Thank you for starting the article. It has been on my list for quite some time.-- Rockero ( talk) 04:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Note that you have been added as a party to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/New antisemitism. At your earliest convenience, please state on the mediation page whether you assent to mediation. -- tariqabjotu 05:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not trying to vandalize. I have three problems with this article that I'm trying to correct. 1) The Guardian article is opinion, not fact, and its inclusion implies that wikipedia is endorsing a highly controversial, leftist conspiracy theory. 2) Read the Washington Post article-it says nothing about Feith resisting cooperation with the inquiry. The editor who claims this incorrectly paraphrases the article. 3) Rawstory is a source which openly admits to having adding a leftist tilt to its article. It's hardly an appropriate source for an allegedly objective Wikipedia article.
The Internet provides several forums for expressing one's individual political beliefs. Wikipedia is not one of them. This section endorses leftist conspiracy theories, misinterprets sources, and cites to sources that have openly admitted to being biased.
I'm open to your suggestions as to how we may fix this section, and I'm fully willing to strike a compromise here instead of back and forth reverting, but the section as it stands is biased and inappropriate as an addendum to a wikipedia article.
The 911readingroom site does not have any evidence of permission or release from the Chicago Tribune for the article reproduced there. The article is plainly stated to be copyright of the Chicago Tribune, and Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works, which is policy, sets out why we may not link to copyright violations. Please do not restore the link again, it has nothing to do with whether I like the site or not, it is simply a matter of policy and copyright. Thanks, Guy ( Help!) 20:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Could you please take another look at the deletion discussion located here? Additional members have been added to the category. Thanks, Black Falcon ( Talk) 15:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Heya Commodore Sloat.
I would first like to apologise on behalf of the Mediation Committee for the delay in this case being dealt with, which is due to a shortage of available mediators. I have expressed interest in taking this case to help with the backlog and to assess my nomination to join the committee. As i am not currently a member it is common practice to for the involved parties to consent to mediation of an RfM from a non-committee member. To give your consent for me to act as mediator for this case please sign as you have for the acceptance of the case on the case page. I look forward to working with you and finding a solution to the dispute.
Seddon69 ( talk) 17:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Re your comment it also uses the word "philosemitism"; should we create that article too?, be aware that the article already exists. Colonel Warden ( talk) 22:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you all know, the case has been started. I have created a little navbox for you to navigate between pages and will be expanded as the case goes on so that its easier for you to navigate. The first page you need to visit in this case is here so you can give youre opening statement. There i have left a few questions for you all to answer. For those that have been busy and unable to confirm their participation in the mediation, they are welcome to join the mediation at any stage.
I can be contacted in several ways in the event you need to. I am normally present on the wikipedia-en, wikipedia-medcab and wiki-hurricanes IRC channels at some point between 15:00 UTC and as late 02:00 UTC depending on college and real life commitments. To find these channels and instructions on how to access IRC go to WP:IRC. Throughout the day, even when i am in college, feel free to email me using the email tool or by emailing the email address on my user page or both to make sure. You can also leave a message on my talk page which again ill do my upmost to reply to as soon as i can. Seddon69 ( talk) 20:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if this kindles bad memories, but I thought it strange - you do not seem to have been informed about this one. Any idea how we could take it from there? After all, it looks to me a lot of decent editors were in favour of deletion, and most others preferred a re-name. There is a faux impression of no consensus there, caused by you know what. -- Paul Pieniezny ( talk) 08:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The mediation im getting rolling as its been a long time waiting so i think its best to get moving. Most of the mediation will be on the talk (discussion) page. so make sure its in your watchlist. Seddon69 ( talk)
I think thats its time we got moving. A couple of the points have been raised before and felt they were the foundations to the dispute:
A point i would like to raise is that at some point a lead image might need to be found if this article got to FA. The image in question is not free and couldn't be put on the main page with this article as todays FA. Although not an immediate point a long term solution might wish to be found so that this article could feature on the main page with a viable alternative.
Does anyone have access to Lexis Nexis? It might help as a search on the network could uncover something not readily available on the internet. Reliable sources that use the image would be helpful. Do you reckon that there would anyway of finding third party images that might possibly contain the poster/placard? Also i would be grateful if images of other placards at that rally could be found to find whether this was a small minority at this rally or perhaps a larger group.
Whilst that is being done i wanted to find out on what the consensus view is on what New Antisemitism is? I have read the article and the previous discussion and attempted to get a proper understanding but i wanted to ensure that this was current.
Following discussion at the mediation talk page, i would like to bring up a suggestion that until the end of the mediation to remove both images from the article. There is currently no real consensus on the images so in the interests of fairness it seems best to simply have no images. If you have any suggestions or comments then please come to the mediation talk page to be discussed. The discussion will be open for around 5 days if there are no problems. But the discussion will go on if there is ongoing discussion. ŠξÞÞøΛ talk 00:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I've blocked you for 24 hours for edit warring on Criticism of Bill O'Reilly. Whilst not by the book a WP:3RR violation, you clearly were gaming it by reverting 5 times in 25 hours. The reverts you have been blocked for are; [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Please refrain from edit warring when your block has expired. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Commodore Sloat ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I'd like another admin to review this situation. I don't expect to be unblocked, and I don't think Ryan P was doing anything wrong per se -- he didn't know when he blocked me that I was starting an rfc. But I do think the other users who have been edit warring on the page should be admonished as well since I was not edit-warring alone. I also think the report against me was deceptive and I was not given a chance to explain myself at all; I was in the middle of trying an RfC to avoid further edit warring and I suddenly found I could no longer edit the talk page. I'm hoping an admin can help clarify whether the bullying behavior of my interlocutors on that page can be addressed. Thanks.
Decline reason:
Unblock requests are not for requesting sanctions against other users. — Sandstein 21:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I'm mystified why you would claim I was soapboxing in trying to add a section which was not in any way represented on the page. Hitchens has done a great deal of research into the yellowcake scandal, and saying that his views are "well represented" by one sentence in the responsibility section is a little ridiculous. I am respectfully reverting the page to my original edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.65.208 ( talk) 22:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
i didn't add two sections, i just moved the extant section on hitchens (line 131) to a subsection under the "who forged the documents?" section, where it was more relevant (since the single line hardly warranted its own section, and dealt explicitly with the nature of the forgeries). apparently this has now been rolled into the "aftermath" section, paring the total of hitchens' extensive work on the subject to one representative sentence, with no heading. seeing as how there is now absolutely no individual section dealing with his perspective, i'll re-add my original section dealing with his investigation of wissam al-zahawie (which is all i ever intended to do), and hopefully you can stomach one section devoted to hitchens.
also, at the moment i'm a bit too lazy to add a response, but there is an article in slate by david corn (of hubris fame) arguing against hitchens, and a concurrent rebuttal by hitchens. the corn article is here: http://www.slate.com/id/2150345/ , and i can't find the hitchens rebuttal at the moment, but i will eventually make an effort to track it down. if you could add corn's argument to the section, it would go a long way toward presenting an opposing view. 71.58.65.208 (talk) 22:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your supportive comments and edits on this piece I added to the Criticism of Bill O'Reilly. I have been dealing for a couple of months with a trio of editors who policy shop, revert w/o bothering to read the sources(and admit doing so...) or raise patently false objections. I have given in on some of my proposed edits (either b/c I accepted contrary arguments or grew weary of the BS), but in this case I think the facts support inclusion and I am in for the duration. Thanks again; see you on the Talk page... Jimintheatl ( talk) 01:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm a glutton for punishment, apparently....I have begun anew an attempt to specify Media Matters' criticisms of O'Reilly. Jimintheatl ( talk) 00:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd prefer that you guys go forward without interacting at all. If Biophys has future problems holding to that arrangement voluntarily—and yes, that would include, say, coming in and reverting you—then we can proceed with actual restrictions; but I'm still hopeful that we can avoid that step. Kirill ( prof) 04:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
As far as i am aware, the person who opposed the removal for the duration of the mediation didn't confirm he accepted the suggestion. In the event of disputed content in mediation all parties must agree before its removed, even if it is only temporary. I hope you understand why i need to have clear 100% consensus with this particular issue. ŠeDDøΛ talk 20:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering if it would be possible to contact you via email. If it is could you email me to the address provided on my user page. If you do email me, could you please notify me on my talk page. Seddσn talk Editor Review 16:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm concerned by the lack of good faith and ongoing personal attacks between you and Jayjg. We are closer to a solution than there has ever been before and it would be a pity to spoil it at the last hurdle. I ask you just to think about your responses and to not react so defensively. I understand this is a delicate topic so lets just take some extra care in what we say. Seddσn talk Editor Review 22:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Commodore Sloat, I would like to ask you why you consider it appropriate to remove all mention of Emile Durkheim from the article on Michel Foucault. It seems to me a highly unusual situation that someone can be listed as an influence on Foucault, even without a single source being used in the article to document this, while two sources are not enough for a mention of the fact that Durkheim might have influenced Foucault. I'd like to stress that the issue is not so much Durkheim as the proper sourcing of articles. Also, supposing that Durkheim might have been what you call an "anti-influence" on Foucault, why was there no mention of this in the article? It seems like the sort of thing the article should mention. Skoojal ( talk) 04:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Please read up on how the RfC works, I am allowed to comment as much as anyone else. The dispute is not whether Durkheim may be mentioned in the context of criticism; the dispute is only about whether he may be named as a direct influence alongside Nietzsche et al. There is no dispute about whether he may be mentioned at all. Anyway please just stay off my talk page; I don't find your comments and innuendo helpful. Thanks. csloat ( talk) 08:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I have proof of what I'am talking "writting" about if you are not happy consult the references I can give you the references if you like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardlord50 ( talk • contribs) 23:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Where is your proof that I am "copying" an original essay I can prove to you with references that IT IS NOT A COPYIED ESSAY FROM WHERE IS THIS ESSAY COPYIED. Richardlord50 ( talk) 00:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Can you PROVE TO ME WITHOUT DOUBT THAT THE ESSAY I AM WRITTING HAS BEEN COPIED I HAVE A HOST OF NEW MATERIAL WHICH CAN BE VERIFIED I AM NOT LYING I DO READ MY MATERIAL WHERE IS IT THAT IT IS NOT ORIGINAL MATERIAL SHOW ME WHERE IT IS NOT ORIGINAL MATERIAL IN OTHER WORDS WHERE DID I COPY THIS MATERIAL IT IS MY OWN RESEARCH CAN YOU BE ADULT ENOUGH TO SHOW ME LET THE READERS OF WIKIPEDIA DECIDE Richardlord50 ( talk) 00:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
AGAIN YOU HAVE NOT UNDERSTOOD WHAT I AM WRITTING/TALKING ABOUT I DO NOT MEAN MY OWN OPINION I DID NOT MAKE UP THE IDEA OF GEOSURVEILLANCE I DID NOT MAKE UP THE IDEA OF RISK ANALYSIS JOURNAL I DID NOT MAKE UP THE IDEA OF A PHYSHO-CIVILISED SOCIETY ALL OF THIS CAN BE VERIFIED ARE YOU SAYING THAT WIKIPEDIA "SUPPRESSES ANY ORIGINAL THOUGHT IF SO WHY NOT.THAT SOUNDS TO BE LIKE THE NAZI REGIME AGAIN YOU HAVE AVOIDED THE QUESTION CONCERNING ORIGINAL RESEARCH I CAN VERIFY MY IDEAS WITH REFERENCES KINDLY LET THE WIKIPEDIA READERSHIP DECIDE THEY ARE ADULT ENOUGH. Richardlord50 ( talk) 00:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Csloat, I recently saw the edit that Artemidorus made to Talk: Sigmund Freud. Yuck! Thank you for undoing it! Skoojal ( talk) 07:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Be careful not to violate 3RR. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 21:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
okay you sent me a msg and I'm not joking or being cheeky but I realy dont know what I did but sorry anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duggan6592 ( talk • contribs) 00:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC) -- Duggan6592 ( talk) 00:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
No I didn't do it on purpose and I'll change now--
Duggan6592 (
talk) 00:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Aloha,
Your closing comments on the AfD for New Great Game were inspiring. It was the kind of stance I was hoping for on New/Neo Cold War, but that we didn't get. Anyhow, no hard feelings, and see you in the next AfD eh?
Best Regards,
Whiskey in the Jar ( talk) 07:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Mahalo,
Whiskey in the Jar ( talk) 12:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Michel Foucault 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. Thanks! Lesgles ( talk) 20:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I think that the current deadlock on Joe the plumber is due to unclear BLP policy on limited public figures. I've made a proposal to clarify the policy here. Since you are one of the parties involved in the dispute, this is a notification for your input on the proposed policy clarification. VG ☎ 10:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Here's the deal: Stop reverting people. Other contributors disagree with your editions. That means you take it to talk and have the patience to wait for a consensus. You make your case. If swarms of people still disagree with you, then it's a bad idea to keep reverting. I haven't checked in depth, but, from your contributions I'm going to assume you're close to breaking 3RR. As you already have a 3RR warning up above, an admin won't hesitate to block as you're already aware of the policy. Please just stop. Talk it out. There's no hurry. There's no deadline for Wikipedia... unless, of course, you have a November 4th deadline to make...?
Scarian
Call me Pat! 00:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Pete Tillman ( talk) 01:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
You might not want to "take over" by your own interpretation of the RFC, considering that you not even took part in it. Even so I assume you acted in good faith, it was a bold move at a sensitive issue and therefore not very helpful. You can assist by commenting on the talk page there as I mentioned in my edit summary but please resist on making another bold edit and claiming consensus that just doesn't exist.-- The Magnificent Clean-keeper ( talk) 00:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Can you take your contribution to the BLP noticeboard for review?
I've semi-protected in the "wrong" version at the moment and blocked the IPs and user used over the last couple of days. But I'd prefer to get more eyeballs on whether the info you and they were fighting over is BLP-safe.
Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 00:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Commodore Sloat. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Amwestover ( talk| contrib) 18:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Bye. // roux 02:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Commodore Sloat. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Evb-wiki ( talk) 15:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi. You made this edit, claiming the material isn't supported by the cite. Yet it clearly is supported by the cite. What gives? Can you please explain yourself? You must be aware that you are deleting a paragraph that was added after weeks of discussion and compromise, and you are entering into a new dispute. Yet the claim that the material is not supported by the cite has not yet been raised in talk. If you believe that to be the case can you explain that in talk? Thank you. csloat ( talk) 20:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
See [7] Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 21:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Please see proposed settlement at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#user:Commodore_Sloat. It's not my intention to make any statement regarding the suitability of the edits, just the civility question. Thanks! Gerardw ( talk) 22:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
It's about you. Best, Sandstein 20:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Per ANI discussion, you are hereby topic-banned for a minimum of three months from:
- Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 10:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Commodore Sloat, I'm concerned by the recent edit-warring at New antisemitism, combined with borderline edit summaries. I realize that you haven't technically violated 3RR, but the continual reverting is a concern, especially considering your history, and that you are not engaging in active discussion at the related talkpage. Can I please ask you to ease off the "revert" button, and try harder to participate in discussion? Thanks, -- El on ka 21:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Phatnug sativa.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 10:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Could you give your impressions of Collect at his RfC based on your interaction with him at William Timmins (include other if there is any thnx). The RfC is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Collect Soxwon ( talk) 14:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for starting the article. It has been on my list for quite some time.-- Rockero ( talk) 04:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Note that you have been added as a party to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/New antisemitism. At your earliest convenience, please state on the mediation page whether you assent to mediation. -- tariqabjotu 05:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not trying to vandalize. I have three problems with this article that I'm trying to correct. 1) The Guardian article is opinion, not fact, and its inclusion implies that wikipedia is endorsing a highly controversial, leftist conspiracy theory. 2) Read the Washington Post article-it says nothing about Feith resisting cooperation with the inquiry. The editor who claims this incorrectly paraphrases the article. 3) Rawstory is a source which openly admits to having adding a leftist tilt to its article. It's hardly an appropriate source for an allegedly objective Wikipedia article.
The Internet provides several forums for expressing one's individual political beliefs. Wikipedia is not one of them. This section endorses leftist conspiracy theories, misinterprets sources, and cites to sources that have openly admitted to being biased.
I'm open to your suggestions as to how we may fix this section, and I'm fully willing to strike a compromise here instead of back and forth reverting, but the section as it stands is biased and inappropriate as an addendum to a wikipedia article.
The 911readingroom site does not have any evidence of permission or release from the Chicago Tribune for the article reproduced there. The article is plainly stated to be copyright of the Chicago Tribune, and Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works, which is policy, sets out why we may not link to copyright violations. Please do not restore the link again, it has nothing to do with whether I like the site or not, it is simply a matter of policy and copyright. Thanks, Guy ( Help!) 20:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Could you please take another look at the deletion discussion located here? Additional members have been added to the category. Thanks, Black Falcon ( Talk) 15:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Heya Commodore Sloat.
I would first like to apologise on behalf of the Mediation Committee for the delay in this case being dealt with, which is due to a shortage of available mediators. I have expressed interest in taking this case to help with the backlog and to assess my nomination to join the committee. As i am not currently a member it is common practice to for the involved parties to consent to mediation of an RfM from a non-committee member. To give your consent for me to act as mediator for this case please sign as you have for the acceptance of the case on the case page. I look forward to working with you and finding a solution to the dispute.
Seddon69 ( talk) 17:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Re your comment it also uses the word "philosemitism"; should we create that article too?, be aware that the article already exists. Colonel Warden ( talk) 22:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you all know, the case has been started. I have created a little navbox for you to navigate between pages and will be expanded as the case goes on so that its easier for you to navigate. The first page you need to visit in this case is here so you can give youre opening statement. There i have left a few questions for you all to answer. For those that have been busy and unable to confirm their participation in the mediation, they are welcome to join the mediation at any stage.
I can be contacted in several ways in the event you need to. I am normally present on the wikipedia-en, wikipedia-medcab and wiki-hurricanes IRC channels at some point between 15:00 UTC and as late 02:00 UTC depending on college and real life commitments. To find these channels and instructions on how to access IRC go to WP:IRC. Throughout the day, even when i am in college, feel free to email me using the email tool or by emailing the email address on my user page or both to make sure. You can also leave a message on my talk page which again ill do my upmost to reply to as soon as i can. Seddon69 ( talk) 20:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if this kindles bad memories, but I thought it strange - you do not seem to have been informed about this one. Any idea how we could take it from there? After all, it looks to me a lot of decent editors were in favour of deletion, and most others preferred a re-name. There is a faux impression of no consensus there, caused by you know what. -- Paul Pieniezny ( talk) 08:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The mediation im getting rolling as its been a long time waiting so i think its best to get moving. Most of the mediation will be on the talk (discussion) page. so make sure its in your watchlist. Seddon69 ( talk)
I think thats its time we got moving. A couple of the points have been raised before and felt they were the foundations to the dispute:
A point i would like to raise is that at some point a lead image might need to be found if this article got to FA. The image in question is not free and couldn't be put on the main page with this article as todays FA. Although not an immediate point a long term solution might wish to be found so that this article could feature on the main page with a viable alternative.
Does anyone have access to Lexis Nexis? It might help as a search on the network could uncover something not readily available on the internet. Reliable sources that use the image would be helpful. Do you reckon that there would anyway of finding third party images that might possibly contain the poster/placard? Also i would be grateful if images of other placards at that rally could be found to find whether this was a small minority at this rally or perhaps a larger group.
Whilst that is being done i wanted to find out on what the consensus view is on what New Antisemitism is? I have read the article and the previous discussion and attempted to get a proper understanding but i wanted to ensure that this was current.
Following discussion at the mediation talk page, i would like to bring up a suggestion that until the end of the mediation to remove both images from the article. There is currently no real consensus on the images so in the interests of fairness it seems best to simply have no images. If you have any suggestions or comments then please come to the mediation talk page to be discussed. The discussion will be open for around 5 days if there are no problems. But the discussion will go on if there is ongoing discussion. ŠξÞÞøΛ talk 00:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I've blocked you for 24 hours for edit warring on Criticism of Bill O'Reilly. Whilst not by the book a WP:3RR violation, you clearly were gaming it by reverting 5 times in 25 hours. The reverts you have been blocked for are; [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Please refrain from edit warring when your block has expired. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Commodore Sloat ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I'd like another admin to review this situation. I don't expect to be unblocked, and I don't think Ryan P was doing anything wrong per se -- he didn't know when he blocked me that I was starting an rfc. But I do think the other users who have been edit warring on the page should be admonished as well since I was not edit-warring alone. I also think the report against me was deceptive and I was not given a chance to explain myself at all; I was in the middle of trying an RfC to avoid further edit warring and I suddenly found I could no longer edit the talk page. I'm hoping an admin can help clarify whether the bullying behavior of my interlocutors on that page can be addressed. Thanks.
Decline reason:
Unblock requests are not for requesting sanctions against other users. — Sandstein 21:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I'm mystified why you would claim I was soapboxing in trying to add a section which was not in any way represented on the page. Hitchens has done a great deal of research into the yellowcake scandal, and saying that his views are "well represented" by one sentence in the responsibility section is a little ridiculous. I am respectfully reverting the page to my original edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.65.208 ( talk) 22:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
i didn't add two sections, i just moved the extant section on hitchens (line 131) to a subsection under the "who forged the documents?" section, where it was more relevant (since the single line hardly warranted its own section, and dealt explicitly with the nature of the forgeries). apparently this has now been rolled into the "aftermath" section, paring the total of hitchens' extensive work on the subject to one representative sentence, with no heading. seeing as how there is now absolutely no individual section dealing with his perspective, i'll re-add my original section dealing with his investigation of wissam al-zahawie (which is all i ever intended to do), and hopefully you can stomach one section devoted to hitchens.
also, at the moment i'm a bit too lazy to add a response, but there is an article in slate by david corn (of hubris fame) arguing against hitchens, and a concurrent rebuttal by hitchens. the corn article is here: http://www.slate.com/id/2150345/ , and i can't find the hitchens rebuttal at the moment, but i will eventually make an effort to track it down. if you could add corn's argument to the section, it would go a long way toward presenting an opposing view. 71.58.65.208 (talk) 22:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your supportive comments and edits on this piece I added to the Criticism of Bill O'Reilly. I have been dealing for a couple of months with a trio of editors who policy shop, revert w/o bothering to read the sources(and admit doing so...) or raise patently false objections. I have given in on some of my proposed edits (either b/c I accepted contrary arguments or grew weary of the BS), but in this case I think the facts support inclusion and I am in for the duration. Thanks again; see you on the Talk page... Jimintheatl ( talk) 01:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm a glutton for punishment, apparently....I have begun anew an attempt to specify Media Matters' criticisms of O'Reilly. Jimintheatl ( talk) 00:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd prefer that you guys go forward without interacting at all. If Biophys has future problems holding to that arrangement voluntarily—and yes, that would include, say, coming in and reverting you—then we can proceed with actual restrictions; but I'm still hopeful that we can avoid that step. Kirill ( prof) 04:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
As far as i am aware, the person who opposed the removal for the duration of the mediation didn't confirm he accepted the suggestion. In the event of disputed content in mediation all parties must agree before its removed, even if it is only temporary. I hope you understand why i need to have clear 100% consensus with this particular issue. ŠeDDøΛ talk 20:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering if it would be possible to contact you via email. If it is could you email me to the address provided on my user page. If you do email me, could you please notify me on my talk page. Seddσn talk Editor Review 16:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm concerned by the lack of good faith and ongoing personal attacks between you and Jayjg. We are closer to a solution than there has ever been before and it would be a pity to spoil it at the last hurdle. I ask you just to think about your responses and to not react so defensively. I understand this is a delicate topic so lets just take some extra care in what we say. Seddσn talk Editor Review 22:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Commodore Sloat, I would like to ask you why you consider it appropriate to remove all mention of Emile Durkheim from the article on Michel Foucault. It seems to me a highly unusual situation that someone can be listed as an influence on Foucault, even without a single source being used in the article to document this, while two sources are not enough for a mention of the fact that Durkheim might have influenced Foucault. I'd like to stress that the issue is not so much Durkheim as the proper sourcing of articles. Also, supposing that Durkheim might have been what you call an "anti-influence" on Foucault, why was there no mention of this in the article? It seems like the sort of thing the article should mention. Skoojal ( talk) 04:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Please read up on how the RfC works, I am allowed to comment as much as anyone else. The dispute is not whether Durkheim may be mentioned in the context of criticism; the dispute is only about whether he may be named as a direct influence alongside Nietzsche et al. There is no dispute about whether he may be mentioned at all. Anyway please just stay off my talk page; I don't find your comments and innuendo helpful. Thanks. csloat ( talk) 08:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I have proof of what I'am talking "writting" about if you are not happy consult the references I can give you the references if you like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardlord50 ( talk • contribs) 23:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Where is your proof that I am "copying" an original essay I can prove to you with references that IT IS NOT A COPYIED ESSAY FROM WHERE IS THIS ESSAY COPYIED. Richardlord50 ( talk) 00:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Can you PROVE TO ME WITHOUT DOUBT THAT THE ESSAY I AM WRITTING HAS BEEN COPIED I HAVE A HOST OF NEW MATERIAL WHICH CAN BE VERIFIED I AM NOT LYING I DO READ MY MATERIAL WHERE IS IT THAT IT IS NOT ORIGINAL MATERIAL SHOW ME WHERE IT IS NOT ORIGINAL MATERIAL IN OTHER WORDS WHERE DID I COPY THIS MATERIAL IT IS MY OWN RESEARCH CAN YOU BE ADULT ENOUGH TO SHOW ME LET THE READERS OF WIKIPEDIA DECIDE Richardlord50 ( talk) 00:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
AGAIN YOU HAVE NOT UNDERSTOOD WHAT I AM WRITTING/TALKING ABOUT I DO NOT MEAN MY OWN OPINION I DID NOT MAKE UP THE IDEA OF GEOSURVEILLANCE I DID NOT MAKE UP THE IDEA OF RISK ANALYSIS JOURNAL I DID NOT MAKE UP THE IDEA OF A PHYSHO-CIVILISED SOCIETY ALL OF THIS CAN BE VERIFIED ARE YOU SAYING THAT WIKIPEDIA "SUPPRESSES ANY ORIGINAL THOUGHT IF SO WHY NOT.THAT SOUNDS TO BE LIKE THE NAZI REGIME AGAIN YOU HAVE AVOIDED THE QUESTION CONCERNING ORIGINAL RESEARCH I CAN VERIFY MY IDEAS WITH REFERENCES KINDLY LET THE WIKIPEDIA READERSHIP DECIDE THEY ARE ADULT ENOUGH. Richardlord50 ( talk) 00:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Csloat, I recently saw the edit that Artemidorus made to Talk: Sigmund Freud. Yuck! Thank you for undoing it! Skoojal ( talk) 07:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Be careful not to violate 3RR. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 21:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
okay you sent me a msg and I'm not joking or being cheeky but I realy dont know what I did but sorry anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duggan6592 ( talk • contribs) 00:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC) -- Duggan6592 ( talk) 00:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
No I didn't do it on purpose and I'll change now--
Duggan6592 (
talk) 00:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Aloha,
Your closing comments on the AfD for New Great Game were inspiring. It was the kind of stance I was hoping for on New/Neo Cold War, but that we didn't get. Anyhow, no hard feelings, and see you in the next AfD eh?
Best Regards,
Whiskey in the Jar ( talk) 07:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Mahalo,
Whiskey in the Jar ( talk) 12:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Michel Foucault 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. Thanks! Lesgles ( talk) 20:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I think that the current deadlock on Joe the plumber is due to unclear BLP policy on limited public figures. I've made a proposal to clarify the policy here. Since you are one of the parties involved in the dispute, this is a notification for your input on the proposed policy clarification. VG ☎ 10:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Here's the deal: Stop reverting people. Other contributors disagree with your editions. That means you take it to talk and have the patience to wait for a consensus. You make your case. If swarms of people still disagree with you, then it's a bad idea to keep reverting. I haven't checked in depth, but, from your contributions I'm going to assume you're close to breaking 3RR. As you already have a 3RR warning up above, an admin won't hesitate to block as you're already aware of the policy. Please just stop. Talk it out. There's no hurry. There's no deadline for Wikipedia... unless, of course, you have a November 4th deadline to make...?
Scarian
Call me Pat! 00:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Pete Tillman ( talk) 01:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
You might not want to "take over" by your own interpretation of the RFC, considering that you not even took part in it. Even so I assume you acted in good faith, it was a bold move at a sensitive issue and therefore not very helpful. You can assist by commenting on the talk page there as I mentioned in my edit summary but please resist on making another bold edit and claiming consensus that just doesn't exist.-- The Magnificent Clean-keeper ( talk) 00:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Can you take your contribution to the BLP noticeboard for review?
I've semi-protected in the "wrong" version at the moment and blocked the IPs and user used over the last couple of days. But I'd prefer to get more eyeballs on whether the info you and they were fighting over is BLP-safe.
Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 00:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Commodore Sloat. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Amwestover ( talk| contrib) 18:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Bye. // roux 02:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Commodore Sloat. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Evb-wiki ( talk) 15:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi. You made this edit, claiming the material isn't supported by the cite. Yet it clearly is supported by the cite. What gives? Can you please explain yourself? You must be aware that you are deleting a paragraph that was added after weeks of discussion and compromise, and you are entering into a new dispute. Yet the claim that the material is not supported by the cite has not yet been raised in talk. If you believe that to be the case can you explain that in talk? Thank you. csloat ( talk) 20:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
See [7] Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 21:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Please see proposed settlement at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#user:Commodore_Sloat. It's not my intention to make any statement regarding the suitability of the edits, just the civility question. Thanks! Gerardw ( talk) 22:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
It's about you. Best, Sandstein 20:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Per ANI discussion, you are hereby topic-banned for a minimum of three months from:
- Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 10:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Commodore Sloat, I'm concerned by the recent edit-warring at New antisemitism, combined with borderline edit summaries. I realize that you haven't technically violated 3RR, but the continual reverting is a concern, especially considering your history, and that you are not engaging in active discussion at the related talkpage. Can I please ask you to ease off the "revert" button, and try harder to participate in discussion? Thanks, -- El on ka 21:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Phatnug sativa.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 10:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Could you give your impressions of Collect at his RfC based on your interaction with him at William Timmins (include other if there is any thnx). The RfC is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Collect Soxwon ( talk) 14:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)