orangemarlin. Could you please take a look at this? I imagine he feels justified by part of this discussion, where another editor comments that he likes my extensive refactoring of the Talk:Evolution but mentions refactoring should have broad consensus. Gnixon 04:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
You wrote:
We can use all the help you can give us at WP:WPSPAM! Check out the talk page if you haven't already. -- A. B. (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Cla68, please refrain from posting links to sites that attack or attempt to 'out' Wikipedia editors. If you persist in doing so, you could be blocked. Many thanks, Crum375 18:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to see what happened in your RfA; you were a very deserving candidate. SlimVirgin did almost the exact same thing to me in my RfA two months ago, smearing me with wild accusations about WordBomb. I hope you'll try again in a few months and come into it fully prepared to fend off the accusations. Everyking 13:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Cla68 - Thank you for responding to my Q7 in your RfA. Your RfA closed 2-1/2 hours after your Q7 response, so I was unable to reply in the RfA. Since the RfA is closed, the point seems moot. If there is anything to be taken away from your RfA is that SlimVirgin and Mantanmoreland do not seem to think that you are trustworthy and they still feel hurt. I do not know Mantanmoreland, but have seen enough of SlimVirgin's posts to know that she is honest in expressing what she believes. Other than deleting the diffs, there isn't much else that can be done about the past. In the end, it comes down to that some people still feel hurt by what happened and you are in a position help resolve their feelings. Jimbo put it best in early March 2007 when he indicated that Wikipedia is built on us trusting each other and on human understanding and forgiveness of errors. [11] I think that your efforts to generate understanding were not well received because trust needs to come first. If you work on repairing SlimVirgin and Mantanmoreland's trust in you, there eventually may be understanding and then perhaps forgiveness. Best wishes. -- Jreferee 15:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, I just noticed your request for page protection posted to WP:ANI. You should probably file at WP:RFPP. Regards, Flyguy649 talk contribs 04:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I said that there "appears to be a pattern." I know that she banned User:ManEatingDonut in the middle of a content dispute. I have seen it alleged in other cases, but I haven't the time to investigate the other cases, plus it is difficult to communicate with banned users. I suppose I could remove the phrase, or modify it. What would you recommend? -- NathanDW 05:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
hey, please quit being an enormously sensitive fag, fag. xoxo, 69.143.136.139 03:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate you taking the time to look over my contributions and cites on Masada. As I previously mentioned, as jayjg did not communicate with me or even publicly justify his actions to revert and ban me, I wrote to him on his talk page asking: "Can you please explain why you've blocked me from editing articles and reverted all my contributions, even from past articles? Specifically Masada, why have you reverted it to a state that predates my edits and now leaves no mention of the glaring fact that in Israel and int'l academic circles the myth of Masada has been exposed by various authors of high repute and published in major publications? Why have you not attempted to communicate with me about any of this? Have you read the cites I provided? Are you aware of any reputable sources that contradict these sources?"
As you can see, here, he undid my question and removed it from his talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk%3AJayjg&diff=144103240&oldid=144098410 I don't think anyone with the powers of administration should be behaving like this. My worry is that he will further ban me so I'll be unable to correspond. Truth-evenifithurts 04:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello Cla68, I just noticed your RFA and saw the comments left by SlimVirgin. Sorry but I must oppose unless I get a full explanation for your poor judgment in linking to an attack site and supporting a banned user over an Wikipedia admin in good standing. Nothing personal against you but I always take a strong stand against harassment of Wikipedians. Burn out is a real problem for our best admins due to the harassment they face daily. Take care, FloNight 12:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
It seems from your talk page and some of your recent interactions with users that you are a sort of pov-crusader. This may or may not surprise you, but I'd ask that you at least consider it. If several people are suggesting it may be true, chances are they aren't claiming it from a vacuum. It would make me happy if you could be sensitive to the fact that, no matter how noble you think your intentions are. After all, you're not working on the encyclopedia for your own benefit, it matters what your peers and readers think.
Food for thought. 17.255.240.146 01:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
The user User:Heatedissuepuppet has been editing your summary of the article (which I felt was a fair representation of the article contents) to remove mention of Metropolis (he is an anti-Metropolis troll, see his history). I felt that rather than have an unbalanced intro that the entire summary you added would be better removed for now. If, however, you would like to put it back in I would not object. Sparkzilla 00:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Cla68, I just got accused via a formal checkuser of being "wordbomb". i notice a friend of this aaccuser also obliquely tried to pin the wordbomb scarlet A on you as well by trying to say you were from Utah. Coy that one. Any ideas on how to edit any articles that he who cannot be named except on holier-than-all-of-us's userboxes has also edited without getting framed and banned? Piperdown 23:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Sure, it's fine by me. Everyking 03:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if you would be so kind as to make a comment regarding the proposed merge of Metropolis (English magazine in Japan) and Crisscross. Discusion is here: Talk:Crisscross. Sparkzilla 11:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
A RfC has been started regarding the use of sources (including Metropolis) as "exceptional claims" on the above article. As an previously interested party, your input would be most valued. Comment Talk:Nick_Baker_(prisoner_in_Japan)#Request_for_comments. Thank you. Sparkzilla 06:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Biography is holding a three month long assessment drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unassessed articles. The drive is running from June 1, 2007 – September 1, 2007.
Awards to be won range from delicacies such as the
WikiCookie to the great
Golden Wiki Award.
There are over 110,000 articles to assess so please visit the
drive's page and help out!
This drive was conceived of and organized by Psychless with the help of Ozgod. Regards, Psychless Type words!.
Hi. Thank you for reviewing the David Lewis (politician) article. I'll try to clean it up, per your suggestions, by Monday. I've been waiting a month for someone to give me some feedback. Best regards. -- Abebenjoe 01:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I've reviewed the article. Please see my comments at the talk page. -- Der yck C. review my hometown! 08:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The short answer is that Anynobody hasn't the faintest idea of what he's talking about. There's nothing wrong with what you're doing here. Kirill Lokshin 08:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Self-RfCs have never needed an administrator's counter-signature to be valid. You're fine. Mackensen (talk) 14:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
As part of a response to your RfC, SlimVirgin has declared that a post from an IP in a New Jersey suburb that "vandalized" Mantanmoreland's user page is from "wordbomb". As she is declaring in the same post that wordbomb is a certain person to works for Overstock and resides in Utah, I'd thought you like to use that information in your response. I have reviewed the "wordbomb" sock page, and a large percetange of the IP addresses listed are scattered throught the US, including metro Atlanta, the NJ-NYC metro area. These were "socked" by SlimVirgin in a blanket wordbombing it appears. I think you'd also be interested Piperdown 21:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
SV also lists herself as one of the admins who reviewed this case last year. Could you ask this person why User:mantanmoreland removed his reference to himself being the nephew of user:LastExit, why LastExit refers to himself of an Uncle of a wikipedian, and why LastExit contains a sockpuppet notice on his userpage? It's bit odd for an uncle and a nephew to converse with each other in real time on their user talk pages, instead of off-wiki communication, don't you think? Piperdown 21:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the note on your RfC. I've left you a comma-laden reply at User talk:Dekimasu. I haven't contributed much to the RfC page itself, but I may come back to it in the future. Dekimasu よ! 02:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
—Remember, the Edit will be with you, always. (Sethdoe92) (drop me a line) 17:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC) I'm busy preparing to become an admin
Well, it was tagged with the project tag... ;-)
(But, really, the various reviews are there as assistance for those who want it; you're under no obligation to go through them all if you don't feel the need. Certainly, for someone with your level of FA experience, I suspect that they're more formalities than anything else at this point.) Kirill Lokshin 01:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your help on the Nottingham Panthers article GA review. I've now done all that was requested that you believed neccessary when the article was put on hold. PanthersGirl 20:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
No problem. :) -- Neutrality talk 06:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
From my talk page:
Cla68, have you considered a partnership with a wikipedian who can remove edits [15] to erase any evidence of any past edits you have made that could be used against you in a kangaroo court of wikipedia? Might be the way to go. If your edits on GW are just erased by a magic wand of unaccountability, all your wikiproblems could be solved. It almost worked for Nixon with his tapes. Everyone needs a secretary with a finger on the big red erase button, don't they? ;-) Piperdown 04:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Since your user page doesn't say you have a page on meta wiki, lack of authentification proof, the endorsement submitted by that account will be removed. Just for your information. -- Aphaia 04:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
For supporting my nomination for adminship, I appreciate it. Grant | Talk 03:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your participation in my recent RfB. Though it closed with 72% support (below the required 90%), I'm still quite pleased at the outpouring of support shown by a fair percentage of the community.
I'm currently tabulating and calculating all opposing and neutral arguments to help me better address the community's concerns about my abilities as a bureaucrat. If you'd like, you can follow my progress (and/or provide additional suggestions) at User:EVula/admin/RfB notes. Thanks again! EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Cla68, for participating in
my RfB, which ended unsuccessfully with a final tally of (80/22/3). |
A new elimination drive of the backlog at Wikipedia:Good article candidates will take place from the month of July through August 12, 2007. There are currently about 130 articles that need to be reviewed right now. If you are interested in helping with the drive, then please visit Wikipedia:Good article candidates backlog elimination drive and record the articles that you have reviewed. Awards will be given based on the number of reviews completed. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :{{ GAReview}} underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the drive's talk page. Please help to eradicate the backlog to cut down on the waiting time for articles to be reviewed.
You have received this message either due to your membership with WikiProject: Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Wikipedia:Good article candidates/List of reviewers. -- Nehrams2020 03:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks in part to your support, I am Wikipedia's newest bureaucrat. I will do my best to live up to your confidence and kind words. Andre ( talk) 09:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I was looking for a prettier way to do this, but I'm not very artistic, so I'll just say thank you for your support in my RfA, which was closed as successful. I look forward to serving the community in a new way. Take care! -- But| seriously| folks 09:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Congrats on the recent promotion of the Michael Brown Okinawa assault incident. Keep up the good work. KnightLago 03:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi - In case you were wondering, your sig showed up as CLA at WP:WBFAN since that's how your most recent FA nom was signed (at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/July 2007). Direct edits at WBFAN are generally overwritten the next time I run the bot - I changed your sig at Wikipedia:Featured articles nominated in 2007 so it will stick. -- Rick Block ( talk) 22:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you | ||
Thank you for your support of my recent unsuccsessful rfa, which concluded today with a final tally of 22/15/3. The comments and suggestions from this rfa, combined with the comments left during my first rfa, have given me a good idea of where I need improvement. — TomStar81 ( Talk) 05:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC) |
Hi there:
I think all the copyedit work has been completed on the David Lewis (politician) article, thereby completing the last item on your to-do list before it can be reviewed again. So I was wondering if you could take a look at the article and give it your seal of approval? Thanks again for your insights, they did improve the article substantially. -- Abebenjoe 14:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Saldivar.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi there Cla. I have tried to address your concerns where I feel that they are applicable. Regards, Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 09:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Cla. Thank you for your words of support. As I mentioned to EliminatorJR, I do not intend to give up, as I do not wish to give the cliques who have opposed me the satisfaction. It will certainly be interesting to see if I can "claw back" enough support votes to come through! Number 5 7 14:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Could you explain what in the Skúli Þórsteinsson article you believe requires cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards? Haukur 18:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I noticed you had a ton of featured articles. I have two pages nominated for GA, would you mind taking a pass at them? They are 2007 Peruvian meteorite event and Joe Szwaja. Thanks! • Lawrence Cohen 23:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
We couldn;t do it without you. 129.108.206.206 21:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Would you mind taking a gander at Storm botnet and Ballard Carnegie Library? The Carnegie I submitted for GA, but I don't think Botnet is quite there yet. And, thanks to your help, 2007 Peruvian meteorite event passed GA! • Lawrence Cohen 05:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Please do not edit the RfC statement in Talk:Gary Weiss. As originally drafted it contains neutral language. Please stop your POV pushing and please be aware of the three revert rule.-- Samiharris 03:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
This account has been blocked for 24 hours for WP:POINT at Talk:Gary Weiss after repeated warnings. Durova Charge! 21:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Dissent will not be tolerated. -- arkalochori |talk| 23:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I almost never assign blocks shorter than 24 hours because they often do more harm than good, but this request comes from Jimbo. For the good of the project, please set the right example by coming back to the page with solid references and strictly topical discussion. Durova Charge! 01:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Cla68. I have sent you an email in response to your Veropedia inquiry. We would love to have you on board. If you do not use IRC, please send me another email and we can get things done that way. Danny 18:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. The Preity Zinta article has recently achieved A-class status. Due to the wealth of support I have decided to now nominate for an FA class article which I believe and judging by the comments of others is pretty much up to. In my view it is better than some existing FA actor articles. I would therefore be very grateful if you could give it a final review in your own time and leave your comments and views at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta. Thankyou, your comments are always valuable. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 10:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
This [18] is absolutely unacceptable. The incident is long past, well and truly dead and buried, and has been explained to the satisfaction of all concerned. If you repeat this nonsense you may be blocked from editing for harassment, because that is what it is. Guy ( Help!) 13:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
It appears they are one in the same? Time stamps of block are somewhat curious. Here is what I wrote on my talk page; it will likely be reverted: "Good questionCla68. I will discuss this when I am back in the U.S. Right now, I have been blocked by "Sarah" / JzG. It appears by the time stamps that they are on a team?" 68.192.34.33 ( talk) 15:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Your assumption of bad faith is duly noted, but was in this case quite wrong. Your post to !!'s talk was trollish and incivil, designed to inflame rather than bring calm to an already tense situation. Thank you for the warning, allow me to respond in kind: stop trolling or you may be blocked from editing. Feel free to rephrase your statement of support on !!'s talk page in a way that is less offensive. Guy ( Help!) 15:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
You candidate question to my arbitration nomination could have probably been better answered on my talk. I know you disagreed with my use of the tools, and made a bad faith assumption. You attempt to bring that dispute to my nomination subpage appears inappropriate. Regards, Mercury 01:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think those questions are helpful. Respectfully request you withdraw them. Durova Charge! 02:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I have diffs which clearly indicate you have maintained an ongoing campaign of harassment against User:SlimVirgin. I'm going to make a formal request now that you cease this harassment. Thanks.-- MONGO ( talk) 04:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
No..I am acting on my own. I have, as I mentioned, seen too many postings by you regarding SlimVirgin and I was only trying to get you refocused away from long dead issues so that you can resume article writing. Anyway, have a good one.-- MONGO ( talk) 08:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
... here. I don't know if it's significant, but I thought this seemed a bit contrived at the time. Maybe I'm wrong. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 11:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
"'I believe that Jimbo's credibility has been greatly damaged because of his open support for these people,' says Charles Ainsworth."
Open support for which people?
-- Jimbo Wales 14:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Being familiar with the stalking and trolling that eminates from Wikipedia Review, I must say that I am certainly sympathetic to the creation of a private discussion board to counter-act it. That said, I am deeply concerned that we are allowing paranoia to take over the upper echelons of the Wikipedia Community. Some of the arguments I have seen concerning BADSITES and related matters coming from respected, established admins (and even ArbCom members) are honestly quite unbelievable. And now this. Frankly, it seems that Giano called a spade a spade and was punished becuase of it. The fact that the establishment (including Jimbo) came down on him so harshly unfortunately leaves egg on the face of the entire Wikipedia project. Of course what's done is done, and it seems most everyone is in agreement that the whole thing was an over-reaction and blown out of proportion. The only thing we can do now is ask how do we keep this rampant paranoia from getting out of hand? Clearly much of it is justified, but that doesn't change the fact that it is hurting Wikipedia. Kaldari ( talk) 03:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Harassment can be serious business; real-life stalking always is. While I support the idea of Wikipedia developing an official program for victims of Wikipedia-related harassment and cyberstalking (which I can attest personally does occur), I am concerned that Wikipedia needs to know its limits in this matter. Some sympathy and practical assistance is at the top of the list. Consideration needs to be given to whether or not the Foundation will release the collected information on the alleged harasser/stalker to police at the request of the victim; as the policy is a Foundation one, there may be value in discussing a comprehensive response process with other projects.
I will also add that I am somewhat concerned that, while the members of this group include individuals who have experienced stalking and real-life harassment, it is unlikely that any of them have any training in the skills required to assist victims most effectively. Support groups are good, but they are usually led by professionals or at minimum well trained volunteers. Risker ( talk) 03:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Clarification Since Cla has said that I "pointed out" SlimVirgin was lying, I'd like to be clear. I did not, and do not, accuse anyone of lying, and I rather resent being misrepresented. Slim made accusations about arbcom members leaking. I have no idea whether they are true or not. My comlaint, which Slim has graciously accepted, is that she should not have publicly implied that JamesF leaked, and that she disbelieved his assurances, without providing evidence. She should have discussed the matter privately with James and if dissatisfied gone to Jimbo, Arbcom, of the foundation. People should not make unsubstantiated allegation. And people should not accuse others of lying, or of calling people liars. Some of my own talk has been careless and open to misunderstanding, and for that I apologise to all parties. But, again, I have no reason to believe that Slim is lying.-- Docg 09:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
You have said that I "pointed out" SlimVirgin was lying, so I'd like to be clear. I did not, and do not, accuse anyone of lying, and I'm sorry of my careless comments on IRC have led you to that conclusion. Slim made accusations about arbcom members leaking. I have no idea whether they are true or not. My complaint, which Slim has graciously accepted, is that she should not have publicly implied that JamesF leaked, and that she disbelieved his assurances, without providing evidence. She should have discussed the matter privately with James and if dissatisfied gone to Jimbo, Arbcom, of the foundation. People should not make unsubstantiated allegation. And people should not accuse others of lying, or of calling people liars. Some of my own talk has been careless and open to misunderstanding, and for that I apologise to all parties. But, again, I have no reason to believe that Slim is lying. You should not make that allegation unless you can provide evidence.-- Docg 09:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
FYI, I am alerting user's who have voted to oppose based on my comments about the Durova matter that I have written a longer statement regarding my views on the matter which I hope clarifies a few points of apparent misunderstanding. See User:JoshuaZ/Statement regarding Durova and !!. Thanks. JoshuaZ ( talk) 02:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for this. I can be awfully untidy at times. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 14:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Can I ask that you return to this comment and either expand or redact? As it is, it doesn't add any information as to why you think she should knock it off.
CygnetSaIad (
talk)
04:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Your comment on Viridae's talk page about being reverted (rightly, I'll add) at Doc's talk was simply wilfully encouraging disruption. Brandt is banned, as you both know. When banned users avoid their block to post to Wikipedia, the correct response is to remove the comment and not hinder others doing that and certainly not to encourage them to continue. There's a limit to how much disruption via enabling banned troublemakers the community is willing to put up with. Do not continue to enable or help others enable banned editors to ignore their bans and continue to disrupt Wikipedia. FeloniousMonk ( talk) 04:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Ironic that you should have asked me about that last night. This diff happened about 3 hours later, followed by Talk:Animal_testing#Editing. I'm not expecting you to do anything abut it, SV is well-known for this, but the timing was too good not to mention. All the best Tim Vickers ( talk) 15:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi there! You said that "There have been a couple of recalls recently, and I'll mention names if anyone wants me to". I would appreciate it if you would add such names to Category talk:Wikipedia administrators open to recall/Past requests, and add a brief explanation of the nature of the request, and what happened (did they talk it out, did the admin ignore it, did he claim the requester didn't "qualify", etc). Thanks, >Radiant< 18:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
"so I don't think it's inappropriate for Giano to bring it up here." Neither do I. Rather, it is the way he brought it up that I believe is problematic. I hope you can understand my sentiments. Cheers — Cronholm 144 01:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Prompted by this edit of yours: Please explain your beef with the article on its talk page. Thanks. -- Hoary ( talk) 05:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
You lamented that I did not identify individual parties. Wikipedia talk:No original research#Discussed and undiscussed edits lays out a picture-perfect example of those "I say so"/revert tactics, though obviously directed against myself instead of COGDEN. If I find the time, I will dig up further refs and make an additional comment in the RfC. Vassyana ( talk) 14:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd pitch in where I can (especially given JzG's latest response), but I just don't have the juice to be the driving force behind the RfC. I think DH might be willing, though. Mr Which ??? 01:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
(copied from my talk page)
given your prior comments, the talk page discussion at Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation may interest you.-- 69.203.81.71 ( talk) 01:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 22:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Cla, for your supportive contributions during this unpleasant incident; I am most grateful and appreciative. Kindest regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Not sure if you know, but it also turned out that some sockpuppets were involved in my wonderful RfA - User:Yeshivish was blocked a month or two after...
Anyway, I really hope that this RfAr will be able to do something. I felt that the strength of the oppose vote in my RfA handicapped me slightly from dealing with the pro-Israel lot, as were I to block any of them, then they've got a ready made excuse to decry my actions. Hopefully if there are some concrete findings and behavioural directives for the problematic editors I'll actually be able to do my duty properly in the future...
пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 01:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I noticed no one had posted a follow-up to Alison's note at David's talk page. It's possible he hasn't logged on since the AN thread heated up. Probably we've all been surprised occasionally to see a flareup after we took a day off. Let's assume good faith. I've urged him to drop by the noticeboard as soon as he's back online. Durova Charge! 07:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This arbitration case has closed and the final decision may be found at the link above. Giano is placed on civility restriction for one year. Should Giano make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Giano may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling. All parties in this case are strongly cautioned to pursue disputes in a civil manner designed to contribute to resolution and to cause minimal disruption. All the involved editors, both the supporters and detractors of IRC, are asked to avoid edit warring on project space pages even if their status is unclear, and are instructed to use civil discussion to resolve all issues with respect to the "admin" IRC channel. For the Arbitration committee, Thatcher 04:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Re: this - if there's a desire, I might be able to push through a Japanese translation for that page (and get someone who speaks it to handle the tickets). Raul654 ( talk) 17:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mantanmoreland beat you to it ;) SirFozzie ( talk) 03:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't you think that calling for WB to be allowed to return for this period as well as asking for accountability for actions taken some time ago is pushing it in terms of what will be permitted just a little? Relata refero ( talk) 11:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I bet my block is influential. I will not have any involvement in the RFC. MessedRocker ( talk) ( write these articles) 15:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for this source, I hadn't seen that one. Cheers, Cirt ( talk) 06:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/ e 17:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
In interest of avoiding political entanglements, etc. I must respectfully decline any and all involvement in the RfC. I don't quite understand how the politics of wikipedia work, and I'm more interested in spending my time improving the quality of articles anyway. I don't quite know what an RfC is, to tell you the truth. Pygmypony ( talk) 18:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Cla, please stop posting on SV's page, or otherwise harassing or stalking her, or anyone else. Crum375 ( talk) 12:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I should just keep my nose out of it, but an accusation of stalking is a little over the top. It is an emotionally charged word that brings with it ton of creepy suggestions. Maybe there is a better word than stalking to express whatever one is trying to express. Stalking refers to a criminal offense in most areas; it is a bad word to describe the actions of a person who is offended and civilly (if not repeatedly) trying to receive feedback from a person he has a dispute with. daveh4h 19:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Cla68, its like this. Your efforts to help wikipedia are very very appreciated. But everyone is different. Different things upset different people. British and American tastes in which words are fighting words is an example. Using the word "niggardly" around ignorant people is an example. Slimvirgin is an asset to wikipedia just as you are. What upsets her is different than what upsets you. Please accommodate our fellow human beings as much as you can when it comes to their individual sensitivities. Thank you. WAS 4.250 ( talk) 22:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not a question of differing sensibilities, British v. American English, etc., just a familiar move in a game of strategy that Cla68 doesn't need to play. Cla68, you have a wide and well-deserved reputation for (a) prolific and first-rate article content, and (b) scrupulous and courageous fairness regarding these marginal COI/NPOV/clique dramas. And other editors have an equally wide and well-deserved reputation for vulgarly exploiting a politics of victimhood, and using a moral rhetoric (of "harassment," "stalking," and so on) so grossly and irresponsibly inflated as to be meaningless. It's like one of those poignantly devalued currencies where you've got four zeroes on a bill and it's still not enough for a sandwich. No one believes your accusers, Cla68, so don't let 'em rattle your cage.-- G-Dett ( talk) 12:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
May I say, Cla68, that myself never having been involved in any of these instances, I have no reason to want to get into a fight with the "big swingers". And I have admiration for the contributions of SlimVirgin, not all of them but much of them. However, the practices of those bullybrigades who conspire to mug the less-protected in dark alleys is deplorable, and they know who they are.
I expect to draw flak for that comment, but it is one thing to voluntarily contribute to Wikipedia, and quite another thing to find oneself endlessly confronted on talkpage after talkpage with this garbage and bullying, which at this time seems to reverbrate from *BADSITES*. I am a minor editor, nil interest in politics, but I dont like walking through spew to get to work. If, somehow, the *BADSITES* war, can be finished with, with all involved parties well and truly injured and retired from the fray, that may be the best possible outcome for WP. I will gladly wear some incidental abuse then (I am bound to anyway, even just for breathing).
These are my personal views, so if I offend anyone here, let me (NBG) know. User:Cla68 had nothing to do with this statement. Newbyguesses - Talk 23:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 23:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not going to recuse from the case; long-standing arbcom precedent does not require us to be free of opinions about cases, but rather to recuse if we have an actual conflict of interest. I do not.
As always, I will examine the facts before us neutrally and without prejudice.
As to my opinions about Mr. Bagley - he is not a party to this arbitration in any case, as far as I can tell, so it is not very relevant. Yes, the case involves people with whom he has had long-standing disagreements, but that will not affect my judgment as to those people's actions.
Thanks, Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 00:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Asked here, about the precedent: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Proposed decision#Procedural question on recusal. Lawrence § t/ e 00:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Mantanmoreland's troubling treatment.
I'm not exaggerating when I say that this is the most important section in the case. It's not so surprising when people lie or try to advantage themselves, but we must learn how this was allowed to continue for so long. Cool Hand Luke 20:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Clarification: Gary Weiss has been oversighted. Talk:Gary Weiss was only admin deleted, by SlimVirgin Five edits are deleted. Just from an IP and reversions. Were adding {{Notable Wikipedian|various sockpuppets|Weiss, Gary}} and comments that "everyone knows Mantanmoreland is Gary Weiss." I have no idea what's missing from Gary Weiss, of course. Cool Hand Luke 08:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Crum did indeed admin delete SlimVirgin's talk page. However, ElinorD subsequently convinced her to undelete some of the deleted history and divided the history into several archives. Your edit sits deleted at User talk:SlimVirgin/temp. The log looks like this:
This is what you wrote:
Cool Hand Luke 08:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Also note the comment for Crum375's history delete—"trolling." Cool Hand Luke 09:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Could you explain (if you get time) some things to me about Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cla68. Do these processes close, or remain open for ever? There appear to be no posts since 01:53, 11 December 2007 Cla68 @Talk. Is there a "result", or has the "outcome" been satisfactory to you?
Is the Rfc closed, or could posts still be made there? Are you still bothered by the allegations which were made at the RFC, and repeated at your RFA? Was this offer ever made good on? Do not reply if you are too busy with the Arbcom. or other matters, or if you feel that commenting at this time is inappropriate. Thanks, Newbyguesses - Talk 03:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay. That RfC is still open as far as I'm concerned. Editors are still free to add (or retract) their endorsements to any of the statements listed there. In fact, once the current, related ArbCom case is closed, I'm going to add a link to it and a brief intro in a section on the RfC's discussion page. As far as I know that offer you mention wasn't made good on.
If you look at the evidence I'm presenting in the related ArbCom case [36], you can see that I am still bothered by what occurred in my RfA. One of the purposes of the RfC was to document what happened as a future reference as well as so that I could learn from the experience and from analysis and comments provided by others. One of things that bothers me the most about the RfA was that an active participant there and in the RfC, an admin, knowingly and mendaciously lied, and has never been held adequately accountable for doing so. Cla68 ( talk) 09:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Thankyou for your prompt reply. The question of a "result" is then moot, as the Rfc is still open, and I intend for the record to wait until you or other post there before making a contribution. It seems the purpose of an Rfc is to obtain Outside views; there have been a number of those to date in evidence, so that "outcome" has been achieved, but I cannot see anywhere there where you get answers to what seem reasonable requests to have evidence supplied, or accusations withdrawn. I will be following the Arbcom. case, though unlikey to post there (again;)? Newbyguesses - Talk 10:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Regarding your comments on my Talk: page, you say I was " heavily involved at one point in the issue"; can you explain what you mean by that? Also, why would I have special insight into oversight actions, or be able to provide dates and times for them? Finally, based on this statement, is it your position that what people post on off-Wikipedia websites is relevant to Wikipedia? Jayjg (talk) 02:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
While looking over your evidence, I visited the page of your RfA where I stumbled upon User:Blutacker. I had "flagged" the account, saying "This is the user's sixth edit, and his second outside Daniel Brandt" Since the Brandt article is deleted, only an admin could evaluate those 4 edits. At any rate, it's very clear that the account is a sockpuppet and I tagged the user page with {{ Sockunknown}}. I'm not sure if this means anything at all (probably not), but I thought I'd notify you of this find. Blutacker btw is the German name for Akeldama. User: Dorftrottel 06:01, February 18, 200 8
I am rather good at thwacking sock puppets. If you go for RFA again, I will be watching, and this sort of thing won't happen again. Jehochman Talk 02:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Arbcom case case At the current arbcom. case, here, user:mantanmoreland appears to be arguing that virtually every post to this case opposing their position is from a sock of Wordbomb!
Sockpuppeting
...Most of the contents of this page have been on the ASM website for well over a year. If Judd Bagley, Overstock's spokesman and operator of ASM, were not coordinating this, I am sure he would have a case for copyright infringement...(User:Mantanmoreland)
(DIFF?)
I may have misread, and I dont intend presenting evidence at this time, but if that is the same old argument, it is easily refuted. All known socks of WB are listed at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of WordBomb and none of them have posted to the arbcom. case, as far as i can see. FYI Newbyguesses - Talk 06:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
(further down) Look at
The editors who know Sami and I best, and are not necessarily friends of either of us, believe quite firmly that we are different people based on writing style and the positions we took, and didn't take, in 600-odd emails. (User:Mantanmoreland)
nbg/with respect, Mantan, it is not a matter of the editors who know you best, but of all the WPeditors, most of whom have never met you, your peers. FYI Newbyguesses - Talk 08:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Further:
I would ask, as a concerned observer, how does Cla68 answer this from User:Mantanmoreland --
Naked shorting is a subject that has received widespread news coverage, so naturally there are news articles cited. For most substantive points, the article relies on the SEC website.
user:mantanmoreland--He * Cla68* objects to this [158] perfectly proper edit by Samiharris, cutting the length of an overlong paragraph on the antisocialmedia.net smear campaign, correcting an inaccuracy that attributed an allegation to the wrong source.
How does Cla68 respond to this by Mantan?
That same edit also removed a notable journalist's comment:
'Bloomberg.com columnist Susan Antilla writes that the website attack on Weiss, "Is but the latest example of the public relations path Overstock and Bagley have taken to wage their bizarre battle against naked shorts."
(user:mantanmoreland)--The rest of his * Cla68's"evidence" relates to the raw deal he supposedly has gotten through much of his wiki-life, and has nothing to do with this arbitration.
nbg/with respect Mantan, it is for the arbitrators to decide what is to do with this arbitration, not yourself./nbg
That's what i would ask, if I were to haver evidence to present, i guess. Instead, I ask you FWIW, pardon I mean, FYI Newbyguesses - Talk 08:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
FYIGFDL-- my evidence, if I present it would be.. FYI Newbyguesses - Talk 09:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I have done it now. — Newbyguesses - Talk 16:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I would like to register a mild objection to your evidence against me in the Mantanmoreland case. Here "Overstock abusers" was a quote from the previous comment; you will note please that I also said that editors who used such tactics were absolutely not welcome to edit Wikipedia, unless they are willing to leave that behind them when they put on their Wikipedia hat. Clearly, if Piperdown or someone like him was willing to edit other topics, leaving Overstock, MM and associated topics behind, we would not even know he was here. And here please note that my comments about naked short selling obviously apply to Wordbomb but that my comments about misogynistic and antisemitic edits refers to other stalkers of SlimVirgin and others, not to Bagley. Finally, you can call this a poison pill if you like, but it is a fact that the suspicion was raised by more than one checkuser, and by at least one non-checkuser admin, and was a matter of consultation among myself and other checkusers before I answered the request, so it seems reasonable to mention it; if only to give an answer to those users and admins who may remember Wordbomb also using proxies and wonder whether it was looked into. Thatcher 01:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
What are you removing someone else's evidence for? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I wish this was undeleted because it has one of Mantanmoreland's most duplicitous statements. Anyhow, here's a deleted diff where he expands his initial comment: [37]. Admins would be able to see this:
Thanks for all your work. Cool Hand Luke 02:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you take a look at this proposed FoF of yours, where I've suggested an emendation based on a statement by dmcdevit. Of course, you might want to ask him additional questions, but it seems he would consider it a matter of courtesy to have some action taken asap. Relata refero ( talk) 19:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=15604&view=findpost&p=80617
Don't know if you have an account there, so he you are. Viridae Talk 11:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you ready to try for adminship again? I saw what happened last time and thought it was a shame. Jehochman Talk 23:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Regarding this, note the provision at WP:RFC that "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors." (Emphasis is in the original.) Just wanted to make sure you were aware since I've seen RFCs backfire. Raymond Arritt ( talk) 01:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I have notified everyone in the tried and failed to resolve the dispute bit, as well as durova and dan tobias - the former because she was in that part but I'm not sure she will want to take part and the latter because he expressed interest. Viridae Talk 11:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
As you know being part of that crowd, the discussion was started, restored and is being continued by several long running ax-grinders with Jimbo both on and off site. Transparently using 'concern' as a reason to air Jimbo's dirty laundry and create drama is by definition that is disruptive editing. For that reason alone it can and should be ended and archived. You want to discuss Jimbo's personal imbroglios? This isn't the place for it; do it offsite. FeloniousMonk ( talk) 15:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The credit for adding balance to that article in recent weeks goes to Msalt, Jayen466, Francis Schonken. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't mean to take the wind out of your sails with my comment. The point I mean to make is, we're being told scope is limited because certain names and issues weren't added to the case. That makes sense on the face of it, but I have doubts when I think of the impact that adding my own name to the case had: going from there is no dispute to yes, but your dispute is beside the point. If that distracts from the main thrust of your statement then feel free to remove my comments from that subthread. Durova Charge! 04:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi -- I'd like to see the sandbox(es) restored that were in use before the JzG2 RfC went live. Would you have a problem with that? A temporary restore would be ok too. Alternatively, I could ask an admin for a copy by email, but I'm also interested in the edit history. See also my request on Viridae's talk page here. Thanks. Avb 11:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, if you have a moment, would you mind reviewing User:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft? I'm just beginning to draft this, but given the recent situations I think this could be valuable to see what community mandates if any exist for changes the Arbitration Committee could be required to accept. My intention was to keep the RFC format exceptionally simple, with a very limited number of "top level" sections that were fairly precise. Please leave any feedback on User talk:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft. Thanks. Lawrence § t/ e 17:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, John Vandenberg ( talk) 02:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I've started a draft user conduct RfC here. Cla68 ( talk) 03:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
please remove item 9 from the sandbox draft. i'm not a party to this matter. Anastrophe ( talk) 07:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not in interested in witch hunts. Your arguments seem too fragmented to be coherient. Sorry about the bad spelling;) Ceoil ( talk) 13:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for informing me of your draft. I'm not familiar with the episode described therein, though my own experiences with the editor in question are eerily reminescent. I'm not sure adding them would help though, since they took place a little more than a year ago. I do admire your tenacity in expecting that all editors, even "highly respected" admins, be held to the same standards. I'm skeptical however that anything at all will ever be done given the tendency to ignore such complaints dealing with this editor's conduct in the past. I will follow how things develop though and intervene with comments if appropriate. Good luck! Tiamut talk 14:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The edits seem to be there. [39] Sometimes edit histories are misplaced when a page is cut-and-paste moved. Most of the admin work I do is fixing those. In this case it all looks right to me. Cool Hand Luke 04:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
You're right, there's no "real objection", as long as you ignore all the people who object. In any event, please get a real consensus for this significant policy change before attempting to modify policy. Jayjg (talk) 01:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Cla68...once again, I remind myself of your excellent FA work and thank you for those articles. However, I see you are working on another potential Rfc here...what exactly is the problem between you and Slim? I would like to once again ask you to resume your excellent article work and well, let bygones be bygones. I thought this issue was long dead by now...why is it still festering?-- MONGO 02:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad you found the SlimVirgin diff. I have seen other cases too but I can't readily find them. There isn't much institutional memory here. :-) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 05:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The content of List of animal rights activists ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as of December 2006 was moved, with history, to Animal rights movement (list) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which was then redirected to Animal rights movement ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Hope that helps! Kirill 03:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Cla68.
I've followed your RfC on SlimVirgin and maybe these links can be helpful.
Also, you've got to be very careful. Scarfullery, who pointed out that you should investigate the articles on Pierre Salinger and the Pan Am Flight 103, was banned by Jpgordon, who accused him/her of being a sockpuppet of User: Flor Silvestre. It happens that some time ago, Flor Silvestre made some edits about Salinger and the PanAm 103 case, and was blocked too.
These articles history was deleted (by Jpgordon or JzG, I don't recall) just as SlimVirgin deleted her edits on Pierre Salinger and the Pan Am Flight 103. -- Caravato ( talk) 17:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to send you an e-mail. -- Goldfingaaa ( talk) 23:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I have replied to each question raised - as long as that question was based on my wikipedia edits. I refuse to discuss accusations made by outside source which are not supported in any way by diffs within wikipedia. This is a fundemntall issue of keeping disputes and accusation outside wikipedia seprate from what takes place here. All my edit are in good faith and if you find any of my edits that need to be explained or discussed I will gladly do so. Zeq ( talk) 07:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [47] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.-- Filll ( talk) 20:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
You aren't an admin, so this comment was uncivil. There was absolutely no consensus that I have misused Twinkle, and I dare you to show me exactly one statement anywhere on Wikipedia on the how to use Twinkle other than "stay within the rules of Wikipedia." Which I have done. Prove otherwise, or I suggest you apologize on my page or here. I don't care. Based on what I've read of your contributions, I don't expect an apology, so I suggest you stay off my page, unless it's to apologize. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if OrangeMarlin, Jim62sch, and their friends are aware how close they are to having their real names in the press in a story about a group of POV-pushers on Wikipedia? They probably aren't aware, as they appear to be amazingly myopic.
That reads quite a bit like a threat to out people. It's off-wiki, so you can be as rude as you want, but your threat to out people strikes me as rather beyond the pale. Guettarda ( talk) 17:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
<undent>Also, I suggest you do as dave souza suggests before engaging in further braying; that is, take a look at some of the background of this case. The RfC represents just the tip of an immense iceberg. If you believe after reading that material carefully in detail that Moulton was somehow hard done by or treated unfairly on Wikipedia, then I want to see you describe in detail, with diffs, exactly how.
In addition, Moulton has had 3 Wikipedia editors tell him exactly what he needed to do to "fix" the Picard biography, and offer to help him with this task, over a 10 month period. Moulton essentially rejected the first two offers, and months later, has partially accepted the third. How can Moulton be helped when he refuses to help himself?
Now, thanks to the efforts of several editors with assorted orientations, the Picard biography is now moving towards a biography that does not violate WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP, using WP:V WP:RS and WP:CON. Do you claim that somehow I or the other editors who are advocating adequate sourcing and trying to avoid WP:OR are acting in bad faith? What is wrong with the direction that the biography is moving in? Be specific with diffs, please.
Arbcomm when it surveyed the situation decided that Moulton had not been treated unfairly in any way. Do you disagree with Arbcomm? If so, let's hear your allegations and see your evidence. No more vague insinuations. Let's see it, if you have anything.-- Filll ( talk) 14:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Allow me to clarify some mischaracterizations:
You have continued to dig yourself deeper into a hole. Maybe you should stop while you are ahead, or only a little behind.-- Filll ( talk) 17:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you could be a bit more specific about what conduct problems related to ID articles you are on guard against. Do you have any past examples? With diffs? Who was involved? What happened? What action did you take? What action do you plan to take in the future when you observe what you classify as bad behavior? I presume you have taken it upon yourself to be the arbiter here of what constitutes improper behavior?-- Filll ( talk) 01:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Whether you intended this to be a threat is not relevant; it is coercion on its face and has a chilling effect at Wikipedia. Given our policy on coercion, were I in your shoes I would make every effort to ensure that the article outing Wikipedia editors you are referring to does not come to pass. FeloniousMonk ( talk) 05:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
< ---- You know what else the mafia does, Raul654? It sends groups of people to public meetings to spread innuendo and accusations against those who might expose their work. Can't possibly think what made me think of that - but there you go. Now, anyone who was actually interested in acting collegially would have asked CLA "Did you mean to threaten someone?" And, when CLA answered "no, I did not," then one would have to WP:AGF... at least that's what User:Filll tells us, right? As a starting exercise perhaps we can just make sure we're more accurate - this helps with not making vague accusations, I find. So first up, let's investigate the fact that Brad had weathered all that WR review threw at him with consideration and grace and left only after the actions on a certain movie producer's site - actions separate from WR and belittled by a vast majority of its members. At least... we could if you had any interest in what actually happened. But not bothering to read WR before commenting on it has been a hobby of yours for a while. Hmmm... angrily lumping everyone who disagrees with you into an extremist camp... can't possibly think where I've seen that before? (fx: scrolls up). And yes, I am jumping around IPs and not using my account - I'm not interested in having happen to me the meatpuppet show that's so clearly happening to CLA here. 211.31.227.58 ( talk) 08:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Lets consider this; Now, anyone who was actually interested in acting collegially would have asked CLA "Did you mean to threaten someone?" And, when CLA answered "no, I did not,"
Actually, when CLA had this brought to his attention above, he first produced a half hearted denial on WR that sounded more like another threat, and then when asked again on WP above, several times, CLA responded with answers like:
Do those sound very much like "No I did not?" Not really... They sound more like threats. They sound more like "Do what I ask, or I am going to nail you". Only problem is, it is not even clear what CLA is requesting. One might believe that these are basically open-ended threats to stop editing anything or else.
When asked to clarify this further above, he has remained silent (or maybe withdrawn into some anon sock puppet mode?) And more than a few are unconvinced this has the appearance of something that is not just an innocent misunderstanding. And repeating the threat a couple of times afterwords instead of saying "No I did not" as you suggest really probably is not the best way of convincing others that the threat is not real, dontcha think? -- Filll ( talk) 17:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I personally think Cla's comment was poorly worded. I don't believe it was intended to be a threat, in that I don't think Cla has the power or meant to suggest the power to write an article. However, I've recently seen Filll leave this comment, which does appear to be a threat, and recently saw him say to another editor that if he kept it up he'd "soon see what it meant to be bitten" or something very close. Similarly, the whole thing here was in response to one editor apparently writing another to say he'd report him to his employer. Is there a need for all of this? I'm not sure how anyone thinks this style of conversing is good for Wikipedia. Mackan79 ( talk) 21:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
<undent>So allow me to understand your point. You claim that asking Cla68 for explanations of what he meant is trolling? Including the posts of FeloniousMonk and Raul654? Interesting. Also you do not agree that creationism, racism and homeopathy all qualify as WP:FRINGE topics? Do I have this correct? You see no similarity among them? By the way, if you confirm that you are formally warning people that any posting to this talk page constitutes trolling, then I personally will then take the appropriate steps.-- Filll ( talk) 16:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I think I explained it already, but in case anyone reads this thread and can't find my explanation, my remarks on Wikipedia Review were in reference to this post [49], not a threat to out anyone. I apologize for not choosing my words more carefully. Cla68 ( talk) 06:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I have asked the arbitration committee to look into your behavior: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Cla68 FeloniousMonk ( talk) 18:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, John Vandenberg ( chat) 11:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I have added your name to the list of parties on the JzG dispute. Hopefully you will be able to shed light on these matters and participate in the resolution on this dispute which has carried on for much too long, in my opinion. Jehochman Talk 10:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
FYI, Wordbomb publicly acknowledged that he lives in Utah in episode six of WP:NTWW, so it's not a matter of dispute. -- Kendrick7 talk 04:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC) (with apologies to Fletch)
Am I on your hit list? I'd appreciate a little advance knowledge, so that I can begin preparing to defend myself. Raymond Arritt ( talk) 05:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
History is the best predictor of the future. And you should know the related history before you comment.-- Filll ( talk | wpc) 16:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
We're talking about your WP creds, I think. •Jim62sch• dissera! 22:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Let me give some background that I should have given at the outset. I apologize for not having done so earlier.
On April 16 Cla68 showed up on my talk page to compliment me on my activity in the global warming articles, stating "I've seen some complaints both on and off-wiki that those articles are supposedly a walled garden protected by a group of POV pushers. But seeing as how you're actively involved with them, I know that can't be the case." [52] It seemed a bit out of the blue given that I'd never had substantial dealings with him and he wasn't an active editor in the climate topics, but I thought well, that's a nice pat on the back.
Then on April 24 he says "There's evidence of cabalism in all of these examples- global warming, Gary Weiss, Israel history" [53] (notice this one especially) and on April 26 he criticizes "people in the global warming walled garden." [54] That's a complete turnaround in just a week! First he tells me that he's confident there's no global warming walled garden, and only a few days later there are two criticisms of the purportedly nonexistent walled garden and the "cabalism" that surrounds it.
I could think of only two alternatives: (1) something happened that made him take a sudden 180-degree turn in his view of our global warming editors, or (2) his original message to me was nothing more than an attempt at ingratiation. I couldn't think of any big blowups in the global warming articles that could have led to (1), so I thought about (2). I had a look through his contributions and found an outstanding editor of military history articles who seemingly had a tendency to carry grudges and a fondness for process. I recalled especially that one of his comments mentioned global warming in the same breath as Gary Weiss and Israeli history, two areas where he was actively engaged in testifying or compiling evidence against purported wrongdoers. Hence I wound up here and basically said, look, if you're going to file something against me then let me know and don't keep me in suspense.
And of course I'd like to know the reason for his sharp apparent U-turn on the global warming "cabal" (per WP:AGF, assuming his original message to me was sincere). Maybe there's a problem that I can help to resolve. But all I'm getting in response is... no response. Raymond Arritt ( talk) 00:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. I know SlimVirgin only by reputation; as far as I can recall, I haven't had any quarrels with her. I have tried to clean up some of the LaRouche articles which had multiple BLP problems, just as I have tried to clean up bios on other controversial figures like Robert Mugabe. Apparently getting involved with the LaRouche controversies is what got me on her list. Question: why would she repeatedly make such a list, and then admin-delete it? Couldn't she just keep the whole thing privately on her hard drive? -- Marvin Diode ( talk) 13:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
the first item (relating to an animal rights article from this may) you characterize her activity as 'removing cited content.' The items removed appear to have been put into a new section during the same edit. So while the edit summary is a bit misleading, there doesn't appear to be actual removal of content. There is enough poor behavior documented that I don't think you have to stretch items to show a problem. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 03:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Cla, I don't know how busy you are (I'd imagine very), but if you're in the mood for some friendly advice I'm willing to offer it. Whilst I have faith in the arbcom process (says the person who refuses to get an account because they hate the politics - the irony isn't lost on me) and I fully believe that they'll accord each piece of evidence its own weight, I think it may be in your interests to seriously tighten and polish the sections of your evidence alleging bad faith editing and abusiveness. Since many of those situations are decidedly not black and white I believe you might be better off either removing ones which are only on the border of incivility; or alternatively you could provide extensive rationales for each which explain why you believe them to be so. As it stands, whilst I believe they're on the whole accurate and representative of the behaviour of these editors, you want to avoid having the particularly damning evidence (such as abuse of admin tools, and clear-cut meatpuppetry / cabalism) whitewashed by having someone point to "frivolous" grey-area accusations.
Stand strong! Don't let anyone goad you into being uncivil, and maintain your excellent diligence for which you will always have my respect. -- 129.67.162.133 ( talk) 12:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Per the arb vote here the RFAR on User:JzG is now merged with this case and he is a named party. Also see my case disposition notes there. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
You win. Raymond Arritt ( talk) 02:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm very disappointed at what Raymond Arritt is doing. I'm not entirely happy myself with Cla's aggressive approach, but I really don't understand why some admins are so quick to defend each other no matter what. Raymond's history is completely different from the editors that Cla has taken to task, so why is Raymond feeling such affinity to the anti-science POV-pushing on animal testing, or the "good guys vs. bad guys" mentality on intelligent design (see this post by User:Silence)?
As great an admin as I think that Raymond is, if he is going to leave Wikipedia and blame Cla68 for it, well, that only serves as evidence to show that Raymond isn't as independently thinking as I had hoped he was... (yes, indeed, there is even a veiled accusation in there that this whole thing might be orchestrated to make Cla68 look bad. Sure, I'm assuming bad faith, so feel free to ban me, I don't care, that's how this looks to me.)
Now Cla, you might want to consult with Tim Vickers about whether your way of dealing with SV is optimal. Somehow, he seems to be able to get along fine with her in spite of their differences of opinion. I think his opinion on this matter would be extremely valuable, don't you think? Merzul ( talk) 19:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
As I said, this is not about winning, and you know perfectly well that losing Raymond means we all have lost. In fact, we all lost the moment this was taken to arbitration. However, Cla68 is not the only one with collateral damage in his campaigns, which is precisely the reason we are in this mess to begin with. All wars comes with a price... so admitting to and apologizing for one's mistakes goes a very long way in satisfying most of us. I haven't seen admissions or apologies, or any indication that the collateral damage is even recognized. And as long as the self-righteous attitude continues, there will be people like Cla68 to fight "just wars" of their own. Once more, I think that these attempts to portray Cla68 as the villain is extremely misguided, when simple apologies and a humble attitude would far more effectively solve most of the problems. Thanks,
Merzul (
talk)
21:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
"Life's but a walking shadow,a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing." Shakespeare, Macbeth. Amerique dialectics 01:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Thought you might be interested in this link as it deals with one of your FA articles.... Air Force wing in nuclear goof has more trouble.-- Looper5920 ( talk) 00:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
One minor correction wrt
this:
User:Kelly is
not an admin. (And she appears to have a bit of a history of unnerving others with sometimes suboptimal actions on images.)
dorftrottel (
talk)
06:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, I came here to tell you something after an unpleasant encounter with SlimVirgin, as I found that you had prepared a draft RfC on the user. I'm not sure what the above comment ("suboptimal") means, to my knowledge I haven't made errors on copyvio allegations (if so, I'm sure I've acknowledged and apologized - it is my policy to do so). Anyway, I ran across this image where SlimVirgin had undeleted an image deleted as copyvio without any comment as to reasons. Kelly hi! 17:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Here. Kelly hi! 05:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Cla, for signing on my talk page. I'm not sure how to get the ball rolling, and I'll be traveling this week, so please feel free to start in on things if you're so inclined. Best, Gnixon ( talk) 22:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Please review our behavioral guideline on canvassing, located at WP:CANVASS. I believe recent messages you have sent to alert individuals about ongoing !votes could be viewed to be in violation of this guideline (specifically, the "Votestacking" and "Stealth canvassing" sections), and reccomend that you consider not notifing outside forums about ongoing !votes to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Please note that I specifically do not accuse you of actual bad acts, but rather act in the interest of avoiding further strife between various parties due to their possible misinterpretation of your actions. Thank you. PouponOnToast ( talk) 14:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
As an additional note, some individuals might see this as badgering your opponents. You should consider not asking individuals who you are in a dispute with to take actions multiple times - you have requested that parties reflect on the RFAr elsewhere. Please note that I specifically do not accuse you of actual bad acts, but rather act in the interest of avoiding further strife between various parties due to their possible misinterpretation of your actions. Thank you. PouponOnToast ( talk) 14:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Cla, I'd appreciate it if you could be a bit more careful in assembling your evidence, otherwise you might end up undermining the credibility of the valid majority of it. This diff (highlighted here) is one such example. SlimVirgin did not remove anything in that diff, she merely decided to post her comment directly below KimvdLine's comment to which she was replying, thereby simply moving Pete Peters' below her new post. dorftrottel ( talk) 06:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I would like to take you up on a brief discussion of the William M. Connolley criticism I mentioned yesterday at Wikipedia:AN#Abuse_of_adminship_by_User:R._Baley_and_User:Raul654. On the one hand I understand that the quote in question was sort of cherry picked out of the article in the sense that it didn't reflect the overall tone of the article or at least the section related to WMC. On the other anyone who frequents the global warming related pages is well aware that this is a common criticism of WMC, as well as those familiar with some of the arbitration incidents related to him as well. These are all established fact on Wikipedia but of course you are not allowed to reference them except via a WP:RS, which The New Yorker is as is the National Post which has an Op/Ed on the main part of its site discussing this subject as well. So I have two WP:RS sources and yet I am blocked from entering criticism on his page, something that he does on a regular basis to those with whom he disagrees.
Now, perhaps the stark wording that I quoted directly from the article is a bit much but doesn't this support at least a one line summary of the situation? Remember, neither of the sources is written or influenced by me personally. True, I agree with them, but they represent the views found in the WP:RS not mine.
Would be more acceptable to make a succinct statement such as "Connolley has been accused of using Wikipedia as a forum in which to advance his own views on climate change and to attack those with which he does not agree." and cite both The New Yorker and the Nation Post pieces as references?
I'm not out to get him or anything, but this is legitimate criticism in one form or another, IMHO, and it shouldn't be allowed to be whitewashed. -- GoRight ( talk) 20:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Cla68, it has been brought to my attention that somewhere in your Arbitration case evidence you have claimed that in 2005 I was involved in a "wheel war" of the blocking of User:Marsden. Can you explain what you mean by that? Jayjg (talk) 03:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, would you like to become an administrator? Jehochman Talk 02:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate the offers of support and am ready to accept a nomination. Thanks again. Cla68 ( talk) 08:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the offers of support. I think we should wait until the current case closes. Cla68 ( talk) 03:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Giggy, you're nominating this guy? O.o or offering to... Seriously, I would offer to nominate also, but given my current reputation that would actually hurt Cla's chances, so I'll just say, count me as a supporter. Yechiel ( Shalom) 13:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, I think the apology needs to go the other way. Let's take a look at some history. A while back, I criticized Viridae for leaving a warning for MONGO hwile they were in a dispute. I believe it was around the time Miltopia was banned by Jimbo. Viridae took exception to my criticism. Apparently that led him to putting my talk page on his watch list. Last month, Giovanni33 (now banned) by engaging me in an edit war on Joe Scarborough. Viridae showed up to protect the page (ostensibly to end an edit war, but in reality the it was just harassment by Giovanni33). It was easier to jsut file the unprotect notice when Giovanni33 went away and the article could be restored. I let the fact that it was Viridae go as this was the first time I am aware of that he used comments on my talk page as the jumping off point to use the tools. The second time was more problematic and it's recentness to the previous incident was alarming.
United States intervention in Chile was the second article I was aware of. An editor was using WikiGuard and it flagged my 3 edits over two weeks as a 3RR violation. This attracted Viridae faster than stink on sh_t and he went to investigate whether it was blockable. Of course it wasn't, so Viridae protected the page instead. Viridae doesn't protect many pages so this was becoming problematic. I simply and politely asked that he remove my talk page from his watchlist as his actions were becoming problematic. I really don't need him following me around and his actions only lead to progress being thwarted and/or trolls being rewarded. For that effort, I have to put up with
external rants. Viridae on his talk page claimed he would have to be psychic to realize that the pages he was protecting all involved Giovanni33. I don't request him to be psychic, I just want him to not engage.
As for the apology, one of WRs main complaints about admins is that they often act without providing a rationale or evidence. I can imagine Viridaes response to JzG or SV or WMC blocking a relative newbie on a claim of sockpuppetry without any evidence other than "I know it's him." Even if they were right, such blocks rarely go unchallenged so challenging it shouldn't be regarded as something that needs an apology. Imagine an admin that Viridae considers problematic showing up to protect pages of articles that he works on claiming they found a "problem" through Viridaes talk page and repeatedly used that as an excuse to protect the article? No one appreciates admins that behave that way.
Again, all I want is for Viridae to take my talk page off his watch list and leave me alone. It's not an unreasonable request. There are plenty of admins that can provide blocks and protection of articles. He doesn't need to escalate these incidents by involving himself when he knows the editors will take exception. This was apparent in his block of Crum/Para. Even if he's right, he's wrong. And if he needs to brag and gloat about it offsite, it's cleary wrong. --
DHeyward (
talk)
05:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll think you'll find that the categories Ethnic and religious slurs | Pejorative terms for people do exist, they are both in the Nigger article. Cheers 124.254.121.189 ( talk) 03:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
You'll find them here [ [62]] and here [ [63]] Maybe they showed in red because the term Gaijin is not in those lists? Then there is also [ [64]] and [ [65]] that the word could also be put into 124.254.121.189 ( talk) 04:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Re [67] - you may want to note the comment I left at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed_decision#New_evidence. Neıl ☄ 11:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Cla68, I noticed that you revert vandalism. Occasionally, but correctly overall. Would you like me to grant your account rollback rights to make vandal-reverting a little easier for you? Just remember that rollback should only be used to revert vandalism, and that misuse (either by reverting good-faith edits or revert-warring with the tool) can lead to its removal. Tell me what you think. Thanks. Acalamari 18:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I replied at my talk page regarding my latest screwup. In short, I removed the threat, but feel free to block me for screwing up. -- Elkman (Elkspeak) 02:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for formatting the references.-- Poetlister 16:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Cla, I saw your post on Kelly's page. I'd say that problems with the articles continue so your getting involved now would be good. Especially since I angered Kelly enough that she has gone on wikibreak - s/he was the editor in the mess that was doing the best. There is another editor that is skating far too close to the BLP lines for my comfort - and I'm slow to act on BLP issues.
John Edwards has mostly settled down, except for the current multi-article reverting over inclusion/exclusion of the baby's name. John Edwards extramarital affair is still being frequently and actively edited, but except for that multi-article reverting currently appears non-contentious. Rielle Hunter is being actively edited, has been part of the multi-article reverting, has in my view other problems, and has the added twist of being edited by an editor believed to be a member of the subject's family. (I have not tracked down the diffs to confirm that such a claim has been made by the editor.) Story of My Life (novel) is being semi-actively edited, was not part of the multi-article reverting, and has in my view problems. GRBerry 16:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
What do you think of this: WP:WOLF? Jehochman Talk 21:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
As I already noted my memory was slightly hazy about what exactly he did. To call that a lie is both unproductive and uncivil. Its the context where people who are cooperating with each other to try to come to a best result would say "I think you are misremembering. He didn't do Y. He did X". JoshuaZ ( talk) 01:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
<undent> Cla, while I'm willing to believe that this accusation was made in the heat of the moment, it's clearly a personal attack on an editor's integrity and grossly uncivil, as well as being an obvious failure to assume good faith. Your response does nothing to correct that incivility, so I strongly urge you to strike that original accusation and add a statement that you accept that JoshuaZ made an error in good faith. . . dave souza, talk 21:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Could you take a look at Ishin-denshin? It could use some expansion by someone with more familiarity with the topic. Also, I'm pretty sure there should be a link to it from Mokusatsu (specifically relating to its usage during World War II vis-a-vis Japan's surrender) and possibly Surrender of Japan. Raul654 ( talk) 07:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
You may be interested in WP:AN#User Kelly (and others) attack campaign (IDCab meme). KillerChihuahua ?!? 17:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the note you left at my talk page. I read the pages you noted, which was extremely disheartening. cat yronwode Catherineyronwode ( talk) 02:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I get what you're saying - it's a good decision for Wikipedia, so Wikipedians have won, so you as a Wikipedian have won. Still some might find it a little too self congratulatory coming from one of the people sanctioned/cautioned/whatevered in the whole thing. Really might be wise to strike your comments and to focus on your own mistakes in all this (of which I know you've acknowledged some)and in particular not to rise to any comments from Jayjg. That might help to prevent a feeling of ongoing conflict, in the best interests of WP and of yourself. Just a thought, worth what you paid for it etc. etc. 87.254.68.5 ( talk) 21:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Regarding you note at my talk, no problem. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
You are one of the masters of the art form of the Featured Article--any chance I could entice you to take a copyediting/language look at The Greencards? rootology ( C)( T) 15:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Why apologize? International travel > me. :P Thank you! And if helps: I've forked the lead members to trim down the early history section a bit (I just haven't removed it from the parent article yet--I just replicated so far). rootology ( C)( T) 23:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
As requested, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Greencards, I just tried again. Wish it luck! rootology ( C)( T) 05:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. FeloniousMonk ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) administrative privileges are revoked. FeloniousMonk may apply to have them reinstated at any time, either through the usual means or by appeal to the Committee.
The parties are instructed to carefully review the principles and findings contained in the decision. Each of the parties is strongly urged to conform his or her future behavior to the principles set forth in this decision. Each of the parties is admonished for having engaged in the problematic user conduct described in the findings of fact, and is instructed to avoid any further instances of such conduct. The Committee provides a list of six behavioural issues ( click to read) which the parties in the case are "specifically instructed" to ensure that their future editing complies with. The Committee will impose substantial additional sanctions, which may include desysopping in the case of parties who are administrators, without further warnings in the event of significant violations. If necessary, additional findings may be made and sanctions imposed either by motion or after a formal reopening of the case, depending on the circumstances.
The Committee also notes that editors who have been directly or indirectly involved in the disputes giving rise to this Arbitration case, or similar or related disputes, are counseled to review the principles set forth in this Arbitration case and to use their best efforts to conduct themselves in accordance with the principles. Furthermore, the Committee acknowledges the extraordinary duration of this case. Whilst there have been reasons for this to arise, an overall apology is due, and given.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (
talk)
01:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
As I said in the block log, I put my block up for review on ANI, or rather am In the process of doing so. Please migrate any discussionthere.-- Tznkai ( talk) 03:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
In light of the arbitration decision and in the spirit of your recent comments about it, I think it would be best if you made every effort not to refer to SlimVirgin further and certainly if you did not post in her userspace. This will be a helpful contribution to defusing the tensions so everyone can get back to more productive pursuits. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 19:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I've talked to a few Japanese about Japan, but they seemed reluctant to open up. What do you think about Japan, its culture..... I'm fascinated by their conformity and the way the "nail that sticks up is hammered down." It's also interesting in light of Thailand, which is also Asian, but the people there seem to have such an incredible belief of self. I wonder what has caused the mindsets of the people in these two countries to be so different. What do you think? Scifiintel ( talk) 02:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
[77] Cla68, please reconsider filing this. There is no good that can come of it, for anyone. It is not within the power of the Arbitration Committee to make that finding. For everyone's sake, please withdraw this. Risker ( talk) 02:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering whether you had the original source for that FPC you're running. It's a fantastic document. If the technical side could get a boost I'd love to change to support. Not much I can to with that particular file, though. Durova Charge! 04:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your help! Sandy just bumped The Greencards to FA status. :) rootology ( C)( T) 00:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Please, please, please do not start a giant RfC regarding FlaggedRevs. There is a fair bit of discussion that taken place over years and a giant RfC would be disastrous. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 03:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Logical_Premise/editorluv
Thought you might want to know about these personal attacks.
Messengerbot (
talk)
21:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Intelligent design has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Although you have not edited the article (as best as I can tell), your comments and participation will be useful and healthy to the project. In other words, please don't sit on the sidelines, but help fix this article. I'm making a personal request. This will be cathartic. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
My issue is not whether the information is supported by reliable sources but as to whether the information should be included about an otherwise non-notable person. Editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability - that the information is sourced for reliable sources doesn't make it appropriate for inclusion. Please refer to the subsection of WP:BLP that deals with biographies of otherwise non-notable people at WP:NPF -- Matilda talk 03:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
With secret cases it's hard to know what or who they're talking about. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I know you were going to get started on the international reaction to Naked Short Selling. Hope you don't mind that I beat you to the punch (I went with an old section I had kicked around on NSS's talk page, updated with the Nikkei stuff), but please, edit/add/subtract to what I did mercilessly. Have a good one! SirFozzie ( talk) 06:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
If you wish to ask my views on this, please restate the question in a way that doesn't personalize it. For example, you might want to ask if there are valid reasons for admins to protect pages in their own User: space. Jayjg (talk) 07:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Per this discussion, I'm hoping you'll be interested in being interviewed for the Dispatch, to be published in the Signpost within a few weeks. I started a temp page at Wikipedia:FCDW/WBFAN. Usually, the format is that interviewees drop in some text and Tony1 or Jbmurray copyedit, but I suspect that we won't need copyediting and trimming here, so I see it as more of a pick and choose, narrowing down responses only if needed. The goal is to highlight your work, and to guide, inspire and motivate other writers. If you're interested, dig in ! If not, just leave a note on the talk page of that temp page and I'll remove you. I'll tentatively aim for the November 24th Signpost. Thanks, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I was aware that you and NYB, as well as other great contributors, use WR. That's acceptable, however much I think it's detrimental to to the project...unless you want to be on ArbCom. I personally think it's a cesspool, and I don't trust anyone who spends a lot of time there to have that much power in their hands. Steven Walling (talk) 01:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Ohai Cla68, I see that you are listed towards the top of this page, which means you have experience with article writing and expanding articles -- getting them featured. I'd like you to check out the WikiCup, beginning in January for the fourth cup. aye matthew ✡ 23:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
For your kind words at my ArbCom.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Cla, with respect to this comment, do you have knowledge that this was Coredesat? Because it's signed by an IP and there was no indication it came from him. ATren ( talk) 20:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
It's just not your day! (I'm not restoring your vote, in case I'm misunderstanding this). PaddyLeahy ( talk) 00:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I've no desire to get into a Giano argument with you or anyone. But I was a little mistified by your comment on the RfC and I've made some observations here. I'd be interested in your reply (in general and not "about Giano"). Thanks.-- Scott Mac (Doc) 10:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 00:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Prem Rawat and related articles are under probation. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat. Please seek consensus on the article talk page before making contentious edits. Will Beback talk 10:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I've posted a general apology in my withdrawal statement at the Oversight election page, but I felt that as a contributor you deserve an individual apology too.
It was not my intention to let the election begin without a statement, but an IT gremlin "ate" my first attempt at posting there some hours before the election was to begin and then unforseeable RL issues prevented me from getting back to it until too late. Thank you for your consideration and sincere regrets for wasting your time. -- Dweller ( talk) 10:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Have a look at the page history rather than just the edit summary. It's not a BLP violation, and the IP has (under various IPs from the same range, and under an account) been in a slowmotion edit war for months - two blocks have already been handed out, he's been told to take it to MfD, but he simply continues to pop up every couple of days to blank it. Gb T/ c 10:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
This is something I have highly mixed and conflicted feelings about. On the one hand, I don't like that sort of bigotry aimed at criticism sites like WR and the alleged "trolls" that inhabit it, but on the other hand I'm a strong advocate of free speech, including the right to rant on your own user page, and think attempts to suppress such rants are in the same vein as the BADSITES policy I strongly opposed. On the third hand (I'm a mutant), I dislike the hypocrisy whereby user page rants get suppressed if they run afoul with the views of the dominant clique but are suppported and defended if they're on the "politically correct" side; this goose-and-gander situation could theoretically be resolved either by allowing all rants or suppressing all of them. *Dan T.* ( talk) 19:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, the Prem Rawat issues at AE have moved to RFAR. Bainer suggested inviting the uninvolved admins to comment. The thread is Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Prem_Rawat_2; your input is welcome (you're definitely experienced even if you don't have the mop). Best wishes, Durova Charge! 18:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, MBisanz talk 21:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
§hep Talk 22:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh, of course, the guy who likes to cavort with the whack-jobs, loons, spammers, trolls, sociopaths, and other bad actors at Wikipedia Review and then come to Wikipedia to carry water for them deigns to give me advice about appropriate behavior. "Lie down with dogs, wake up with fleas" is the old expression. Hope you have plenty of flea powder. -- Calton | Talk 13:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Have you been through the maps collection at the Library of Congress? [82] It's hit or miss what you'll find there, but when they're good they're really good. For example, this map of the water supply for Kobe, Japan [83] which is insanely high resolution. The subject might seem kind of boring until you notice who made it and when. I'm just not sure where to place something like that, but have a look and drop word at my user talk if you find one you can use. Best wishes, Durova Charge! 17:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I have done a restoration on a Japanese woodcut about the Russo-Japanese War. It is an excellent high resolution file, and I will be nominating it for featured status. I think it will make a great candidate. I would love to have a translation, and I would be more than happy to share featured credit with the translator. You came recommended on the MILHIST talk page. Are you interested? Thanks, — Jake Wartenberg 16:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Replied to you on Smasthestate's page. I strongly suggest you read what people write before accusing them of things they didn't do. Reread what I wrote to Smash. I'm particularly curious as to how I can have helped put in information that was added after my last edit to a page or its talk page. JoshuaZ ( talk) 00:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate your kind words on the rodeo fiasco. It's been, er, well, a real rodeo. Sigh... and thanks! Montanabw (talk) 06:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Your help in advancing civilization is much appreciated. -- Noroton : Chat 03:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
As Doc glasgow said, have Kohls e-mail or write a letter if he needs to contact Jimbo. Everything else is proxying for a banned editor. KnightLago ( talk) 13:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
You wrote here: And yes, I am canvassing off-wiki for support for the deletion. Is there a chance you are going to clarify that comment? JoshuaZ ( talk) 16:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
You know that your actions here were in violation of WP:CANVASS - you admitted you're doing it.
That's not acceptable behavior. It's violating that policy and intentional disruption.
Please stop that immediately and do not do it again. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 01:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large.
You were warned above that your canvassing was violating WP:CANVASS and disruptive. After that warning was made, you intentionally did it again on another article.
You have been blocked from editing for 48 hrs.
I don't know why you chose to do this - it's not helpful to your cause of trying to move community policy against marginal BLPs. All you're doing is increasing drama by having done this. Please don't continue this type of escalation. It's heat without light - not helping solve the problem you claim you want to solve.
If you will agree to knock it off and continue editing / nominating / etc without violating WP:CANVASS or other policy then I'm sure that I and other editors will be happy to reduce the block length. But if you're going to keep intentionally breaking policy and disrupting the community, this is not going to help you or your causes.
Please reconsider your course here. This was unnecessarily confrontational and not at all useful or constructive to your goals. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 01:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below.
{{
unblock|I carefully read the CANVASS policy, and it mentions using secret means, such as email, as prohibited. The policy mainly addresses on-wiki canvassing, and mentions off-wiki only in passing, and doesn't mention off-site, openly accessible forums, like Wikipedia Review. According to how the CANVASS policy is currently written, my post was not a violation.}}
++ Lar: t/ c 04:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
United we stand [88].-- Scott Mac (Doc) 12:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
You've already had it explained to you in the Rancourt section above why you are utterly wrong about this matter. I'm going to repeat this one more time to see if you can understand it. Jewish is not the same thing as Israeli. The content I included was in regard to the well-sourced comments Rancourt made about the Israeli lobby, not claimed remarks about the Jewish lobby which were added by other users and was never in any draft of the article I ever touched. The sentence that I kept in was of course well-sourced and is still in the article. I understand that you'd like to see me as the evil incarnation of BLP violations but that's simply not the case. Continuing to conflate Jews with Israelis is offensive to a great many people and your continued remarks about the Rancourt matter border on personal attacks. JoshuaZ ( talk) 00:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to say that while I disagree with you on this specific, I have enormous admiration for the work you've done to help the project. I'm aware that you have significant standing to nominate this page for deletion, and I respect what you're doing. I just can't agree with the arguments you've offered. Best of luck, and please feel free to call on me if I can ever be of assistance. BusterD ( talk) 05:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
while reading the discussion on the Mount Hebron page, i noticed that one of the parties to arbcom has continued (this week) to try to have the article say it is in "judea, an area in israel," even going so far as leaving out west bank entirely in one edit. i'm not posting to the case or evidence page, but i think this is relevant and thought you might want to include it in your section on him in the workshop or evidence pages. untwirl( talk) 18:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
It's not my style to revert something straight away, so I would appreciate your discussing your removal of a key issue from the lead. I know you say in your edit summary that it is a minor issue, but Luther's foremost biographer Martin Brecht says this: "his misguided agitation had the evil result that Luther fatefully became one of the 'church fathers' of anti-Semitism and thus provided material for the modern hatred of the Jews, cloaking it with the authority of the Reformer". That's not minor stuff. qp10qp ( talk) 00:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 02:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Were you following the events with ScienceApologist very closely? I am his mentor, and the Committee's intrusion into mentorship at that proposed decision brought me within a hair's breadth of resigning from all mentorships in protest. The attempt politicized mentorship to an intolerable level. By no means would I suggest imposition of supervised editing in this or any other remedy, unless it has full willing consent of all parties. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it wash behind the ears. Durova Charge! 00:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
As someone who has often talked about the difficulty of achieving neutrality, would you mind taking a look at this suggestion? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 02:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
FYI. -- Noroton ( talk) 17:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Are you still on line? If so, can I ask you to correct/rewrite my English? Oda Mari ( talk) 05:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I replied on my talk page. It's a new section in Cherry blossom, 'Culinary use'. Oda Mari ( talk) 05:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 08:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are listed as a GA reviewer. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.
We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 07:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't actually know the answer, but I posted some information on Rootology's talk page. It does not appear there was an ArbCom vote on the matter. Cool Hand Luke 05:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Roxana Saberi.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
{{
di-replaceable fair use disputed}}
, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Óðinn ( talk) 04:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I've started a ball rolling here User:Giano/The future all comments welcome - whatever their view! Giano ( talk) 07:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
A few points that I feel need to be said: (a) your posting of the 3RR item on my page, you were just as much a participant and I could have placed the same notice on your page...but didn't. Just saying. (b) you said that you were going to take the discussion to RFC, but didn't. It surprised me that I ended up doing it for you. A sidenote - I hope you feel that I presented the situation as neutrally and fairly as possible, just as you would have done I'm sure. If you do not feel that it was fair & balanced, believe me when I say that it was my intention to do so. (c) if you do feel that the consensus is leaning towards the exclusion of the names and are dropping your side of the discussion, if you could post an appropriate comment on the rfc section, that would be swell.
All that said, I will now assume any misunderstandings on that topic between you and I are now bygones/water under bridge and we can continue on our merry way. On the bright side, the good thing that is to come out of this is that a (hopefully, ultimately) definitive decision is to be made regarding similar situations that may arise in the future. For that, I thank you. I see that you spend much of your editing time in other content areas to much regard; if you have the time and an interest in assisting to improve any of the Disney-oriented articles along the way, you are more than welcome to join us. SpikeJones ( talk) 02:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer. We've tried to get some of the film articles to Featured (user Alientraveller is a phenom at film stuff), but they always seem to fall apart a little bit due to fanboyz ruining stuff. I believe The Lion King made it to featured once upon a time. We've tried to keep the Pixar films as high-quality as possible (Up, Ratatouille, Wall-e being the better examples), as there appear to be more readily-citable material for those. If we were to concentrate on any, UP would be the one to start with since it's the most current and high profile...especially come Oscar season when it's expected to be one of the 10 nominated best feature films. We're going to run into issues with the Fall release of Princess and the Frog due to perceived controversy and political correctness edits. That one is not going to be fun. SpikeJones ( talk) 12:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I've created two initial pages for the ACPD:
Please add them to your watchlist, stop by, and so forth. The latter page has a couple of logistical issues that we should discuss sooner rather than later, so I'd appreciate if you could find some time to comment on them.
Thanks! Kirill [talk] [pf] 13:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think there's any doubt that the movie goes against scientific consensus, which isn't the same thing as saying that it's wrong (although it probably is). As for my comments on the prevailing view (I avoided the word consensus) on the talk page, I was basing it largely on the discussion about Category:Denialism (in which even some of the editors opposed to inclusion of the category, including PolScribe and me, acknowledge that a scientific consensus exists. The subject is also discussed in several of the sections of Archive 5 (including the first two and the "Ofcom" section), and this section of the previous archive (in which User:Oren0, one of the more active and more reasonable anti-global warming editors, acknowledges that there's a scientific consensus on the question). I'm not saying it's a settled question, but I think that the statement is supported by reliable sources and by prevailing opinion on the talk page. Steve Smith ( talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 04:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Per a request as part of the RfC you recently !voted in we have changed the style of !voting. Please review those updates and make any changes to your !vote, as appropriate/desired. Thanks for your participation. -- GoRight ( talk) 07:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I see you've been cleaning up: are you going to narrow the policy so that it discourages alt accounts as much as possible? Tony (talk) 07:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Along with another editor, I have been preparing an RFC on Aitias, as it's clear his numerous inappropriate actions are exhausting community patience. He has clearly learnt little, if anything from either his first RFC or RFAR. I'll let you know when it's up. We were going to wait until the Eric Barbour thread closed before proceeding. Majorly talk 00:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Aitias 2. Majorly talk 16:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Thought you might be interested in this new wikipedia space page that FT2 just posted. Made me think of you. [92] Cool Hand Luke 03:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I saw your comment on the meatpuppetry GoRight page. I unfortunately don't know enough to say anything useful there, but I noticed your concerns. Two things to consider:
Awickert ( talk) 19:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Your suggestion at RS/N to contact the Chinese language bulliten boards was a good one. We located a Chinese speaker who has provided us with a wealth of useful info and translations. Now, for a request: do you know of similar bulliten boards for Russian speakers? -- Coleacanth ( talk) 22:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
[93]. -- GoRight ( talk) 03:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Thought you may have an interest in this one... Johnfos ( talk) 07:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. You are consistent. Though I wonder why you identify it as "PRC media" rather than by name. Why is that? Would that be an appropriate characterization of the source for other articles too? IIRC, HK's accounts were strongly opposed to linking the paper to the Communist Party because that would be "red baiting". Is he right - are you red baiting or are you giving a reasonable description of the source to inform readers? Will Beback talk 21:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
— Ed (Talk • Contribs) 04:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
It seems you added your support !vote to my RfA rather than MBisanz' RfB. Regards. Fribbler ( talk) 12:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Not sure if you've seen this, but it's being removed from WP:AN. There is some discussion at User talk:Tony Sidaway#WP:AN revert. -- NE2 22:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Though I happen to agree with you on the RfC you posted, I'd like to make a note that RfC summaries should be short and impartial (though not everyone follows this). Just so you know in case you post another one, Awickert ( talk) 15:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
You left a comment at Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche#RfC: Primary sources, however some of what you wrote is ambiguous. I've left three questions for you. I'd be interested in your answers if you have an opportunity to reply. Will Beback talk 08:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 20:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Last fall you participated in a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive_27#User:Dking/Dennis King and you proposed a topic ban for Dking editing LaRouche articles. I have now made the same proposal at WP:ANI, because Dking has reappeared and made some very disruptive edits. Perhaps you would care to comment. -- Leatherstocking ( talk) 15:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
There is a thread on the talk page of the above named article regarding whether that council is still active at Wikipedia talk:Advisory Council on Project Development#Still viable?. As one of the listed members, your input would very likely be useful. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 16:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Where have I ever threatened to block Dinkeytown? How can you possibly accuse of this, with no evidence? This is unfair and wrong. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Cla68, it is true that MathSci left a message for me about blocking on 23:30, 28 August 2009. I did not respond.
Then on 09:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC) MathSci left another message calling for patience. I responded almost immediately at 09:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC). I honestly am surprised that anyone would think I was responding to the comment I did not respond to, and not the comment that my response immediately followed. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
i appreciate your formal retraction. Is there a way for you to strikeout what you wrote about me without damaging anything you wrote and still stand by? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 14:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
What was this about? [94] The Onion is a well known satirical site. Seems an odd action for someone as clued up as your good self? Pedro : Chat 23:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
This topic has been raised to us before. I think I'll try to move it back to the front-burner. Cool Hand Luke 17:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Woonpton blanked the discussion as OT for her talk page (which I agree that it was). Anyway I just want to say that I agree with your last comment. There are the alarmists on one side, the deniers on the other, and those of us in the middle trying to keep things in reasonable accordance with the scientific literature and other appropriate sources sometimes lose our temper dealing with it all. It's a bad neighborhood. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 05:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
You say, "Tony, why didn't you replace it with the appropriate category instead of just removing it?"
This seems to imply that you thought that I believed that such a category existed, and that I thought it appropriate to the article but failed to act on my belief. I didn't.
Moreover you added category:climatology to an article that was already a member of category:global warming, which is of course a subcategory, via category:climate change, of that category. -- TS 04:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Word for the week of 1 Nov 09: acnestis Points: Use the word in an article- 5 points, in an article talk page- 2 points, in a discussion in admin space like ANI or a user talk page- 1 point. |
Tally: Cla68- 5 [96] [97] [98] [99] |
I recently stumbled upon your guide to writing history articles and found it helpful, so kudos there. But one thing stuck out - choosing a non-controversial subject, where you say if you can find an article that has been left alone for some time. I would argue that it benefits the project more if users do take on highly visible topics and thoroughly research them to find the "truth" (quotes because it's a relative term on Wikipedia as we all know). Not in the bang-your-head-against-the-wall Israeli-Palestinian sense maybe, but if there's going to be a debate, I'd much rather have someone citing five different book sources than relying on "I've always heard..." and similar arguments. You're tagged as willing and able to make difficult edits, so I figured it was food for thought. Again, very informative guide. :) Recognizance ( talk) 18:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Leave my pages alone [100]. You are not welcome William M. Connolley ( talk) 07:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Newspapers are notoriously unreliable when they report on science. Even the best quality newspapers make big errors regularly. Then, if we have a wiki article that focusses on some scientific topic, it would be difficult to use a newspaper story as a source, even if for that particular case the story seems to be ok. Because you could not do that as a rule. Rather, you would have to make a judgement on a case by case basis. But then that judgement would be Original Research.
At the discussion on the RS board, I linked to an old discusssion on the Special Relativity talk page where I also noted the tension between letting not so reliable sources in and the policy against OR. Therefore it is better to only allow high quality peer reviewed journals to be used as sources. Now, if a statement can be sourced from a peer reviewed source and there also exists a well written newspaper article that makes the same statement, you could decide to also give a citation to the newspaper article. Count Iblis ( talk) 00:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Just a note to say I appreciated your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremiah Duggan (2nd nomination). The irony is that I am quite ambivalent about LaRouche, but I strongly oppose what I see as the abuse of process that has frequently been employed as a tactic by the team that controls the LaRouche articles. So, I open my mouth (figuratively speaking) and for my troubles I get branded a LaRouchie. -- Leatherstocking ( talk) 05:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Re Isn't the BBC considered reliable? Quarstion (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC) I would think it would be, but you might be surprised with the "regulars" with this article. Cla68 (talk) 16:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC) - no, the Beeb isn't a WP:RS for science. [101] is an obvious counter-example William M. Connolley ( talk) 17:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
You notified the Signpost tiproom of Fg2's death. Several editors have decided to collaborate to get one of his favorite articles to FA status. Would you care to opine on which article we should select here? Thanks. - Draeco ( talk) 04:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Cla68 is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia soon. |
I'm not sure when I'll be back. If you need any information on something, please email me. Cla68 ( talk) 03:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, I think I'm more or less back now, although my participation may be more limited than before. Cla68 ( talk) 10:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
[102] :-) — Ed (talk • contribs) 20:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Cla68, I've notice that you've been appearing on pages related to topics in which Slimvirgin is known to have longstanding interests, and where she has already posted. It appears that these are unnecessary interactions. I suggest that you avoid doing so in the future in order to comply with the ArbCom remedy. Will Beback talk 06:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
WT:Sock_puppetry#Interview_for_Signpost. - Dank ( push to talk) 18:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I know it no longer matters and that it has been such a "long" time since this happened. But I just wanted to add that I agree to an extent. I do believe that some admins don't care about the words that they use, but the fact is that a lot of editors "look up" to them as people who should know what to do on this project. Using the wrong words may discourage editors from editing. And last time I checked this was a project where ANYONE can come and gather with other editors to build this project. But I think that desysoping would only depend on the case. I know that is why you say "may" be desysoped, but in most cases it wouldn't be fit. Cases where it would be fit would be situations/cases where admin x has repeatedly done this and doesn't intend to change their ways or even be careful about how they approach things. But anyways, I'm positive this doesn't matter a whole lot; just wanted to say that I agree. ⊥m93 talk. 02:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I have a quick question for you. How did you happen to find Kintetsubuffalo's talk page and have your attention drawn towards my edits? I was a little confused seeing that he is in Japan, and I have had two other editors who are located in Japan revert me. From checking the edit history, it seems as if that is the only time you have edited that talk page. Is there some messaging system that Japanese editors are using to contact eachother? I know that one of the editors involved (who I will not mention) is quite keen on contacting other editors in Japan in order to gain support for certain edits - is that the case with my edits? 119.173.81.176 ( talk) 04:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I looked at recent postings on Wikipedia Review made by you and HK. I categorically deny that I am using any sock puppet on Wikipedia; I post under my own name. "LaRouche planet" is almost certainly just that--a person from the LaRouche Planet website. I am not one of the people responsible for that site and would not presume to use its name, although I certainly support their efforts to expose LaRouche's anti-Semitism and cultism.-- Dking ( talk) 02:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for taking this on. I don't have any sources for this, but I think the term "land bridge" referring to intermodal transport originates from the use of North American railroads as an alternate to the Panama Canal for Asia-Europe freight. Essentially it was a "bridge" between the oceans over land. The Eurasian Land Bridge appears to be a corruption of the term; it would more properly be called a Eurasian transcontinental railway. -- NE2 18:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
As you participated in the recent
Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two
requests for comment that relate to the use of
SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the
SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (
talk)
08:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Cla
I was disappointed at the ... non-response, as it were, to the question:
(2) Please provide evidence of your ability to write concise, clear English. You may wish to refer to your ability to detect ambiguities and unintended consequences in text such as principles, remedies and injunctions. (Tony1)
A: I hope that my answers to the questions on this page will provide sufficient evidence of this ability.
With your track-record in FAs and MilHist, not to mention other forums, you are ideally placed to link or diff to a few examples of what you consider your best writing and/or editing of pre-existing prose. An additional advantage (over some of the other candidates) would be diffs of posts that show you to write well in heated exchages, trouble-shoot on talk pages, playing a cooling-down/mediating role with the appropriate use of language; or of editing policy text and/or proposal text. Tony (talk) 07:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Cla, I'm running my uContribs program for all ACE candidates, you're first in alpha order so I thought I'd invite your scrutiny of User:Franamax/Ucontribs-2009/Cla68 to see if I'm getting anything wrong. When I checked the output, my first thought was that if Battle of the Coral Sea order of battle can have 119 references and 23 sources and still be rated Stub-class, you must have pretty rigorous standards for article quality. :) If you re-rate anything, feel free to update my page too. Regards! Franamax ( talk) 14:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I have been reviewing various editors ACE2009 opinion pages and have been rather indelicate in my commentary regarding a couple of people's criteria of not supporting anyone who is not an admin. I specifically noted your unfortunate experience in RfA, and was unequivocal in stating my opinion why you might be an exception to the rule/rationale provided in those opinions. This was done entirely on my own initiative, and I am writing here to in an effort to recognise that only I should bear any untoward consequences for these actions and have this on record so that you or any reader should be aware that you are an innocent party to my partisan editing.
Sorry for any potential difficulty I may have caused, and I hope you have some better endorsements of your candidacy than that which I have provided. Mark.
LessHeard vanU (
talk)
22:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
You may wish to note the following comment: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Vote/Cla68#False statements by candidate. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 01:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Eurasian Land Bridge at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Nick Ottery ( talk) 10:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I was looking at the red link in the Eurasian Land Bridge article for the Beijiang Railway. Google wasn't being very helpful so I went to some of the article sources. In particular figure 1 on page 47 of this indicates that the Beijiang Line is simply the northern branch of the Lanxin railway. That article contains a section on the northern branch so I've piped the link to Lanxin railway#The northern branch in the Eurasian LB article. Could you give this a quick sense check please? Nick Ottery ( talk) 12:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi... since you're running for the ArbCom, I'd like to interview you for the Wikivoices podcast series. If you have Skype, it will be easy to do; otherwise, something might be arranged (like my actually paying to connect Skype to non-Internet phones). Let me know if you're interested. *Dan T.* ( talk) 03:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I can try the interview now if you're up to it... I'm just barely waking up and it's late at night for you, but maybe it can manage to work out if I grab a cup of coffee first... *Dan T.* ( talk) 12:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the interview... it's up now. *Dan T.* ( talk) 19:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 07:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Great idea! I'm a WWII buff. How did you know I have several shelves of WWII books? Thanks very much. MajorStovall ( talk) 21:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I'll start digging into my pile of books. Thanks. MajorStovall ( talk) 14:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Still remains - my #5. No hurry, though. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Still think you did the right thing? Cla68 ( talk) 23:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
On the private mailing list, Godwin repeatedly says that the views he expressed about the Gerard situation are personal - that they are not delivered in his capacity as Wikimedia general counsel:
WMF isn't talking to you here...For future reference, when I speak as an official of the Foundation to represent Foundation policy, I sign my full name and include my position on Foundation staff. When I speak as my own self - as a lawyer with a couple of decades of experience at free-speech law and the law of online communities, I sign as
--Mike
Minkythecat ( talk) 08:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Per your WR post, do you want me to nom you for adminship? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Cla68, I hope you are doing well. I acknowledge that you are indeed making some very good points at the RFC for Eurasian Land Bridge. But can you please keep this formatting during the RFC? I think it will really help to segment out the various comments. I think if we can keep discussion based on a dialogue of determining "what the sources say", we can all work to make sure the RFC does not degenerate. Thus the reasoning for avoiding threaded discussions (except for that bottom section). Sound good? :) Cirt ( talk) 07:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Notifying you of this request. SlimVirgin 09:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I was rather tempted to just add a reference to some world atlas, but I know full well that that would be too flippant: there are plenty of railways that every atlas shows, but which have in reality been torn down decades ago. (E.g., Newfoundland Railway). So I actually looked up sources for each link that affirm its existence and say something positive about it. Which, of course, made the text rather longer...
Also, Tsuji's paper I have added as a reference has a fair amount of statistics (e.g., on the historical use of the Trans-Siberian for the shipment of containers from Japan to Europe). Feel free to mine that!
I wish I had time to draw a decent SVG map.... Vmenkov ( talk) 09:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Please paste the list of all 60 reliable sources here. I will do the rest.-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 13:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. I've recommended you as a mentor. Viriditas ( talk) 05:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
At this talk page, you have indented your reply to address my input re: the image, when it doesn't actually appear to address (directly or tangentially) my point at all. Since you have made it clear you're replying to me, I wanted to ask for clarification here instead of cluttering that discussion. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 01:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Cla68, I noted you supported, in a constructive manner, my proposal to remove the bogus categorisation at the list of scientists opposing consensus article. Please see [103]. It will doubtlessly be reverted by Connolley, Petersen et al. and if you still support the proposal I'd appreciate your support in pushing this through. That conversation in the talk is a massive waste of WP bandwidth, and my change is, surely, the next best thing to getting the article deleted (which I supported). I believe, this removal of categorisation removes the illusion that these scientists are all divided and squabbling amongst themselves, as the POV pushers want, and I think, after that's gone, there'll be support to actually remove the article. If the article stays, at least the massive BLP & POV problems will be resolved, and we'll have a far more credible list. Alex Harvey ( talk) 12:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I've occasionally attempted to think though an outline for an article. A fair amount of work to do a decent job, and it would be disappointing to me if the effort were discarded. You obviously went through some effort to come up with an outline, but as noted, so had Guettarda, and it got lost in the jumble. I'm happy you aren't too wedded to your effort. I am trying to pick up on what you described as one of the positives of your effort - we shall soon see how it goes.-- SPhilbrick T 14:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I left this user a message alerting him to the special probation on these articles. Cool Hand Luke 14:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! KnightLago ( talk) 02:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Due to the holiday season plus Internet connection problems, I may not be very active over the next two to three weeks or so. Cla68 ( talk) 23:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator. Jusdafax 00:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm back from wikibreak and leaving a note to self as a reminder of an AfD discussion about an Robertson v. McGraw-Hill Co. article I just started. Cla68 ( talk) 23:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Can you find a single other date which which includes a settlement date, much less an "intent to sue" date? While it may not be written, there is a policy of including only events that are of above-average significance. There aren't even many Supreme Court cases listed in the events. You don't see minor battles, celebrity weddings, Stanley Cup playoffs, or Brittney Spears' haircut either. For any given date the number of events listed is relatively small. For example, there are only 54 events listed for December 17. Even a key date of a lawsuit is not the 55th most important event on that date, nor the 550th, and I doubt it's even the 5,500th. If every date in every article were included then the lists would be dramatically longer, perhaps too long to use or maintain. Will Beback talk 09:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
In addition to the points made above, you should not be scattering wikilinks to the article on this lawsuit until its notability has been determined. -- JohnnyB256 ( talk) 13:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I would also caution Cla68 not to throw around terms like "vandalism," as he did on my talk page. When text is removed in good faith, it is not vandalism, and in this case it appears that two other editors have reached the same conclusion. If every event in every article warranted a date link, we would have a list of maybe 50,000 items for every date on the calendar. That goes back to the point I raised elsewhere about how we have to use our common sense in making judgments of these kinds. -- JohnnyB256 ( talk) 14:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Let me know how I can help (finding sources etc.) I have worked with you before, and seen you around, although we have little in common, it is nice to be able to help you rescue this article now. Ikip 18:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I know you're enthusiastic, and there's a history that I truly do not want to know about, but please don't pretend that this is case law. andy ( talk) 00:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
FYI: User_talk:Cool_Hand_Luke#Robertson_v._McGraw-Hill_Co..2C_Weiss.2C_and_Shepard, User_talk:Georgewilliamherbert#McGraw-Hill_AfD I always like to know when editors are discussing me too :) Ikip 22:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Note to self: I've added suggested verbiage on the lawsuit topic to the talk pages of Gary Weiss and Julian Robertson. Cla68 ( talk) 01:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Greetings, You participated in a previous discussion about TheSmokingGun.com and whether it can be considered a reliable source. I don't feel that a clear consensus was reached and have reopened the discussion here, should you choose to participate. Regardless, have a Happy New Year!-- otherl left 20:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
You have messages at the talk page of Weakopedia, a user who doesn't know how to add talkback templates.
Weakopedia (
talk)
00:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
No, I just resigned from recent changes patrol, not Wikipedia. Was giving me a headache, and it was like stomping on ants at the beach. Definitely interested in milhist. Thanks, MajorStovall ( talk) 02:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Re: Gary Weiss. I'd say that we need to give it another day or so to allow editors to comment on the suggested addition about Robertson's lawsuit before adding it to the article. Cla68 (talk) 04:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rocksanddirt"
DMCer ™ 01:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Guettarda ( talk) 05:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
This is very interesting. Have you thought about turning it into an essay? Viriditas ( talk) 08:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.
A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;
this was an exceptionally careless BLP prod; even if one cannot understand any Italian, the merest glance at Google News or Books would have shown the great number of good sources. It's a much more valuable service to place prods after at least looking. I apologize for expressing my impatience, but I have spent altogether too much time cleaning up after such as this, and I could do the necessary work much better if those who placed the prods did their share of it. DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Cla68, were you aware that the owner of Metropolis, Mark Devlin, had an axe to grind with baker's mother? Delvin took his battle to wikipedia and was outed on the Baker article and ended up getting permantely kicked off - there are real issues with any infromation that originates from Metropolis (devlin) or factlaundering that resulted from either local papers picking up info from his editorials or possibly from him initiating contact with them. This should all realy be discusses on the baker discussion page before more editing is done with regards to Devlin material
Note to self to remember to follow this content RfC I just started. Cla68 ( talk) 01:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I just complained about Tarc at AN/I ( WP:ANI#Tarc's ongoing abuse). The least of it was this comment [107] that appears to have been directed at you. It was my 6th example (out of eight). Just FYI. -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 19:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Re: [108] - I think the essay Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing describes the copyvio argument. I have at present no comment on that or any other issue there, I just noticed copyvio in the recent changes and wanted to glance that way before logging off. Regards, - 2/0 ( cont.) 07:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Cla68,
Firstly, apologies for this long message! I may need a response from you directly underneath it, per (3) below.
You are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.
1) Background of VOTE 2:
In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results.
This was VOTE 2;
This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;
2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?
Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here.
3) HOW TO CLARIFY YOUR VOTE:
Directly below this querying message, please can you;
I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. I will copy any responses from this talk page and place them at CDA Summaries for analysis. Sorry for the inconvenience,
Matt Lewis ( talk) 01:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
I am writing you this message because you have participated in the RfC regarding the name of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident article. As the previous discussion didn't actually propose a name, it was unfocused and didn't result in any measurable consensus. I have opened a new discussion on the same page, between the existing name and the proposed name Climatic Research Unit documents controversy. I have asked that no alternate names are proposed at this time. Please make your opinion known here. Thanks, Oren0 ( talk) 05:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. I see that you added the above book to the see also section of the IPCC page. I was wondering if you had read the book, and if so, if you could lend your voice in support of a reference I want to make re: how the book (in chapter 4, ‘The Hottest Year Ever’) charts thoroughly how the IPCC and the "Hockey Stick" graph were linked. At the moment, there is some resistance from certain editors for including the ref. All will become clear if you go to the discussion page. Best wishes, Jprw ( talk) 08:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for lending your voice to the debate. Jprw ( talk) 08:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Just letting you know, we have an auto-block finder. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 07:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your encouraging words. Funnily enough I had noticed how calm, reasoned and objective/neutral you yourself came across on those discussion pages -- in stark contrast to others I might mention, and the vehement and repeated flagrant violations of WP:BLP/WP:CIVIL I found very disturbing. I have no particular axe to grind re: Global Warming; the Booker reference seemed to just fit perfectly in that particular sub-section of the IPCC article (extremely well sourced account, etc.). But it feels now as though I am just banging my head against a wall. All the best and keep up the good work, Jprw ( talk) 07:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I have sort of been waiting for the RfC to conclude before bringing our proposal forward so as not to conflate the two but now it seems that it may have been sucked in anyways. I need to make a pass through reading the RfC comments and such to form my own opinion of what consensus, if any, was formed there. Can you summarize the status of the RfC and what, if anything, you feel the results thereof actually are? It seems to have spilled over into a move request and appears to be continuing there. :) This is certainly a hot topic.
I was considering running a poll among the signatories to determine which variant of the current proposed name would be most preferred (since many of the signatories were lobbying for shorter versions). It may still make sense to do that but I wanted to make sure I understood where the RfC stood first. Thanks. -- GoRight ( talk) 17:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Cla68. If you have a moment, could you copyedit the short section named "Controversies" on Tsushima, Nagasaki? I think your help would be greatly appreciated since Arstriker ( talk · contribs) is not willing to compromise with me over a frivolous issue regarding fixing the current wrong and grammatically incorrect title, "Dispute[sig] incident". The original title of the section was "Racist attacks" and he altered it to "Protest[sig] of Japanese nationalists". As a compromise, I've suggested him to restore his first altered title "Protest[sig] of Japanese nationalists" instead of the weird current title. I guess a third person who knows Japanese history and culture would be helpful to end the frivolous dispute. Thanks.-- Caspian blue 08:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
In our zeal to argue our corner on Wikipedia sometimes we can fail to see fully the implications of counter-arguments. You have several times now dismissed statements about the problems of citing Booker as a scholarly source--in essence that his use of sources has been impeached so many times on this and other issues, and the Press Complaints Commission itself has ruled on this. That he's a partisan for an extreme minority view on this is also well sourced. I think you should address such objections seriously. They're not, as you have claimed several times now, merely the personal opinions of Wikipedians. Tasty monster ( TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 16:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Cla68. That was a refreshing breath of air in the article. Personally, I search about once a day for articles on climategate & global warming (it's fun to watch how this thing develops), so I've read a couple of hundred articles on the subject and I'm very well aware of what people call it (both pro and anti) it is highly amusing to watch the editors on the climategate talk pages trying to pretend the media haven't already dicided that the public know this episode by only one name.
And just to put you in the picture, I have twice in the last fortnight written >2000 word reports using the emails to illustrate points and so I've had read up on the background from a variety of source - although I have to admit I didn't even consider reading the wikipedia article - I don't trust an article written by people who don't even recognise the name given to the episode by the public and media. 88.110.16.230 ( talk) 20:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Could you point me to where "the current wording was agreed to", the current wording (after your reversion) was, as far as I can tell, never stable, and never agreed to. You yourself supported the exact version that you just reverted (see Talk:Johnny Weir/Archive 3#Sexuality verbiage still needs work). Here are some diffs from Feb. 10, Feb. 15, Feb. 16, Feb. 17, and Feb. 18 when the article was fully protected and we were in the early stages of discussion. I don't see anything in that discussion that would indicate firm agreement for the version to which you have reverted. One thing that was agreed to, was that the wording still needed adjustment because it was inaccurate. I've explained all this at Talk:Johnny Weir#Wording adjusted per archived discussion. Wine Guy ~Talk 08:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Moving this here for the obvious reasons. I am totally out of shape now and not running at all, but back in the day my wife and I ran together in a couple of marathons. We ran Chicago as a training run one year. My personal best was 3 hours 38 minutes. The others were between 3:45 and 4 hours.
My wife was actually into ultra-marathons for a while. She only ran one, a 50 miler. It was a race called Dances with Dirt and was hosted in Hell, Michigan. I was her support person and moved all her gear from one checkpoint to the next all along the way. It took her about 11 hours total to complete. There were a lot of people doing it, but a marathon was always more than enough for me!
Anyway, good luck. It should be fun no matter what! They always are. :) (This is a statement that only a distance runner would understand.) -- GoRight ( talk) 02:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for offering to report the PA. The distraction may not be worth it, the reviewing folks aren't likely to act. However, the editor has been warned to avoid PA against me multiple times. If no action now, then I guess there will more to report later. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ ( talk) 06:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Cla68 is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia soon. |
I'm supposed to run the Tokyo Marathon this Sunday morning. Unlike you youngsters, I have to take some time to prepare and recover from it. I probably won't be around WP too much between now and Tuesday. Cla68 ( talk) 11:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I very much appreciate your input in Talk:Incidents at SeaWorld parks#First Death. When you recover from your Marathon, I hope you will continue to input your opinion, since no compromises have been accepted and no consensus has been reached. ARTEST4ECHO ( talk) 16:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal was started on the 22nd Feb, and it runs for 28 days. Please note that the existing CDA proposal was (in the end) run as something of a working compromise, so CDA is still largely being floated as an idea.
Also note that, although the RfC is in 'poll format' (Support, Oppose, and Neutral, with Comments underneath), this RfC is still essentially a 'Request for Comment'. Currently, similar comments on CDA's value are being made under all three polls.
Whatever you vote, your vote is welcome!
Regards, Matt Lewis ( talk) 10:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I am will shortly be posting to WP:AN with the request below. Any support would be appreciated.
"I would like to take the article History of logic to FA. I have already sought input from a number of contributors and have cleared up the issues raised (I am sure there are more). I wrote nearly all of the article using different accounts, as follows:
I would like to continue this work but I am frustrated by the zealous activity of User:Fram who keeps making significant reverts, and blocking accounts wherever he suspects the work of a 'banned user'. (Fram claims s/he doesn't understand "the people who feel that content is more important than anything else").
Can I please be left in peace with the present account to complete this work. 'History of logic' is a flagship article for Wikipedia, and is an argument against those enemies who claim that nothing serious can ever be accomplished by the project". Logic Historian ( talk) 10:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
your involvement in climate change advocacy [109] is a serious PA. Retract it William M. Connolley ( talk) 18:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
The climate change literature is huge and it's easy to latch on to a couple of controversial papers. And pretty much everyone has an opinion. This is one of the things that makes it frustrating because it is hard to find and compile basic info. Some of the best sources for this information on WP are William Connolley and S.B.H. Boris. I am somewhat active in this area of WP, though it really is outside my professional expertise, and am happy to give you a hand if you're wondering about inclusion / noninclusion of material.
The basic point of that scatterbrained paragraph was to say: the literature is a mess and if you're thinking of citing it, it can help to chat with an expert first who can point you to the broader body of knowledge, and there are some of those folks on Wikipedia. Awickert ( talk) 20:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I can`t agree with you on this at all i`m afraid. Desmogblog is an attack blog full of lies wit hno editorial control at all. But i noticed how quickly you knocked out an article about them, would you care to perhaps help me out with this one? [110] thanks mark nutley ( talk) 21:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the history, Spencer R. Weart, who is well qualified as a historian with a physics background, [111] has written The Discovery of Global Warming - A History, 2008 edition available from amazon with an extended version available free online – its timeline gives an overview with links to more detailed sections. The IPCC outlines its own past, and their FAQ discusses a number of issues covered in the WG1 report. I did note before that Philip Ball in his review recommended Richard A. Muller's Physics for Future Presidents for a balanced view of the hockey stick episode, available from Amazon. I've not read it or other books on the subject, and can't give any first hand guidance, but if I find good recommendations I'll let you know. Thanks for asking, dave souza, talk 19:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Cla - it is clear from recent stuff on my talk page that you understanding of the science, and indeed your understanding of how to understand the science, is... well, since the civility police are watching, let us say that it is weak. I'd be grateful if you wouldn't interrupt conversations on my talk page with your lack of understanding. Please use the article talk pages if you want to discuss the articles and have nothing of value to say William M. Connolley ( talk) 09:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
To create some article so the redlinks may begone :) [112] Can you use infotrack to check for more stuff? This is all i can find via google Thanks mark nutley ( talk) 19:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Cool, i`ll just get an admin to delete the one i started then, way to go :-) mark nutley ( talk) 17:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree that involved admins should stay out of sanctions enforcement. In that spirit I would like to broaden your arbcom request to include discussion of Lar's misconduct. It makes more sense to address the broader issue at hand than to split things up piecemeal, don't you think? Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 00:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
FYI... I'm not sure how you managed to do this, but I had to restore my previous edits due to your inadvertent revert. No worries, but you may want to keep an eye out in the future. Viriditas ( talk) 00:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, do you've any interest to plan a Wikipedian meetup in Tokyo around April 2010? -- Saki talk 09:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your support MisterBee1966 ( talk) 14:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
For you to look in infotrac again for any refs about this mob American Policy Center an anon ip a7nd it for some reason. Hoping you can get some stuff to pad it out. Cheers mark nutley ( talk) 17:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
You keep saying this and it sort of makes sense, but how does this help me win my content dispute? :) A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 00:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi there -- you seem to have considerable experience in getting articles up to GA and FA status. I'd like your advice on how I can get this [113] up to such a standard. Please don't be afraid to be brutally honest)) Thanks, Jprw ( talk) 11:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Great stuff. I have now fitted in background sections both here and here. Thanks for all the help. Jprw ( talk) 17:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your support on the coordinator elections. – Joe N 14:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again but I have just finished doing a chunk of work on the above book, however, I don't have the facilities to scan the book's cover and thus create an image for the article. I understand that you have a copy of the book, and following on from a related discussion on Mark Nutley's page was wondering if you could help. Best, Jprw ( talk) 10:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Fantastic work, thank you. Jprw ( talk) 13:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Cla68,
I have nominated The Real Global Warming Disaster as a good article nominee. As someone who has not contributed to the article (or at least has made a very insignificant contribution), but who would I assume have an interest in this subject, I am writing to ask you if you would be willing to review it. Thanks in advance for your help, and at the same time I'll understand if you're too busy. All the best, Jprw ( talk) 08:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice and encouragement re: the above. The crucial thing it seems is to abide by the letter of WP criteria. Cheers, Jprw ( talk) 13:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay Cla68, I don't know what put a bee under your bonnet regarding me. But you've stretched my ability to assume good faith to the breaking point. Please stop your personal attacks. I didn't request that your account be blocked for harassment simply because after looking at your contributions to the encyclopedia I was impressed and pleased. However, at this point let me just say PLEASE STOP YOUR PERSONAL ATTACKS AND HARASSMENTS!!! Sincerely, TallMagic ( talk) 12:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer, but KDP kindly emailed me a copy. See that talk page for details. Cheers -- Pete Tillman ( talk) 18:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
The
March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
21:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Just so you'll know, a thread has been opened on the WP:ANI board about you. You can find that here [115]. Dayewalker ( talk) 06:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Would you be good enough to look over the following to ensure i am not breaking any blp stuff with this article, thanks mark nutley ( talk) 17:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
That's new to me, what you've done at desmogblog. Is that the new standard, extracting citations and putting them at the end of the page? Can you point me to any guideline on this? Thanks! ► RATEL ◄ 15:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I've come up with an alternative form of wording that follows the Oxburgh report's conclusions more closely and gets over the difficulties with "impropriety". What do you think of this version? -- ChrisO ( talk) 23:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
[117] Here, for some reason all my times refs are pointing to the same spot in the article (ref1) but they should all be seperate refs to seperate times articles, can you let me know on the talk page were the hell i have gone wrong please, Thanks mark nutley ( talk) 17:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Cla68, eight days left for Tokyo meetup but still nobody else confirmed their attendance and I do not think so but we should wait until otherwise either we will have to postponed the meetup or go for pre-meetup gathering... -- Saki talk 06:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I've blocked this account. He claims to be retired, so it shouldn't matter anyway, but this account has been used in violation of WP:SOCK, so if he wants to go back to using his original account (as you showed me) then I'll let him do so, but he has no justification for using any other accounts. To avoid stirring up drama, I haven't left any sockpuppet templates or other block templates on that account and I won't, but anybody reviewing the block log will see that he was blocked and why. -- Atama 頭 18:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
You are now at 4RR on DeSmogBlog. I suggest that you self-revert. You have reinserted the same information (in various forms) 4 times - despite it being removed by others, and an ongoing discussion where you are the only person who is for the information. --
Kim D. Petersen (
talk) 11:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC) - retract. I was miscounting - since i behaved and didn't revert you. You are only at 3RR - which is still bad - and you are still ignoring what everyone is saying. --
Kim D. Petersen (
talk)
11:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
[118] I have wmc yet again interfering in an rfc, i believe it is written in a neutral manner. Could you please look and give me your opinion, thanks mark nutley ( talk) 23:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I thought I'd respond on your talk page rather than within the RS/N. I'd be happy to look over any proposed RfC on the above and had, in fact, considered posting one myself on the subject. JakeInJoisey ( talk) 05:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
How about the following...
-- JakeInJoisey ( talk) 13:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
An admin has responded to my inquiry at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#RfC for WP:RSN? and suggested WP:CENT as, perhaps, an avenue of approach. As you have noted, with Alexa data having been cited some 900 times in Wikipedia articles and since WP:CENT is designed to support "discussions on matters that have a wide impact", perhaps you might want to consider its use in this case? JakeInJoisey ( talk) 12:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
[119] of WMC following MN to other forums? Thanks -- BozMo talk 10:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
[120] if you have a few minutes, i`d rather not have WMC mess it up again, thanks mark nutley ( talk) 12:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
But i need some help :), yes again. [121] i am having to rewrite this as the bishop hill blog is more than likely to get merged into it, i`d rather have it done properly than in a rush. If you have a bit of time could you look over it for me? thanks mark nutley ( talk) 22:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
The edit summary for this seems to imply that he could justify his comment if only he had time. This annoys me a little. Should I just cop it? Thepm ( talk) 07:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Cla68. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (2nd nomination), you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination). Cunard ( talk) 02:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
[122] since in general you risk turning a situation where his degree of involvement becomes the issue. Everyone on the page knows who is who and who thinks what. -- BozMo talk 07:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey. Just figured I'd remind you for future reference. Apparently it's acceptable to use AN/I instead of the probation page, even with respect to climate change articles.-- Heyitspeter ( talk) 08:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Judith_Curry#Curry.27s_notability.... Guettarda ( talk) 14:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Please remove the copyright violating texts (i'm not complaining) - since i have found and produced a link to each and every article that you cited. So there is no need for it. [123] -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 08:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
This edit] is a partial revert of my previous edit, in that it removes critical descriptors. It's your 2nd revert on the page today. Please self-revert. Yilloslime T C 05:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi there Cla. I was wondering if you would be willing to agree to a mentorship of sorts for User:Marknutley. I believe that one of the places where Mark has room for improvement is with sources, and I was hoping that someone like yourself, with a great deal of experience with high quality content writing, could teach him to properly differentiate between reliable and unreliable sources. You can see the proposal I posted here. Do you think you could be the "long-term contributor in good standing" that I mentioned? NW ( Talk) 11:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
This historical revision shows SBHB and Stephan Schulz creating the terms "microLar" and "milliLar" to describe bias. That was after ANOTHER admin blocked WMC. I also believe it preceded most of the diffs that SBHB himself produced, but I'll have to check. ATren ( talk) 16:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I trust you understand why I have taken this action, I had lifted the Bishop Hill (blog) protection from a slow edit war after reviewing the talkpage and determined that discussion had resumed. I realise that you were undoing actions which also appeared against the spirit and word of the lifting of the protection, but two wrongs do not make a right. I will watch this page and will action any request to have this block reviewed at an appropriate venue, and - since I am on my lunchbreak and will not be available until this evening - am happy for another party to action any proceeding (and for you to be unblocked under an undertaking not to revert the article again). I regret that I have had to take these actions. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 13:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Cla68 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I appreciate your offer to unblock. I think that if someone blanks almost an entire article and then someone else redirects it, however, in effect deleting it, it is not unreasonable to revert those actions, as I did. Remember, we're supposed to keep information available to our readers. If, on the other hand, LHVU is trying to send a message that we editors need to start cooperating and collaborating with each other or else, then I think including me in the block is appropriate. Usually, article blanking and redirecting against consensus is considered obvious vandalism and doesn't fall under any revert restrictions. Therefore, I cannot accept a 0RR restriction with regard to the type of edits that Souza and ChrisO did. Cla68 ( talk) 22:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Decline reason:
If you are uninterested in the conditions, it seems pointless to unblock then. Jayron 32 23:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Recuse from unblocking, but I think that there is a good case to be made that reverting blanking isn't edit warring, and that the edits were justified. ++ Lar: t/ c 01:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I have no interest in ChrisO's suggestion that you're hounding him. But I will say that discussing an issue with another editor is step one in dispute resolution. The drama-boards are much further down the list. Please start with step one next time.-- Chaser ( talk) 23:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Cla68, your continued attempts at retaliating against me for your recent block need to stop. I'm always open to refactoring comments - you just need to ask. Taking it to AN/I without even bothering to ask me to refactor is not on. -- ChrisO ( talk) 23:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi! I'm aokomoriuta, mainly active on Japanese Wikipedia. I'm also a member of 関西ウィキメディアユーザ会(Wikimedia Kansai), which is an unofficial user group of Wikimedia in Kansai region.
On May 15th (next Saturday), We have the 1st "Kansai Wikimedia Unconference"(関西ウィキメディア勉強会) in Osaka. Sessions are expected to be in Japanese, but you are of course welcome to give your presentation in English though.
Please give a look to Wikimedia Kansai's Webpage for more information. If you have some questions, Email me or wmkansai at gmail dot com.
I hope you join us!-- aokomoriuta ( talk) 10:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Cla, I think the evidence against 2/0 is overwhelming if you want to escalate this to arbcom. I have repeatedly asked 2/0 to temper his actions on this probation, because he has a history of over-reacting against one side while defending the other. Take a look at his log of blocks over the last 6 months and it's practically a who's who of the "skeptic" side of this debate, without a single sanction against the other side. This alone is not an indictment, but if you examine the actions he did NOT take, particularly his passionate, 20-point defense of WMC after one of WMC's temper tantrums, his harsh actions against skeptics are all the more suspect. He's the anti-Lar: whereas Lar tends to speak his mind but ultimately respects consensus, 2/0's discussion is impeccably calm and neutral, while his actions are clearly one-sided.
I don't have a lot of free time these days, but I can perhaps collect a bunch of diffs for you to build a case, if you choose. ATren ( talk) 13:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Lawrence Solomon is not a reliable source on anything in the area of climate change. His column has been riddled with errors, and his Deniers book, which essentially reprints this series, is not better. Please don't use him even for peacocking - find a real source. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 12:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I was curious to know what your edit summary here [161] meant in English. I stuck it into Google Translate and came up with "T Stiff Noodles"! ScottyBerg ( talk) 18:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Do Steve McIntyre and Roger A. Pielke, Jr. fall under wp:sps and their blogs considered as reliable sources for their views if attributed? The same question for Andrew Orlowski writing in The Register? mark nutley ( talk) 18:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Cla68 is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia soon. |
I probably won't be very active between now and June 7. I may be able to check my talk page sporadically. Cla68 ( talk) 07:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
You seem to be badly confused [162]. Perhaps a break would indeed be a good idea William M. Connolley ( talk) 09:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
In this diff I only meant to encourage Hipocrite to focus better on the issue at hand rather than wider questions, as several of the diffs he presented were yours rather than Lar's. I apologize for giving the wrong impression, as I consider you one of Wikipedia's better editors. Regards, - 2/0 ( cont.) 13:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Would you care to comment on [163]? Thanks. Hipocrite ( talk) 17:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Is there something wrong with these edits? ATren ( talk) 19:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Not only do I not remove messages from my talk page, I also don't change their headings, and I don't revert people who try to change their own messages as long as they have not been responded to. Does that give me the moral high ground? Hipocrite ( talk) 23:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again for your thoughts at User talk:ScottyBerg/Climate Change. I've responded with some thoughts of my own, and I hope that discussion can be opened up to others of all points of view, if people aren't entirely burned out. I think that this climate change dispute is a kind of laboratory for internet dispute-resolution processes, and it will be interesting to see how it turns out. I see that you're on break, but if you look in at some point I'd be curious to hear if you have any further thoughts. ScottyBerg ( talk) 15:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, I appreciate that. It's a difficult editing environment, to put it mildly. SlimVirgin talk contribs 07:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Cla68, I know that you've been on a semi-wikibreak but, you've posted to Wikipedia almost everyday since then. Your request for an amendement to an old ArbCom case has had outstanding questions for you to answer for about four days now. I assume that the case has not been closed because the committee is interested in your answers to these questions. Please attend to this as soon as you can. Bill Huffman ( talk) 20:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I am working on removing the redlinks from Robert Byrce and have managed two of his books so far, but i am stuck with this one as all the refs are now so old they are all in places like infotrac. Could you look through it and post the results here Please. The current book i am doing is Cronies: Oil, the Bushes, and the Rise of Texas, America's Superstate. Thanks mark nutley ( talk) 20:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
An Arbitration request in which you are involved has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Workshop.
Additionally, please note that for this case specific procedural guidelines have been stipulated; if you have any questions please ask. The full outline is listed on the Evidence and Workshop pages, but please adhere to the basics:
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 00:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I just wish to point out that it would be good to correct the spelling of Stephen to Stephan. All the best Polargeo ( talk) 12:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Cla68 is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia soon. |
I should be back around 3 July. I probably won't be able to check Wikipedia, or email, much during that time. Cla68 ( talk) 22:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
This Arbitration case is now moving into the Workshop phase. Please read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Workshop to understand the process. Editors should avoid adding to their evidence sections outside of slight tweaks to aid in understanding; large-scale additions should not be made. Many proposals have already been made and there has already been extensive discussion on them, so please keep the Arbitrators' procedures in mind, namely to keep "workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible." Workshop proposals should be relevant and based on already provided evidence; evidence masquerading as proposals will likely be ignored. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 20:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Cla68, I did try following your links in the section on WMCab (which title you might refactor). Do you think that when you have several months editing and over a hundred edits, and arrive on a featured page calling the article "slanted and biased" it is really unreasonable for someone to accuse you of "errors". If not, why not choose a stronger first example of incivility because many people reading the page like me will not go beyond the first one listed if it does not seem to grab attention? -- BozMo talk 11:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
When the arbcom thing is done could you look at the ref`s used here [166] and ok them please, i`d like to get the article to mainspace before i get topic banned after the arbcom case is done :) mark nutley ( talk) 22:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I have removed a few copyright-violating links from your evidence section, as they may constitute contributory infringement. I have left a placeholder to indicate that I have done so, but you should of course feel free to replace this with a summary of the point made by the infringing links. There is simply no reason why any page here ever should link to illegal content. This is not the first conversation we have had about copyright and its importance to this project - please be more careful. Regards, - 2/0 ( cont.) 22:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit#.22some_sceptics_allege.22_vs._.22it_has_been_alleged.22. Just browsing diffs and thought this would be a good addition to your evidence section on wikilawyering (particularly on the part of ChrisO), which only gives one example as yet. Happy editing.-- Heyitspeter ( talk) 10:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
This first link in the BLP evidence of the Climate change case is broken: [167]. If possible fix it and on my talk page point me to where I can see the fix. Tks. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Pifeedback
Could you give your opinion on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Pifeedback.com? ChaosMaster16 ( talk) 12:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
I'd heard of that blog, and would love to see an article on it. But there is nothing on Google News except for the article already cited. Are you aware of any others? I'll be out of pocket for much of the next few weeks, but I'll see what I can find. ScottyBerg ( talk) 13:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
In response to your query on Rlverse's talk page, the probation applies to all climate change articles (broadly construed).
From the probation page:
See also Sanctions placed by the Wikipedia community.
I'm leaving this comment on your talk page because Rlverse seemed a little irritated that the discussion was taking place on his talk page. He opened an exemption for adding additional evidence on the issue of the recent edit war on Robert Watson (scientist). I have not been invovled in any of this arbitration or the subject area and haven't decided whether to present evidence on this issue. I'm sure others will cover it adequately. Minor4th • talk 22:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
So how are you getting along with mark nutley?
If your mentorship is working well, would you mind having a look at this talk page? It is not strictly within your remit, since it is not climate change, and nutley is not adding sources but removing them. But if you have practice in dealing with him when he asserts that the Greeks didn't have democracys [sic], or argues about the Roman Republic without the slightest notion of its difference from the Roman Empire, it would be most welcome. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I want to use these reviews for the HSI article The Geological Society Natuurwetenschap & Techniek Quadrant Magazine I asked over at stephans page but he has not replied to my last post mark nutley ( talk) 10:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Re [168]: if you want to talk to ChrisO, use his talk page. If you want to talk to me, use mine William M. Connolley ( talk) 09:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Cla68, I've started the RfC regarding MMfA, MRC, FAIR, Newsbusters etc. Please continue to participate on the Reliable Sources Talk page here. Skoal. Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 21:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm really angry that anybody would pull this kind of crap on Wikipedia, and astonished that it's somebody who seems to want to be taken seriously. Please retract that attack at once. You know better. -- TS 17:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Does it permit edits like [170] or [171], or is the so-called topic ban only in effect for edits you don't approve of? Hipocrite ( talk) 11:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Please see WP:AN/I#Malicious sabotage of RSN comments by Cla68. -- ChrisO ( talk) 01:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Some 2 months ago (it seems like ages ago) you suggested that the article title be changed to "Gore Effect". I realize there have been a lot more pressing issues in the interim but I hope, at some time, you will be able to revisit that suggestion as I believe it to be an edit warranted by both colloquial use and by Wikipedia guidelines. Thanks. JakeInJoisey ( talk) 14:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know about this sign-up list, a couple of clarifications would be helpful. Firstly, with this comment you continued a discussion over a hot topic in the CC area, are user talk pages exempt from the voluntary restriction? I see Tony's answered and presumably that's an end to it, but it should be explicit in the clarifications. There's also this merger proposal which you've not commented on, but some others have, so that could be raised at the same time. Please let me know if these are areas that have already been cleared with someone, dave souza, talk 17:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, you cast a vote of oppose on a proposed content guideline; I and a few other editors have made significant changes to the proposed guideline to try and resolve the issues of the opposers. I initially opposed the guideline but now support it due to the changes made recently. Would you mind reviewing the changes and commenting on this section. Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(science-related_articles)#Towards_consensus_acceptance_of_the_guideline.2C_lets_discuss Thank you very much.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
On the MOS:JP talk page, a discussion has been started about including or not including romanizations for words of English origin, such as Fainaru Fantajī in Final Fantasy (ファイナルファンタジー, Fainaru Fantajī) (for the sake of simplicity, I called this case "words of English origin", more information on semantics here).
Over the course of a month, it has become apparent that both the parties proposing to include or not include those romanizations cannot be convinced by the arguments or guidelines brought up by the other side. Therefore, a compromise is trying to be found that will satisfy both parties. One suggestion on a compromise has been given already, but it has not found unanimous agreement, so additional compromises are encouraged to be suggested.
One universally accepted point was to bring more users from the affected projects in to help achieve consensus, and you were one of those selected in the process.
What this invitation is:
What this invitation is not:
It would be highly appreciated if you came over to the MOS:JP talk page and helped find a solution. Thank you in advance. Prime Blue ( talk) 11:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if I'm being a nag, but this is an issue that must be addressed. Thanks. IronDuke 03:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
It seems that a recent interaction on Dave Souza's talk page could also be interpretted as being a disruptive interaction. [174] To try to be complete, here's the Cynwolfe incident. [175] Here's the IronDuke incident that I'm referring to. [176] The incident where you carried out a full multiple week campaign against me me was, of course, much more extensive. I describe it here. [177] I don't know if there were similar incidents before your bullying of me began. You have an excellent record of improving Wikipedia article space, especially in the military history area. That is much appreciated. This apparent desire to sometimes bully other editors is disruptive and should be stopped. Thank you, Bill Huffman ( talk) 17:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Cla68, your response is disappointing but not surprising. Your accusations that I'm a wp:SPA bent on attacking anyone is false. You say things like this but never try to prove such accusations. It is just another example of how you like to bully others and don't seem to care about the truth when you target a victim. My editing that has anything to do with Mr. Smart is an extremely small percentage of my total Wikipedia edits especially considering the totality of my Wikipedia edits which would include http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TallMagic. Since your harassment bullying campaign began against me, you keep repeating such false things about me. You have never presented any problematic edits despite your repeated false accusations at multiple noticeboards. You have never bothered supporting your false accusations. You should cease your bullying activities. You should stop telling false stories about people. For example your totally false accusation about what I said about WNU in an attempt to get my editing banned. See [178] for strong supporting evidence for what I allege in this paragraph above. You harassed me, you apparently also tried to bully Dave Souza, CynWolfe and perhaps IronDuke. Such behavior is disruptive and should stop. Bill Huffman ( talk) 07:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I was recently given a copy of this book by a friend and I am currently reading through it. I find the topic reasonably interesting so I thought I would just check out the article on the book. It looks a little thin to me and so I might be interested in trying to help improve it a bit. I am contacting you because I see on the talk page that you have also been recently trying to improve the article. You mentioned something called Good Article status and indicated that you didn't think the article was ready for that.
Can you tell me a little more about the good article stuff? Is this documented somewhere? What's involved in getting an article to that point? Etc.
I have also been working a little on some of the Country Music articles. Mostly Hank Williams, Jr. which also seems to need some help. I would like to see about getting both the Hank Williams Jr. and the The Deniers articles up to a level that they are considered good.
Any pointers or advice you could provide would be greatly appreciated. -- Georgia peach lover ( talk) 13:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Cla, I wanted to thank you for your support at that talk page re Dave S. I didn't take his remarks seriously, even tho they were a bit sharp -- especially since I started it ;-]. Then we got into a WikiLove-fest and I didn't have the heart to pursue it. Perhaps for the best; collegiality is good. But I appreciate the thought: sharp words are the rule in the CC area, sigh, and I get carried away sometimes myself. Best wishes, Pete Tillman ( talk) 22:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Annals of Climate Science: From internal discussions of French GCM model LMD/ISPL: “Olivier has mentionned the problem of snow accumulation reaching several km must be resolved.” tinyurl.com/37s7j3 (which triggered a spam block, sigh)
Thank you, very much, for your kind words at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia about my work on the article. Much appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt ( talk) 17:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I have drafted an essay on activism in Wikipedia here. Before I post it, I hope anyone interested will provide some feedback or constructive criticism on it. The essay especially needs some amusing images to break up its wall of text. Cla68 ( talk) 00:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I'll look for more cute photos tomorrow. Bedtime here. Best wishes for the essay, Pete Tillman ( talk) 05:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
This is looking more and more like a conflict between two worldviews: what is sometimes called "post-Enlightenment" (rationalist, science-oriented) on the one hand, and what could be vaguely referred to as " postmodern" on the other. Whether two such fundamentally incompatible worldviews can be reconciled within a project such as Wikipedia is an interesting question. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 00:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Deep enough! -- Pete Tillman ( talk) 19:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Looks right on from here, Cla68, although I have to agree (naturally :) with Slim re: FAC. Classic exmple documented at User:SandyGeorgia/Venezuela articles, but I also agree with those editors who say that BLP activist editors differ from science/fringe activist editors in some ways -- in the science realm, we often find editors using primary or dubious sources incorrectly, while in the BLP/political realm, we're more likely to find the ganging up to game the UNDUE issue, no matter how many reliable sources one provides. I think Ling.Nut hit the mark when he commented to Jimbo that Wiki doesn't seem to have a process to enforce our NPOV pillar-- Chavez has been POV for as long as I've been editing Wiki. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the Removal of information section - could one then add "An easy way to spot an activist is to repeatedly insert Primary-sourced information or push for Undue Weight inclusion or prominence of either non-notable/borderline-notable or otherwise minor material? Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I have proposed an edit for the mainspace of an important Wikipedia policy, the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources policy. Essentially, I believe that some sources are so partisan that using them as "reliable sources" invites more problems than they're really worth. You've previously participated in the RfC on this subject, or another related discussion indicating that you are interested in this important policy area. Please indicate here whether you support or oppose the proposed edit. The original discussion is here. Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 13:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Please note that contributors should not be voting here. I'd appreciate it if you'd remove your !vote (and reword if appropriate). What we are looking for is constructive criticism (such as alternate wordings or alternate remedies) . If you aren't around I may remove your !vote myself, and you might want to then modify your comment. Thanks. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller ( talk) 14:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Your userpage
User:Cla68/Evidence/Sandbox has a category, and so appears in
Category:Wikipedia dispute resolution.
As the
guideline on userpages describes, this is undesired. It is suggested that you edit the userpage to prevent this showing. It can be done by adding a colon (:) before the word Category, like this: [[:Category:Wikipedia dispute resolution]]. Other categories might be involved too. -
DePiep (
talk)
01:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I am curious. I have not waded into these articles really before now but have walked into one right now --> this page Watts Up With That? - we have Virginia Heffernan who first recommended the blog and then recanted or placed a caveat or whatever. Now we have the page where people want to use the first one and not the second. You'd agree that was a distortion or not? My preference is for both, and given all the blog post is an opinion I see no problem with that in our guidelines, but someone disagrees. So, how do you feel about that one? Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Rereading your comment, Cla, her original comment was not a blog post, it was a New York Times review. I don't think there's any question that review is reliably sourced. The RSN entry was not phrased well and its unclear what is being asked or in what context. Minor 4th 00:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Please show a little basic courtesy and respect my request to stay off my user page, unless you have something really important to say. Guettarda ( talk) 13:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Please stop being silly. I've fixed up your spelling for you [179]. If you can't cope with that, don't comment there. Thanks William M. Connolley ( talk) 11:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, if you plan on having Climate Audit go through the WP:GA process, I would like to help. Please let me know if there's any way that I can be of assistance. In particular, I've created a Wikipedia Reliable Sources Search engine which allows me to filter through web sites which don't meet Wikipedia's standards for secondary reliable sources. Also, your talk page is on my watch list so there's no need to inform me of any replies. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 04:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone know of another article about a blog or a web site that we can use as an example for improving our Climate Audit. Maybe a FA or GA? Or just something well written? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 16:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I've removed your latest, per the notice at the top of my talk page about repetition. If you have anything new to say, you're welcome to say it. But please don't interrupt conersations with other people William M. Connolley ( talk) 07:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Just in case you didn't see it: [180]. Thanks! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Cla68, a heads-up: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision#Proposed_FoF:_NuclearWarfare_has_failed_to_uphold_BLP_policy_in_the_manner_expected_of_an_administrator, which relates to an enforcement request that you originally brought back in July. -- JN 466 23:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
There is a discussion of your use of sources in the climate change topic area at User talk:Newyorkbrad. -- TS 00:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Cla: I've seen the documents and seen GregJackP's statements, Risker was definitely in the right in both the spirit and letter of the NLT policy. SirFozzie ( talk) 04:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,
Dougweller (
talk)
18:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I was very sorry to see your name on this list. My interactions with you have always been pleasant, and I saw no behavior that would justify such an action.
Oh, well. It looks like your interests are broad enough that you can still contribute to Wikipedia, and I hope you do. We'll miss your constructive editing in climate change.
Best wishes, Pete Tillman ( talk) 19:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
This is formal notification because you are one of the affected parties. -- TS 00:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
In a comment at the clarification request, you wrote: [183]
I do acknowledge that you were notified of the request, as the guidance of the arbitrators on the topic affects expectations of your future conduct and, should you ever choose to return to the topic, the kind of error you need to avoid. I did not intend that you should break your topic ban, as you did in making an edit there attacking other topic-banned editors: [184]
You also made comments at the Marknutley enforcement request, to which you cannot claim to have been "invited", and again you used the opportunity to exacerbate interpersonal disputes related to climate change. [185] [186] [187].
In recent days you have also continued to edit your essay Wikipedia:Activist [188] [189] [190] which is worrying because it appears to me at least to be closely related to the tenor of your editing in the climate change topic, and your description of activist psychology seems to be a sly dig at William Connolley. But perhaps others less involved in the climate change topic would judge that essay more kindly.
I'm asking you not to respond to this. I'm asking you please, because the topic ban is there for a purpose and I know you value Wikipedia as highly as I do, to take the Arbitration Committee's directions to heart and go and find something else to do. -- TS 09:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Cla68,
While your comment may apply to certain editors, in case of me, the situaton is actually the opposite. There haven't been any issues with me editing any articles here. In 2008, when I had more time for Wikipedia than I have now, I spend some time rewriting thermodynamics articles. When some months ago another editor made some changes, bringing in a bit more the perspective from chemical engineering (I wrote it more from the theoretical physics perspective), I thought that was a good thing for Wikipedia, despite some objections to some issues. These articles should be authored by the Wikipedia community, not by "Count Iblis" or any other single editor.
The reason I got in trouble a bit, is due to the factionalist mentality that exists here in some areas to some extent. I defended Brews Ohare despite arguing against him on the speed of light issue and in the ArbCom case about this. Wrong on one issue and having some issues with working together with others, shouldn't automaticaly imply "hopeless case, let's boot him out of Wikipedia". But with this stance I took after the ArbCom case, I broke with the faction and as a result, I got branded as being part of the "wrong faction".
What also plays a role here is that the editing issues regarding Brews are not as well visible to outsiders compared to e.g the Climate Change case. What then happens is that I when I got labeled to be "Brews' advocate", that label then stuck, despite being nonsense based on actually editing articles. ArbCom even acted on this by passing an advocacy resstriction (which has now expired).
To see just how ridiculous this is, just imagine that in 6 months from now, William would actually defend you and argue that you should be allowed back to edit CC articles (despite disagreements related to the topic). But then William gets attacked for breaking with his faction, disputes start within his faction, and then ArbCom decides to sanction William for provoking a battlefield atmosphere in his faction.
This is difficult to imagine, but if you were one of just a few sceptical editors here, you can perhaps see how something like this could happen. Count Iblis ( talk) 16:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Following a request for amendment to the Climate change case, three motions have been posted regarding the scope of topic bans, the appeal of topic bans, and a proposal to unblock two editors.
For and on behalf of the Arbitration Committee -- Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 19:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Activist, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Activist and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Activist during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ScienceApologist ( talk) 00:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
By motion, the Arbitration Committee has ammended remedies 3.1 and 3.2.1 of the Climate change case to read as follows:
— Coren (talk), for the Committee, 21:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you. Here's the request for clarification. Your ability to discuss the case would be affected. -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 05:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey,
I was considering getting a shakujō - have you ever seen any for sale and would you have a rough idea how much one would cost? TheGoodLocust ( talk) 22:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
This wording did not have consensus. Cptnono ( talk) 00:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The RfC provides an opportunity for additional comment by other interested editors. Can you frame a constructive response to Bobthefish2 pivotal question: Even if the policy does not recommend the use of Senkaku/Diaoyu-style dual names, is our situation exceptional enough to make it a good solution?
In this RfC context, please consider an overview here? -- Tenmei ( talk) 19:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I saw you comment on Binksternet , and I was wondering what "Iran-related articles" are you talking about? Could you post some examples of your edits here? I frequently edit this topical area, and I don't recall ever encountering you. Kurdo777 ( talk) 09:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
It is a personal attack.
Continuing down this path will lead to unpleasant results.
Read WP:VANDAL for more on the subject.
Until you decide to apologize for that remark and edit summary, do not edit my user talkpage.
jps ( talk) 23:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
re: "he ordered me not to edit his page" [192]. not a big issue, but in the future don't let pissy demands like that stop you from fulfilling administrative requirements. Go ahead and post the notice; he's within his rights to delete it immediately if he doesn't want you on his talk page, but you will have observed due diligence in the matter. that will save you the kind of nitpicky wikilawyering (nitwikilawyering?) that you're already getting. -- Ludwigs2 06:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I've submitted a request for clarification concerning your recent edits to Wikipedia talk:Activist. See here. -- TS 21:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Category:Theistic science theories, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. edg ☺ ☭ 16:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Both Jprw and the dynamic IP are editing on the same articles, Roger Scruton and Right-wing politics. Both articles have been semi-protected because of sockpuppetry by the IP, and several of the IP addresses have been blocked for sockpuppetry. There is some similarity between the writing style of Jprw and the IP.
Jprw has chosen to post comments by the blocked IP on talk pages and to restore deleted comments by the IP, which is meatpuppetry. He also has a history of edit-warring.
That evidence is sufficient to create suspicion and the best way to resolve the suspicion is through SPI. The administrators at SPI have experience in identifying sockpuppets and checkuser. It would be wrong however to make accusations outside SPI. If my suspicions are incorrect however it sould be fairly simple for Jprw to end this.
TFD ( talk) 17:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
While I have no doubt that your intentions are good in trying to advise ZuluPapa5, I don't think that your contributions are appropriate in this area. Your advice to ZuluPapa5 that he blank his evidence pages rather than have them deleted directly contradicts the instructions in the Arbitration remedies ( #Deletion of evidence sub-pages). I also believe that you're treading very close to your own topic ban in the climate change area, by commenting on content and involving yourself in disputes intimately related to that subject. Finally, your own history in this area makes it difficult for other editors to perceive you as an 'honest broker' here. If you intend to comment further, I would strongly urge you to first seek an official clarification or amendment from the ArbCom; any other route is likely to lead directly to an arbitration enforcement request. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 16:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
This is a problematic issue raised by my colleague, Joshua Zelinsky...
Outcast User:Moulton being annoying, continuing to expose corrupt editors IDCab
User:Moulton who was banned citation needed for persistent disruption citation needed, has been editing the last few days via IP addresses where he has continued to try to out the same editors he had a beef with before his ban. This is the most recent example. A block would be helpful. JoshuaZ ( talk) 18:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- I am not sure why JoshuaZ is on the warpath against Moulton, but Moulton allegedly posted some comments to a BLP Talk page, and JoshuaZ removed it. [193] Read it for yourself if you want to decide who is being disruptive. Roger ( talk) 19:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Joshua Zelinsky is on the warpath on behalf of IDCab because in the last battle of this epic MMPORG, those on the side of accuracy, ethics, and excellence in online media beat their brains out. Or more precisely, Charles Ainsworth beat their brains out at ArbCom . So they obviously don't want anyone to do that again. But the sensible thing to do would be to correct the blatant errors in the BLPs. I mean is that too much to ask? — Moulton 08:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
For the record, one of those admins was me (coming across the issue via WP:BLPN on my watchlist); I've blocked the IP for one month and deleted some text and revision-deleted some things. I was going to ask someone else to take another look at the incident in case any further action is needed, as I need to log off now. Rd232 talk 19:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Feel free to block all 160,000 Verizon IPs in Eastern Massachusetts, plus a slew of IPs in two other states. Also, feel free to invite Jimbo Wales to shut down Wikiversity, as FeloniousMonk sought to do the last time around. Lot of good it did him, eh? — Barry Kort 05:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
OK. Marking as unresolved. He's continuing to evade the block and reposting his outing User talk:Schlafly and at Talk:David Berlinski. Suggest semiprotection of that page, and this page (since he's now posting comments here) is in order. JoshuaZ ( talk) 06:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
This isn't his only IP - I recently blocked User:68.160.132.4 as Moulton too. Raul654 ( talk) 06:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, he's used other IPs on BLPN, Schafly talk page, Talk:David Berlinski, and User talk:rd232. Hence my request for semi-protection. JoshuaZ ( talk) 06:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- I have a quarter million IPs in three states. Do you propose to block them all? Or would you prefer negotiate a peaceable resolution of my dispute with the tattered remnants of IDCab? — Moulton 06:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- He's threatening to continue saying he has access to vast numbers of IPs if we don't negotiate a resolution. Dougweller ( talk) 07:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Are you alarmed by the fact that Verizon service in Eastern Massachusetts comprises a block of some 160,000 dynamic IPs? — Moulton 08:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Shouldn't something be done about his posts at User talk:Schlafly#David Berlinski -- including the fact that his signature links to his Wikiuniversity page rather than the IP he's using to evade the ban? Dougweller ( talk) 07:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Of course something should be done. They should be thoughtfully responded to by Roger and other interested and responsible parties who care about accuracy, excellence, and ethics on online media. — Moulton 08:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- And I presume here, using another Wikiversity ID [194] as a link instead of the IP address. Dougweller ( talk • contribs) 10:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
In view of this and this combined with the general threat/boast from this character, I have semi-protected ANI for three hours. Favonian ( talk) 13:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- I recommend against moral panic at the discovery of moral bankruptcy. Unless, of course we are crafting a comic opera about moral panic at the revelation of moral bankruptcy. My perplexity is that I can't tell the difference between a comic opera and reality here on Wikipedia. — Gastrin Bombesin 10:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
How may we address this? — Caprice 11:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
It's appropriate for both sides of a dispute to post to a noticeboard. The account who posted initially misstated the objection and didn't fully describe the dispute. A message like your might be better when engaged editors (from either side) begin dominate the discussion to the exclusion of outside input. Will Beback talk 15:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I think you're approaching this from the wrong side, Charles. It's blindingly obvious who AF is and, even if it's an associate, it's still a group with a POV to push. That itch you have is, I think, more related to the offensive double standards. I'd have a lot more sympathy for Will's (albeit valid) point if he was even half as fast at identifying B&K socks as he is in identifying HK socks... and of course if he'd admit to and stop his own POV pushing efforts. Slim raised the issue of naked short selling, and I tend to agree. Except I don't think she'd agree with my view that the only difference I'm seeing is that HK doesn't have anything of the moral high-ground (such as it was) enjoyed by JB. Having said all that, no one really cares what an unimportant American fruitloop thinks. I mean, seriously? Why else do you think Will gets away with it, but gets pulled up when he tries it elsewhere? 120.23.0.60 ( talk) 04:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Since you Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_26#Category:Persons_convicted_of_fraud participated in the recent CfD of Category:Persons convicted of fraud I wanted to inform you that the category was recently recreated and relisted. Here is a link to the current CfD should you wish to participate. [Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_20#Category:Persons_convicted_of_fraud]]. Cheers. Griswaldo ( talk) 03:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Japan for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. - Mabeenot ( talk) 04:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Do you mind if I just cut-and-paste move the discussion from Talk:Solar energy to Talk:Cost of electricity by source? This seems to be a more appropriate discussion place.-- E8 ( talk) 00:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Hoping you and your family are OK. Are you near the epicenter? ATren ( talk) 12:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted to say, you have a very good looking user page and your contributions to the Japan Earthquake 2011 page have been very positive and thorough! Keep up the good work. Rsteilberg 00:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsteilberg ( talk • contribs)
The WikiProject Japan Signpost article scheduled for this week was postponed in light of the earthquake, tsunami, and ongoing nuclear crisis. We would like to publish the interview within the next couple weeks with updated information that takes into account the events in Japan. Please take an opportunity to return to the interview page to answer some additional questions located at the bottom of the page. This is also an opportunity to revise any previous answers if you feel the need. We hope to bring your story to a wider audience. Thanks again for your participation. - Mabeenot ( talk) 03:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't recall exactly if it was you or Roger Davis that said something about US gov't sock puppets not existing. Huh? Tijfo098 ( talk) 21:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. I don't see any specific concerns or policy violations. Could you point to what aspect of my edits is problematic? Please provide diffs. Will Beback talk 01:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Cla68, I noticed your kind words to IP 140.247.126.237. Very nice gesture. — Ched : ? 07:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey Cla68. Removing an you made to the 'See Also' list in the United States House Committee on Energy and Commerce a year ago, as there is no clear context and the topic is not similar nor directly related. I'm assuming that this involved an error, but figured I should drop you a line. 0x69494411 01:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sixtyninefourtyninefourtyfoureleven ( talk • contribs)
I had a good look online for this and couldn't see anything - even the Washington Post's website gave 186mph or 300km/h. Can you clarify the source? -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 22:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Your request for arbitration has been declined. The Arbitrators felt that the checkuser issue was handled by the audit subcommittee, who found no evidence of wrongdoing, and that a lack of current activity meant that the issue was not ready for a full case.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee -- Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 11:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Who decides the word? -- Thepm ( talk) 11:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Cla68. As you may have noticed, I have taken a break from editing pending resolution of your actions. Per discussion with arbcom members I am hereby formally requesting that you stop following me or engaging me in any articles/noticeboard discussion that I am involved in that you had not previously been involved in before you were asked to follow me around off-wiki. I will certainly try to avoid you when and where I can. Thanks. IronDuke 16:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
1) "As you may have noticed, I have taken a break from editing pending resolution of your actions" So what you start with is an allegation that Charles is the cause of some pain to you and that there is some sort of investigation. No proof of said invesitgation, of course, just random mudslinging. And, of course, the "poor me, what a victim I am" campaign. 2) "Per discussion with arbcom members" Again with the random mudslinging. Name these phantom arbcom members, or crawl back into your hole. 3) Paraphrase: 'I demand that you promise to stop stalking me and I'll try to be nice to you' Seriously? What sort of idiot could possibly take that as a reasonable compromise? IronDuke, Charles wants you to be nicer to people and stop assuming bad faith. Heck, there's even a policy about that, isn't there? But, instead of taking that comment to heart, you turn up the WP:NSPABS all the way to eleven. Charles has authored many FAs, he's copy edited hundreds, if not thousands of articles, and aided countless editors in their improvement of the encyclopaedia. What have you done that gives you the right to malign him so? Read WP:AGF, internalise it. The fact that there are some people who don't want to do the right thing does not give you licence to join them. If you find it all too hard, find another hobby. Now go away and leave Charles to his work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.23.134.227 ( talk) 02:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, for your image alignment help, at Santorum (neologism). Much appreciated. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt ( talk) 04:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello. You made a comment on the peer review page of Matin Luther. I couldn't organize it as you said and couldn't you do it? TGilmour ( talk) 18:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Vermouth at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist ( talk) 01:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Cla68, I see you're a veteran of the Climate Change arbitration, so I'm wondering if I could get your opinion on a related matter. This regards Lyndon LaRouche. By one account this movement's publications are "at the forefront of denying the reality of global warming". The articles featured in their two main magazines illustrate the movement's devotion to that topic. Executive Intelligence Review and 21st Century Science and Technology Some of their prominent views are covered at Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement#Environment and energy. Apparently, their facts or theories have been repeated by more mainstream commentators like Rush Limbaugh. My question is whether you, Cla68, think the LaRouche bio and related articles would be covered by the Arbitration topic ban on "articles about Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages" and "biographies of living people associated with Climate Change broadly construed"? Will Beback talk 10:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I have replied to you, at my user talkpage. Thank you, Cla68, for the polite manner in which you are conducting yourself in discussions with me. I really appreciate it. A lot. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt ( talk) 05:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Cla68, a suggestion has been made at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#What_administrative_action_is_sought_here.3F that perhaps RfC/Us would be the way forward here. What are your thoughts? Would you co-certify if I raised an RfC/U on Cirt, based on the concerns I posted to their talk page yesterday, and similar cases? -- JN 466 22:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I will assume that all parties involved in this dispute are watching this page. I have posted some comments and requested clarification and further information on the Mediation Cabal case page. If all those involved in this dispute (read - content dispute) could leave comments on the case page, linked above, that would be most helpful. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 11:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I've started a discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#User:SlimVirgin.2FPoetgate Mindbunny ( talk) 16:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm really not quite sure what to do here. You commented in the WP:RSN section about the source on the protests in Ahwaz in the 2011 Iranian protests article. Since then, I have found quite a few other sources, such as Al Bawaba, Human Rights Watch, Los Angeles Times (falls under WP:NEWSBLOG). But Kurdo has been continually marginalizing the information, with summaries like "Al Bawaba is a self-publishing blog-like site with no editorial oversight, not a news agancy or newspaper . It doesn't meet the requirments of WP:RS", or "trimming down HRW statment, this is not Human Rights in Iran page, please mind WP:Undue" (in this case, specifically removing the information referring to excessive force, arrests of Arab people, and government censorship). Then there's how he's adding in specific words to try and make it seem to the reader that the sources still in the section are unreliable, such as making sure that Al Arabiya has "Saudi-owned pan-Arab" in front of it, specifying blog for Los Angeles Times (while technically correct, we usually don't specify it, since per WP:NEWSBLOG, the writers are still staff of the paper and are the same as any regular news report), adding that the journalist for the Los Angeles Times is "Lebanese-based".
I really don't know how to deal with this properly, because it is a content issue, so I can't really take it to ANI. You might also want to see this section made on my talk page. Silver seren C 05:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I've reverted your recent edits to Sea World as you have posted it on the wrong article. Feel free to add the content to SeaWorld or SeaWorld San Diego. Sea World (with two words) is an Australian marine animal theme park completely unrelated to those in America (branded SeaWorld, single word). Kind Regards Themeparkgc Talk 23:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
OrangeMarlin deleted my comment on his talk page, so I figured I would put it here:
What do you think about adding a summary style paragraph of relevant points from WP:ACTIVIST to Wikipedia:Wikibombing (SEO)? Viriditas ( talk) 03:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I encourage everyone to complete a marathon once as it is an incredible feeling of accomplishment.
Thanks for your comments. Do you think it's ready to post? -- J N 466 12:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
(
edit conflict)As part of your evidence against Cirt you pointed to
this diff where you Scott Mac criticized Cirt's edit
here. Unfortunately, as the article has been deleted, it's hard for us non-admins to how [in]appropriate his edit was. Would you be able to elaborate on the problem besides what you posted on Cirt's talk page? Thanks. Edit: I just realized that it wasn't you, and you don't have the requisite permissions to see the diff. Clearly, however, you were disturbed enough by the edit to bring it up at the RfC/U. Would you be able to elaborate at all on the situation and why you felt it was inappropriate? Not that I have anything against Scott (I don't know him at all), but the mere criticism of one's actions by another user doesn't really count as wrongdoing.
Throwaway85 (
talk)
06:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
[197] [198] When you accuse someone of something that serious and unethical you should be prepared to follow through. Please post an edit war notice at WP:EW. Otherwise I recommend that you retract your statements. Thanks for your prompt attention. Will Beback talk 11:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello, due to recent events a request for arbitration has been filed by ResidentAnthropologist ( talk · contribs) regarding long standing issues in the "Cult" topic area. The request can be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Cults The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 07:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm trying hard not to overreact, but if this was anyone less well known they'd have been blocked long ago for the tirade-ish aspects of the ANI comments.
It's clear that a nerve was hit and he's really upset about it, and I am among those who are trying to calm the situation down without escalating it. Several other editors asked him to calm down as well. He's responded inconsistently with a mixture of ignored and rudely deleted comments.
There's a limit, though. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 06:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I find it hard to believe that more structure would be even more time-consuming than the status quo. Free form discussions on an 18-member are incredibly wasteful, and I suspect practically anything else would be more efficient. Whether breaking the committee into subgroups, or electing an internal task master—anything so that every thread is not meandering stream of consciousness.
Thank you for your thoughts; I think you are mostly spot-on. Cool Hand Luke 01:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
ArbCom seems to be starting another one of their hallmark "omnibus" cases about "Blp Feuding", whatever that is. I am not going to get involved, and hope you won't either. The Cirt-Jayen466 case seems focused and appropriate. You should present your evidence of inappropriate, intimidating comments there. Some of the diffs you cited appear to have crossed the line. I recognize we disagreed about the closure of the RFC. You will note that I made exactly one action, and then left it for others to determine what to do. I don't think my actions need further discussion because it is finished business. While I don't agree with what you did, I have no intention to complain about it, because things are moving along well enough, closed or unclosed. Kind regards, Jehochman Talk 20:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Keep off my user talk page. If you continue to harass me I will ask for intervention against you. Prioryman ( talk) 07:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 16, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, NW ( Talk) 23:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello Cla68. As the clerk for the Cirt/Jayen466 case, I have removed the "Others" part of your evidence section for this case, as it lies outside of the defined scope for the case. The Cirt/Jayen466 case, as determined by the Arbitration Committee, is to focus only on the conduct of those two editors. While some contextual information may be appropriate, as per my comments to Tryptofish on the evidence talk page, however evidence presented with the intention of seeking sanctions for other editors is not appropriate. If you believe this is a matter of concern, I would encourage you to file your evidence in the related "Manipulation of BLPs" case (linked to in the section above) or open a request for a new case at WP:A/R/C. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 23:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Please remove this page. WP:UP#POLEMIC. Will Beback talk 23:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Why are you acting so hatefully toward me? Jehochman Talk 03:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
User:Cla68/threat charges, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cla68/threat charges and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Cla68/threat charges during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Will Beback talk 07:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
It would probably be best if you don't use the unauthorized emails as evidence, and certainly not as carelessly as you have to date. Currently, you cite that incomplete and unauthorized record to claim that a user "apparently" lied to a third party who hasn't even complained about the alleged lie. This isn't helpful, and is a bit ironic in a BLP case. Please take it down immediately.
More generally, ArbCom has access to and familiarity with the complete unedited archive. It's unclear how commentary on a partial record would help clarify any editing issue with Prioryman. For example, when you opine that Prioryman should have been reminded to obey previous restrictions, we happen know that he was reminded and agreed to abide with existing restrictions.
If you believe he has violated those restrictions, it would be more useful to identify those violations. If your grievance is actually with ArbCom, please take it up with ArbCom rather than Prioryman.
Note that I am only speaking for myself here. ArbCom as a whole might formulate a general practice regarding unauthorized and leaked email evidence. Cool Hand Luke 17:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Cla68. Thank you for your recent submission of evidence for the Manipulation of BLPs Arbitration case. As you may be aware, the Arbitration Committee asks that users submitting evidence in cases adhere to limits regarding the length of their submissions. These limits, of User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header/Words words and User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header/Diffs diffs maximum, are in place to ensure that the Arbitration Committee receives only the most important information relevant to the case, and is able to determine an appropriate course of action in a reasonable amount of time. The evidence you have submitted currently exceeds at least one of these limits, and is presently at 618 words and 37 diffs. Please try to reduce the length of your submission to fit within these limits; this guide may be able to provide some help in doing so. If the length of your evidence is not reduced soon, it may be refactored or removed by a human clerk within a few days. Thank you! If you have any questions or concerns regarding the case, please contact the drafting Arbitrator or case clerk (listed on the case pages); if you have any questions or concerns about this bot, please contact the operator. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ArbClerkBOT( talk) 04:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
btw, this doesnt suggest what you have put in the evidence. The blocking checkuser/admin may have just noticed it was not blocked. I recommend talking asking Avi. John Vandenberg ( chat) 14:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Personal note this time, since the bot won't talk to you again about this case; the bot reports that you have 74 diffs in your evidence section in the BLP case; the limit is 50, so if you could shorten that down, it would be appreciated. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 05:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I have removed edits to your subpage by an ipsock of ArbCom banned/community banned editor Mikemikev ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Although I haven't checked, he probably took these from edits by me. For details of socking by Mikemikev, see for example Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev/Archive as well as the two sockpuppet category pages. The whole range of vodafone IPs was blocked by an arbitrator for three months earlier in the year because of his socking. Thanks, Mathsci ( talk) 07:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Since you seem unwilling to talk to me, which is odd given that you continue talking about me, I have left formal questions for you here. Please answer them. Jehochman Talk 15:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
First, I have removed the last sentence about Jehochman from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Evidence, because it was frivolous. Second, it is my view that the preceding paragraph is inaccurate, because Jehochman's closing comments at the RFC does not support your allegations. I will await your view on this issue over the next 24 hours; if you have not responded, I will summarily redact your evidence, because unfounded submissions are not accepted, and because arbitration is not a forum for slandering one's fellow editors. Thank you, AGK [ • 13:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
(outdent) Then I was correct; you accidentally misspoke when you said "only submissions that are finalised... are acceptable" - no new rule has been enacted. No worries, accidents of phrasing happen. Thanks for clarifying and correcting your error. KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 20:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Please put back the evidence you posted against me. We should deal with it finally. In the alternative you could post a statement that you no longer have any dispute with me. Now that we have come this far down the path, we should finish it one way or the other. Jehochman Talk 13:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to the club! I switched to Vibram FiveFingers last year after having knee trouble, and it's done wonders (also been taking glucosamine supplements). Kelly hi! 17:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Vitamin D can also work. After I started to take 5,000 IU/day a few years ago I made a lot of progress. I have now increased the dose, such that the total intake is about 10,000 IU/day from supplements plus vitamin D production in the skin. I explain here the rationale for this dose. Count Iblis ( talk) 17:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you are about be mentioned in this week's 'Arbitration Report' ( link). The report aims to inform The Signpost's many readers about the activities of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them in the Comments section directly below the main body of text, where they will be reader by the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievious factual errors, as well as refrain from edit-warring or other uncivil behaviour within the comments section. Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot ( talk) 21:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Please email me about a topic that, judging from your posts, is of concern to you: encyclogalactica@aol.com Thank you for your time. Killer440 ( talk) 17:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
To all interested parties, I have started a draft editor conduct RfC on Will Beback here. If interested, please help add examples of behavior you feel should be addressed. Cla68 ( talk) 00:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Cla68, do you think it's appropriate for someone who is either hiding their WP username, or is evading a block, to add evidence to an RFCU? It's on your user page so you can control who edits there. Will Beback talk 05:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Cla68, I see you have recruited Keithbob to endorse your RfCU. However I think that goes beyond what is allowed by the rules. The two people endorsing an RFC/U need to have both tried to resolve the same dispute. You two seem to be adding evidence about entirely separate disputes. Will Beback talk 01:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Years ago, in response to a BLP consensus at Talk:John Edwards, I wrote John Edwards extramarital affair - an article that is even now basically the same the version I wrote years ago,. I've tried hard to promote neutrality in political articles - I was the one who proposed community probation and more community input and admin involvement on articles related to Sarah Palin - and helped point out admin misconduct at the ArbCom Sarah Palin wheel war case...in which the involved admins got a wrist-slap at the time but were eventually de-sysopped and banned.
Around the time of the 2011 Tucson shooting, Will Beback started pushing negative information into Palin articles. I had been involved with the Palin articles for a couple of years - Will Beback went to WP:ANI and portrayed my long involvement with the articles at WP:COI, though I had never made any puffery edits to the articles involved. As a result, I abandoned involvement with political articles Kelly hi! 04:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Kelly please provide a link for that ANI. Was it this one [204] (section headed "Biased editing concerns" et seq.), from January 2011, where WB (1) offered numerous diffs as evidence of your allegedly biased editing in Palin articles and (2) contrasted the 3,700 word article on John Edwards's extramarital affair (an article to which you were a "prolific contributor," WB said) with your apparent view, according to WB, that 160 words on the association of Palin's rhetoric to the Tucson shooting was too much weight, etc.? I note you say that as a result of the ANI you abandoned involvement with political articles. Perhaps the ANI you refer to was some considerable time after January. You were still involved with Sarah Palin pages in June 2011. Writegeist ( talk) 06:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Please see the discussion on my talk page before it is disappeared. 24.18.132.102 ( talk) 09:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks much, Cla68, for responding to NW on my talk page. What was so odd about it is that the answers to those questions are well known. He need only have followed a couple of the threads that he referred to. Or asked his buddies. It, frankly, felt like yet one more instance of intimidation and harassment, especially since he's the Admin who banned Olive. I can't believe how much I've been persecuted for COI, including by Will Beback. But my editing and behavior has always been compliant. I've never been blocked, never received a warning from an Admin on my Talk page. Arbcom didn't find any facts against me last year, even though Will Beback presented diffs going all the way back to 2006, when I first arrived. I was banned on one occasion at WP:AE by Future Perfect for two months, and how many diffs did he present as evidence? Zero. I still don't know why I was banned. I'm glad you and JN and others have the courage to take on powerful factions and expose them. TimidGuy ( talk) 09:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding of Manipulation BLPs has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:
For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 15:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand your comment. Are you saying that the mystery RfC is about a dispute over the LaRouche articles, and that Keithbob has made a significant effort to resolve that dispute? Will Beback talk 04:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Don't you do it either. [205] Wait for the discussion to end and see what the conclusion is. Tom Harrison Talk 13:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
There's no reason a civil and rational disagreement about content has to cause any animosity between us, and I'll do what I can to see it doesn't. Tom Harrison Talk 13:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you noticed my question to you on my talkpage. If you wish to follow up on the issue you raised, please reply there at your convenience. Thanks, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 19:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Very concisely put. No chance you have any thoughts on how to better handle matters like this in the future? NW ( Talk) 03:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
A single revert is not revert warring. Where did you get that idea? have you never heard of WP:BRD? Will Beback talk 22:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
[206] Please don't revert war at the LaRouche movement article, especially when there is no consensus on the talk page to remove the material. Hipocrite ( talk) 23:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you will shortly be mentioned in this week's 'Arbitration Report' ( link). The report aims to inform The Signpost's many readers about the activities of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them in the Comments section directly below the main body of text, where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievious factual errors (making sure ot note such changes in the comments section), as well as refraining from edit-warring or other uncivil behaviour on project pages generally. Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot ( talk) 00:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Refusing to discuss edits while at the same time claiming there's consensus to make them is unproductive and uncollegial. It's essentially bullying. If you don't want to be part of the solution then please don't be part of the problem either. Will Beback talk 02:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
You say:
I think most editors active within a month are normal hobbyists in this sense. For precisely this reason, they are no help with wiki-controversies. They spend a few hours tending to their sport, or their TV show, or whatever interests them. Why would they wander into ANI to participate in passive-aggressive clean-language flame wars, or wander into hot topics where partisans are liable to drag them into other forums and perhaps even invade the quiet articles where our hobbyists dwell.
There are a lot of these people, but they don't engage in the drama, nor would they be effective at it if they did, due to time constraints. Who can blame them? Cool Hand Luke 03:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I rewrote the site layout section. It would be grateful if you could check and correct my English. Thank you. Oda Mari ( talk) 15:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Your questions about Sue Gardner's evaluation are better placed to members of the HR-Committee of the board, who can give you details.
I can assure you that you will be sorely disappointed though. Your usual hostility hinges on an assumption that we aren't doing things in the right way, when we are. There is a written evaluation, it does take into account quantifiable goals as well as other metrics.
I'd like to suggest that rather than going around blustering with a chip on your shoulder, you drop the attitude and volunteer to actually help. Your snide tone is useless.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 10:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Starting this past year, the annual plan includes specific targets. This year's targets were summarized in the announcement of the plan. – SJ + 14:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea of when your actual birthday was, but regarding this edit, [208] I wish you a happy birthday, no matter how belated! A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 01:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
This quote was expressed by Commander Adama in the fictional Battlestar Galactica episode " Water (Battlestar Galactica)". I'm curious about the military history behind it in RL, and the notable thinkers who have discussed it in the literature. Thanks for any pointers. Viriditas ( talk) 00:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
BTW, earlier today, Jill Tarter announced that SETI is receiving funds from the Air Force to search Kepler 22 and surrounding systems. Viriditas ( talk) 07:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Update: I think I found the answer to my question: Posse Comitatus Act. Viriditas ( talk) 07:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
The act authorizes the US military to take action within the borders of the United States, to indefinitely detain US citizens, and to deny US citizens their Article III rights to a jury trial. All these measures are in direct conflict with the rights of US citizens as set forth in the US constitution. [211]
So I thought I'd go see what's up with WR. You gave a passionate defense of it as somehow useful to Wikipedia.
What was just about the first thing I found? You speculating in a disgusting, juvenile, and insulting manner about my personal finances.
I was disappointed, but I also must admit: it's about what I expected from you and from WR.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 13:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
MOMGO, WikipediaReview is uncensored - people can speak their honest mind without getting banned, unlike Wikipedia. Here it's much worse because you have smug arrogant privileged editors baiting other editors into bannable 'incivility', applied with different standards to different editors, in order to censor critics. Furthermore, Wikipedia has all kinds of söperseceret forms, including Jimbo's own little secret star chamber where he called on the administrative staff of the world's largest reference site to go after Larry Sanger; "((jwalse)) he made up the "co-founder" bit after I fired him". MONGO, if you want to complain about truly venal on-line behavior, take a look at your own house first. -- PumknPi ( talk) 20:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
(replying to your comment at SG's talkpage, [212] since you're one of the few people whose opinion I care about)
Cla68, thank you, but are you understanding my point as well? I like the idea of recall. I liked it the first time I heard about it (when as a new Wikipedia editor, I saw the category on an admin's page). I entered the category voluntarily, and I have stayed in it voluntarily, even though I could have easily removed myself from the category years ago. There is nothing, absolutely nothing preventing me from removing myself from the category: There would be zero consequences. But I continue to stand by the standards which I have delineated at User:Elonka/Recall, and I am well aware that if I screw up, there will probably be no problem getting "senior Wikipedians" to endorse a recall request (in fact, sadly, I can think of three off the top of my head who would probably immediately endorse such a request, regardless of whether or not there was even any merit to it). But the key issue for me is, that the spirit of the recall process is that it's supposed to be used to remove an admin who has been screwing up. It's not something that's just supposed to be used as a political tool by a harasser, to intimidate an admin who has made no abuse of tools, and no violations of policy. If, on the other hand, an admin was making a bunch of bad calls, then a recall might be appropriate. Note I'm not talking about the occasional mistake that any human can make, or one of those borderline situations where different admins might legitimately disagree about the best way to deal with a situation. Instead, I'm talking about a really major "OMG s/he's out of control" kind of situation where an admin was doing things that most uninvolved members of the community would say was inappropriate. That is what recall is supposed to be for, as a mechanism to get rid of a bad admin. But the recall that was initiated in 2008 was initiated purely for political reasons, rather than because of an admin's actual actions. -- El on ka 19:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I might just take you up on that offer. Could you have a read through it (if you haven't already) and then drop me an email with your thoughts (unless you're on Skype, in which case we can discuss it in real time, but if not, email will do). Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
RFA is dying because of all the harassment and bad behavior. Want to run for RFA and show up those idiots from years ago? It would be hilarious if you did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Griefer ladness ( talk • contribs) 03:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
User:Cla68/Deliberation page, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cla68/Deliberation page and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Cla68/Deliberation page during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Hans Adler 12:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I (NAC) closed it, I think my reasoning is sound so hopefully it sticks. I think the drama of the MFD far outweighs any (real or perceived) harm to the encyclopedia. Cheers. Crazynas t 05:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I saw your comment at Talk:Michael_Crichton#POV_that_Crichton_is_wrong and was wondering if you'd like to participate in WikiProject on shoring up one of Wikipedia's great weaknesses (how ideas can be "ganged-up" on and effectively shut-out), as you put it there.
If I can drum up enough interest, I'll start a project like WikiProject horse training, but hopefully it will attract more participants, last longer, and have greater effect. -- Uncle Ed 14:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
A user seems bent on reverting to a version repeating unnecessarily that he is Korean. I don't see why his nationality needs be in the first line at all. I've reverted to an intro I made which I think is a lot nicer; but this person seems to show up each night and revert it. Since you also seemed interested in making a neutral article, I thought you might be able to share your input, or help improve it even better. The other party's version also (unfortunately) doesn't seem to flow as well (in my opinion)... I have a feeling this individual is alone in his opinion, and is going against the consensus. If you could watch this page I'd appreciate it. — LactoseTI T 05:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
"Gichin Funakoshi (船越 義珍 Funakoshi Gichin, 1868– 1957) was a karate master who formally introduced karate to the Japanese mainland in 1921. He was born in Okinawa, but spent most of his life living in Japan."
71.124.36.224 05:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Glad to hear that you felt my (very minor) edits were useful. I'm afraid, though, that I don't have any inside information about Linda Ham. Although I'm keenly interested in NASA and particularly in Mission Control, I don't have any sources of information apart from the usual, which you seem to have covered very well already. You might well be able to find the answer to those sort of questions by simply contacting NASA's Public Affairs Office, though.
The article is shaping up very well. I might pitch in a little more here and there if it wouldn't be stepping on your toes. MLilburne 14:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello. Thanks for you comment on my talk page, but as you can see from LactoseTI's comment, after reviewing the contributions from IP in question, he admits he "jumped the gun a bit", which is fair enough. While I do understand the fustration of vandal fighting it is important to ensure that good faith editors (whether logged in or not) are not caught up in the crossfire simply because they edit from similar geographic areas. However, my main point at the time was to correct the misunderstanding that uncited material must be tagged and should not be removed, as that was the basis of his warnings to the IP in question. While some editors choose to tag uncited claims, they are not required to do so, and in the case of uncited critism about living people, it must be removed. That is why I removed the section you tagged in Michael Crichton, as tagging was not the correct option in this case. WP:BLP is very clear on this matter - if it's critism about a living person and uncited, remove it. When it comes to non-living people, the rule isn't as absolute, but straight removal of uncited material is still perfectly acceptable hence why I pointed out that the warning someone for taking such actions (which are justified by one of the core policies) wasn't the correct thing to do. I tend towards the stricter side of requiring immediate references, only adding {{ fact}} tags to minor details, but as I pointed out to LactoseTI, even for those taking a less strict view, tagging must only be a temporary measure, because in the end, it must boil down to one thing - "cite or remove". Regards, MartinRe 12:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I saw your report on WP:AIV. Kindly keep in mind that you need to warn users before you report them on this page. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 12:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Nice work. I like quality new contributors to wikipedia (like myself) Ernst Stavro Blofeld 14:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
your edit in my page is non factual and is in fact bad faith in itself, i consider it a vandalism to my page. I was concerned with the libel in it after revewing WP:BLP concerning some other case (being on the other side). No, i'm not the same as mantanmoreland... that's ridicilous and bad faith too since it's obvious we're not, though I've become interested in some of his interests and vice-versa, that's true. Amoruso 23:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
As to sources, the material about Weiss' education and early jobs probably comes from Weiss' blog. http://www.gary-weiss.com/bio.htm
Blogs are not always reliable as sources, of course, but it isn't clear to me why anybody would suspect Weiss of lying in the particular respects at issue here (do you really pad your resume by pretending to have working at a newspaper in Hartford, Conn.?). -- Christofurio 01:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
(removing edit by confirmed sockpuppet of User:Wordbomb)
Re [1] You reinstated a bad faith vandalism warning from the anon user in question. I and an administrator had removed personal attacks. The page of the anon user in question was semiprotected to prevent reversion of the personal attacks. Please desist from edits of that character. Thanks. -- Mantanmoreland 07:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Re [2], use of the term "self promotional" is on the cusp between aggressive POV-pushing and vandalism. Please stop.
Also, re your various comments on the Gary Weiss talk page and elsewhere (such as use of the phrase "bad faith " in [3]), please refrain from personal attacks and ad hominem comments, and please address your comments to the article and not the editor. -- Mantanmoreland 11:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Greetings, Cla68. I saw your afd for the Gary Weiss. My concern is that it links to a non-Wikipedia site for its evidence. Technically, we're not supposed to accept off-Wikipedia evidence. What's worse, that particular site tries to "out" some Wikipedia members, posting alleged personal information and libel against them. By an earlier arbcom ruling, links to "attack sites" can be deleted by anyone, and although the page you link to isn't really problematic, the site arguably is.
For both those reasons, I'm going to remove your link. It's nothing personal, and I don't have a stake at all in whether the Gary Weiss article should be kept or not. Feel free to summarize the info from that site into the afd page. All the best, – Quadell ( talk) ( random) 17:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm curious whether I'm one of the alleged "three socks" to whom you refer in the Afd. For what it's worth to you, I'm nobody's sock. If you're determined to believe I am, I suppose you can. I'm just curious about the reference. -- Christofurio 14:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Cla, could you say what you meant this by comment, please? "Now that 'high administrator' protection for that article has apparently ended, we can methodically work on ensuring that the article belongs on Wikipedia ..." SlimVirgin (talk) 19:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Re yer note on my page, I appreciate the civil tone but to be frank I simply don't believe any cleanup is necessary and that the article is fine as it is. This is a basic brief journalist bio written in neutral tone and is comparable to similar journalist bios. See Gerald Posner, Penny Lernoux and pretty much every other journo biog you can find. Posner's doesn't have a single cite and the source is obviously his website. I fail to see how festooning Posner's bio with cites and footnotes pointing to his site adds much value and it is the same for Weiss. I simply took the bio data out of that website [7], and you are right that the site is down. I agree that the libel suit does not belong, as it is undue weight at the current length as well as anything shorter. It is fairly brief as is and I can't see much point in cutting, except maybe the quote.-- Mantanmoreland 10:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I fixed as much concerns as possible. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 21:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Cla, I have to tell you once more that it is a violation of Wikipedia policy and a blockable offense to post or restore comments that seek to "out" another editor, whether accurately or otherwise. Please don't add or restore such comments again. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 09:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Cla68, read this entire page very carefully and consider taking directions on what to do on wikipedia from someone else besides the 2 editors that have an usual interest in this matter. Read all of antisocialmedia.net's front page, you'll find answers, troubling ones, to your questions 71.70.155.234 04:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
A while ago, you were so good as to take a look at my article on Glynn Lunney and offer some suggestions. I was wondering whether you would be willing to do so again. It is now up as a featured article candidate, but has rather a shortage of reviewers, perhaps due to the specialised nature of the topic. If you have the time to take a look at it and either support or object, I would be very grateful. Thanks. MLilburne 09:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the barnstar, and still more for the advice and support that you've offered at various stages of the FAC process. It was the Linda Ham article that first gave me the idea and the hope that I could actually get Glynn Lunney all the way to featured status. My next project is Chris Kraft, but I'm planning to take a long hard look at Space Shuttle Columbia disaster over the Christmas holidays, and see what I can do. MLilburne 10:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I'm acting as advocate for an editor who has been having issues with Mitsos. As part of the DR process, we have opened an RfC in order to get community input on behavior that several users feel is uncivil and biased. Seeing as how you have interacted with Mitsos in the past, we would appreciate any input you may have on the matter. Please visit the Request for Comment page and leave your thoughts. Thanks very much, → Bobby ← 16:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I had picked up your name on the Allied war crimes during World War II page. I saw in the history that Mitsos had changed your edit with the explanation " rvv this is vandalism the article is blanked" even though your revision clearly wasn't blanked. When I looked at it more closely today, I saw that Mitsos was probably referring to an earlier edit by another user, even though his edit summary made it look like he was accusing you. Sorry I contacted you about this; I should have looked at the history a bit more closely. That being said, if you want to head over to the RfC, I'm sure the community would appreciate your comments. Cheers, → Bobby ← 13:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Cla68, I am not sure if this is the place to do it but I wanted to express my gratitude to you. I am just a user here, no edits. I somehow picked up on a recent confrontation you had with another editor, Mantanmoreland, and it got interesting enough that I dug deeper and deeper trying to follow the story (and learning how Wikipedia works and the terminology in the meantime). Let me say as an outsider that it is clear what is going on. Not just clear but blatant. It has totally changed my view of what has happened to Wikipedia at this stage in its development.
But all is not lost, as long as people like you take principled stances even when the time/effort/headache cost is hard to justify. Every society big and small absolutely needs people like that. I don't know if you are actually involved with the military in real life or if this is just a hobby but I'd like to think you are. I remember having enjoyed the movie "A Man for All Seasons" about Sir Thomas More and my username is a quote from that (albeit misconjugated), "To stay silent is to give consent" . I can't think of a situation more apt. Obviously nothing earth shattering is going on here but most systems are corrupted/killed by a thousand paper cuts while decent people stand by and do nothing.
The people involved in this argument may think they smoothly "handled" a situation by using Wiki legalese and being persistent and watching each other's backs but they are wrong. They have made a minor spectacle of themselves.
Anyway, I got carried away. I just wanted to say thank you for your efforts. It moved me enough to write. I am sure for every one person who says it, there are a hundred who think it. QuiTacetConsentiret 23:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
As a courtesy, I wanted to draw advise you of my response to your comments in AN/I, in case you're not monitoring that page.-- Mantanmoreland 15:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Dear Cla68,
I noticed that you have a lot of experience with getting articles to FA status. I have been working on the Ohio Wesleyan University page article and am trying to get it to FA status. I was wondering if you could provide some advice on how the article can be improved? Also, any contributions to it will be even more appreciated! Thank you so much for your time! I greatly appreciate it! WikiprojectOWU 01:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
You have made an entry on my talk page regarding Rex Germanus ( talk · contribs) original report [10] on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. He has filed another report there since. Please check the case again, and update your comments. Thanks in advance. -- Matthead discuß! O 22:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your helfpul edits to the article. This is the kind of help that will get the article to FA status. Thank you again! WikiprojectOWU 01:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Dear Cla68,
Happy New Year! And thank you so much once again for you very helpful comments. I included all of them and I included numerous suggestions made by various reviewers. Do you mind taking a look one more time at the article Ohio Wesleyan University. Any comments will be very much appreciated!!! WikiprojectOWU 19:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the cites that he's an Eagle Scout, but please format them properly. You may want to add them to his main artilcle too. This Eagle Scout list is a featured list, so the cites need to be in a standard format. Rlevse 03:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
We actually have discussed removing some trivia on the Southwest Airlines article - I invite you to join the discussion. Cheers! -- Matt 15:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Dear Cla68,
Thank you again for leaving me feedback for the Ohio Wesleyan University. I addressed the two concerns regarding the lead paragraph and the referencing that you brought up in January. Thank you once again! I just nominated the article in the FAC process. LaSaltarella 19:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
By the way, are you an admin? If not, would you like to be? If so, I'd be happy to nominate you. —wwoods 20:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your helpful comments on my ANI posting regarding User:Orangemarlin. Could you please take a look at this? I imagine he feels justified by part of this discussion, where another editor comments that he likes my extensive refactoring of the Talk:Evolution but mentions refactoring should have broad consensus. Gnixon 04:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
You wrote:
We can use all the help you can give us at WP:WPSPAM! Check out the talk page if you haven't already. -- A. B. (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Cla68, please refrain from posting links to sites that attack or attempt to 'out' Wikipedia editors. If you persist in doing so, you could be blocked. Many thanks, Crum375 18:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to see what happened in your RfA; you were a very deserving candidate. SlimVirgin did almost the exact same thing to me in my RfA two months ago, smearing me with wild accusations about WordBomb. I hope you'll try again in a few months and come into it fully prepared to fend off the accusations. Everyking 13:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Cla68 - Thank you for responding to my Q7 in your RfA. Your RfA closed 2-1/2 hours after your Q7 response, so I was unable to reply in the RfA. Since the RfA is closed, the point seems moot. If there is anything to be taken away from your RfA is that SlimVirgin and Mantanmoreland do not seem to think that you are trustworthy and they still feel hurt. I do not know Mantanmoreland, but have seen enough of SlimVirgin's posts to know that she is honest in expressing what she believes. Other than deleting the diffs, there isn't much else that can be done about the past. In the end, it comes down to that some people still feel hurt by what happened and you are in a position help resolve their feelings. Jimbo put it best in early March 2007 when he indicated that Wikipedia is built on us trusting each other and on human understanding and forgiveness of errors. [11] I think that your efforts to generate understanding were not well received because trust needs to come first. If you work on repairing SlimVirgin and Mantanmoreland's trust in you, there eventually may be understanding and then perhaps forgiveness. Best wishes. -- Jreferee 15:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, I just noticed your request for page protection posted to WP:ANI. You should probably file at WP:RFPP. Regards, Flyguy649 talk contribs 04:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I said that there "appears to be a pattern." I know that she banned User:ManEatingDonut in the middle of a content dispute. I have seen it alleged in other cases, but I haven't the time to investigate the other cases, plus it is difficult to communicate with banned users. I suppose I could remove the phrase, or modify it. What would you recommend? -- NathanDW 05:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
hey, please quit being an enormously sensitive fag, fag. xoxo, 69.143.136.139 03:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate you taking the time to look over my contributions and cites on Masada. As I previously mentioned, as jayjg did not communicate with me or even publicly justify his actions to revert and ban me, I wrote to him on his talk page asking: "Can you please explain why you've blocked me from editing articles and reverted all my contributions, even from past articles? Specifically Masada, why have you reverted it to a state that predates my edits and now leaves no mention of the glaring fact that in Israel and int'l academic circles the myth of Masada has been exposed by various authors of high repute and published in major publications? Why have you not attempted to communicate with me about any of this? Have you read the cites I provided? Are you aware of any reputable sources that contradict these sources?"
As you can see, here, he undid my question and removed it from his talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk%3AJayjg&diff=144103240&oldid=144098410 I don't think anyone with the powers of administration should be behaving like this. My worry is that he will further ban me so I'll be unable to correspond. Truth-evenifithurts 04:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello Cla68, I just noticed your RFA and saw the comments left by SlimVirgin. Sorry but I must oppose unless I get a full explanation for your poor judgment in linking to an attack site and supporting a banned user over an Wikipedia admin in good standing. Nothing personal against you but I always take a strong stand against harassment of Wikipedians. Burn out is a real problem for our best admins due to the harassment they face daily. Take care, FloNight 12:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
It seems from your talk page and some of your recent interactions with users that you are a sort of pov-crusader. This may or may not surprise you, but I'd ask that you at least consider it. If several people are suggesting it may be true, chances are they aren't claiming it from a vacuum. It would make me happy if you could be sensitive to the fact that, no matter how noble you think your intentions are. After all, you're not working on the encyclopedia for your own benefit, it matters what your peers and readers think.
Food for thought. 17.255.240.146 01:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
The user User:Heatedissuepuppet has been editing your summary of the article (which I felt was a fair representation of the article contents) to remove mention of Metropolis (he is an anti-Metropolis troll, see his history). I felt that rather than have an unbalanced intro that the entire summary you added would be better removed for now. If, however, you would like to put it back in I would not object. Sparkzilla 00:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Cla68, I just got accused via a formal checkuser of being "wordbomb". i notice a friend of this aaccuser also obliquely tried to pin the wordbomb scarlet A on you as well by trying to say you were from Utah. Coy that one. Any ideas on how to edit any articles that he who cannot be named except on holier-than-all-of-us's userboxes has also edited without getting framed and banned? Piperdown 23:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Sure, it's fine by me. Everyking 03:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if you would be so kind as to make a comment regarding the proposed merge of Metropolis (English magazine in Japan) and Crisscross. Discusion is here: Talk:Crisscross. Sparkzilla 11:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
A RfC has been started regarding the use of sources (including Metropolis) as "exceptional claims" on the above article. As an previously interested party, your input would be most valued. Comment Talk:Nick_Baker_(prisoner_in_Japan)#Request_for_comments. Thank you. Sparkzilla 06:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Biography is holding a three month long assessment drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unassessed articles. The drive is running from June 1, 2007 – September 1, 2007.
Awards to be won range from delicacies such as the
WikiCookie to the great
Golden Wiki Award.
There are over 110,000 articles to assess so please visit the
drive's page and help out!
This drive was conceived of and organized by Psychless with the help of Ozgod. Regards, Psychless Type words!.
Hi. Thank you for reviewing the David Lewis (politician) article. I'll try to clean it up, per your suggestions, by Monday. I've been waiting a month for someone to give me some feedback. Best regards. -- Abebenjoe 01:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I've reviewed the article. Please see my comments at the talk page. -- Der yck C. review my hometown! 08:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The short answer is that Anynobody hasn't the faintest idea of what he's talking about. There's nothing wrong with what you're doing here. Kirill Lokshin 08:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Self-RfCs have never needed an administrator's counter-signature to be valid. You're fine. Mackensen (talk) 14:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
As part of a response to your RfC, SlimVirgin has declared that a post from an IP in a New Jersey suburb that "vandalized" Mantanmoreland's user page is from "wordbomb". As she is declaring in the same post that wordbomb is a certain person to works for Overstock and resides in Utah, I'd thought you like to use that information in your response. I have reviewed the "wordbomb" sock page, and a large percetange of the IP addresses listed are scattered throught the US, including metro Atlanta, the NJ-NYC metro area. These were "socked" by SlimVirgin in a blanket wordbombing it appears. I think you'd also be interested Piperdown 21:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
SV also lists herself as one of the admins who reviewed this case last year. Could you ask this person why User:mantanmoreland removed his reference to himself being the nephew of user:LastExit, why LastExit refers to himself of an Uncle of a wikipedian, and why LastExit contains a sockpuppet notice on his userpage? It's bit odd for an uncle and a nephew to converse with each other in real time on their user talk pages, instead of off-wiki communication, don't you think? Piperdown 21:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the note on your RfC. I've left you a comma-laden reply at User talk:Dekimasu. I haven't contributed much to the RfC page itself, but I may come back to it in the future. Dekimasu よ! 02:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
—Remember, the Edit will be with you, always. (Sethdoe92) (drop me a line) 17:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC) I'm busy preparing to become an admin
Well, it was tagged with the project tag... ;-)
(But, really, the various reviews are there as assistance for those who want it; you're under no obligation to go through them all if you don't feel the need. Certainly, for someone with your level of FA experience, I suspect that they're more formalities than anything else at this point.) Kirill Lokshin 01:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your help on the Nottingham Panthers article GA review. I've now done all that was requested that you believed neccessary when the article was put on hold. PanthersGirl 20:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
No problem. :) -- Neutrality talk 06:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
From my talk page:
Cla68, have you considered a partnership with a wikipedian who can remove edits [15] to erase any evidence of any past edits you have made that could be used against you in a kangaroo court of wikipedia? Might be the way to go. If your edits on GW are just erased by a magic wand of unaccountability, all your wikiproblems could be solved. It almost worked for Nixon with his tapes. Everyone needs a secretary with a finger on the big red erase button, don't they? ;-) Piperdown 04:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Since your user page doesn't say you have a page on meta wiki, lack of authentification proof, the endorsement submitted by that account will be removed. Just for your information. -- Aphaia 04:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
For supporting my nomination for adminship, I appreciate it. Grant | Talk 03:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your participation in my recent RfB. Though it closed with 72% support (below the required 90%), I'm still quite pleased at the outpouring of support shown by a fair percentage of the community.
I'm currently tabulating and calculating all opposing and neutral arguments to help me better address the community's concerns about my abilities as a bureaucrat. If you'd like, you can follow my progress (and/or provide additional suggestions) at User:EVula/admin/RfB notes. Thanks again! EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Cla68, for participating in
my RfB, which ended unsuccessfully with a final tally of (80/22/3). |
A new elimination drive of the backlog at Wikipedia:Good article candidates will take place from the month of July through August 12, 2007. There are currently about 130 articles that need to be reviewed right now. If you are interested in helping with the drive, then please visit Wikipedia:Good article candidates backlog elimination drive and record the articles that you have reviewed. Awards will be given based on the number of reviews completed. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :{{ GAReview}} underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the drive's talk page. Please help to eradicate the backlog to cut down on the waiting time for articles to be reviewed.
You have received this message either due to your membership with WikiProject: Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Wikipedia:Good article candidates/List of reviewers. -- Nehrams2020 03:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks in part to your support, I am Wikipedia's newest bureaucrat. I will do my best to live up to your confidence and kind words. Andre ( talk) 09:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I was looking for a prettier way to do this, but I'm not very artistic, so I'll just say thank you for your support in my RfA, which was closed as successful. I look forward to serving the community in a new way. Take care! -- But| seriously| folks 09:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Congrats on the recent promotion of the Michael Brown Okinawa assault incident. Keep up the good work. KnightLago 03:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi - In case you were wondering, your sig showed up as CLA at WP:WBFAN since that's how your most recent FA nom was signed (at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/July 2007). Direct edits at WBFAN are generally overwritten the next time I run the bot - I changed your sig at Wikipedia:Featured articles nominated in 2007 so it will stick. -- Rick Block ( talk) 22:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you | ||
Thank you for your support of my recent unsuccsessful rfa, which concluded today with a final tally of 22/15/3. The comments and suggestions from this rfa, combined with the comments left during my first rfa, have given me a good idea of where I need improvement. — TomStar81 ( Talk) 05:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC) |
Hi there:
I think all the copyedit work has been completed on the David Lewis (politician) article, thereby completing the last item on your to-do list before it can be reviewed again. So I was wondering if you could take a look at the article and give it your seal of approval? Thanks again for your insights, they did improve the article substantially. -- Abebenjoe 14:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Saldivar.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi there Cla. I have tried to address your concerns where I feel that they are applicable. Regards, Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 09:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Cla. Thank you for your words of support. As I mentioned to EliminatorJR, I do not intend to give up, as I do not wish to give the cliques who have opposed me the satisfaction. It will certainly be interesting to see if I can "claw back" enough support votes to come through! Number 5 7 14:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Could you explain what in the Skúli Þórsteinsson article you believe requires cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards? Haukur 18:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I noticed you had a ton of featured articles. I have two pages nominated for GA, would you mind taking a pass at them? They are 2007 Peruvian meteorite event and Joe Szwaja. Thanks! • Lawrence Cohen 23:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
We couldn;t do it without you. 129.108.206.206 21:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Would you mind taking a gander at Storm botnet and Ballard Carnegie Library? The Carnegie I submitted for GA, but I don't think Botnet is quite there yet. And, thanks to your help, 2007 Peruvian meteorite event passed GA! • Lawrence Cohen 05:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Please do not edit the RfC statement in Talk:Gary Weiss. As originally drafted it contains neutral language. Please stop your POV pushing and please be aware of the three revert rule.-- Samiharris 03:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
This account has been blocked for 24 hours for WP:POINT at Talk:Gary Weiss after repeated warnings. Durova Charge! 21:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Dissent will not be tolerated. -- arkalochori |talk| 23:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I almost never assign blocks shorter than 24 hours because they often do more harm than good, but this request comes from Jimbo. For the good of the project, please set the right example by coming back to the page with solid references and strictly topical discussion. Durova Charge! 01:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Cla68. I have sent you an email in response to your Veropedia inquiry. We would love to have you on board. If you do not use IRC, please send me another email and we can get things done that way. Danny 18:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. The Preity Zinta article has recently achieved A-class status. Due to the wealth of support I have decided to now nominate for an FA class article which I believe and judging by the comments of others is pretty much up to. In my view it is better than some existing FA actor articles. I would therefore be very grateful if you could give it a final review in your own time and leave your comments and views at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta. Thankyou, your comments are always valuable. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 10:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
This [18] is absolutely unacceptable. The incident is long past, well and truly dead and buried, and has been explained to the satisfaction of all concerned. If you repeat this nonsense you may be blocked from editing for harassment, because that is what it is. Guy ( Help!) 13:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
It appears they are one in the same? Time stamps of block are somewhat curious. Here is what I wrote on my talk page; it will likely be reverted: "Good questionCla68. I will discuss this when I am back in the U.S. Right now, I have been blocked by "Sarah" / JzG. It appears by the time stamps that they are on a team?" 68.192.34.33 ( talk) 15:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Your assumption of bad faith is duly noted, but was in this case quite wrong. Your post to !!'s talk was trollish and incivil, designed to inflame rather than bring calm to an already tense situation. Thank you for the warning, allow me to respond in kind: stop trolling or you may be blocked from editing. Feel free to rephrase your statement of support on !!'s talk page in a way that is less offensive. Guy ( Help!) 15:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
You candidate question to my arbitration nomination could have probably been better answered on my talk. I know you disagreed with my use of the tools, and made a bad faith assumption. You attempt to bring that dispute to my nomination subpage appears inappropriate. Regards, Mercury 01:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think those questions are helpful. Respectfully request you withdraw them. Durova Charge! 02:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I have diffs which clearly indicate you have maintained an ongoing campaign of harassment against User:SlimVirgin. I'm going to make a formal request now that you cease this harassment. Thanks.-- MONGO ( talk) 04:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
No..I am acting on my own. I have, as I mentioned, seen too many postings by you regarding SlimVirgin and I was only trying to get you refocused away from long dead issues so that you can resume article writing. Anyway, have a good one.-- MONGO ( talk) 08:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
... here. I don't know if it's significant, but I thought this seemed a bit contrived at the time. Maybe I'm wrong. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 11:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
"'I believe that Jimbo's credibility has been greatly damaged because of his open support for these people,' says Charles Ainsworth."
Open support for which people?
-- Jimbo Wales 14:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Being familiar with the stalking and trolling that eminates from Wikipedia Review, I must say that I am certainly sympathetic to the creation of a private discussion board to counter-act it. That said, I am deeply concerned that we are allowing paranoia to take over the upper echelons of the Wikipedia Community. Some of the arguments I have seen concerning BADSITES and related matters coming from respected, established admins (and even ArbCom members) are honestly quite unbelievable. And now this. Frankly, it seems that Giano called a spade a spade and was punished becuase of it. The fact that the establishment (including Jimbo) came down on him so harshly unfortunately leaves egg on the face of the entire Wikipedia project. Of course what's done is done, and it seems most everyone is in agreement that the whole thing was an over-reaction and blown out of proportion. The only thing we can do now is ask how do we keep this rampant paranoia from getting out of hand? Clearly much of it is justified, but that doesn't change the fact that it is hurting Wikipedia. Kaldari ( talk) 03:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Harassment can be serious business; real-life stalking always is. While I support the idea of Wikipedia developing an official program for victims of Wikipedia-related harassment and cyberstalking (which I can attest personally does occur), I am concerned that Wikipedia needs to know its limits in this matter. Some sympathy and practical assistance is at the top of the list. Consideration needs to be given to whether or not the Foundation will release the collected information on the alleged harasser/stalker to police at the request of the victim; as the policy is a Foundation one, there may be value in discussing a comprehensive response process with other projects.
I will also add that I am somewhat concerned that, while the members of this group include individuals who have experienced stalking and real-life harassment, it is unlikely that any of them have any training in the skills required to assist victims most effectively. Support groups are good, but they are usually led by professionals or at minimum well trained volunteers. Risker ( talk) 03:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Clarification Since Cla has said that I "pointed out" SlimVirgin was lying, I'd like to be clear. I did not, and do not, accuse anyone of lying, and I rather resent being misrepresented. Slim made accusations about arbcom members leaking. I have no idea whether they are true or not. My comlaint, which Slim has graciously accepted, is that she should not have publicly implied that JamesF leaked, and that she disbelieved his assurances, without providing evidence. She should have discussed the matter privately with James and if dissatisfied gone to Jimbo, Arbcom, of the foundation. People should not make unsubstantiated allegation. And people should not accuse others of lying, or of calling people liars. Some of my own talk has been careless and open to misunderstanding, and for that I apologise to all parties. But, again, I have no reason to believe that Slim is lying.-- Docg 09:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
You have said that I "pointed out" SlimVirgin was lying, so I'd like to be clear. I did not, and do not, accuse anyone of lying, and I'm sorry of my careless comments on IRC have led you to that conclusion. Slim made accusations about arbcom members leaking. I have no idea whether they are true or not. My complaint, which Slim has graciously accepted, is that she should not have publicly implied that JamesF leaked, and that she disbelieved his assurances, without providing evidence. She should have discussed the matter privately with James and if dissatisfied gone to Jimbo, Arbcom, of the foundation. People should not make unsubstantiated allegation. And people should not accuse others of lying, or of calling people liars. Some of my own talk has been careless and open to misunderstanding, and for that I apologise to all parties. But, again, I have no reason to believe that Slim is lying. You should not make that allegation unless you can provide evidence.-- Docg 09:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
FYI, I am alerting user's who have voted to oppose based on my comments about the Durova matter that I have written a longer statement regarding my views on the matter which I hope clarifies a few points of apparent misunderstanding. See User:JoshuaZ/Statement regarding Durova and !!. Thanks. JoshuaZ ( talk) 02:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for this. I can be awfully untidy at times. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 14:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Can I ask that you return to this comment and either expand or redact? As it is, it doesn't add any information as to why you think she should knock it off.
CygnetSaIad (
talk)
04:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Your comment on Viridae's talk page about being reverted (rightly, I'll add) at Doc's talk was simply wilfully encouraging disruption. Brandt is banned, as you both know. When banned users avoid their block to post to Wikipedia, the correct response is to remove the comment and not hinder others doing that and certainly not to encourage them to continue. There's a limit to how much disruption via enabling banned troublemakers the community is willing to put up with. Do not continue to enable or help others enable banned editors to ignore their bans and continue to disrupt Wikipedia. FeloniousMonk ( talk) 04:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Ironic that you should have asked me about that last night. This diff happened about 3 hours later, followed by Talk:Animal_testing#Editing. I'm not expecting you to do anything abut it, SV is well-known for this, but the timing was too good not to mention. All the best Tim Vickers ( talk) 15:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi there! You said that "There have been a couple of recalls recently, and I'll mention names if anyone wants me to". I would appreciate it if you would add such names to Category talk:Wikipedia administrators open to recall/Past requests, and add a brief explanation of the nature of the request, and what happened (did they talk it out, did the admin ignore it, did he claim the requester didn't "qualify", etc). Thanks, >Radiant< 18:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
"so I don't think it's inappropriate for Giano to bring it up here." Neither do I. Rather, it is the way he brought it up that I believe is problematic. I hope you can understand my sentiments. Cheers — Cronholm 144 01:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Prompted by this edit of yours: Please explain your beef with the article on its talk page. Thanks. -- Hoary ( talk) 05:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
You lamented that I did not identify individual parties. Wikipedia talk:No original research#Discussed and undiscussed edits lays out a picture-perfect example of those "I say so"/revert tactics, though obviously directed against myself instead of COGDEN. If I find the time, I will dig up further refs and make an additional comment in the RfC. Vassyana ( talk) 14:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd pitch in where I can (especially given JzG's latest response), but I just don't have the juice to be the driving force behind the RfC. I think DH might be willing, though. Mr Which ??? 01:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
(copied from my talk page)
given your prior comments, the talk page discussion at Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation may interest you.-- 69.203.81.71 ( talk) 01:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 22:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Cla, for your supportive contributions during this unpleasant incident; I am most grateful and appreciative. Kindest regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Not sure if you know, but it also turned out that some sockpuppets were involved in my wonderful RfA - User:Yeshivish was blocked a month or two after...
Anyway, I really hope that this RfAr will be able to do something. I felt that the strength of the oppose vote in my RfA handicapped me slightly from dealing with the pro-Israel lot, as were I to block any of them, then they've got a ready made excuse to decry my actions. Hopefully if there are some concrete findings and behavioural directives for the problematic editors I'll actually be able to do my duty properly in the future...
пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 01:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I noticed no one had posted a follow-up to Alison's note at David's talk page. It's possible he hasn't logged on since the AN thread heated up. Probably we've all been surprised occasionally to see a flareup after we took a day off. Let's assume good faith. I've urged him to drop by the noticeboard as soon as he's back online. Durova Charge! 07:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This arbitration case has closed and the final decision may be found at the link above. Giano is placed on civility restriction for one year. Should Giano make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Giano may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling. All parties in this case are strongly cautioned to pursue disputes in a civil manner designed to contribute to resolution and to cause minimal disruption. All the involved editors, both the supporters and detractors of IRC, are asked to avoid edit warring on project space pages even if their status is unclear, and are instructed to use civil discussion to resolve all issues with respect to the "admin" IRC channel. For the Arbitration committee, Thatcher 04:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Re: this - if there's a desire, I might be able to push through a Japanese translation for that page (and get someone who speaks it to handle the tickets). Raul654 ( talk) 17:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mantanmoreland beat you to it ;) SirFozzie ( talk) 03:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't you think that calling for WB to be allowed to return for this period as well as asking for accountability for actions taken some time ago is pushing it in terms of what will be permitted just a little? Relata refero ( talk) 11:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I bet my block is influential. I will not have any involvement in the RFC. MessedRocker ( talk) ( write these articles) 15:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for this source, I hadn't seen that one. Cheers, Cirt ( talk) 06:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/ e 17:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
In interest of avoiding political entanglements, etc. I must respectfully decline any and all involvement in the RfC. I don't quite understand how the politics of wikipedia work, and I'm more interested in spending my time improving the quality of articles anyway. I don't quite know what an RfC is, to tell you the truth. Pygmypony ( talk) 18:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Cla, please stop posting on SV's page, or otherwise harassing or stalking her, or anyone else. Crum375 ( talk) 12:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I should just keep my nose out of it, but an accusation of stalking is a little over the top. It is an emotionally charged word that brings with it ton of creepy suggestions. Maybe there is a better word than stalking to express whatever one is trying to express. Stalking refers to a criminal offense in most areas; it is a bad word to describe the actions of a person who is offended and civilly (if not repeatedly) trying to receive feedback from a person he has a dispute with. daveh4h 19:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Cla68, its like this. Your efforts to help wikipedia are very very appreciated. But everyone is different. Different things upset different people. British and American tastes in which words are fighting words is an example. Using the word "niggardly" around ignorant people is an example. Slimvirgin is an asset to wikipedia just as you are. What upsets her is different than what upsets you. Please accommodate our fellow human beings as much as you can when it comes to their individual sensitivities. Thank you. WAS 4.250 ( talk) 22:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not a question of differing sensibilities, British v. American English, etc., just a familiar move in a game of strategy that Cla68 doesn't need to play. Cla68, you have a wide and well-deserved reputation for (a) prolific and first-rate article content, and (b) scrupulous and courageous fairness regarding these marginal COI/NPOV/clique dramas. And other editors have an equally wide and well-deserved reputation for vulgarly exploiting a politics of victimhood, and using a moral rhetoric (of "harassment," "stalking," and so on) so grossly and irresponsibly inflated as to be meaningless. It's like one of those poignantly devalued currencies where you've got four zeroes on a bill and it's still not enough for a sandwich. No one believes your accusers, Cla68, so don't let 'em rattle your cage.-- G-Dett ( talk) 12:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
May I say, Cla68, that myself never having been involved in any of these instances, I have no reason to want to get into a fight with the "big swingers". And I have admiration for the contributions of SlimVirgin, not all of them but much of them. However, the practices of those bullybrigades who conspire to mug the less-protected in dark alleys is deplorable, and they know who they are.
I expect to draw flak for that comment, but it is one thing to voluntarily contribute to Wikipedia, and quite another thing to find oneself endlessly confronted on talkpage after talkpage with this garbage and bullying, which at this time seems to reverbrate from *BADSITES*. I am a minor editor, nil interest in politics, but I dont like walking through spew to get to work. If, somehow, the *BADSITES* war, can be finished with, with all involved parties well and truly injured and retired from the fray, that may be the best possible outcome for WP. I will gladly wear some incidental abuse then (I am bound to anyway, even just for breathing).
These are my personal views, so if I offend anyone here, let me (NBG) know. User:Cla68 had nothing to do with this statement. Newbyguesses - Talk 23:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 23:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not going to recuse from the case; long-standing arbcom precedent does not require us to be free of opinions about cases, but rather to recuse if we have an actual conflict of interest. I do not.
As always, I will examine the facts before us neutrally and without prejudice.
As to my opinions about Mr. Bagley - he is not a party to this arbitration in any case, as far as I can tell, so it is not very relevant. Yes, the case involves people with whom he has had long-standing disagreements, but that will not affect my judgment as to those people's actions.
Thanks, Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 00:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Asked here, about the precedent: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Proposed decision#Procedural question on recusal. Lawrence § t/ e 00:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Mantanmoreland's troubling treatment.
I'm not exaggerating when I say that this is the most important section in the case. It's not so surprising when people lie or try to advantage themselves, but we must learn how this was allowed to continue for so long. Cool Hand Luke 20:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Clarification: Gary Weiss has been oversighted. Talk:Gary Weiss was only admin deleted, by SlimVirgin Five edits are deleted. Just from an IP and reversions. Were adding {{Notable Wikipedian|various sockpuppets|Weiss, Gary}} and comments that "everyone knows Mantanmoreland is Gary Weiss." I have no idea what's missing from Gary Weiss, of course. Cool Hand Luke 08:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Crum did indeed admin delete SlimVirgin's talk page. However, ElinorD subsequently convinced her to undelete some of the deleted history and divided the history into several archives. Your edit sits deleted at User talk:SlimVirgin/temp. The log looks like this:
This is what you wrote:
Cool Hand Luke 08:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Also note the comment for Crum375's history delete—"trolling." Cool Hand Luke 09:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Could you explain (if you get time) some things to me about Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cla68. Do these processes close, or remain open for ever? There appear to be no posts since 01:53, 11 December 2007 Cla68 @Talk. Is there a "result", or has the "outcome" been satisfactory to you?
Is the Rfc closed, or could posts still be made there? Are you still bothered by the allegations which were made at the RFC, and repeated at your RFA? Was this offer ever made good on? Do not reply if you are too busy with the Arbcom. or other matters, or if you feel that commenting at this time is inappropriate. Thanks, Newbyguesses - Talk 03:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay. That RfC is still open as far as I'm concerned. Editors are still free to add (or retract) their endorsements to any of the statements listed there. In fact, once the current, related ArbCom case is closed, I'm going to add a link to it and a brief intro in a section on the RfC's discussion page. As far as I know that offer you mention wasn't made good on.
If you look at the evidence I'm presenting in the related ArbCom case [36], you can see that I am still bothered by what occurred in my RfA. One of the purposes of the RfC was to document what happened as a future reference as well as so that I could learn from the experience and from analysis and comments provided by others. One of things that bothers me the most about the RfA was that an active participant there and in the RfC, an admin, knowingly and mendaciously lied, and has never been held adequately accountable for doing so. Cla68 ( talk) 09:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Thankyou for your prompt reply. The question of a "result" is then moot, as the Rfc is still open, and I intend for the record to wait until you or other post there before making a contribution. It seems the purpose of an Rfc is to obtain Outside views; there have been a number of those to date in evidence, so that "outcome" has been achieved, but I cannot see anywhere there where you get answers to what seem reasonable requests to have evidence supplied, or accusations withdrawn. I will be following the Arbcom. case, though unlikey to post there (again;)? Newbyguesses - Talk 10:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Regarding your comments on my Talk: page, you say I was " heavily involved at one point in the issue"; can you explain what you mean by that? Also, why would I have special insight into oversight actions, or be able to provide dates and times for them? Finally, based on this statement, is it your position that what people post on off-Wikipedia websites is relevant to Wikipedia? Jayjg (talk) 02:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
While looking over your evidence, I visited the page of your RfA where I stumbled upon User:Blutacker. I had "flagged" the account, saying "This is the user's sixth edit, and his second outside Daniel Brandt" Since the Brandt article is deleted, only an admin could evaluate those 4 edits. At any rate, it's very clear that the account is a sockpuppet and I tagged the user page with {{ Sockunknown}}. I'm not sure if this means anything at all (probably not), but I thought I'd notify you of this find. Blutacker btw is the German name for Akeldama. User: Dorftrottel 06:01, February 18, 200 8
I am rather good at thwacking sock puppets. If you go for RFA again, I will be watching, and this sort of thing won't happen again. Jehochman Talk 02:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Arbcom case case At the current arbcom. case, here, user:mantanmoreland appears to be arguing that virtually every post to this case opposing their position is from a sock of Wordbomb!
Sockpuppeting
...Most of the contents of this page have been on the ASM website for well over a year. If Judd Bagley, Overstock's spokesman and operator of ASM, were not coordinating this, I am sure he would have a case for copyright infringement...(User:Mantanmoreland)
(DIFF?)
I may have misread, and I dont intend presenting evidence at this time, but if that is the same old argument, it is easily refuted. All known socks of WB are listed at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of WordBomb and none of them have posted to the arbcom. case, as far as i can see. FYI Newbyguesses - Talk 06:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
(further down) Look at
The editors who know Sami and I best, and are not necessarily friends of either of us, believe quite firmly that we are different people based on writing style and the positions we took, and didn't take, in 600-odd emails. (User:Mantanmoreland)
nbg/with respect, Mantan, it is not a matter of the editors who know you best, but of all the WPeditors, most of whom have never met you, your peers. FYI Newbyguesses - Talk 08:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Further:
I would ask, as a concerned observer, how does Cla68 answer this from User:Mantanmoreland --
Naked shorting is a subject that has received widespread news coverage, so naturally there are news articles cited. For most substantive points, the article relies on the SEC website.
user:mantanmoreland--He * Cla68* objects to this [158] perfectly proper edit by Samiharris, cutting the length of an overlong paragraph on the antisocialmedia.net smear campaign, correcting an inaccuracy that attributed an allegation to the wrong source.
How does Cla68 respond to this by Mantan?
That same edit also removed a notable journalist's comment:
'Bloomberg.com columnist Susan Antilla writes that the website attack on Weiss, "Is but the latest example of the public relations path Overstock and Bagley have taken to wage their bizarre battle against naked shorts."
(user:mantanmoreland)--The rest of his * Cla68's"evidence" relates to the raw deal he supposedly has gotten through much of his wiki-life, and has nothing to do with this arbitration.
nbg/with respect Mantan, it is for the arbitrators to decide what is to do with this arbitration, not yourself./nbg
That's what i would ask, if I were to haver evidence to present, i guess. Instead, I ask you FWIW, pardon I mean, FYI Newbyguesses - Talk 08:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
FYIGFDL-- my evidence, if I present it would be.. FYI Newbyguesses - Talk 09:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I have done it now. — Newbyguesses - Talk 16:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I would like to register a mild objection to your evidence against me in the Mantanmoreland case. Here "Overstock abusers" was a quote from the previous comment; you will note please that I also said that editors who used such tactics were absolutely not welcome to edit Wikipedia, unless they are willing to leave that behind them when they put on their Wikipedia hat. Clearly, if Piperdown or someone like him was willing to edit other topics, leaving Overstock, MM and associated topics behind, we would not even know he was here. And here please note that my comments about naked short selling obviously apply to Wordbomb but that my comments about misogynistic and antisemitic edits refers to other stalkers of SlimVirgin and others, not to Bagley. Finally, you can call this a poison pill if you like, but it is a fact that the suspicion was raised by more than one checkuser, and by at least one non-checkuser admin, and was a matter of consultation among myself and other checkusers before I answered the request, so it seems reasonable to mention it; if only to give an answer to those users and admins who may remember Wordbomb also using proxies and wonder whether it was looked into. Thatcher 01:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
What are you removing someone else's evidence for? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I wish this was undeleted because it has one of Mantanmoreland's most duplicitous statements. Anyhow, here's a deleted diff where he expands his initial comment: [37]. Admins would be able to see this:
Thanks for all your work. Cool Hand Luke 02:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you take a look at this proposed FoF of yours, where I've suggested an emendation based on a statement by dmcdevit. Of course, you might want to ask him additional questions, but it seems he would consider it a matter of courtesy to have some action taken asap. Relata refero ( talk) 19:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=15604&view=findpost&p=80617
Don't know if you have an account there, so he you are. Viridae Talk 11:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you ready to try for adminship again? I saw what happened last time and thought it was a shame. Jehochman Talk 23:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Regarding this, note the provision at WP:RFC that "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors." (Emphasis is in the original.) Just wanted to make sure you were aware since I've seen RFCs backfire. Raymond Arritt ( talk) 01:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I have notified everyone in the tried and failed to resolve the dispute bit, as well as durova and dan tobias - the former because she was in that part but I'm not sure she will want to take part and the latter because he expressed interest. Viridae Talk 11:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
As you know being part of that crowd, the discussion was started, restored and is being continued by several long running ax-grinders with Jimbo both on and off site. Transparently using 'concern' as a reason to air Jimbo's dirty laundry and create drama is by definition that is disruptive editing. For that reason alone it can and should be ended and archived. You want to discuss Jimbo's personal imbroglios? This isn't the place for it; do it offsite. FeloniousMonk ( talk) 15:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The credit for adding balance to that article in recent weeks goes to Msalt, Jayen466, Francis Schonken. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't mean to take the wind out of your sails with my comment. The point I mean to make is, we're being told scope is limited because certain names and issues weren't added to the case. That makes sense on the face of it, but I have doubts when I think of the impact that adding my own name to the case had: going from there is no dispute to yes, but your dispute is beside the point. If that distracts from the main thrust of your statement then feel free to remove my comments from that subthread. Durova Charge! 04:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi -- I'd like to see the sandbox(es) restored that were in use before the JzG2 RfC went live. Would you have a problem with that? A temporary restore would be ok too. Alternatively, I could ask an admin for a copy by email, but I'm also interested in the edit history. See also my request on Viridae's talk page here. Thanks. Avb 11:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, if you have a moment, would you mind reviewing User:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft? I'm just beginning to draft this, but given the recent situations I think this could be valuable to see what community mandates if any exist for changes the Arbitration Committee could be required to accept. My intention was to keep the RFC format exceptionally simple, with a very limited number of "top level" sections that were fairly precise. Please leave any feedback on User talk:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft. Thanks. Lawrence § t/ e 17:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, John Vandenberg ( talk) 02:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I've started a draft user conduct RfC here. Cla68 ( talk) 03:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
please remove item 9 from the sandbox draft. i'm not a party to this matter. Anastrophe ( talk) 07:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not in interested in witch hunts. Your arguments seem too fragmented to be coherient. Sorry about the bad spelling;) Ceoil ( talk) 13:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for informing me of your draft. I'm not familiar with the episode described therein, though my own experiences with the editor in question are eerily reminescent. I'm not sure adding them would help though, since they took place a little more than a year ago. I do admire your tenacity in expecting that all editors, even "highly respected" admins, be held to the same standards. I'm skeptical however that anything at all will ever be done given the tendency to ignore such complaints dealing with this editor's conduct in the past. I will follow how things develop though and intervene with comments if appropriate. Good luck! Tiamut talk 14:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The edits seem to be there. [39] Sometimes edit histories are misplaced when a page is cut-and-paste moved. Most of the admin work I do is fixing those. In this case it all looks right to me. Cool Hand Luke 04:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
You're right, there's no "real objection", as long as you ignore all the people who object. In any event, please get a real consensus for this significant policy change before attempting to modify policy. Jayjg (talk) 01:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Cla68...once again, I remind myself of your excellent FA work and thank you for those articles. However, I see you are working on another potential Rfc here...what exactly is the problem between you and Slim? I would like to once again ask you to resume your excellent article work and well, let bygones be bygones. I thought this issue was long dead by now...why is it still festering?-- MONGO 02:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad you found the SlimVirgin diff. I have seen other cases too but I can't readily find them. There isn't much institutional memory here. :-) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 05:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The content of List of animal rights activists ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as of December 2006 was moved, with history, to Animal rights movement (list) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which was then redirected to Animal rights movement ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Hope that helps! Kirill 03:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Cla68.
I've followed your RfC on SlimVirgin and maybe these links can be helpful.
Also, you've got to be very careful. Scarfullery, who pointed out that you should investigate the articles on Pierre Salinger and the Pan Am Flight 103, was banned by Jpgordon, who accused him/her of being a sockpuppet of User: Flor Silvestre. It happens that some time ago, Flor Silvestre made some edits about Salinger and the PanAm 103 case, and was blocked too.
These articles history was deleted (by Jpgordon or JzG, I don't recall) just as SlimVirgin deleted her edits on Pierre Salinger and the Pan Am Flight 103. -- Caravato ( talk) 17:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to send you an e-mail. -- Goldfingaaa ( talk) 23:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I have replied to each question raised - as long as that question was based on my wikipedia edits. I refuse to discuss accusations made by outside source which are not supported in any way by diffs within wikipedia. This is a fundemntall issue of keeping disputes and accusation outside wikipedia seprate from what takes place here. All my edit are in good faith and if you find any of my edits that need to be explained or discussed I will gladly do so. Zeq ( talk) 07:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [47] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.-- Filll ( talk) 20:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
You aren't an admin, so this comment was uncivil. There was absolutely no consensus that I have misused Twinkle, and I dare you to show me exactly one statement anywhere on Wikipedia on the how to use Twinkle other than "stay within the rules of Wikipedia." Which I have done. Prove otherwise, or I suggest you apologize on my page or here. I don't care. Based on what I've read of your contributions, I don't expect an apology, so I suggest you stay off my page, unless it's to apologize. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if OrangeMarlin, Jim62sch, and their friends are aware how close they are to having their real names in the press in a story about a group of POV-pushers on Wikipedia? They probably aren't aware, as they appear to be amazingly myopic.
That reads quite a bit like a threat to out people. It's off-wiki, so you can be as rude as you want, but your threat to out people strikes me as rather beyond the pale. Guettarda ( talk) 17:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
<undent>Also, I suggest you do as dave souza suggests before engaging in further braying; that is, take a look at some of the background of this case. The RfC represents just the tip of an immense iceberg. If you believe after reading that material carefully in detail that Moulton was somehow hard done by or treated unfairly on Wikipedia, then I want to see you describe in detail, with diffs, exactly how.
In addition, Moulton has had 3 Wikipedia editors tell him exactly what he needed to do to "fix" the Picard biography, and offer to help him with this task, over a 10 month period. Moulton essentially rejected the first two offers, and months later, has partially accepted the third. How can Moulton be helped when he refuses to help himself?
Now, thanks to the efforts of several editors with assorted orientations, the Picard biography is now moving towards a biography that does not violate WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP, using WP:V WP:RS and WP:CON. Do you claim that somehow I or the other editors who are advocating adequate sourcing and trying to avoid WP:OR are acting in bad faith? What is wrong with the direction that the biography is moving in? Be specific with diffs, please.
Arbcomm when it surveyed the situation decided that Moulton had not been treated unfairly in any way. Do you disagree with Arbcomm? If so, let's hear your allegations and see your evidence. No more vague insinuations. Let's see it, if you have anything.-- Filll ( talk) 14:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Allow me to clarify some mischaracterizations:
You have continued to dig yourself deeper into a hole. Maybe you should stop while you are ahead, or only a little behind.-- Filll ( talk) 17:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you could be a bit more specific about what conduct problems related to ID articles you are on guard against. Do you have any past examples? With diffs? Who was involved? What happened? What action did you take? What action do you plan to take in the future when you observe what you classify as bad behavior? I presume you have taken it upon yourself to be the arbiter here of what constitutes improper behavior?-- Filll ( talk) 01:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Whether you intended this to be a threat is not relevant; it is coercion on its face and has a chilling effect at Wikipedia. Given our policy on coercion, were I in your shoes I would make every effort to ensure that the article outing Wikipedia editors you are referring to does not come to pass. FeloniousMonk ( talk) 05:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
< ---- You know what else the mafia does, Raul654? It sends groups of people to public meetings to spread innuendo and accusations against those who might expose their work. Can't possibly think what made me think of that - but there you go. Now, anyone who was actually interested in acting collegially would have asked CLA "Did you mean to threaten someone?" And, when CLA answered "no, I did not," then one would have to WP:AGF... at least that's what User:Filll tells us, right? As a starting exercise perhaps we can just make sure we're more accurate - this helps with not making vague accusations, I find. So first up, let's investigate the fact that Brad had weathered all that WR review threw at him with consideration and grace and left only after the actions on a certain movie producer's site - actions separate from WR and belittled by a vast majority of its members. At least... we could if you had any interest in what actually happened. But not bothering to read WR before commenting on it has been a hobby of yours for a while. Hmmm... angrily lumping everyone who disagrees with you into an extremist camp... can't possibly think where I've seen that before? (fx: scrolls up). And yes, I am jumping around IPs and not using my account - I'm not interested in having happen to me the meatpuppet show that's so clearly happening to CLA here. 211.31.227.58 ( talk) 08:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Lets consider this; Now, anyone who was actually interested in acting collegially would have asked CLA "Did you mean to threaten someone?" And, when CLA answered "no, I did not,"
Actually, when CLA had this brought to his attention above, he first produced a half hearted denial on WR that sounded more like another threat, and then when asked again on WP above, several times, CLA responded with answers like:
Do those sound very much like "No I did not?" Not really... They sound more like threats. They sound more like "Do what I ask, or I am going to nail you". Only problem is, it is not even clear what CLA is requesting. One might believe that these are basically open-ended threats to stop editing anything or else.
When asked to clarify this further above, he has remained silent (or maybe withdrawn into some anon sock puppet mode?) And more than a few are unconvinced this has the appearance of something that is not just an innocent misunderstanding. And repeating the threat a couple of times afterwords instead of saying "No I did not" as you suggest really probably is not the best way of convincing others that the threat is not real, dontcha think? -- Filll ( talk) 17:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I personally think Cla's comment was poorly worded. I don't believe it was intended to be a threat, in that I don't think Cla has the power or meant to suggest the power to write an article. However, I've recently seen Filll leave this comment, which does appear to be a threat, and recently saw him say to another editor that if he kept it up he'd "soon see what it meant to be bitten" or something very close. Similarly, the whole thing here was in response to one editor apparently writing another to say he'd report him to his employer. Is there a need for all of this? I'm not sure how anyone thinks this style of conversing is good for Wikipedia. Mackan79 ( talk) 21:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
<undent>So allow me to understand your point. You claim that asking Cla68 for explanations of what he meant is trolling? Including the posts of FeloniousMonk and Raul654? Interesting. Also you do not agree that creationism, racism and homeopathy all qualify as WP:FRINGE topics? Do I have this correct? You see no similarity among them? By the way, if you confirm that you are formally warning people that any posting to this talk page constitutes trolling, then I personally will then take the appropriate steps.-- Filll ( talk) 16:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I think I explained it already, but in case anyone reads this thread and can't find my explanation, my remarks on Wikipedia Review were in reference to this post [49], not a threat to out anyone. I apologize for not choosing my words more carefully. Cla68 ( talk) 06:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I have asked the arbitration committee to look into your behavior: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Cla68 FeloniousMonk ( talk) 18:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, John Vandenberg ( chat) 11:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I have added your name to the list of parties on the JzG dispute. Hopefully you will be able to shed light on these matters and participate in the resolution on this dispute which has carried on for much too long, in my opinion. Jehochman Talk 10:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
FYI, Wordbomb publicly acknowledged that he lives in Utah in episode six of WP:NTWW, so it's not a matter of dispute. -- Kendrick7 talk 04:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC) (with apologies to Fletch)
Am I on your hit list? I'd appreciate a little advance knowledge, so that I can begin preparing to defend myself. Raymond Arritt ( talk) 05:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
History is the best predictor of the future. And you should know the related history before you comment.-- Filll ( talk | wpc) 16:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
We're talking about your WP creds, I think. •Jim62sch• dissera! 22:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Let me give some background that I should have given at the outset. I apologize for not having done so earlier.
On April 16 Cla68 showed up on my talk page to compliment me on my activity in the global warming articles, stating "I've seen some complaints both on and off-wiki that those articles are supposedly a walled garden protected by a group of POV pushers. But seeing as how you're actively involved with them, I know that can't be the case." [52] It seemed a bit out of the blue given that I'd never had substantial dealings with him and he wasn't an active editor in the climate topics, but I thought well, that's a nice pat on the back.
Then on April 24 he says "There's evidence of cabalism in all of these examples- global warming, Gary Weiss, Israel history" [53] (notice this one especially) and on April 26 he criticizes "people in the global warming walled garden." [54] That's a complete turnaround in just a week! First he tells me that he's confident there's no global warming walled garden, and only a few days later there are two criticisms of the purportedly nonexistent walled garden and the "cabalism" that surrounds it.
I could think of only two alternatives: (1) something happened that made him take a sudden 180-degree turn in his view of our global warming editors, or (2) his original message to me was nothing more than an attempt at ingratiation. I couldn't think of any big blowups in the global warming articles that could have led to (1), so I thought about (2). I had a look through his contributions and found an outstanding editor of military history articles who seemingly had a tendency to carry grudges and a fondness for process. I recalled especially that one of his comments mentioned global warming in the same breath as Gary Weiss and Israeli history, two areas where he was actively engaged in testifying or compiling evidence against purported wrongdoers. Hence I wound up here and basically said, look, if you're going to file something against me then let me know and don't keep me in suspense.
And of course I'd like to know the reason for his sharp apparent U-turn on the global warming "cabal" (per WP:AGF, assuming his original message to me was sincere). Maybe there's a problem that I can help to resolve. But all I'm getting in response is... no response. Raymond Arritt ( talk) 00:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. I know SlimVirgin only by reputation; as far as I can recall, I haven't had any quarrels with her. I have tried to clean up some of the LaRouche articles which had multiple BLP problems, just as I have tried to clean up bios on other controversial figures like Robert Mugabe. Apparently getting involved with the LaRouche controversies is what got me on her list. Question: why would she repeatedly make such a list, and then admin-delete it? Couldn't she just keep the whole thing privately on her hard drive? -- Marvin Diode ( talk) 13:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
the first item (relating to an animal rights article from this may) you characterize her activity as 'removing cited content.' The items removed appear to have been put into a new section during the same edit. So while the edit summary is a bit misleading, there doesn't appear to be actual removal of content. There is enough poor behavior documented that I don't think you have to stretch items to show a problem. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 03:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Cla, I don't know how busy you are (I'd imagine very), but if you're in the mood for some friendly advice I'm willing to offer it. Whilst I have faith in the arbcom process (says the person who refuses to get an account because they hate the politics - the irony isn't lost on me) and I fully believe that they'll accord each piece of evidence its own weight, I think it may be in your interests to seriously tighten and polish the sections of your evidence alleging bad faith editing and abusiveness. Since many of those situations are decidedly not black and white I believe you might be better off either removing ones which are only on the border of incivility; or alternatively you could provide extensive rationales for each which explain why you believe them to be so. As it stands, whilst I believe they're on the whole accurate and representative of the behaviour of these editors, you want to avoid having the particularly damning evidence (such as abuse of admin tools, and clear-cut meatpuppetry / cabalism) whitewashed by having someone point to "frivolous" grey-area accusations.
Stand strong! Don't let anyone goad you into being uncivil, and maintain your excellent diligence for which you will always have my respect. -- 129.67.162.133 ( talk) 12:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Per the arb vote here the RFAR on User:JzG is now merged with this case and he is a named party. Also see my case disposition notes there. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
You win. Raymond Arritt ( talk) 02:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm very disappointed at what Raymond Arritt is doing. I'm not entirely happy myself with Cla's aggressive approach, but I really don't understand why some admins are so quick to defend each other no matter what. Raymond's history is completely different from the editors that Cla has taken to task, so why is Raymond feeling such affinity to the anti-science POV-pushing on animal testing, or the "good guys vs. bad guys" mentality on intelligent design (see this post by User:Silence)?
As great an admin as I think that Raymond is, if he is going to leave Wikipedia and blame Cla68 for it, well, that only serves as evidence to show that Raymond isn't as independently thinking as I had hoped he was... (yes, indeed, there is even a veiled accusation in there that this whole thing might be orchestrated to make Cla68 look bad. Sure, I'm assuming bad faith, so feel free to ban me, I don't care, that's how this looks to me.)
Now Cla, you might want to consult with Tim Vickers about whether your way of dealing with SV is optimal. Somehow, he seems to be able to get along fine with her in spite of their differences of opinion. I think his opinion on this matter would be extremely valuable, don't you think? Merzul ( talk) 19:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
As I said, this is not about winning, and you know perfectly well that losing Raymond means we all have lost. In fact, we all lost the moment this was taken to arbitration. However, Cla68 is not the only one with collateral damage in his campaigns, which is precisely the reason we are in this mess to begin with. All wars comes with a price... so admitting to and apologizing for one's mistakes goes a very long way in satisfying most of us. I haven't seen admissions or apologies, or any indication that the collateral damage is even recognized. And as long as the self-righteous attitude continues, there will be people like Cla68 to fight "just wars" of their own. Once more, I think that these attempts to portray Cla68 as the villain is extremely misguided, when simple apologies and a humble attitude would far more effectively solve most of the problems. Thanks,
Merzul (
talk)
21:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
"Life's but a walking shadow,a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing." Shakespeare, Macbeth. Amerique dialectics 01:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Thought you might be interested in this link as it deals with one of your FA articles.... Air Force wing in nuclear goof has more trouble.-- Looper5920 ( talk) 00:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
One minor correction wrt
this:
User:Kelly is
not an admin. (And she appears to have a bit of a history of unnerving others with sometimes suboptimal actions on images.)
dorftrottel (
talk)
06:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, I came here to tell you something after an unpleasant encounter with SlimVirgin, as I found that you had prepared a draft RfC on the user. I'm not sure what the above comment ("suboptimal") means, to my knowledge I haven't made errors on copyvio allegations (if so, I'm sure I've acknowledged and apologized - it is my policy to do so). Anyway, I ran across this image where SlimVirgin had undeleted an image deleted as copyvio without any comment as to reasons. Kelly hi! 17:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Here. Kelly hi! 05:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Cla, for signing on my talk page. I'm not sure how to get the ball rolling, and I'll be traveling this week, so please feel free to start in on things if you're so inclined. Best, Gnixon ( talk) 22:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Please review our behavioral guideline on canvassing, located at WP:CANVASS. I believe recent messages you have sent to alert individuals about ongoing !votes could be viewed to be in violation of this guideline (specifically, the "Votestacking" and "Stealth canvassing" sections), and reccomend that you consider not notifing outside forums about ongoing !votes to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Please note that I specifically do not accuse you of actual bad acts, but rather act in the interest of avoiding further strife between various parties due to their possible misinterpretation of your actions. Thank you. PouponOnToast ( talk) 14:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
As an additional note, some individuals might see this as badgering your opponents. You should consider not asking individuals who you are in a dispute with to take actions multiple times - you have requested that parties reflect on the RFAr elsewhere. Please note that I specifically do not accuse you of actual bad acts, but rather act in the interest of avoiding further strife between various parties due to their possible misinterpretation of your actions. Thank you. PouponOnToast ( talk) 14:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Cla, I'd appreciate it if you could be a bit more careful in assembling your evidence, otherwise you might end up undermining the credibility of the valid majority of it. This diff (highlighted here) is one such example. SlimVirgin did not remove anything in that diff, she merely decided to post her comment directly below KimvdLine's comment to which she was replying, thereby simply moving Pete Peters' below her new post. dorftrottel ( talk) 06:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I would like to take you up on a brief discussion of the William M. Connolley criticism I mentioned yesterday at Wikipedia:AN#Abuse_of_adminship_by_User:R._Baley_and_User:Raul654. On the one hand I understand that the quote in question was sort of cherry picked out of the article in the sense that it didn't reflect the overall tone of the article or at least the section related to WMC. On the other anyone who frequents the global warming related pages is well aware that this is a common criticism of WMC, as well as those familiar with some of the arbitration incidents related to him as well. These are all established fact on Wikipedia but of course you are not allowed to reference them except via a WP:RS, which The New Yorker is as is the National Post which has an Op/Ed on the main part of its site discussing this subject as well. So I have two WP:RS sources and yet I am blocked from entering criticism on his page, something that he does on a regular basis to those with whom he disagrees.
Now, perhaps the stark wording that I quoted directly from the article is a bit much but doesn't this support at least a one line summary of the situation? Remember, neither of the sources is written or influenced by me personally. True, I agree with them, but they represent the views found in the WP:RS not mine.
Would be more acceptable to make a succinct statement such as "Connolley has been accused of using Wikipedia as a forum in which to advance his own views on climate change and to attack those with which he does not agree." and cite both The New Yorker and the Nation Post pieces as references?
I'm not out to get him or anything, but this is legitimate criticism in one form or another, IMHO, and it shouldn't be allowed to be whitewashed. -- GoRight ( talk) 20:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Cla68, it has been brought to my attention that somewhere in your Arbitration case evidence you have claimed that in 2005 I was involved in a "wheel war" of the blocking of User:Marsden. Can you explain what you mean by that? Jayjg (talk) 03:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, would you like to become an administrator? Jehochman Talk 02:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate the offers of support and am ready to accept a nomination. Thanks again. Cla68 ( talk) 08:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the offers of support. I think we should wait until the current case closes. Cla68 ( talk) 03:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Giggy, you're nominating this guy? O.o or offering to... Seriously, I would offer to nominate also, but given my current reputation that would actually hurt Cla's chances, so I'll just say, count me as a supporter. Yechiel ( Shalom) 13:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, I think the apology needs to go the other way. Let's take a look at some history. A while back, I criticized Viridae for leaving a warning for MONGO hwile they were in a dispute. I believe it was around the time Miltopia was banned by Jimbo. Viridae took exception to my criticism. Apparently that led him to putting my talk page on his watch list. Last month, Giovanni33 (now banned) by engaging me in an edit war on Joe Scarborough. Viridae showed up to protect the page (ostensibly to end an edit war, but in reality the it was just harassment by Giovanni33). It was easier to jsut file the unprotect notice when Giovanni33 went away and the article could be restored. I let the fact that it was Viridae go as this was the first time I am aware of that he used comments on my talk page as the jumping off point to use the tools. The second time was more problematic and it's recentness to the previous incident was alarming.
United States intervention in Chile was the second article I was aware of. An editor was using WikiGuard and it flagged my 3 edits over two weeks as a 3RR violation. This attracted Viridae faster than stink on sh_t and he went to investigate whether it was blockable. Of course it wasn't, so Viridae protected the page instead. Viridae doesn't protect many pages so this was becoming problematic. I simply and politely asked that he remove my talk page from his watchlist as his actions were becoming problematic. I really don't need him following me around and his actions only lead to progress being thwarted and/or trolls being rewarded. For that effort, I have to put up with
external rants. Viridae on his talk page claimed he would have to be psychic to realize that the pages he was protecting all involved Giovanni33. I don't request him to be psychic, I just want him to not engage.
As for the apology, one of WRs main complaints about admins is that they often act without providing a rationale or evidence. I can imagine Viridaes response to JzG or SV or WMC blocking a relative newbie on a claim of sockpuppetry without any evidence other than "I know it's him." Even if they were right, such blocks rarely go unchallenged so challenging it shouldn't be regarded as something that needs an apology. Imagine an admin that Viridae considers problematic showing up to protect pages of articles that he works on claiming they found a "problem" through Viridaes talk page and repeatedly used that as an excuse to protect the article? No one appreciates admins that behave that way.
Again, all I want is for Viridae to take my talk page off his watch list and leave me alone. It's not an unreasonable request. There are plenty of admins that can provide blocks and protection of articles. He doesn't need to escalate these incidents by involving himself when he knows the editors will take exception. This was apparent in his block of Crum/Para. Even if he's right, he's wrong. And if he needs to brag and gloat about it offsite, it's cleary wrong. --
DHeyward (
talk)
05:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll think you'll find that the categories Ethnic and religious slurs | Pejorative terms for people do exist, they are both in the Nigger article. Cheers 124.254.121.189 ( talk) 03:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
You'll find them here [ [62]] and here [ [63]] Maybe they showed in red because the term Gaijin is not in those lists? Then there is also [ [64]] and [ [65]] that the word could also be put into 124.254.121.189 ( talk) 04:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Re [67] - you may want to note the comment I left at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed_decision#New_evidence. Neıl ☄ 11:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Cla68, I noticed that you revert vandalism. Occasionally, but correctly overall. Would you like me to grant your account rollback rights to make vandal-reverting a little easier for you? Just remember that rollback should only be used to revert vandalism, and that misuse (either by reverting good-faith edits or revert-warring with the tool) can lead to its removal. Tell me what you think. Thanks. Acalamari 18:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I replied at my talk page regarding my latest screwup. In short, I removed the threat, but feel free to block me for screwing up. -- Elkman (Elkspeak) 02:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for formatting the references.-- Poetlister 16:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Cla, I saw your post on Kelly's page. I'd say that problems with the articles continue so your getting involved now would be good. Especially since I angered Kelly enough that she has gone on wikibreak - s/he was the editor in the mess that was doing the best. There is another editor that is skating far too close to the BLP lines for my comfort - and I'm slow to act on BLP issues.
John Edwards has mostly settled down, except for the current multi-article reverting over inclusion/exclusion of the baby's name. John Edwards extramarital affair is still being frequently and actively edited, but except for that multi-article reverting currently appears non-contentious. Rielle Hunter is being actively edited, has been part of the multi-article reverting, has in my view other problems, and has the added twist of being edited by an editor believed to be a member of the subject's family. (I have not tracked down the diffs to confirm that such a claim has been made by the editor.) Story of My Life (novel) is being semi-actively edited, was not part of the multi-article reverting, and has in my view problems. GRBerry 16:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
What do you think of this: WP:WOLF? Jehochman Talk 21:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
As I already noted my memory was slightly hazy about what exactly he did. To call that a lie is both unproductive and uncivil. Its the context where people who are cooperating with each other to try to come to a best result would say "I think you are misremembering. He didn't do Y. He did X". JoshuaZ ( talk) 01:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
<undent> Cla, while I'm willing to believe that this accusation was made in the heat of the moment, it's clearly a personal attack on an editor's integrity and grossly uncivil, as well as being an obvious failure to assume good faith. Your response does nothing to correct that incivility, so I strongly urge you to strike that original accusation and add a statement that you accept that JoshuaZ made an error in good faith. . . dave souza, talk 21:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Could you take a look at Ishin-denshin? It could use some expansion by someone with more familiarity with the topic. Also, I'm pretty sure there should be a link to it from Mokusatsu (specifically relating to its usage during World War II vis-a-vis Japan's surrender) and possibly Surrender of Japan. Raul654 ( talk) 07:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
You may be interested in WP:AN#User Kelly (and others) attack campaign (IDCab meme). KillerChihuahua ?!? 17:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the note you left at my talk page. I read the pages you noted, which was extremely disheartening. cat yronwode Catherineyronwode ( talk) 02:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I get what you're saying - it's a good decision for Wikipedia, so Wikipedians have won, so you as a Wikipedian have won. Still some might find it a little too self congratulatory coming from one of the people sanctioned/cautioned/whatevered in the whole thing. Really might be wise to strike your comments and to focus on your own mistakes in all this (of which I know you've acknowledged some)and in particular not to rise to any comments from Jayjg. That might help to prevent a feeling of ongoing conflict, in the best interests of WP and of yourself. Just a thought, worth what you paid for it etc. etc. 87.254.68.5 ( talk) 21:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Regarding you note at my talk, no problem. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
You are one of the masters of the art form of the Featured Article--any chance I could entice you to take a copyediting/language look at The Greencards? rootology ( C)( T) 15:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Why apologize? International travel > me. :P Thank you! And if helps: I've forked the lead members to trim down the early history section a bit (I just haven't removed it from the parent article yet--I just replicated so far). rootology ( C)( T) 23:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
As requested, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Greencards, I just tried again. Wish it luck! rootology ( C)( T) 05:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. FeloniousMonk ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) administrative privileges are revoked. FeloniousMonk may apply to have them reinstated at any time, either through the usual means or by appeal to the Committee.
The parties are instructed to carefully review the principles and findings contained in the decision. Each of the parties is strongly urged to conform his or her future behavior to the principles set forth in this decision. Each of the parties is admonished for having engaged in the problematic user conduct described in the findings of fact, and is instructed to avoid any further instances of such conduct. The Committee provides a list of six behavioural issues ( click to read) which the parties in the case are "specifically instructed" to ensure that their future editing complies with. The Committee will impose substantial additional sanctions, which may include desysopping in the case of parties who are administrators, without further warnings in the event of significant violations. If necessary, additional findings may be made and sanctions imposed either by motion or after a formal reopening of the case, depending on the circumstances.
The Committee also notes that editors who have been directly or indirectly involved in the disputes giving rise to this Arbitration case, or similar or related disputes, are counseled to review the principles set forth in this Arbitration case and to use their best efforts to conduct themselves in accordance with the principles. Furthermore, the Committee acknowledges the extraordinary duration of this case. Whilst there have been reasons for this to arise, an overall apology is due, and given.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (
talk)
01:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
As I said in the block log, I put my block up for review on ANI, or rather am In the process of doing so. Please migrate any discussionthere.-- Tznkai ( talk) 03:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
In light of the arbitration decision and in the spirit of your recent comments about it, I think it would be best if you made every effort not to refer to SlimVirgin further and certainly if you did not post in her userspace. This will be a helpful contribution to defusing the tensions so everyone can get back to more productive pursuits. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 19:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I've talked to a few Japanese about Japan, but they seemed reluctant to open up. What do you think about Japan, its culture..... I'm fascinated by their conformity and the way the "nail that sticks up is hammered down." It's also interesting in light of Thailand, which is also Asian, but the people there seem to have such an incredible belief of self. I wonder what has caused the mindsets of the people in these two countries to be so different. What do you think? Scifiintel ( talk) 02:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
[77] Cla68, please reconsider filing this. There is no good that can come of it, for anyone. It is not within the power of the Arbitration Committee to make that finding. For everyone's sake, please withdraw this. Risker ( talk) 02:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering whether you had the original source for that FPC you're running. It's a fantastic document. If the technical side could get a boost I'd love to change to support. Not much I can to with that particular file, though. Durova Charge! 04:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your help! Sandy just bumped The Greencards to FA status. :) rootology ( C)( T) 00:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Please, please, please do not start a giant RfC regarding FlaggedRevs. There is a fair bit of discussion that taken place over years and a giant RfC would be disastrous. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 03:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Logical_Premise/editorluv
Thought you might want to know about these personal attacks.
Messengerbot (
talk)
21:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Intelligent design has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Although you have not edited the article (as best as I can tell), your comments and participation will be useful and healthy to the project. In other words, please don't sit on the sidelines, but help fix this article. I'm making a personal request. This will be cathartic. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
My issue is not whether the information is supported by reliable sources but as to whether the information should be included about an otherwise non-notable person. Editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability - that the information is sourced for reliable sources doesn't make it appropriate for inclusion. Please refer to the subsection of WP:BLP that deals with biographies of otherwise non-notable people at WP:NPF -- Matilda talk 03:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
With secret cases it's hard to know what or who they're talking about. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I know you were going to get started on the international reaction to Naked Short Selling. Hope you don't mind that I beat you to the punch (I went with an old section I had kicked around on NSS's talk page, updated with the Nikkei stuff), but please, edit/add/subtract to what I did mercilessly. Have a good one! SirFozzie ( talk) 06:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
If you wish to ask my views on this, please restate the question in a way that doesn't personalize it. For example, you might want to ask if there are valid reasons for admins to protect pages in their own User: space. Jayjg (talk) 07:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Per this discussion, I'm hoping you'll be interested in being interviewed for the Dispatch, to be published in the Signpost within a few weeks. I started a temp page at Wikipedia:FCDW/WBFAN. Usually, the format is that interviewees drop in some text and Tony1 or Jbmurray copyedit, but I suspect that we won't need copyediting and trimming here, so I see it as more of a pick and choose, narrowing down responses only if needed. The goal is to highlight your work, and to guide, inspire and motivate other writers. If you're interested, dig in ! If not, just leave a note on the talk page of that temp page and I'll remove you. I'll tentatively aim for the November 24th Signpost. Thanks, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I was aware that you and NYB, as well as other great contributors, use WR. That's acceptable, however much I think it's detrimental to to the project...unless you want to be on ArbCom. I personally think it's a cesspool, and I don't trust anyone who spends a lot of time there to have that much power in their hands. Steven Walling (talk) 01:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Ohai Cla68, I see that you are listed towards the top of this page, which means you have experience with article writing and expanding articles -- getting them featured. I'd like you to check out the WikiCup, beginning in January for the fourth cup. aye matthew ✡ 23:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
For your kind words at my ArbCom.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Cla, with respect to this comment, do you have knowledge that this was Coredesat? Because it's signed by an IP and there was no indication it came from him. ATren ( talk) 20:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
It's just not your day! (I'm not restoring your vote, in case I'm misunderstanding this). PaddyLeahy ( talk) 00:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I've no desire to get into a Giano argument with you or anyone. But I was a little mistified by your comment on the RfC and I've made some observations here. I'd be interested in your reply (in general and not "about Giano"). Thanks.-- Scott Mac (Doc) 10:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 00:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Prem Rawat and related articles are under probation. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat. Please seek consensus on the article talk page before making contentious edits. Will Beback talk 10:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I've posted a general apology in my withdrawal statement at the Oversight election page, but I felt that as a contributor you deserve an individual apology too.
It was not my intention to let the election begin without a statement, but an IT gremlin "ate" my first attempt at posting there some hours before the election was to begin and then unforseeable RL issues prevented me from getting back to it until too late. Thank you for your consideration and sincere regrets for wasting your time. -- Dweller ( talk) 10:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Have a look at the page history rather than just the edit summary. It's not a BLP violation, and the IP has (under various IPs from the same range, and under an account) been in a slowmotion edit war for months - two blocks have already been handed out, he's been told to take it to MfD, but he simply continues to pop up every couple of days to blank it. Gb T/ c 10:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
This is something I have highly mixed and conflicted feelings about. On the one hand, I don't like that sort of bigotry aimed at criticism sites like WR and the alleged "trolls" that inhabit it, but on the other hand I'm a strong advocate of free speech, including the right to rant on your own user page, and think attempts to suppress such rants are in the same vein as the BADSITES policy I strongly opposed. On the third hand (I'm a mutant), I dislike the hypocrisy whereby user page rants get suppressed if they run afoul with the views of the dominant clique but are suppported and defended if they're on the "politically correct" side; this goose-and-gander situation could theoretically be resolved either by allowing all rants or suppressing all of them. *Dan T.* ( talk) 19:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, the Prem Rawat issues at AE have moved to RFAR. Bainer suggested inviting the uninvolved admins to comment. The thread is Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Prem_Rawat_2; your input is welcome (you're definitely experienced even if you don't have the mop). Best wishes, Durova Charge! 18:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, MBisanz talk 21:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
§hep Talk 22:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh, of course, the guy who likes to cavort with the whack-jobs, loons, spammers, trolls, sociopaths, and other bad actors at Wikipedia Review and then come to Wikipedia to carry water for them deigns to give me advice about appropriate behavior. "Lie down with dogs, wake up with fleas" is the old expression. Hope you have plenty of flea powder. -- Calton | Talk 13:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Have you been through the maps collection at the Library of Congress? [82] It's hit or miss what you'll find there, but when they're good they're really good. For example, this map of the water supply for Kobe, Japan [83] which is insanely high resolution. The subject might seem kind of boring until you notice who made it and when. I'm just not sure where to place something like that, but have a look and drop word at my user talk if you find one you can use. Best wishes, Durova Charge! 17:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I have done a restoration on a Japanese woodcut about the Russo-Japanese War. It is an excellent high resolution file, and I will be nominating it for featured status. I think it will make a great candidate. I would love to have a translation, and I would be more than happy to share featured credit with the translator. You came recommended on the MILHIST talk page. Are you interested? Thanks, — Jake Wartenberg 16:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Replied to you on Smasthestate's page. I strongly suggest you read what people write before accusing them of things they didn't do. Reread what I wrote to Smash. I'm particularly curious as to how I can have helped put in information that was added after my last edit to a page or its talk page. JoshuaZ ( talk) 00:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate your kind words on the rodeo fiasco. It's been, er, well, a real rodeo. Sigh... and thanks! Montanabw (talk) 06:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Your help in advancing civilization is much appreciated. -- Noroton : Chat 03:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
As Doc glasgow said, have Kohls e-mail or write a letter if he needs to contact Jimbo. Everything else is proxying for a banned editor. KnightLago ( talk) 13:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
You wrote here: And yes, I am canvassing off-wiki for support for the deletion. Is there a chance you are going to clarify that comment? JoshuaZ ( talk) 16:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
You know that your actions here were in violation of WP:CANVASS - you admitted you're doing it.
That's not acceptable behavior. It's violating that policy and intentional disruption.
Please stop that immediately and do not do it again. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 01:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large.
You were warned above that your canvassing was violating WP:CANVASS and disruptive. After that warning was made, you intentionally did it again on another article.
You have been blocked from editing for 48 hrs.
I don't know why you chose to do this - it's not helpful to your cause of trying to move community policy against marginal BLPs. All you're doing is increasing drama by having done this. Please don't continue this type of escalation. It's heat without light - not helping solve the problem you claim you want to solve.
If you will agree to knock it off and continue editing / nominating / etc without violating WP:CANVASS or other policy then I'm sure that I and other editors will be happy to reduce the block length. But if you're going to keep intentionally breaking policy and disrupting the community, this is not going to help you or your causes.
Please reconsider your course here. This was unnecessarily confrontational and not at all useful or constructive to your goals. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 01:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below.
{{
unblock|I carefully read the CANVASS policy, and it mentions using secret means, such as email, as prohibited. The policy mainly addresses on-wiki canvassing, and mentions off-wiki only in passing, and doesn't mention off-site, openly accessible forums, like Wikipedia Review. According to how the CANVASS policy is currently written, my post was not a violation.}}
++ Lar: t/ c 04:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
United we stand [88].-- Scott Mac (Doc) 12:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
You've already had it explained to you in the Rancourt section above why you are utterly wrong about this matter. I'm going to repeat this one more time to see if you can understand it. Jewish is not the same thing as Israeli. The content I included was in regard to the well-sourced comments Rancourt made about the Israeli lobby, not claimed remarks about the Jewish lobby which were added by other users and was never in any draft of the article I ever touched. The sentence that I kept in was of course well-sourced and is still in the article. I understand that you'd like to see me as the evil incarnation of BLP violations but that's simply not the case. Continuing to conflate Jews with Israelis is offensive to a great many people and your continued remarks about the Rancourt matter border on personal attacks. JoshuaZ ( talk) 00:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to say that while I disagree with you on this specific, I have enormous admiration for the work you've done to help the project. I'm aware that you have significant standing to nominate this page for deletion, and I respect what you're doing. I just can't agree with the arguments you've offered. Best of luck, and please feel free to call on me if I can ever be of assistance. BusterD ( talk) 05:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
while reading the discussion on the Mount Hebron page, i noticed that one of the parties to arbcom has continued (this week) to try to have the article say it is in "judea, an area in israel," even going so far as leaving out west bank entirely in one edit. i'm not posting to the case or evidence page, but i think this is relevant and thought you might want to include it in your section on him in the workshop or evidence pages. untwirl( talk) 18:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
It's not my style to revert something straight away, so I would appreciate your discussing your removal of a key issue from the lead. I know you say in your edit summary that it is a minor issue, but Luther's foremost biographer Martin Brecht says this: "his misguided agitation had the evil result that Luther fatefully became one of the 'church fathers' of anti-Semitism and thus provided material for the modern hatred of the Jews, cloaking it with the authority of the Reformer". That's not minor stuff. qp10qp ( talk) 00:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 02:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Were you following the events with ScienceApologist very closely? I am his mentor, and the Committee's intrusion into mentorship at that proposed decision brought me within a hair's breadth of resigning from all mentorships in protest. The attempt politicized mentorship to an intolerable level. By no means would I suggest imposition of supervised editing in this or any other remedy, unless it has full willing consent of all parties. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it wash behind the ears. Durova Charge! 00:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
As someone who has often talked about the difficulty of achieving neutrality, would you mind taking a look at this suggestion? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 02:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
FYI. -- Noroton ( talk) 17:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Are you still on line? If so, can I ask you to correct/rewrite my English? Oda Mari ( talk) 05:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I replied on my talk page. It's a new section in Cherry blossom, 'Culinary use'. Oda Mari ( talk) 05:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 08:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are listed as a GA reviewer. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.
We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 07:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't actually know the answer, but I posted some information on Rootology's talk page. It does not appear there was an ArbCom vote on the matter. Cool Hand Luke 05:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Roxana Saberi.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
{{
di-replaceable fair use disputed}}
, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Óðinn ( talk) 04:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I've started a ball rolling here User:Giano/The future all comments welcome - whatever their view! Giano ( talk) 07:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
A few points that I feel need to be said: (a) your posting of the 3RR item on my page, you were just as much a participant and I could have placed the same notice on your page...but didn't. Just saying. (b) you said that you were going to take the discussion to RFC, but didn't. It surprised me that I ended up doing it for you. A sidenote - I hope you feel that I presented the situation as neutrally and fairly as possible, just as you would have done I'm sure. If you do not feel that it was fair & balanced, believe me when I say that it was my intention to do so. (c) if you do feel that the consensus is leaning towards the exclusion of the names and are dropping your side of the discussion, if you could post an appropriate comment on the rfc section, that would be swell.
All that said, I will now assume any misunderstandings on that topic between you and I are now bygones/water under bridge and we can continue on our merry way. On the bright side, the good thing that is to come out of this is that a (hopefully, ultimately) definitive decision is to be made regarding similar situations that may arise in the future. For that, I thank you. I see that you spend much of your editing time in other content areas to much regard; if you have the time and an interest in assisting to improve any of the Disney-oriented articles along the way, you are more than welcome to join us. SpikeJones ( talk) 02:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer. We've tried to get some of the film articles to Featured (user Alientraveller is a phenom at film stuff), but they always seem to fall apart a little bit due to fanboyz ruining stuff. I believe The Lion King made it to featured once upon a time. We've tried to keep the Pixar films as high-quality as possible (Up, Ratatouille, Wall-e being the better examples), as there appear to be more readily-citable material for those. If we were to concentrate on any, UP would be the one to start with since it's the most current and high profile...especially come Oscar season when it's expected to be one of the 10 nominated best feature films. We're going to run into issues with the Fall release of Princess and the Frog due to perceived controversy and political correctness edits. That one is not going to be fun. SpikeJones ( talk) 12:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I've created two initial pages for the ACPD:
Please add them to your watchlist, stop by, and so forth. The latter page has a couple of logistical issues that we should discuss sooner rather than later, so I'd appreciate if you could find some time to comment on them.
Thanks! Kirill [talk] [pf] 13:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think there's any doubt that the movie goes against scientific consensus, which isn't the same thing as saying that it's wrong (although it probably is). As for my comments on the prevailing view (I avoided the word consensus) on the talk page, I was basing it largely on the discussion about Category:Denialism (in which even some of the editors opposed to inclusion of the category, including PolScribe and me, acknowledge that a scientific consensus exists. The subject is also discussed in several of the sections of Archive 5 (including the first two and the "Ofcom" section), and this section of the previous archive (in which User:Oren0, one of the more active and more reasonable anti-global warming editors, acknowledges that there's a scientific consensus on the question). I'm not saying it's a settled question, but I think that the statement is supported by reliable sources and by prevailing opinion on the talk page. Steve Smith ( talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 04:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Per a request as part of the RfC you recently !voted in we have changed the style of !voting. Please review those updates and make any changes to your !vote, as appropriate/desired. Thanks for your participation. -- GoRight ( talk) 07:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I see you've been cleaning up: are you going to narrow the policy so that it discourages alt accounts as much as possible? Tony (talk) 07:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Along with another editor, I have been preparing an RFC on Aitias, as it's clear his numerous inappropriate actions are exhausting community patience. He has clearly learnt little, if anything from either his first RFC or RFAR. I'll let you know when it's up. We were going to wait until the Eric Barbour thread closed before proceeding. Majorly talk 00:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Aitias 2. Majorly talk 16:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Thought you might be interested in this new wikipedia space page that FT2 just posted. Made me think of you. [92] Cool Hand Luke 03:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I saw your comment on the meatpuppetry GoRight page. I unfortunately don't know enough to say anything useful there, but I noticed your concerns. Two things to consider:
Awickert ( talk) 19:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Your suggestion at RS/N to contact the Chinese language bulliten boards was a good one. We located a Chinese speaker who has provided us with a wealth of useful info and translations. Now, for a request: do you know of similar bulliten boards for Russian speakers? -- Coleacanth ( talk) 22:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
[93]. -- GoRight ( talk) 03:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Thought you may have an interest in this one... Johnfos ( talk) 07:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. You are consistent. Though I wonder why you identify it as "PRC media" rather than by name. Why is that? Would that be an appropriate characterization of the source for other articles too? IIRC, HK's accounts were strongly opposed to linking the paper to the Communist Party because that would be "red baiting". Is he right - are you red baiting or are you giving a reasonable description of the source to inform readers? Will Beback talk 21:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
— Ed (Talk • Contribs) 04:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
It seems you added your support !vote to my RfA rather than MBisanz' RfB. Regards. Fribbler ( talk) 12:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Not sure if you've seen this, but it's being removed from WP:AN. There is some discussion at User talk:Tony Sidaway#WP:AN revert. -- NE2 22:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Though I happen to agree with you on the RfC you posted, I'd like to make a note that RfC summaries should be short and impartial (though not everyone follows this). Just so you know in case you post another one, Awickert ( talk) 15:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
You left a comment at Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche#RfC: Primary sources, however some of what you wrote is ambiguous. I've left three questions for you. I'd be interested in your answers if you have an opportunity to reply. Will Beback talk 08:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 20:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Last fall you participated in a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive_27#User:Dking/Dennis King and you proposed a topic ban for Dking editing LaRouche articles. I have now made the same proposal at WP:ANI, because Dking has reappeared and made some very disruptive edits. Perhaps you would care to comment. -- Leatherstocking ( talk) 15:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
There is a thread on the talk page of the above named article regarding whether that council is still active at Wikipedia talk:Advisory Council on Project Development#Still viable?. As one of the listed members, your input would very likely be useful. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 16:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Where have I ever threatened to block Dinkeytown? How can you possibly accuse of this, with no evidence? This is unfair and wrong. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Cla68, it is true that MathSci left a message for me about blocking on 23:30, 28 August 2009. I did not respond.
Then on 09:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC) MathSci left another message calling for patience. I responded almost immediately at 09:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC). I honestly am surprised that anyone would think I was responding to the comment I did not respond to, and not the comment that my response immediately followed. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
i appreciate your formal retraction. Is there a way for you to strikeout what you wrote about me without damaging anything you wrote and still stand by? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 14:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
What was this about? [94] The Onion is a well known satirical site. Seems an odd action for someone as clued up as your good self? Pedro : Chat 23:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
This topic has been raised to us before. I think I'll try to move it back to the front-burner. Cool Hand Luke 17:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Woonpton blanked the discussion as OT for her talk page (which I agree that it was). Anyway I just want to say that I agree with your last comment. There are the alarmists on one side, the deniers on the other, and those of us in the middle trying to keep things in reasonable accordance with the scientific literature and other appropriate sources sometimes lose our temper dealing with it all. It's a bad neighborhood. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 05:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
You say, "Tony, why didn't you replace it with the appropriate category instead of just removing it?"
This seems to imply that you thought that I believed that such a category existed, and that I thought it appropriate to the article but failed to act on my belief. I didn't.
Moreover you added category:climatology to an article that was already a member of category:global warming, which is of course a subcategory, via category:climate change, of that category. -- TS 04:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Word for the week of 1 Nov 09: acnestis Points: Use the word in an article- 5 points, in an article talk page- 2 points, in a discussion in admin space like ANI or a user talk page- 1 point. |
Tally: Cla68- 5 [96] [97] [98] [99] |
I recently stumbled upon your guide to writing history articles and found it helpful, so kudos there. But one thing stuck out - choosing a non-controversial subject, where you say if you can find an article that has been left alone for some time. I would argue that it benefits the project more if users do take on highly visible topics and thoroughly research them to find the "truth" (quotes because it's a relative term on Wikipedia as we all know). Not in the bang-your-head-against-the-wall Israeli-Palestinian sense maybe, but if there's going to be a debate, I'd much rather have someone citing five different book sources than relying on "I've always heard..." and similar arguments. You're tagged as willing and able to make difficult edits, so I figured it was food for thought. Again, very informative guide. :) Recognizance ( talk) 18:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Leave my pages alone [100]. You are not welcome William M. Connolley ( talk) 07:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Newspapers are notoriously unreliable when they report on science. Even the best quality newspapers make big errors regularly. Then, if we have a wiki article that focusses on some scientific topic, it would be difficult to use a newspaper story as a source, even if for that particular case the story seems to be ok. Because you could not do that as a rule. Rather, you would have to make a judgement on a case by case basis. But then that judgement would be Original Research.
At the discussion on the RS board, I linked to an old discusssion on the Special Relativity talk page where I also noted the tension between letting not so reliable sources in and the policy against OR. Therefore it is better to only allow high quality peer reviewed journals to be used as sources. Now, if a statement can be sourced from a peer reviewed source and there also exists a well written newspaper article that makes the same statement, you could decide to also give a citation to the newspaper article. Count Iblis ( talk) 00:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Just a note to say I appreciated your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremiah Duggan (2nd nomination). The irony is that I am quite ambivalent about LaRouche, but I strongly oppose what I see as the abuse of process that has frequently been employed as a tactic by the team that controls the LaRouche articles. So, I open my mouth (figuratively speaking) and for my troubles I get branded a LaRouchie. -- Leatherstocking ( talk) 05:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Re Isn't the BBC considered reliable? Quarstion (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC) I would think it would be, but you might be surprised with the "regulars" with this article. Cla68 (talk) 16:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC) - no, the Beeb isn't a WP:RS for science. [101] is an obvious counter-example William M. Connolley ( talk) 17:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
You notified the Signpost tiproom of Fg2's death. Several editors have decided to collaborate to get one of his favorite articles to FA status. Would you care to opine on which article we should select here? Thanks. - Draeco ( talk) 04:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Cla68 is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia soon. |
I'm not sure when I'll be back. If you need any information on something, please email me. Cla68 ( talk) 03:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, I think I'm more or less back now, although my participation may be more limited than before. Cla68 ( talk) 10:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
[102] :-) — Ed (talk • contribs) 20:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Cla68, I've notice that you've been appearing on pages related to topics in which Slimvirgin is known to have longstanding interests, and where she has already posted. It appears that these are unnecessary interactions. I suggest that you avoid doing so in the future in order to comply with the ArbCom remedy. Will Beback talk 06:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
WT:Sock_puppetry#Interview_for_Signpost. - Dank ( push to talk) 18:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I know it no longer matters and that it has been such a "long" time since this happened. But I just wanted to add that I agree to an extent. I do believe that some admins don't care about the words that they use, but the fact is that a lot of editors "look up" to them as people who should know what to do on this project. Using the wrong words may discourage editors from editing. And last time I checked this was a project where ANYONE can come and gather with other editors to build this project. But I think that desysoping would only depend on the case. I know that is why you say "may" be desysoped, but in most cases it wouldn't be fit. Cases where it would be fit would be situations/cases where admin x has repeatedly done this and doesn't intend to change their ways or even be careful about how they approach things. But anyways, I'm positive this doesn't matter a whole lot; just wanted to say that I agree. ⊥m93 talk. 02:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I have a quick question for you. How did you happen to find Kintetsubuffalo's talk page and have your attention drawn towards my edits? I was a little confused seeing that he is in Japan, and I have had two other editors who are located in Japan revert me. From checking the edit history, it seems as if that is the only time you have edited that talk page. Is there some messaging system that Japanese editors are using to contact eachother? I know that one of the editors involved (who I will not mention) is quite keen on contacting other editors in Japan in order to gain support for certain edits - is that the case with my edits? 119.173.81.176 ( talk) 04:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I looked at recent postings on Wikipedia Review made by you and HK. I categorically deny that I am using any sock puppet on Wikipedia; I post under my own name. "LaRouche planet" is almost certainly just that--a person from the LaRouche Planet website. I am not one of the people responsible for that site and would not presume to use its name, although I certainly support their efforts to expose LaRouche's anti-Semitism and cultism.-- Dking ( talk) 02:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for taking this on. I don't have any sources for this, but I think the term "land bridge" referring to intermodal transport originates from the use of North American railroads as an alternate to the Panama Canal for Asia-Europe freight. Essentially it was a "bridge" between the oceans over land. The Eurasian Land Bridge appears to be a corruption of the term; it would more properly be called a Eurasian transcontinental railway. -- NE2 18:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
As you participated in the recent
Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two
requests for comment that relate to the use of
SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the
SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (
talk)
08:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Cla
I was disappointed at the ... non-response, as it were, to the question:
(2) Please provide evidence of your ability to write concise, clear English. You may wish to refer to your ability to detect ambiguities and unintended consequences in text such as principles, remedies and injunctions. (Tony1)
A: I hope that my answers to the questions on this page will provide sufficient evidence of this ability.
With your track-record in FAs and MilHist, not to mention other forums, you are ideally placed to link or diff to a few examples of what you consider your best writing and/or editing of pre-existing prose. An additional advantage (over some of the other candidates) would be diffs of posts that show you to write well in heated exchages, trouble-shoot on talk pages, playing a cooling-down/mediating role with the appropriate use of language; or of editing policy text and/or proposal text. Tony (talk) 07:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Cla, I'm running my uContribs program for all ACE candidates, you're first in alpha order so I thought I'd invite your scrutiny of User:Franamax/Ucontribs-2009/Cla68 to see if I'm getting anything wrong. When I checked the output, my first thought was that if Battle of the Coral Sea order of battle can have 119 references and 23 sources and still be rated Stub-class, you must have pretty rigorous standards for article quality. :) If you re-rate anything, feel free to update my page too. Regards! Franamax ( talk) 14:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I have been reviewing various editors ACE2009 opinion pages and have been rather indelicate in my commentary regarding a couple of people's criteria of not supporting anyone who is not an admin. I specifically noted your unfortunate experience in RfA, and was unequivocal in stating my opinion why you might be an exception to the rule/rationale provided in those opinions. This was done entirely on my own initiative, and I am writing here to in an effort to recognise that only I should bear any untoward consequences for these actions and have this on record so that you or any reader should be aware that you are an innocent party to my partisan editing.
Sorry for any potential difficulty I may have caused, and I hope you have some better endorsements of your candidacy than that which I have provided. Mark.
LessHeard vanU (
talk)
22:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
You may wish to note the following comment: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Vote/Cla68#False statements by candidate. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 01:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Eurasian Land Bridge at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Nick Ottery ( talk) 10:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I was looking at the red link in the Eurasian Land Bridge article for the Beijiang Railway. Google wasn't being very helpful so I went to some of the article sources. In particular figure 1 on page 47 of this indicates that the Beijiang Line is simply the northern branch of the Lanxin railway. That article contains a section on the northern branch so I've piped the link to Lanxin railway#The northern branch in the Eurasian LB article. Could you give this a quick sense check please? Nick Ottery ( talk) 12:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi... since you're running for the ArbCom, I'd like to interview you for the Wikivoices podcast series. If you have Skype, it will be easy to do; otherwise, something might be arranged (like my actually paying to connect Skype to non-Internet phones). Let me know if you're interested. *Dan T.* ( talk) 03:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I can try the interview now if you're up to it... I'm just barely waking up and it's late at night for you, but maybe it can manage to work out if I grab a cup of coffee first... *Dan T.* ( talk) 12:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the interview... it's up now. *Dan T.* ( talk) 19:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 07:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Great idea! I'm a WWII buff. How did you know I have several shelves of WWII books? Thanks very much. MajorStovall ( talk) 21:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I'll start digging into my pile of books. Thanks. MajorStovall ( talk) 14:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Still remains - my #5. No hurry, though. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Still think you did the right thing? Cla68 ( talk) 23:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
On the private mailing list, Godwin repeatedly says that the views he expressed about the Gerard situation are personal - that they are not delivered in his capacity as Wikimedia general counsel:
WMF isn't talking to you here...For future reference, when I speak as an official of the Foundation to represent Foundation policy, I sign my full name and include my position on Foundation staff. When I speak as my own self - as a lawyer with a couple of decades of experience at free-speech law and the law of online communities, I sign as
--Mike
Minkythecat ( talk) 08:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Per your WR post, do you want me to nom you for adminship? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Cla68, I hope you are doing well. I acknowledge that you are indeed making some very good points at the RFC for Eurasian Land Bridge. But can you please keep this formatting during the RFC? I think it will really help to segment out the various comments. I think if we can keep discussion based on a dialogue of determining "what the sources say", we can all work to make sure the RFC does not degenerate. Thus the reasoning for avoiding threaded discussions (except for that bottom section). Sound good? :) Cirt ( talk) 07:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Notifying you of this request. SlimVirgin 09:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I was rather tempted to just add a reference to some world atlas, but I know full well that that would be too flippant: there are plenty of railways that every atlas shows, but which have in reality been torn down decades ago. (E.g., Newfoundland Railway). So I actually looked up sources for each link that affirm its existence and say something positive about it. Which, of course, made the text rather longer...
Also, Tsuji's paper I have added as a reference has a fair amount of statistics (e.g., on the historical use of the Trans-Siberian for the shipment of containers from Japan to Europe). Feel free to mine that!
I wish I had time to draw a decent SVG map.... Vmenkov ( talk) 09:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Please paste the list of all 60 reliable sources here. I will do the rest.-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 13:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Please see this discussion. I've recommended you as a mentor. Viriditas ( talk) 05:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
At this talk page, you have indented your reply to address my input re: the image, when it doesn't actually appear to address (directly or tangentially) my point at all. Since you have made it clear you're replying to me, I wanted to ask for clarification here instead of cluttering that discussion. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 01:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Cla68, I noted you supported, in a constructive manner, my proposal to remove the bogus categorisation at the list of scientists opposing consensus article. Please see [103]. It will doubtlessly be reverted by Connolley, Petersen et al. and if you still support the proposal I'd appreciate your support in pushing this through. That conversation in the talk is a massive waste of WP bandwidth, and my change is, surely, the next best thing to getting the article deleted (which I supported). I believe, this removal of categorisation removes the illusion that these scientists are all divided and squabbling amongst themselves, as the POV pushers want, and I think, after that's gone, there'll be support to actually remove the article. If the article stays, at least the massive BLP & POV problems will be resolved, and we'll have a far more credible list. Alex Harvey ( talk) 12:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I've occasionally attempted to think though an outline for an article. A fair amount of work to do a decent job, and it would be disappointing to me if the effort were discarded. You obviously went through some effort to come up with an outline, but as noted, so had Guettarda, and it got lost in the jumble. I'm happy you aren't too wedded to your effort. I am trying to pick up on what you described as one of the positives of your effort - we shall soon see how it goes.-- SPhilbrick T 14:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I left this user a message alerting him to the special probation on these articles. Cool Hand Luke 14:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! KnightLago ( talk) 02:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Due to the holiday season plus Internet connection problems, I may not be very active over the next two to three weeks or so. Cla68 ( talk) 23:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator. Jusdafax 00:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm back from wikibreak and leaving a note to self as a reminder of an AfD discussion about an Robertson v. McGraw-Hill Co. article I just started. Cla68 ( talk) 23:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Can you find a single other date which which includes a settlement date, much less an "intent to sue" date? While it may not be written, there is a policy of including only events that are of above-average significance. There aren't even many Supreme Court cases listed in the events. You don't see minor battles, celebrity weddings, Stanley Cup playoffs, or Brittney Spears' haircut either. For any given date the number of events listed is relatively small. For example, there are only 54 events listed for December 17. Even a key date of a lawsuit is not the 55th most important event on that date, nor the 550th, and I doubt it's even the 5,500th. If every date in every article were included then the lists would be dramatically longer, perhaps too long to use or maintain. Will Beback talk 09:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
In addition to the points made above, you should not be scattering wikilinks to the article on this lawsuit until its notability has been determined. -- JohnnyB256 ( talk) 13:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I would also caution Cla68 not to throw around terms like "vandalism," as he did on my talk page. When text is removed in good faith, it is not vandalism, and in this case it appears that two other editors have reached the same conclusion. If every event in every article warranted a date link, we would have a list of maybe 50,000 items for every date on the calendar. That goes back to the point I raised elsewhere about how we have to use our common sense in making judgments of these kinds. -- JohnnyB256 ( talk) 14:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Let me know how I can help (finding sources etc.) I have worked with you before, and seen you around, although we have little in common, it is nice to be able to help you rescue this article now. Ikip 18:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I know you're enthusiastic, and there's a history that I truly do not want to know about, but please don't pretend that this is case law. andy ( talk) 00:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
FYI: User_talk:Cool_Hand_Luke#Robertson_v._McGraw-Hill_Co..2C_Weiss.2C_and_Shepard, User_talk:Georgewilliamherbert#McGraw-Hill_AfD I always like to know when editors are discussing me too :) Ikip 22:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Note to self: I've added suggested verbiage on the lawsuit topic to the talk pages of Gary Weiss and Julian Robertson. Cla68 ( talk) 01:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Greetings, You participated in a previous discussion about TheSmokingGun.com and whether it can be considered a reliable source. I don't feel that a clear consensus was reached and have reopened the discussion here, should you choose to participate. Regardless, have a Happy New Year!-- otherl left 20:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
You have messages at the talk page of Weakopedia, a user who doesn't know how to add talkback templates.
Weakopedia (
talk)
00:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
No, I just resigned from recent changes patrol, not Wikipedia. Was giving me a headache, and it was like stomping on ants at the beach. Definitely interested in milhist. Thanks, MajorStovall ( talk) 02:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Re: Gary Weiss. I'd say that we need to give it another day or so to allow editors to comment on the suggested addition about Robertson's lawsuit before adding it to the article. Cla68 (talk) 04:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rocksanddirt"
DMCer ™ 01:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Guettarda ( talk) 05:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
This is very interesting. Have you thought about turning it into an essay? Viriditas ( talk) 08:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.
A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;
this was an exceptionally careless BLP prod; even if one cannot understand any Italian, the merest glance at Google News or Books would have shown the great number of good sources. It's a much more valuable service to place prods after at least looking. I apologize for expressing my impatience, but I have spent altogether too much time cleaning up after such as this, and I could do the necessary work much better if those who placed the prods did their share of it. DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Cla68, were you aware that the owner of Metropolis, Mark Devlin, had an axe to grind with baker's mother? Delvin took his battle to wikipedia and was outed on the Baker article and ended up getting permantely kicked off - there are real issues with any infromation that originates from Metropolis (devlin) or factlaundering that resulted from either local papers picking up info from his editorials or possibly from him initiating contact with them. This should all realy be discusses on the baker discussion page before more editing is done with regards to Devlin material
Note to self to remember to follow this content RfC I just started. Cla68 ( talk) 01:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I just complained about Tarc at AN/I ( WP:ANI#Tarc's ongoing abuse). The least of it was this comment [107] that appears to have been directed at you. It was my 6th example (out of eight). Just FYI. -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 19:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Re: [108] - I think the essay Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing describes the copyvio argument. I have at present no comment on that or any other issue there, I just noticed copyvio in the recent changes and wanted to glance that way before logging off. Regards, - 2/0 ( cont.) 07:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Cla68,
Firstly, apologies for this long message! I may need a response from you directly underneath it, per (3) below.
You are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.
1) Background of VOTE 2:
In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results.
This was VOTE 2;
This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;
2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?
Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here.
3) HOW TO CLARIFY YOUR VOTE:
Directly below this querying message, please can you;
I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. I will copy any responses from this talk page and place them at CDA Summaries for analysis. Sorry for the inconvenience,
Matt Lewis ( talk) 01:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
I am writing you this message because you have participated in the RfC regarding the name of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident article. As the previous discussion didn't actually propose a name, it was unfocused and didn't result in any measurable consensus. I have opened a new discussion on the same page, between the existing name and the proposed name Climatic Research Unit documents controversy. I have asked that no alternate names are proposed at this time. Please make your opinion known here. Thanks, Oren0 ( talk) 05:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. I see that you added the above book to the see also section of the IPCC page. I was wondering if you had read the book, and if so, if you could lend your voice in support of a reference I want to make re: how the book (in chapter 4, ‘The Hottest Year Ever’) charts thoroughly how the IPCC and the "Hockey Stick" graph were linked. At the moment, there is some resistance from certain editors for including the ref. All will become clear if you go to the discussion page. Best wishes, Jprw ( talk) 08:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for lending your voice to the debate. Jprw ( talk) 08:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Just letting you know, we have an auto-block finder. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 07:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your encouraging words. Funnily enough I had noticed how calm, reasoned and objective/neutral you yourself came across on those discussion pages -- in stark contrast to others I might mention, and the vehement and repeated flagrant violations of WP:BLP/WP:CIVIL I found very disturbing. I have no particular axe to grind re: Global Warming; the Booker reference seemed to just fit perfectly in that particular sub-section of the IPCC article (extremely well sourced account, etc.). But it feels now as though I am just banging my head against a wall. All the best and keep up the good work, Jprw ( talk) 07:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I have sort of been waiting for the RfC to conclude before bringing our proposal forward so as not to conflate the two but now it seems that it may have been sucked in anyways. I need to make a pass through reading the RfC comments and such to form my own opinion of what consensus, if any, was formed there. Can you summarize the status of the RfC and what, if anything, you feel the results thereof actually are? It seems to have spilled over into a move request and appears to be continuing there. :) This is certainly a hot topic.
I was considering running a poll among the signatories to determine which variant of the current proposed name would be most preferred (since many of the signatories were lobbying for shorter versions). It may still make sense to do that but I wanted to make sure I understood where the RfC stood first. Thanks. -- GoRight ( talk) 17:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Cla68. If you have a moment, could you copyedit the short section named "Controversies" on Tsushima, Nagasaki? I think your help would be greatly appreciated since Arstriker ( talk · contribs) is not willing to compromise with me over a frivolous issue regarding fixing the current wrong and grammatically incorrect title, "Dispute[sig] incident". The original title of the section was "Racist attacks" and he altered it to "Protest[sig] of Japanese nationalists". As a compromise, I've suggested him to restore his first altered title "Protest[sig] of Japanese nationalists" instead of the weird current title. I guess a third person who knows Japanese history and culture would be helpful to end the frivolous dispute. Thanks.-- Caspian blue 08:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
In our zeal to argue our corner on Wikipedia sometimes we can fail to see fully the implications of counter-arguments. You have several times now dismissed statements about the problems of citing Booker as a scholarly source--in essence that his use of sources has been impeached so many times on this and other issues, and the Press Complaints Commission itself has ruled on this. That he's a partisan for an extreme minority view on this is also well sourced. I think you should address such objections seriously. They're not, as you have claimed several times now, merely the personal opinions of Wikipedians. Tasty monster ( TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 16:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Cla68. That was a refreshing breath of air in the article. Personally, I search about once a day for articles on climategate & global warming (it's fun to watch how this thing develops), so I've read a couple of hundred articles on the subject and I'm very well aware of what people call it (both pro and anti) it is highly amusing to watch the editors on the climategate talk pages trying to pretend the media haven't already dicided that the public know this episode by only one name.
And just to put you in the picture, I have twice in the last fortnight written >2000 word reports using the emails to illustrate points and so I've had read up on the background from a variety of source - although I have to admit I didn't even consider reading the wikipedia article - I don't trust an article written by people who don't even recognise the name given to the episode by the public and media. 88.110.16.230 ( talk) 20:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Could you point me to where "the current wording was agreed to", the current wording (after your reversion) was, as far as I can tell, never stable, and never agreed to. You yourself supported the exact version that you just reverted (see Talk:Johnny Weir/Archive 3#Sexuality verbiage still needs work). Here are some diffs from Feb. 10, Feb. 15, Feb. 16, Feb. 17, and Feb. 18 when the article was fully protected and we were in the early stages of discussion. I don't see anything in that discussion that would indicate firm agreement for the version to which you have reverted. One thing that was agreed to, was that the wording still needed adjustment because it was inaccurate. I've explained all this at Talk:Johnny Weir#Wording adjusted per archived discussion. Wine Guy ~Talk 08:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Moving this here for the obvious reasons. I am totally out of shape now and not running at all, but back in the day my wife and I ran together in a couple of marathons. We ran Chicago as a training run one year. My personal best was 3 hours 38 minutes. The others were between 3:45 and 4 hours.
My wife was actually into ultra-marathons for a while. She only ran one, a 50 miler. It was a race called Dances with Dirt and was hosted in Hell, Michigan. I was her support person and moved all her gear from one checkpoint to the next all along the way. It took her about 11 hours total to complete. There were a lot of people doing it, but a marathon was always more than enough for me!
Anyway, good luck. It should be fun no matter what! They always are. :) (This is a statement that only a distance runner would understand.) -- GoRight ( talk) 02:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for offering to report the PA. The distraction may not be worth it, the reviewing folks aren't likely to act. However, the editor has been warned to avoid PA against me multiple times. If no action now, then I guess there will more to report later. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ ( talk) 06:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Cla68 is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia soon. |
I'm supposed to run the Tokyo Marathon this Sunday morning. Unlike you youngsters, I have to take some time to prepare and recover from it. I probably won't be around WP too much between now and Tuesday. Cla68 ( talk) 11:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I very much appreciate your input in Talk:Incidents at SeaWorld parks#First Death. When you recover from your Marathon, I hope you will continue to input your opinion, since no compromises have been accepted and no consensus has been reached. ARTEST4ECHO ( talk) 16:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal was started on the 22nd Feb, and it runs for 28 days. Please note that the existing CDA proposal was (in the end) run as something of a working compromise, so CDA is still largely being floated as an idea.
Also note that, although the RfC is in 'poll format' (Support, Oppose, and Neutral, with Comments underneath), this RfC is still essentially a 'Request for Comment'. Currently, similar comments on CDA's value are being made under all three polls.
Whatever you vote, your vote is welcome!
Regards, Matt Lewis ( talk) 10:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I am will shortly be posting to WP:AN with the request below. Any support would be appreciated.
"I would like to take the article History of logic to FA. I have already sought input from a number of contributors and have cleared up the issues raised (I am sure there are more). I wrote nearly all of the article using different accounts, as follows:
I would like to continue this work but I am frustrated by the zealous activity of User:Fram who keeps making significant reverts, and blocking accounts wherever he suspects the work of a 'banned user'. (Fram claims s/he doesn't understand "the people who feel that content is more important than anything else").
Can I please be left in peace with the present account to complete this work. 'History of logic' is a flagship article for Wikipedia, and is an argument against those enemies who claim that nothing serious can ever be accomplished by the project". Logic Historian ( talk) 10:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
your involvement in climate change advocacy [109] is a serious PA. Retract it William M. Connolley ( talk) 18:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
The climate change literature is huge and it's easy to latch on to a couple of controversial papers. And pretty much everyone has an opinion. This is one of the things that makes it frustrating because it is hard to find and compile basic info. Some of the best sources for this information on WP are William Connolley and S.B.H. Boris. I am somewhat active in this area of WP, though it really is outside my professional expertise, and am happy to give you a hand if you're wondering about inclusion / noninclusion of material.
The basic point of that scatterbrained paragraph was to say: the literature is a mess and if you're thinking of citing it, it can help to chat with an expert first who can point you to the broader body of knowledge, and there are some of those folks on Wikipedia. Awickert ( talk) 20:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I can`t agree with you on this at all i`m afraid. Desmogblog is an attack blog full of lies wit hno editorial control at all. But i noticed how quickly you knocked out an article about them, would you care to perhaps help me out with this one? [110] thanks mark nutley ( talk) 21:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the history, Spencer R. Weart, who is well qualified as a historian with a physics background, [111] has written The Discovery of Global Warming - A History, 2008 edition available from amazon with an extended version available free online – its timeline gives an overview with links to more detailed sections. The IPCC outlines its own past, and their FAQ discusses a number of issues covered in the WG1 report. I did note before that Philip Ball in his review recommended Richard A. Muller's Physics for Future Presidents for a balanced view of the hockey stick episode, available from Amazon. I've not read it or other books on the subject, and can't give any first hand guidance, but if I find good recommendations I'll let you know. Thanks for asking, dave souza, talk 19:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Cla - it is clear from recent stuff on my talk page that you understanding of the science, and indeed your understanding of how to understand the science, is... well, since the civility police are watching, let us say that it is weak. I'd be grateful if you wouldn't interrupt conversations on my talk page with your lack of understanding. Please use the article talk pages if you want to discuss the articles and have nothing of value to say William M. Connolley ( talk) 09:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
To create some article so the redlinks may begone :) [112] Can you use infotrack to check for more stuff? This is all i can find via google Thanks mark nutley ( talk) 19:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Cool, i`ll just get an admin to delete the one i started then, way to go :-) mark nutley ( talk) 17:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree that involved admins should stay out of sanctions enforcement. In that spirit I would like to broaden your arbcom request to include discussion of Lar's misconduct. It makes more sense to address the broader issue at hand than to split things up piecemeal, don't you think? Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 00:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
FYI... I'm not sure how you managed to do this, but I had to restore my previous edits due to your inadvertent revert. No worries, but you may want to keep an eye out in the future. Viriditas ( talk) 00:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, do you've any interest to plan a Wikipedian meetup in Tokyo around April 2010? -- Saki talk 09:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your support MisterBee1966 ( talk) 14:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
For you to look in infotrac again for any refs about this mob American Policy Center an anon ip a7nd it for some reason. Hoping you can get some stuff to pad it out. Cheers mark nutley ( talk) 17:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
You keep saying this and it sort of makes sense, but how does this help me win my content dispute? :) A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 00:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi there -- you seem to have considerable experience in getting articles up to GA and FA status. I'd like your advice on how I can get this [113] up to such a standard. Please don't be afraid to be brutally honest)) Thanks, Jprw ( talk) 11:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Great stuff. I have now fitted in background sections both here and here. Thanks for all the help. Jprw ( talk) 17:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your support on the coordinator elections. – Joe N 14:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again but I have just finished doing a chunk of work on the above book, however, I don't have the facilities to scan the book's cover and thus create an image for the article. I understand that you have a copy of the book, and following on from a related discussion on Mark Nutley's page was wondering if you could help. Best, Jprw ( talk) 10:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Fantastic work, thank you. Jprw ( talk) 13:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Cla68,
I have nominated The Real Global Warming Disaster as a good article nominee. As someone who has not contributed to the article (or at least has made a very insignificant contribution), but who would I assume have an interest in this subject, I am writing to ask you if you would be willing to review it. Thanks in advance for your help, and at the same time I'll understand if you're too busy. All the best, Jprw ( talk) 08:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice and encouragement re: the above. The crucial thing it seems is to abide by the letter of WP criteria. Cheers, Jprw ( talk) 13:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay Cla68, I don't know what put a bee under your bonnet regarding me. But you've stretched my ability to assume good faith to the breaking point. Please stop your personal attacks. I didn't request that your account be blocked for harassment simply because after looking at your contributions to the encyclopedia I was impressed and pleased. However, at this point let me just say PLEASE STOP YOUR PERSONAL ATTACKS AND HARASSMENTS!!! Sincerely, TallMagic ( talk) 12:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer, but KDP kindly emailed me a copy. See that talk page for details. Cheers -- Pete Tillman ( talk) 18:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
The
March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
21:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Just so you'll know, a thread has been opened on the WP:ANI board about you. You can find that here [115]. Dayewalker ( talk) 06:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Would you be good enough to look over the following to ensure i am not breaking any blp stuff with this article, thanks mark nutley ( talk) 17:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
That's new to me, what you've done at desmogblog. Is that the new standard, extracting citations and putting them at the end of the page? Can you point me to any guideline on this? Thanks! ► RATEL ◄ 15:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I've come up with an alternative form of wording that follows the Oxburgh report's conclusions more closely and gets over the difficulties with "impropriety". What do you think of this version? -- ChrisO ( talk) 23:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
[117] Here, for some reason all my times refs are pointing to the same spot in the article (ref1) but they should all be seperate refs to seperate times articles, can you let me know on the talk page were the hell i have gone wrong please, Thanks mark nutley ( talk) 17:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Cla68, eight days left for Tokyo meetup but still nobody else confirmed their attendance and I do not think so but we should wait until otherwise either we will have to postponed the meetup or go for pre-meetup gathering... -- Saki talk 06:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I've blocked this account. He claims to be retired, so it shouldn't matter anyway, but this account has been used in violation of WP:SOCK, so if he wants to go back to using his original account (as you showed me) then I'll let him do so, but he has no justification for using any other accounts. To avoid stirring up drama, I haven't left any sockpuppet templates or other block templates on that account and I won't, but anybody reviewing the block log will see that he was blocked and why. -- Atama 頭 18:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
You are now at 4RR on DeSmogBlog. I suggest that you self-revert. You have reinserted the same information (in various forms) 4 times - despite it being removed by others, and an ongoing discussion where you are the only person who is for the information. --
Kim D. Petersen (
talk) 11:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC) - retract. I was miscounting - since i behaved and didn't revert you. You are only at 3RR - which is still bad - and you are still ignoring what everyone is saying. --
Kim D. Petersen (
talk)
11:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
[118] I have wmc yet again interfering in an rfc, i believe it is written in a neutral manner. Could you please look and give me your opinion, thanks mark nutley ( talk) 23:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I thought I'd respond on your talk page rather than within the RS/N. I'd be happy to look over any proposed RfC on the above and had, in fact, considered posting one myself on the subject. JakeInJoisey ( talk) 05:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
How about the following...
-- JakeInJoisey ( talk) 13:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
An admin has responded to my inquiry at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#RfC for WP:RSN? and suggested WP:CENT as, perhaps, an avenue of approach. As you have noted, with Alexa data having been cited some 900 times in Wikipedia articles and since WP:CENT is designed to support "discussions on matters that have a wide impact", perhaps you might want to consider its use in this case? JakeInJoisey ( talk) 12:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
[119] of WMC following MN to other forums? Thanks -- BozMo talk 10:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
[120] if you have a few minutes, i`d rather not have WMC mess it up again, thanks mark nutley ( talk) 12:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
But i need some help :), yes again. [121] i am having to rewrite this as the bishop hill blog is more than likely to get merged into it, i`d rather have it done properly than in a rush. If you have a bit of time could you look over it for me? thanks mark nutley ( talk) 22:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
The edit summary for this seems to imply that he could justify his comment if only he had time. This annoys me a little. Should I just cop it? Thepm ( talk) 07:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Cla68. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (2nd nomination), you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination). Cunard ( talk) 02:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
[122] since in general you risk turning a situation where his degree of involvement becomes the issue. Everyone on the page knows who is who and who thinks what. -- BozMo talk 07:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey. Just figured I'd remind you for future reference. Apparently it's acceptable to use AN/I instead of the probation page, even with respect to climate change articles.-- Heyitspeter ( talk) 08:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Judith_Curry#Curry.27s_notability.... Guettarda ( talk) 14:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Please remove the copyright violating texts (i'm not complaining) - since i have found and produced a link to each and every article that you cited. So there is no need for it. [123] -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 08:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
This edit] is a partial revert of my previous edit, in that it removes critical descriptors. It's your 2nd revert on the page today. Please self-revert. Yilloslime T C 05:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi there Cla. I was wondering if you would be willing to agree to a mentorship of sorts for User:Marknutley. I believe that one of the places where Mark has room for improvement is with sources, and I was hoping that someone like yourself, with a great deal of experience with high quality content writing, could teach him to properly differentiate between reliable and unreliable sources. You can see the proposal I posted here. Do you think you could be the "long-term contributor in good standing" that I mentioned? NW ( Talk) 11:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
This historical revision shows SBHB and Stephan Schulz creating the terms "microLar" and "milliLar" to describe bias. That was after ANOTHER admin blocked WMC. I also believe it preceded most of the diffs that SBHB himself produced, but I'll have to check. ATren ( talk) 16:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I trust you understand why I have taken this action, I had lifted the Bishop Hill (blog) protection from a slow edit war after reviewing the talkpage and determined that discussion had resumed. I realise that you were undoing actions which also appeared against the spirit and word of the lifting of the protection, but two wrongs do not make a right. I will watch this page and will action any request to have this block reviewed at an appropriate venue, and - since I am on my lunchbreak and will not be available until this evening - am happy for another party to action any proceeding (and for you to be unblocked under an undertaking not to revert the article again). I regret that I have had to take these actions. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 13:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Cla68 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I appreciate your offer to unblock. I think that if someone blanks almost an entire article and then someone else redirects it, however, in effect deleting it, it is not unreasonable to revert those actions, as I did. Remember, we're supposed to keep information available to our readers. If, on the other hand, LHVU is trying to send a message that we editors need to start cooperating and collaborating with each other or else, then I think including me in the block is appropriate. Usually, article blanking and redirecting against consensus is considered obvious vandalism and doesn't fall under any revert restrictions. Therefore, I cannot accept a 0RR restriction with regard to the type of edits that Souza and ChrisO did. Cla68 ( talk) 22:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Decline reason:
If you are uninterested in the conditions, it seems pointless to unblock then. Jayron 32 23:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Recuse from unblocking, but I think that there is a good case to be made that reverting blanking isn't edit warring, and that the edits were justified. ++ Lar: t/ c 01:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I have no interest in ChrisO's suggestion that you're hounding him. But I will say that discussing an issue with another editor is step one in dispute resolution. The drama-boards are much further down the list. Please start with step one next time.-- Chaser ( talk) 23:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Cla68, your continued attempts at retaliating against me for your recent block need to stop. I'm always open to refactoring comments - you just need to ask. Taking it to AN/I without even bothering to ask me to refactor is not on. -- ChrisO ( talk) 23:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi! I'm aokomoriuta, mainly active on Japanese Wikipedia. I'm also a member of 関西ウィキメディアユーザ会(Wikimedia Kansai), which is an unofficial user group of Wikimedia in Kansai region.
On May 15th (next Saturday), We have the 1st "Kansai Wikimedia Unconference"(関西ウィキメディア勉強会) in Osaka. Sessions are expected to be in Japanese, but you are of course welcome to give your presentation in English though.
Please give a look to Wikimedia Kansai's Webpage for more information. If you have some questions, Email me or wmkansai at gmail dot com.
I hope you join us!-- aokomoriuta ( talk) 10:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Cla, I think the evidence against 2/0 is overwhelming if you want to escalate this to arbcom. I have repeatedly asked 2/0 to temper his actions on this probation, because he has a history of over-reacting against one side while defending the other. Take a look at his log of blocks over the last 6 months and it's practically a who's who of the "skeptic" side of this debate, without a single sanction against the other side. This alone is not an indictment, but if you examine the actions he did NOT take, particularly his passionate, 20-point defense of WMC after one of WMC's temper tantrums, his harsh actions against skeptics are all the more suspect. He's the anti-Lar: whereas Lar tends to speak his mind but ultimately respects consensus, 2/0's discussion is impeccably calm and neutral, while his actions are clearly one-sided.
I don't have a lot of free time these days, but I can perhaps collect a bunch of diffs for you to build a case, if you choose. ATren ( talk) 13:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Lawrence Solomon is not a reliable source on anything in the area of climate change. His column has been riddled with errors, and his Deniers book, which essentially reprints this series, is not better. Please don't use him even for peacocking - find a real source. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 12:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I was curious to know what your edit summary here [161] meant in English. I stuck it into Google Translate and came up with "T Stiff Noodles"! ScottyBerg ( talk) 18:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Do Steve McIntyre and Roger A. Pielke, Jr. fall under wp:sps and their blogs considered as reliable sources for their views if attributed? The same question for Andrew Orlowski writing in The Register? mark nutley ( talk) 18:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Cla68 is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia soon. |
I probably won't be very active between now and June 7. I may be able to check my talk page sporadically. Cla68 ( talk) 07:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
You seem to be badly confused [162]. Perhaps a break would indeed be a good idea William M. Connolley ( talk) 09:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
In this diff I only meant to encourage Hipocrite to focus better on the issue at hand rather than wider questions, as several of the diffs he presented were yours rather than Lar's. I apologize for giving the wrong impression, as I consider you one of Wikipedia's better editors. Regards, - 2/0 ( cont.) 13:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Would you care to comment on [163]? Thanks. Hipocrite ( talk) 17:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Is there something wrong with these edits? ATren ( talk) 19:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Not only do I not remove messages from my talk page, I also don't change their headings, and I don't revert people who try to change their own messages as long as they have not been responded to. Does that give me the moral high ground? Hipocrite ( talk) 23:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again for your thoughts at User talk:ScottyBerg/Climate Change. I've responded with some thoughts of my own, and I hope that discussion can be opened up to others of all points of view, if people aren't entirely burned out. I think that this climate change dispute is a kind of laboratory for internet dispute-resolution processes, and it will be interesting to see how it turns out. I see that you're on break, but if you look in at some point I'd be curious to hear if you have any further thoughts. ScottyBerg ( talk) 15:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, I appreciate that. It's a difficult editing environment, to put it mildly. SlimVirgin talk contribs 07:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Cla68, I know that you've been on a semi-wikibreak but, you've posted to Wikipedia almost everyday since then. Your request for an amendement to an old ArbCom case has had outstanding questions for you to answer for about four days now. I assume that the case has not been closed because the committee is interested in your answers to these questions. Please attend to this as soon as you can. Bill Huffman ( talk) 20:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I am working on removing the redlinks from Robert Byrce and have managed two of his books so far, but i am stuck with this one as all the refs are now so old they are all in places like infotrac. Could you look through it and post the results here Please. The current book i am doing is Cronies: Oil, the Bushes, and the Rise of Texas, America's Superstate. Thanks mark nutley ( talk) 20:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
An Arbitration request in which you are involved has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Workshop.
Additionally, please note that for this case specific procedural guidelines have been stipulated; if you have any questions please ask. The full outline is listed on the Evidence and Workshop pages, but please adhere to the basics:
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 00:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I just wish to point out that it would be good to correct the spelling of Stephen to Stephan. All the best Polargeo ( talk) 12:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Cla68 is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia soon. |
I should be back around 3 July. I probably won't be able to check Wikipedia, or email, much during that time. Cla68 ( talk) 22:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
This Arbitration case is now moving into the Workshop phase. Please read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Workshop to understand the process. Editors should avoid adding to their evidence sections outside of slight tweaks to aid in understanding; large-scale additions should not be made. Many proposals have already been made and there has already been extensive discussion on them, so please keep the Arbitrators' procedures in mind, namely to keep "workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible." Workshop proposals should be relevant and based on already provided evidence; evidence masquerading as proposals will likely be ignored. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 20:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Cla68, I did try following your links in the section on WMCab (which title you might refactor). Do you think that when you have several months editing and over a hundred edits, and arrive on a featured page calling the article "slanted and biased" it is really unreasonable for someone to accuse you of "errors". If not, why not choose a stronger first example of incivility because many people reading the page like me will not go beyond the first one listed if it does not seem to grab attention? -- BozMo talk 11:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
When the arbcom thing is done could you look at the ref`s used here [166] and ok them please, i`d like to get the article to mainspace before i get topic banned after the arbcom case is done :) mark nutley ( talk) 22:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I have removed a few copyright-violating links from your evidence section, as they may constitute contributory infringement. I have left a placeholder to indicate that I have done so, but you should of course feel free to replace this with a summary of the point made by the infringing links. There is simply no reason why any page here ever should link to illegal content. This is not the first conversation we have had about copyright and its importance to this project - please be more careful. Regards, - 2/0 ( cont.) 22:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit#.22some_sceptics_allege.22_vs._.22it_has_been_alleged.22. Just browsing diffs and thought this would be a good addition to your evidence section on wikilawyering (particularly on the part of ChrisO), which only gives one example as yet. Happy editing.-- Heyitspeter ( talk) 10:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
This first link in the BLP evidence of the Climate change case is broken: [167]. If possible fix it and on my talk page point me to where I can see the fix. Tks. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Pifeedback
Could you give your opinion on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Pifeedback.com? ChaosMaster16 ( talk) 12:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
I'd heard of that blog, and would love to see an article on it. But there is nothing on Google News except for the article already cited. Are you aware of any others? I'll be out of pocket for much of the next few weeks, but I'll see what I can find. ScottyBerg ( talk) 13:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
In response to your query on Rlverse's talk page, the probation applies to all climate change articles (broadly construed).
From the probation page:
See also Sanctions placed by the Wikipedia community.
I'm leaving this comment on your talk page because Rlverse seemed a little irritated that the discussion was taking place on his talk page. He opened an exemption for adding additional evidence on the issue of the recent edit war on Robert Watson (scientist). I have not been invovled in any of this arbitration or the subject area and haven't decided whether to present evidence on this issue. I'm sure others will cover it adequately. Minor4th • talk 22:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
So how are you getting along with mark nutley?
If your mentorship is working well, would you mind having a look at this talk page? It is not strictly within your remit, since it is not climate change, and nutley is not adding sources but removing them. But if you have practice in dealing with him when he asserts that the Greeks didn't have democracys [sic], or argues about the Roman Republic without the slightest notion of its difference from the Roman Empire, it would be most welcome. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I want to use these reviews for the HSI article The Geological Society Natuurwetenschap & Techniek Quadrant Magazine I asked over at stephans page but he has not replied to my last post mark nutley ( talk) 10:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Re [168]: if you want to talk to ChrisO, use his talk page. If you want to talk to me, use mine William M. Connolley ( talk) 09:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Cla68, I've started the RfC regarding MMfA, MRC, FAIR, Newsbusters etc. Please continue to participate on the Reliable Sources Talk page here. Skoal. Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 21:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm really angry that anybody would pull this kind of crap on Wikipedia, and astonished that it's somebody who seems to want to be taken seriously. Please retract that attack at once. You know better. -- TS 17:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Does it permit edits like [170] or [171], or is the so-called topic ban only in effect for edits you don't approve of? Hipocrite ( talk) 11:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Please see WP:AN/I#Malicious sabotage of RSN comments by Cla68. -- ChrisO ( talk) 01:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Some 2 months ago (it seems like ages ago) you suggested that the article title be changed to "Gore Effect". I realize there have been a lot more pressing issues in the interim but I hope, at some time, you will be able to revisit that suggestion as I believe it to be an edit warranted by both colloquial use and by Wikipedia guidelines. Thanks. JakeInJoisey ( talk) 14:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know about this sign-up list, a couple of clarifications would be helpful. Firstly, with this comment you continued a discussion over a hot topic in the CC area, are user talk pages exempt from the voluntary restriction? I see Tony's answered and presumably that's an end to it, but it should be explicit in the clarifications. There's also this merger proposal which you've not commented on, but some others have, so that could be raised at the same time. Please let me know if these are areas that have already been cleared with someone, dave souza, talk 17:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, you cast a vote of oppose on a proposed content guideline; I and a few other editors have made significant changes to the proposed guideline to try and resolve the issues of the opposers. I initially opposed the guideline but now support it due to the changes made recently. Would you mind reviewing the changes and commenting on this section. Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(science-related_articles)#Towards_consensus_acceptance_of_the_guideline.2C_lets_discuss Thank you very much.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
On the MOS:JP talk page, a discussion has been started about including or not including romanizations for words of English origin, such as Fainaru Fantajī in Final Fantasy (ファイナルファンタジー, Fainaru Fantajī) (for the sake of simplicity, I called this case "words of English origin", more information on semantics here).
Over the course of a month, it has become apparent that both the parties proposing to include or not include those romanizations cannot be convinced by the arguments or guidelines brought up by the other side. Therefore, a compromise is trying to be found that will satisfy both parties. One suggestion on a compromise has been given already, but it has not found unanimous agreement, so additional compromises are encouraged to be suggested.
One universally accepted point was to bring more users from the affected projects in to help achieve consensus, and you were one of those selected in the process.
What this invitation is:
What this invitation is not:
It would be highly appreciated if you came over to the MOS:JP talk page and helped find a solution. Thank you in advance. Prime Blue ( talk) 11:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if I'm being a nag, but this is an issue that must be addressed. Thanks. IronDuke 03:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
It seems that a recent interaction on Dave Souza's talk page could also be interpretted as being a disruptive interaction. [174] To try to be complete, here's the Cynwolfe incident. [175] Here's the IronDuke incident that I'm referring to. [176] The incident where you carried out a full multiple week campaign against me me was, of course, much more extensive. I describe it here. [177] I don't know if there were similar incidents before your bullying of me began. You have an excellent record of improving Wikipedia article space, especially in the military history area. That is much appreciated. This apparent desire to sometimes bully other editors is disruptive and should be stopped. Thank you, Bill Huffman ( talk) 17:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Cla68, your response is disappointing but not surprising. Your accusations that I'm a wp:SPA bent on attacking anyone is false. You say things like this but never try to prove such accusations. It is just another example of how you like to bully others and don't seem to care about the truth when you target a victim. My editing that has anything to do with Mr. Smart is an extremely small percentage of my total Wikipedia edits especially considering the totality of my Wikipedia edits which would include http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TallMagic. Since your harassment bullying campaign began against me, you keep repeating such false things about me. You have never presented any problematic edits despite your repeated false accusations at multiple noticeboards. You have never bothered supporting your false accusations. You should cease your bullying activities. You should stop telling false stories about people. For example your totally false accusation about what I said about WNU in an attempt to get my editing banned. See [178] for strong supporting evidence for what I allege in this paragraph above. You harassed me, you apparently also tried to bully Dave Souza, CynWolfe and perhaps IronDuke. Such behavior is disruptive and should stop. Bill Huffman ( talk) 07:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I was recently given a copy of this book by a friend and I am currently reading through it. I find the topic reasonably interesting so I thought I would just check out the article on the book. It looks a little thin to me and so I might be interested in trying to help improve it a bit. I am contacting you because I see on the talk page that you have also been recently trying to improve the article. You mentioned something called Good Article status and indicated that you didn't think the article was ready for that.
Can you tell me a little more about the good article stuff? Is this documented somewhere? What's involved in getting an article to that point? Etc.
I have also been working a little on some of the Country Music articles. Mostly Hank Williams, Jr. which also seems to need some help. I would like to see about getting both the Hank Williams Jr. and the The Deniers articles up to a level that they are considered good.
Any pointers or advice you could provide would be greatly appreciated. -- Georgia peach lover ( talk) 13:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Cla, I wanted to thank you for your support at that talk page re Dave S. I didn't take his remarks seriously, even tho they were a bit sharp -- especially since I started it ;-]. Then we got into a WikiLove-fest and I didn't have the heart to pursue it. Perhaps for the best; collegiality is good. But I appreciate the thought: sharp words are the rule in the CC area, sigh, and I get carried away sometimes myself. Best wishes, Pete Tillman ( talk) 22:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Annals of Climate Science: From internal discussions of French GCM model LMD/ISPL: “Olivier has mentionned the problem of snow accumulation reaching several km must be resolved.” tinyurl.com/37s7j3 (which triggered a spam block, sigh)
Thank you, very much, for your kind words at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia about my work on the article. Much appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt ( talk) 17:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I have drafted an essay on activism in Wikipedia here. Before I post it, I hope anyone interested will provide some feedback or constructive criticism on it. The essay especially needs some amusing images to break up its wall of text. Cla68 ( talk) 00:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I'll look for more cute photos tomorrow. Bedtime here. Best wishes for the essay, Pete Tillman ( talk) 05:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
This is looking more and more like a conflict between two worldviews: what is sometimes called "post-Enlightenment" (rationalist, science-oriented) on the one hand, and what could be vaguely referred to as " postmodern" on the other. Whether two such fundamentally incompatible worldviews can be reconciled within a project such as Wikipedia is an interesting question. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 00:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Deep enough! -- Pete Tillman ( talk) 19:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Looks right on from here, Cla68, although I have to agree (naturally :) with Slim re: FAC. Classic exmple documented at User:SandyGeorgia/Venezuela articles, but I also agree with those editors who say that BLP activist editors differ from science/fringe activist editors in some ways -- in the science realm, we often find editors using primary or dubious sources incorrectly, while in the BLP/political realm, we're more likely to find the ganging up to game the UNDUE issue, no matter how many reliable sources one provides. I think Ling.Nut hit the mark when he commented to Jimbo that Wiki doesn't seem to have a process to enforce our NPOV pillar-- Chavez has been POV for as long as I've been editing Wiki. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the Removal of information section - could one then add "An easy way to spot an activist is to repeatedly insert Primary-sourced information or push for Undue Weight inclusion or prominence of either non-notable/borderline-notable or otherwise minor material? Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I have proposed an edit for the mainspace of an important Wikipedia policy, the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources policy. Essentially, I believe that some sources are so partisan that using them as "reliable sources" invites more problems than they're really worth. You've previously participated in the RfC on this subject, or another related discussion indicating that you are interested in this important policy area. Please indicate here whether you support or oppose the proposed edit. The original discussion is here. Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 13:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Please note that contributors should not be voting here. I'd appreciate it if you'd remove your !vote (and reword if appropriate). What we are looking for is constructive criticism (such as alternate wordings or alternate remedies) . If you aren't around I may remove your !vote myself, and you might want to then modify your comment. Thanks. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller ( talk) 14:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Your userpage
User:Cla68/Evidence/Sandbox has a category, and so appears in
Category:Wikipedia dispute resolution.
As the
guideline on userpages describes, this is undesired. It is suggested that you edit the userpage to prevent this showing. It can be done by adding a colon (:) before the word Category, like this: [[:Category:Wikipedia dispute resolution]]. Other categories might be involved too. -
DePiep (
talk)
01:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I am curious. I have not waded into these articles really before now but have walked into one right now --> this page Watts Up With That? - we have Virginia Heffernan who first recommended the blog and then recanted or placed a caveat or whatever. Now we have the page where people want to use the first one and not the second. You'd agree that was a distortion or not? My preference is for both, and given all the blog post is an opinion I see no problem with that in our guidelines, but someone disagrees. So, how do you feel about that one? Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Rereading your comment, Cla, her original comment was not a blog post, it was a New York Times review. I don't think there's any question that review is reliably sourced. The RSN entry was not phrased well and its unclear what is being asked or in what context. Minor 4th 00:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Please show a little basic courtesy and respect my request to stay off my user page, unless you have something really important to say. Guettarda ( talk) 13:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Please stop being silly. I've fixed up your spelling for you [179]. If you can't cope with that, don't comment there. Thanks William M. Connolley ( talk) 11:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, if you plan on having Climate Audit go through the WP:GA process, I would like to help. Please let me know if there's any way that I can be of assistance. In particular, I've created a Wikipedia Reliable Sources Search engine which allows me to filter through web sites which don't meet Wikipedia's standards for secondary reliable sources. Also, your talk page is on my watch list so there's no need to inform me of any replies. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 04:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone know of another article about a blog or a web site that we can use as an example for improving our Climate Audit. Maybe a FA or GA? Or just something well written? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 16:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I've removed your latest, per the notice at the top of my talk page about repetition. If you have anything new to say, you're welcome to say it. But please don't interrupt conersations with other people William M. Connolley ( talk) 07:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Just in case you didn't see it: [180]. Thanks! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Cla68, a heads-up: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision#Proposed_FoF:_NuclearWarfare_has_failed_to_uphold_BLP_policy_in_the_manner_expected_of_an_administrator, which relates to an enforcement request that you originally brought back in July. -- JN 466 23:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
There is a discussion of your use of sources in the climate change topic area at User talk:Newyorkbrad. -- TS 00:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Cla: I've seen the documents and seen GregJackP's statements, Risker was definitely in the right in both the spirit and letter of the NLT policy. SirFozzie ( talk) 04:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,
Dougweller (
talk)
18:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I was very sorry to see your name on this list. My interactions with you have always been pleasant, and I saw no behavior that would justify such an action.
Oh, well. It looks like your interests are broad enough that you can still contribute to Wikipedia, and I hope you do. We'll miss your constructive editing in climate change.
Best wishes, Pete Tillman ( talk) 19:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
This is formal notification because you are one of the affected parties. -- TS 00:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
In a comment at the clarification request, you wrote: [183]
I do acknowledge that you were notified of the request, as the guidance of the arbitrators on the topic affects expectations of your future conduct and, should you ever choose to return to the topic, the kind of error you need to avoid. I did not intend that you should break your topic ban, as you did in making an edit there attacking other topic-banned editors: [184]
You also made comments at the Marknutley enforcement request, to which you cannot claim to have been "invited", and again you used the opportunity to exacerbate interpersonal disputes related to climate change. [185] [186] [187].
In recent days you have also continued to edit your essay Wikipedia:Activist [188] [189] [190] which is worrying because it appears to me at least to be closely related to the tenor of your editing in the climate change topic, and your description of activist psychology seems to be a sly dig at William Connolley. But perhaps others less involved in the climate change topic would judge that essay more kindly.
I'm asking you not to respond to this. I'm asking you please, because the topic ban is there for a purpose and I know you value Wikipedia as highly as I do, to take the Arbitration Committee's directions to heart and go and find something else to do. -- TS 09:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Cla68,
While your comment may apply to certain editors, in case of me, the situaton is actually the opposite. There haven't been any issues with me editing any articles here. In 2008, when I had more time for Wikipedia than I have now, I spend some time rewriting thermodynamics articles. When some months ago another editor made some changes, bringing in a bit more the perspective from chemical engineering (I wrote it more from the theoretical physics perspective), I thought that was a good thing for Wikipedia, despite some objections to some issues. These articles should be authored by the Wikipedia community, not by "Count Iblis" or any other single editor.
The reason I got in trouble a bit, is due to the factionalist mentality that exists here in some areas to some extent. I defended Brews Ohare despite arguing against him on the speed of light issue and in the ArbCom case about this. Wrong on one issue and having some issues with working together with others, shouldn't automaticaly imply "hopeless case, let's boot him out of Wikipedia". But with this stance I took after the ArbCom case, I broke with the faction and as a result, I got branded as being part of the "wrong faction".
What also plays a role here is that the editing issues regarding Brews are not as well visible to outsiders compared to e.g the Climate Change case. What then happens is that I when I got labeled to be "Brews' advocate", that label then stuck, despite being nonsense based on actually editing articles. ArbCom even acted on this by passing an advocacy resstriction (which has now expired).
To see just how ridiculous this is, just imagine that in 6 months from now, William would actually defend you and argue that you should be allowed back to edit CC articles (despite disagreements related to the topic). But then William gets attacked for breaking with his faction, disputes start within his faction, and then ArbCom decides to sanction William for provoking a battlefield atmosphere in his faction.
This is difficult to imagine, but if you were one of just a few sceptical editors here, you can perhaps see how something like this could happen. Count Iblis ( talk) 16:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Following a request for amendment to the Climate change case, three motions have been posted regarding the scope of topic bans, the appeal of topic bans, and a proposal to unblock two editors.
For and on behalf of the Arbitration Committee -- Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 19:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Activist, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Activist and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Activist during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ScienceApologist ( talk) 00:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
By motion, the Arbitration Committee has ammended remedies 3.1 and 3.2.1 of the Climate change case to read as follows:
— Coren (talk), for the Committee, 21:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you. Here's the request for clarification. Your ability to discuss the case would be affected. -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 05:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey,
I was considering getting a shakujō - have you ever seen any for sale and would you have a rough idea how much one would cost? TheGoodLocust ( talk) 22:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
This wording did not have consensus. Cptnono ( talk) 00:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The RfC provides an opportunity for additional comment by other interested editors. Can you frame a constructive response to Bobthefish2 pivotal question: Even if the policy does not recommend the use of Senkaku/Diaoyu-style dual names, is our situation exceptional enough to make it a good solution?
In this RfC context, please consider an overview here? -- Tenmei ( talk) 19:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I saw you comment on Binksternet , and I was wondering what "Iran-related articles" are you talking about? Could you post some examples of your edits here? I frequently edit this topical area, and I don't recall ever encountering you. Kurdo777 ( talk) 09:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
It is a personal attack.
Continuing down this path will lead to unpleasant results.
Read WP:VANDAL for more on the subject.
Until you decide to apologize for that remark and edit summary, do not edit my user talkpage.
jps ( talk) 23:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
re: "he ordered me not to edit his page" [192]. not a big issue, but in the future don't let pissy demands like that stop you from fulfilling administrative requirements. Go ahead and post the notice; he's within his rights to delete it immediately if he doesn't want you on his talk page, but you will have observed due diligence in the matter. that will save you the kind of nitpicky wikilawyering (nitwikilawyering?) that you're already getting. -- Ludwigs2 06:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I've submitted a request for clarification concerning your recent edits to Wikipedia talk:Activist. See here. -- TS 21:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Category:Theistic science theories, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. edg ☺ ☭ 16:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Both Jprw and the dynamic IP are editing on the same articles, Roger Scruton and Right-wing politics. Both articles have been semi-protected because of sockpuppetry by the IP, and several of the IP addresses have been blocked for sockpuppetry. There is some similarity between the writing style of Jprw and the IP.
Jprw has chosen to post comments by the blocked IP on talk pages and to restore deleted comments by the IP, which is meatpuppetry. He also has a history of edit-warring.
That evidence is sufficient to create suspicion and the best way to resolve the suspicion is through SPI. The administrators at SPI have experience in identifying sockpuppets and checkuser. It would be wrong however to make accusations outside SPI. If my suspicions are incorrect however it sould be fairly simple for Jprw to end this.
TFD ( talk) 17:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
While I have no doubt that your intentions are good in trying to advise ZuluPapa5, I don't think that your contributions are appropriate in this area. Your advice to ZuluPapa5 that he blank his evidence pages rather than have them deleted directly contradicts the instructions in the Arbitration remedies ( #Deletion of evidence sub-pages). I also believe that you're treading very close to your own topic ban in the climate change area, by commenting on content and involving yourself in disputes intimately related to that subject. Finally, your own history in this area makes it difficult for other editors to perceive you as an 'honest broker' here. If you intend to comment further, I would strongly urge you to first seek an official clarification or amendment from the ArbCom; any other route is likely to lead directly to an arbitration enforcement request. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 16:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
This is a problematic issue raised by my colleague, Joshua Zelinsky...
Outcast User:Moulton being annoying, continuing to expose corrupt editors IDCab
User:Moulton who was banned citation needed for persistent disruption citation needed, has been editing the last few days via IP addresses where he has continued to try to out the same editors he had a beef with before his ban. This is the most recent example. A block would be helpful. JoshuaZ ( talk) 18:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- I am not sure why JoshuaZ is on the warpath against Moulton, but Moulton allegedly posted some comments to a BLP Talk page, and JoshuaZ removed it. [193] Read it for yourself if you want to decide who is being disruptive. Roger ( talk) 19:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Joshua Zelinsky is on the warpath on behalf of IDCab because in the last battle of this epic MMPORG, those on the side of accuracy, ethics, and excellence in online media beat their brains out. Or more precisely, Charles Ainsworth beat their brains out at ArbCom . So they obviously don't want anyone to do that again. But the sensible thing to do would be to correct the blatant errors in the BLPs. I mean is that too much to ask? — Moulton 08:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
For the record, one of those admins was me (coming across the issue via WP:BLPN on my watchlist); I've blocked the IP for one month and deleted some text and revision-deleted some things. I was going to ask someone else to take another look at the incident in case any further action is needed, as I need to log off now. Rd232 talk 19:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Feel free to block all 160,000 Verizon IPs in Eastern Massachusetts, plus a slew of IPs in two other states. Also, feel free to invite Jimbo Wales to shut down Wikiversity, as FeloniousMonk sought to do the last time around. Lot of good it did him, eh? — Barry Kort 05:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
OK. Marking as unresolved. He's continuing to evade the block and reposting his outing User talk:Schlafly and at Talk:David Berlinski. Suggest semiprotection of that page, and this page (since he's now posting comments here) is in order. JoshuaZ ( talk) 06:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
This isn't his only IP - I recently blocked User:68.160.132.4 as Moulton too. Raul654 ( talk) 06:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, he's used other IPs on BLPN, Schafly talk page, Talk:David Berlinski, and User talk:rd232. Hence my request for semi-protection. JoshuaZ ( talk) 06:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- I have a quarter million IPs in three states. Do you propose to block them all? Or would you prefer negotiate a peaceable resolution of my dispute with the tattered remnants of IDCab? — Moulton 06:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- He's threatening to continue saying he has access to vast numbers of IPs if we don't negotiate a resolution. Dougweller ( talk) 07:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Are you alarmed by the fact that Verizon service in Eastern Massachusetts comprises a block of some 160,000 dynamic IPs? — Moulton 08:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Shouldn't something be done about his posts at User talk:Schlafly#David Berlinski -- including the fact that his signature links to his Wikiuniversity page rather than the IP he's using to evade the ban? Dougweller ( talk) 07:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Of course something should be done. They should be thoughtfully responded to by Roger and other interested and responsible parties who care about accuracy, excellence, and ethics on online media. — Moulton 08:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- And I presume here, using another Wikiversity ID [194] as a link instead of the IP address. Dougweller ( talk • contribs) 10:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
In view of this and this combined with the general threat/boast from this character, I have semi-protected ANI for three hours. Favonian ( talk) 13:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- I recommend against moral panic at the discovery of moral bankruptcy. Unless, of course we are crafting a comic opera about moral panic at the revelation of moral bankruptcy. My perplexity is that I can't tell the difference between a comic opera and reality here on Wikipedia. — Gastrin Bombesin 10:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
How may we address this? — Caprice 11:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
It's appropriate for both sides of a dispute to post to a noticeboard. The account who posted initially misstated the objection and didn't fully describe the dispute. A message like your might be better when engaged editors (from either side) begin dominate the discussion to the exclusion of outside input. Will Beback talk 15:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I think you're approaching this from the wrong side, Charles. It's blindingly obvious who AF is and, even if it's an associate, it's still a group with a POV to push. That itch you have is, I think, more related to the offensive double standards. I'd have a lot more sympathy for Will's (albeit valid) point if he was even half as fast at identifying B&K socks as he is in identifying HK socks... and of course if he'd admit to and stop his own POV pushing efforts. Slim raised the issue of naked short selling, and I tend to agree. Except I don't think she'd agree with my view that the only difference I'm seeing is that HK doesn't have anything of the moral high-ground (such as it was) enjoyed by JB. Having said all that, no one really cares what an unimportant American fruitloop thinks. I mean, seriously? Why else do you think Will gets away with it, but gets pulled up when he tries it elsewhere? 120.23.0.60 ( talk) 04:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Since you Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_26#Category:Persons_convicted_of_fraud participated in the recent CfD of Category:Persons convicted of fraud I wanted to inform you that the category was recently recreated and relisted. Here is a link to the current CfD should you wish to participate. [Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_20#Category:Persons_convicted_of_fraud]]. Cheers. Griswaldo ( talk) 03:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Japan for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. - Mabeenot ( talk) 04:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Do you mind if I just cut-and-paste move the discussion from Talk:Solar energy to Talk:Cost of electricity by source? This seems to be a more appropriate discussion place.-- E8 ( talk) 00:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Hoping you and your family are OK. Are you near the epicenter? ATren ( talk) 12:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted to say, you have a very good looking user page and your contributions to the Japan Earthquake 2011 page have been very positive and thorough! Keep up the good work. Rsteilberg 00:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsteilberg ( talk • contribs)
The WikiProject Japan Signpost article scheduled for this week was postponed in light of the earthquake, tsunami, and ongoing nuclear crisis. We would like to publish the interview within the next couple weeks with updated information that takes into account the events in Japan. Please take an opportunity to return to the interview page to answer some additional questions located at the bottom of the page. This is also an opportunity to revise any previous answers if you feel the need. We hope to bring your story to a wider audience. Thanks again for your participation. - Mabeenot ( talk) 03:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't recall exactly if it was you or Roger Davis that said something about US gov't sock puppets not existing. Huh? Tijfo098 ( talk) 21:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. I don't see any specific concerns or policy violations. Could you point to what aspect of my edits is problematic? Please provide diffs. Will Beback talk 01:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Cla68, I noticed your kind words to IP 140.247.126.237. Very nice gesture. — Ched : ? 07:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey Cla68. Removing an you made to the 'See Also' list in the United States House Committee on Energy and Commerce a year ago, as there is no clear context and the topic is not similar nor directly related. I'm assuming that this involved an error, but figured I should drop you a line. 0x69494411 01:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sixtyninefourtyninefourtyfoureleven ( talk • contribs)
I had a good look online for this and couldn't see anything - even the Washington Post's website gave 186mph or 300km/h. Can you clarify the source? -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 22:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Your request for arbitration has been declined. The Arbitrators felt that the checkuser issue was handled by the audit subcommittee, who found no evidence of wrongdoing, and that a lack of current activity meant that the issue was not ready for a full case.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee -- Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 11:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Who decides the word? -- Thepm ( talk) 11:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Cla68. As you may have noticed, I have taken a break from editing pending resolution of your actions. Per discussion with arbcom members I am hereby formally requesting that you stop following me or engaging me in any articles/noticeboard discussion that I am involved in that you had not previously been involved in before you were asked to follow me around off-wiki. I will certainly try to avoid you when and where I can. Thanks. IronDuke 16:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
1) "As you may have noticed, I have taken a break from editing pending resolution of your actions" So what you start with is an allegation that Charles is the cause of some pain to you and that there is some sort of investigation. No proof of said invesitgation, of course, just random mudslinging. And, of course, the "poor me, what a victim I am" campaign. 2) "Per discussion with arbcom members" Again with the random mudslinging. Name these phantom arbcom members, or crawl back into your hole. 3) Paraphrase: 'I demand that you promise to stop stalking me and I'll try to be nice to you' Seriously? What sort of idiot could possibly take that as a reasonable compromise? IronDuke, Charles wants you to be nicer to people and stop assuming bad faith. Heck, there's even a policy about that, isn't there? But, instead of taking that comment to heart, you turn up the WP:NSPABS all the way to eleven. Charles has authored many FAs, he's copy edited hundreds, if not thousands of articles, and aided countless editors in their improvement of the encyclopaedia. What have you done that gives you the right to malign him so? Read WP:AGF, internalise it. The fact that there are some people who don't want to do the right thing does not give you licence to join them. If you find it all too hard, find another hobby. Now go away and leave Charles to his work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.23.134.227 ( talk) 02:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, for your image alignment help, at Santorum (neologism). Much appreciated. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt ( talk) 04:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello. You made a comment on the peer review page of Matin Luther. I couldn't organize it as you said and couldn't you do it? TGilmour ( talk) 18:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Vermouth at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist ( talk) 01:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Cla68, I see you're a veteran of the Climate Change arbitration, so I'm wondering if I could get your opinion on a related matter. This regards Lyndon LaRouche. By one account this movement's publications are "at the forefront of denying the reality of global warming". The articles featured in their two main magazines illustrate the movement's devotion to that topic. Executive Intelligence Review and 21st Century Science and Technology Some of their prominent views are covered at Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement#Environment and energy. Apparently, their facts or theories have been repeated by more mainstream commentators like Rush Limbaugh. My question is whether you, Cla68, think the LaRouche bio and related articles would be covered by the Arbitration topic ban on "articles about Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages" and "biographies of living people associated with Climate Change broadly construed"? Will Beback talk 10:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I have replied to you, at my user talkpage. Thank you, Cla68, for the polite manner in which you are conducting yourself in discussions with me. I really appreciate it. A lot. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt ( talk) 05:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Cla68, a suggestion has been made at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#What_administrative_action_is_sought_here.3F that perhaps RfC/Us would be the way forward here. What are your thoughts? Would you co-certify if I raised an RfC/U on Cirt, based on the concerns I posted to their talk page yesterday, and similar cases? -- JN 466 22:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I will assume that all parties involved in this dispute are watching this page. I have posted some comments and requested clarification and further information on the Mediation Cabal case page. If all those involved in this dispute (read - content dispute) could leave comments on the case page, linked above, that would be most helpful. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 11:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I've started a discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#User:SlimVirgin.2FPoetgate Mindbunny ( talk) 16:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm really not quite sure what to do here. You commented in the WP:RSN section about the source on the protests in Ahwaz in the 2011 Iranian protests article. Since then, I have found quite a few other sources, such as Al Bawaba, Human Rights Watch, Los Angeles Times (falls under WP:NEWSBLOG). But Kurdo has been continually marginalizing the information, with summaries like "Al Bawaba is a self-publishing blog-like site with no editorial oversight, not a news agancy or newspaper . It doesn't meet the requirments of WP:RS", or "trimming down HRW statment, this is not Human Rights in Iran page, please mind WP:Undue" (in this case, specifically removing the information referring to excessive force, arrests of Arab people, and government censorship). Then there's how he's adding in specific words to try and make it seem to the reader that the sources still in the section are unreliable, such as making sure that Al Arabiya has "Saudi-owned pan-Arab" in front of it, specifying blog for Los Angeles Times (while technically correct, we usually don't specify it, since per WP:NEWSBLOG, the writers are still staff of the paper and are the same as any regular news report), adding that the journalist for the Los Angeles Times is "Lebanese-based".
I really don't know how to deal with this properly, because it is a content issue, so I can't really take it to ANI. You might also want to see this section made on my talk page. Silver seren C 05:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I've reverted your recent edits to Sea World as you have posted it on the wrong article. Feel free to add the content to SeaWorld or SeaWorld San Diego. Sea World (with two words) is an Australian marine animal theme park completely unrelated to those in America (branded SeaWorld, single word). Kind Regards Themeparkgc Talk 23:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
OrangeMarlin deleted my comment on his talk page, so I figured I would put it here:
What do you think about adding a summary style paragraph of relevant points from WP:ACTIVIST to Wikipedia:Wikibombing (SEO)? Viriditas ( talk) 03:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I encourage everyone to complete a marathon once as it is an incredible feeling of accomplishment.
Thanks for your comments. Do you think it's ready to post? -- J N 466 12:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
(
edit conflict)As part of your evidence against Cirt you pointed to
this diff where you Scott Mac criticized Cirt's edit
here. Unfortunately, as the article has been deleted, it's hard for us non-admins to how [in]appropriate his edit was. Would you be able to elaborate on the problem besides what you posted on Cirt's talk page? Thanks. Edit: I just realized that it wasn't you, and you don't have the requisite permissions to see the diff. Clearly, however, you were disturbed enough by the edit to bring it up at the RfC/U. Would you be able to elaborate at all on the situation and why you felt it was inappropriate? Not that I have anything against Scott (I don't know him at all), but the mere criticism of one's actions by another user doesn't really count as wrongdoing.
Throwaway85 (
talk)
06:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
[197] [198] When you accuse someone of something that serious and unethical you should be prepared to follow through. Please post an edit war notice at WP:EW. Otherwise I recommend that you retract your statements. Thanks for your prompt attention. Will Beback talk 11:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello, due to recent events a request for arbitration has been filed by ResidentAnthropologist ( talk · contribs) regarding long standing issues in the "Cult" topic area. The request can be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Cults The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 07:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm trying hard not to overreact, but if this was anyone less well known they'd have been blocked long ago for the tirade-ish aspects of the ANI comments.
It's clear that a nerve was hit and he's really upset about it, and I am among those who are trying to calm the situation down without escalating it. Several other editors asked him to calm down as well. He's responded inconsistently with a mixture of ignored and rudely deleted comments.
There's a limit, though. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 06:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I find it hard to believe that more structure would be even more time-consuming than the status quo. Free form discussions on an 18-member are incredibly wasteful, and I suspect practically anything else would be more efficient. Whether breaking the committee into subgroups, or electing an internal task master—anything so that every thread is not meandering stream of consciousness.
Thank you for your thoughts; I think you are mostly spot-on. Cool Hand Luke 01:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
ArbCom seems to be starting another one of their hallmark "omnibus" cases about "Blp Feuding", whatever that is. I am not going to get involved, and hope you won't either. The Cirt-Jayen466 case seems focused and appropriate. You should present your evidence of inappropriate, intimidating comments there. Some of the diffs you cited appear to have crossed the line. I recognize we disagreed about the closure of the RFC. You will note that I made exactly one action, and then left it for others to determine what to do. I don't think my actions need further discussion because it is finished business. While I don't agree with what you did, I have no intention to complain about it, because things are moving along well enough, closed or unclosed. Kind regards, Jehochman Talk 20:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Keep off my user talk page. If you continue to harass me I will ask for intervention against you. Prioryman ( talk) 07:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 16, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, NW ( Talk) 23:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello Cla68. As the clerk for the Cirt/Jayen466 case, I have removed the "Others" part of your evidence section for this case, as it lies outside of the defined scope for the case. The Cirt/Jayen466 case, as determined by the Arbitration Committee, is to focus only on the conduct of those two editors. While some contextual information may be appropriate, as per my comments to Tryptofish on the evidence talk page, however evidence presented with the intention of seeking sanctions for other editors is not appropriate. If you believe this is a matter of concern, I would encourage you to file your evidence in the related "Manipulation of BLPs" case (linked to in the section above) or open a request for a new case at WP:A/R/C. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 23:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Please remove this page. WP:UP#POLEMIC. Will Beback talk 23:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Why are you acting so hatefully toward me? Jehochman Talk 03:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
User:Cla68/threat charges, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cla68/threat charges and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Cla68/threat charges during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Will Beback talk 07:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
It would probably be best if you don't use the unauthorized emails as evidence, and certainly not as carelessly as you have to date. Currently, you cite that incomplete and unauthorized record to claim that a user "apparently" lied to a third party who hasn't even complained about the alleged lie. This isn't helpful, and is a bit ironic in a BLP case. Please take it down immediately.
More generally, ArbCom has access to and familiarity with the complete unedited archive. It's unclear how commentary on a partial record would help clarify any editing issue with Prioryman. For example, when you opine that Prioryman should have been reminded to obey previous restrictions, we happen know that he was reminded and agreed to abide with existing restrictions.
If you believe he has violated those restrictions, it would be more useful to identify those violations. If your grievance is actually with ArbCom, please take it up with ArbCom rather than Prioryman.
Note that I am only speaking for myself here. ArbCom as a whole might formulate a general practice regarding unauthorized and leaked email evidence. Cool Hand Luke 17:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Cla68. Thank you for your recent submission of evidence for the Manipulation of BLPs Arbitration case. As you may be aware, the Arbitration Committee asks that users submitting evidence in cases adhere to limits regarding the length of their submissions. These limits, of User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header/Words words and User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header/Diffs diffs maximum, are in place to ensure that the Arbitration Committee receives only the most important information relevant to the case, and is able to determine an appropriate course of action in a reasonable amount of time. The evidence you have submitted currently exceeds at least one of these limits, and is presently at 618 words and 37 diffs. Please try to reduce the length of your submission to fit within these limits; this guide may be able to provide some help in doing so. If the length of your evidence is not reduced soon, it may be refactored or removed by a human clerk within a few days. Thank you! If you have any questions or concerns regarding the case, please contact the drafting Arbitrator or case clerk (listed on the case pages); if you have any questions or concerns about this bot, please contact the operator. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ArbClerkBOT( talk) 04:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
btw, this doesnt suggest what you have put in the evidence. The blocking checkuser/admin may have just noticed it was not blocked. I recommend talking asking Avi. John Vandenberg ( chat) 14:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Personal note this time, since the bot won't talk to you again about this case; the bot reports that you have 74 diffs in your evidence section in the BLP case; the limit is 50, so if you could shorten that down, it would be appreciated. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 05:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I have removed edits to your subpage by an ipsock of ArbCom banned/community banned editor Mikemikev ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Although I haven't checked, he probably took these from edits by me. For details of socking by Mikemikev, see for example Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev/Archive as well as the two sockpuppet category pages. The whole range of vodafone IPs was blocked by an arbitrator for three months earlier in the year because of his socking. Thanks, Mathsci ( talk) 07:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Since you seem unwilling to talk to me, which is odd given that you continue talking about me, I have left formal questions for you here. Please answer them. Jehochman Talk 15:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
First, I have removed the last sentence about Jehochman from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Evidence, because it was frivolous. Second, it is my view that the preceding paragraph is inaccurate, because Jehochman's closing comments at the RFC does not support your allegations. I will await your view on this issue over the next 24 hours; if you have not responded, I will summarily redact your evidence, because unfounded submissions are not accepted, and because arbitration is not a forum for slandering one's fellow editors. Thank you, AGK [ • 13:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
(outdent) Then I was correct; you accidentally misspoke when you said "only submissions that are finalised... are acceptable" - no new rule has been enacted. No worries, accidents of phrasing happen. Thanks for clarifying and correcting your error. KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 20:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Please put back the evidence you posted against me. We should deal with it finally. In the alternative you could post a statement that you no longer have any dispute with me. Now that we have come this far down the path, we should finish it one way or the other. Jehochman Talk 13:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to the club! I switched to Vibram FiveFingers last year after having knee trouble, and it's done wonders (also been taking glucosamine supplements). Kelly hi! 17:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Vitamin D can also work. After I started to take 5,000 IU/day a few years ago I made a lot of progress. I have now increased the dose, such that the total intake is about 10,000 IU/day from supplements plus vitamin D production in the skin. I explain here the rationale for this dose. Count Iblis ( talk) 17:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you are about be mentioned in this week's 'Arbitration Report' ( link). The report aims to inform The Signpost's many readers about the activities of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them in the Comments section directly below the main body of text, where they will be reader by the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievious factual errors, as well as refrain from edit-warring or other uncivil behaviour within the comments section. Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot ( talk) 21:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Please email me about a topic that, judging from your posts, is of concern to you: encyclogalactica@aol.com Thank you for your time. Killer440 ( talk) 17:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
To all interested parties, I have started a draft editor conduct RfC on Will Beback here. If interested, please help add examples of behavior you feel should be addressed. Cla68 ( talk) 00:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Cla68, do you think it's appropriate for someone who is either hiding their WP username, or is evading a block, to add evidence to an RFCU? It's on your user page so you can control who edits there. Will Beback talk 05:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Cla68, I see you have recruited Keithbob to endorse your RfCU. However I think that goes beyond what is allowed by the rules. The two people endorsing an RFC/U need to have both tried to resolve the same dispute. You two seem to be adding evidence about entirely separate disputes. Will Beback talk 01:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Years ago, in response to a BLP consensus at Talk:John Edwards, I wrote John Edwards extramarital affair - an article that is even now basically the same the version I wrote years ago,. I've tried hard to promote neutrality in political articles - I was the one who proposed community probation and more community input and admin involvement on articles related to Sarah Palin - and helped point out admin misconduct at the ArbCom Sarah Palin wheel war case...in which the involved admins got a wrist-slap at the time but were eventually de-sysopped and banned.
Around the time of the 2011 Tucson shooting, Will Beback started pushing negative information into Palin articles. I had been involved with the Palin articles for a couple of years - Will Beback went to WP:ANI and portrayed my long involvement with the articles at WP:COI, though I had never made any puffery edits to the articles involved. As a result, I abandoned involvement with political articles Kelly hi! 04:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Kelly please provide a link for that ANI. Was it this one [204] (section headed "Biased editing concerns" et seq.), from January 2011, where WB (1) offered numerous diffs as evidence of your allegedly biased editing in Palin articles and (2) contrasted the 3,700 word article on John Edwards's extramarital affair (an article to which you were a "prolific contributor," WB said) with your apparent view, according to WB, that 160 words on the association of Palin's rhetoric to the Tucson shooting was too much weight, etc.? I note you say that as a result of the ANI you abandoned involvement with political articles. Perhaps the ANI you refer to was some considerable time after January. You were still involved with Sarah Palin pages in June 2011. Writegeist ( talk) 06:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Please see the discussion on my talk page before it is disappeared. 24.18.132.102 ( talk) 09:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks much, Cla68, for responding to NW on my talk page. What was so odd about it is that the answers to those questions are well known. He need only have followed a couple of the threads that he referred to. Or asked his buddies. It, frankly, felt like yet one more instance of intimidation and harassment, especially since he's the Admin who banned Olive. I can't believe how much I've been persecuted for COI, including by Will Beback. But my editing and behavior has always been compliant. I've never been blocked, never received a warning from an Admin on my Talk page. Arbcom didn't find any facts against me last year, even though Will Beback presented diffs going all the way back to 2006, when I first arrived. I was banned on one occasion at WP:AE by Future Perfect for two months, and how many diffs did he present as evidence? Zero. I still don't know why I was banned. I'm glad you and JN and others have the courage to take on powerful factions and expose them. TimidGuy ( talk) 09:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding of Manipulation BLPs has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:
For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 15:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand your comment. Are you saying that the mystery RfC is about a dispute over the LaRouche articles, and that Keithbob has made a significant effort to resolve that dispute? Will Beback talk 04:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Don't you do it either. [205] Wait for the discussion to end and see what the conclusion is. Tom Harrison Talk 13:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
There's no reason a civil and rational disagreement about content has to cause any animosity between us, and I'll do what I can to see it doesn't. Tom Harrison Talk 13:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you noticed my question to you on my talkpage. If you wish to follow up on the issue you raised, please reply there at your convenience. Thanks, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 19:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Very concisely put. No chance you have any thoughts on how to better handle matters like this in the future? NW ( Talk) 03:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
A single revert is not revert warring. Where did you get that idea? have you never heard of WP:BRD? Will Beback talk 22:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
[206] Please don't revert war at the LaRouche movement article, especially when there is no consensus on the talk page to remove the material. Hipocrite ( talk) 23:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you will shortly be mentioned in this week's 'Arbitration Report' ( link). The report aims to inform The Signpost's many readers about the activities of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them in the Comments section directly below the main body of text, where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievious factual errors (making sure ot note such changes in the comments section), as well as refraining from edit-warring or other uncivil behaviour on project pages generally. Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot ( talk) 00:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Refusing to discuss edits while at the same time claiming there's consensus to make them is unproductive and uncollegial. It's essentially bullying. If you don't want to be part of the solution then please don't be part of the problem either. Will Beback talk 02:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
You say:
I think most editors active within a month are normal hobbyists in this sense. For precisely this reason, they are no help with wiki-controversies. They spend a few hours tending to their sport, or their TV show, or whatever interests them. Why would they wander into ANI to participate in passive-aggressive clean-language flame wars, or wander into hot topics where partisans are liable to drag them into other forums and perhaps even invade the quiet articles where our hobbyists dwell.
There are a lot of these people, but they don't engage in the drama, nor would they be effective at it if they did, due to time constraints. Who can blame them? Cool Hand Luke 03:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I rewrote the site layout section. It would be grateful if you could check and correct my English. Thank you. Oda Mari ( talk) 15:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Your questions about Sue Gardner's evaluation are better placed to members of the HR-Committee of the board, who can give you details.
I can assure you that you will be sorely disappointed though. Your usual hostility hinges on an assumption that we aren't doing things in the right way, when we are. There is a written evaluation, it does take into account quantifiable goals as well as other metrics.
I'd like to suggest that rather than going around blustering with a chip on your shoulder, you drop the attitude and volunteer to actually help. Your snide tone is useless.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 10:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Starting this past year, the annual plan includes specific targets. This year's targets were summarized in the announcement of the plan. – SJ + 14:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea of when your actual birthday was, but regarding this edit, [208] I wish you a happy birthday, no matter how belated! A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 01:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
This quote was expressed by Commander Adama in the fictional Battlestar Galactica episode " Water (Battlestar Galactica)". I'm curious about the military history behind it in RL, and the notable thinkers who have discussed it in the literature. Thanks for any pointers. Viriditas ( talk) 00:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
BTW, earlier today, Jill Tarter announced that SETI is receiving funds from the Air Force to search Kepler 22 and surrounding systems. Viriditas ( talk) 07:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Update: I think I found the answer to my question: Posse Comitatus Act. Viriditas ( talk) 07:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
The act authorizes the US military to take action within the borders of the United States, to indefinitely detain US citizens, and to deny US citizens their Article III rights to a jury trial. All these measures are in direct conflict with the rights of US citizens as set forth in the US constitution. [211]
So I thought I'd go see what's up with WR. You gave a passionate defense of it as somehow useful to Wikipedia.
What was just about the first thing I found? You speculating in a disgusting, juvenile, and insulting manner about my personal finances.
I was disappointed, but I also must admit: it's about what I expected from you and from WR.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 13:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
MOMGO, WikipediaReview is uncensored - people can speak their honest mind without getting banned, unlike Wikipedia. Here it's much worse because you have smug arrogant privileged editors baiting other editors into bannable 'incivility', applied with different standards to different editors, in order to censor critics. Furthermore, Wikipedia has all kinds of söperseceret forms, including Jimbo's own little secret star chamber where he called on the administrative staff of the world's largest reference site to go after Larry Sanger; "((jwalse)) he made up the "co-founder" bit after I fired him". MONGO, if you want to complain about truly venal on-line behavior, take a look at your own house first. -- PumknPi ( talk) 20:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
(replying to your comment at SG's talkpage, [212] since you're one of the few people whose opinion I care about)
Cla68, thank you, but are you understanding my point as well? I like the idea of recall. I liked it the first time I heard about it (when as a new Wikipedia editor, I saw the category on an admin's page). I entered the category voluntarily, and I have stayed in it voluntarily, even though I could have easily removed myself from the category years ago. There is nothing, absolutely nothing preventing me from removing myself from the category: There would be zero consequences. But I continue to stand by the standards which I have delineated at User:Elonka/Recall, and I am well aware that if I screw up, there will probably be no problem getting "senior Wikipedians" to endorse a recall request (in fact, sadly, I can think of three off the top of my head who would probably immediately endorse such a request, regardless of whether or not there was even any merit to it). But the key issue for me is, that the spirit of the recall process is that it's supposed to be used to remove an admin who has been screwing up. It's not something that's just supposed to be used as a political tool by a harasser, to intimidate an admin who has made no abuse of tools, and no violations of policy. If, on the other hand, an admin was making a bunch of bad calls, then a recall might be appropriate. Note I'm not talking about the occasional mistake that any human can make, or one of those borderline situations where different admins might legitimately disagree about the best way to deal with a situation. Instead, I'm talking about a really major "OMG s/he's out of control" kind of situation where an admin was doing things that most uninvolved members of the community would say was inappropriate. That is what recall is supposed to be for, as a mechanism to get rid of a bad admin. But the recall that was initiated in 2008 was initiated purely for political reasons, rather than because of an admin's actual actions. -- El on ka 19:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I might just take you up on that offer. Could you have a read through it (if you haven't already) and then drop me an email with your thoughts (unless you're on Skype, in which case we can discuss it in real time, but if not, email will do). Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
RFA is dying because of all the harassment and bad behavior. Want to run for RFA and show up those idiots from years ago? It would be hilarious if you did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Griefer ladness ( talk • contribs) 03:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
User:Cla68/Deliberation page, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cla68/Deliberation page and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Cla68/Deliberation page during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Hans Adler 12:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I (NAC) closed it, I think my reasoning is sound so hopefully it sticks. I think the drama of the MFD far outweighs any (real or perceived) harm to the encyclopedia. Cheers. Crazynas t 05:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)