→If it helps any..: new section |
Doug Weller (talk | contribs) →Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change: fixed sanctions link |
||
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1,865: | Line 1,865: | ||
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. [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 04:30, 12 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. [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 04:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC) |
||
== [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change]] == |
|||
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: |
|||
* A [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change#Climate change: discretionary sanctions|specially-tailored version]] of [[WP:AC/DSN|discretionary sanctions]] is authorized for the entire topic area of climate change. Enforcement requests are to be submitted to [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement]], which is to replace [[Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement]]. |
|||
* Experienced administrators, and especially checkusers, are requested to closely monitor new accounts that edit inappropriately in the topic area. |
|||
* Within seven days of this remedy passing, all parties must either delete evidence sub-pages or [[WP:CSD#U1|request deletion]] of them. |
|||
* The following editors are banned from the topic area of climate change, and may not appeal this ban until at least six months after the closure of this case (and no more often than every three months thereafter); |
|||
<div style="margin-left: 4em;">{{div col|cols=3}} |
|||
*[[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] |
|||
*[[User:Polargeo|Polargeo]] |
|||
*[[User:Thegoodlocust|Thegoodlocust]] |
|||
*[[User:Marknutley|Marknutley]] |
|||
*[[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] |
|||
*[[User:Minor4th|Minor4th]] |
|||
*[[User:ATren|ATren]] |
|||
*[[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] |
|||
*[[User:Cla68|Cla68]] |
|||
*[[User:GregJackP|GregJackP]] |
|||
*[[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] |
|||
*[[User:Verbal|Verbal]] |
|||
*[[User:ZuluPapa5|ZuluPapa5]] |
|||
*[[User:JohnWBarber|JohnWBarber]] |
|||
*[[User:FellGleaming|FellGleaming]] |
|||
{{div col end}}</div> |
|||
* The following users have accepted binding voluntary topic bans; |
|||
**[[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision#Scjessey.27s_voluntary_editing_restriction_.28remedy.29] |
|||
**[[User:KimDabelsteinPetersen|KimDabelsteinPetersen]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision#KimDabelsteinPetersen.27s_voluntary_editing_restriction_.28remedy.29] |
|||
* The following administrators are explicitly restricted from applying discretionary sanctions as authorized in this case, as is any other administrator fitting the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision#Involved administrators 2|description of an involved administrator]]; |
|||
**[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] |
|||
**[[User:Lar|Lar]] |
|||
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,<br/> [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 18:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:02, 15 October 2010
“ | The highest result of education is tolerance. -Helen Keller | ” |
25 April 2024 |
/Military history project dialogues |
Military history WikiProject |
---|
Articles for review |
See the full list of open tasks |
User:Cla68/Article draft work page
Word for the week of 4 Dec 09: Aphotic 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- 1 [1] |
Looking for sources
I was thinking of expanding the article on the US Navy fleet oiler USS Neosho (AO-23), perhaps bringing it up to FA-standard if I can find enough information. I haven't worked on an article involving an auxiliary ship of the US Navy before. Would you know of any book titles or other sources of information that I might look for which might have information on this ship's history? Cla68 (talk) 06:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- No Big Book of Navy Auxiliaries that I know of, but here are some suggestions for research angles:
- Obviously from the article, the DANFS entry has been used, but often I've found that other ships' DANFS entries can sometimes have other useful information, too. The USN Historical Center (I can't ever remember what their new name is) will sometimes have extra things beyond DANFS, too. (Google search.)
- the HyperWar site at ibiblio.org often has an assortment of primary and secondary sources for WWII topics. A google search turns up Neosho's action report from her sinking, and from the Pearl Harbor attack
- I'd also suggest books on the Pearl Harbor attack and the Battle of Coral Sea, too. A Google Books search for Coral Sea turns up several that look promising.
- Newspaper searches for the building, launching, commissioning timeframe might be helpful, too. Also, according the GlobalSecurity.org, Neosho was the world's largest oil tanker at the time of her launch.
- Good luck on the research and writing. I'll be happy to answer any other questions. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Articles in the topic area of climate change are under general sanctions due to continued disruptive editing
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Lawrence Solomon, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.
The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I am pretty sure you already know, and your edits that I have seen appear solid, so just treat this as a formal notification for the sake of the log. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 19:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikibreak
I'll be on the road for the next couple of weeks. I may or may not be looking at Wikipedia during that time. Cla68 (talk) 11:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Ugo Nespolo and othe careless prods
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)
- actually, your prod on Ruslan Khasbulatov , Yeltsin's successor as Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFR, was even more remarkable. DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- or, for that matter, Sture Allén, a member of the Swedish Academy. I see almost all of your prods have been easily sourced by other editors, and you should really have done it yourself. This is the sort of work that harms the encyclopedia. Perhaps it will serve as an example of why drastic action of unsourced BLPs is unsuitable, because removing articles on such people is actively harmful when they can be improved so readily. DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- actually, your prod on Ruslan Khasbulatov , Yeltsin's successor as Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFR, was even more remarkable. DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 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
- Hi Cla68, thanks for the note on my talk. In reviewing the Baker discussion pages I noticed that you were part of some of the discussion at that time. You may want to look in the discussion archives to refresh your memory as to how things transpired. To address the topic of Metropolis as a RS especially when it comes to the Nicholas Baker article:
- 1) The Baker article is a BLP, as such the more negative the information becomes the more stringent the requirement for the sources, Where as it might be acceptable to use a local newspaper or free add-supported magazine like Metropolis for a fairly non-contentious issue, that same source should not be used for potentially libelous information.
- 2)Metropolis (the publication) was actually participating in a controversy, as opposed to only reporting it. The obvious conflict of interest Devlin/Metropolis demonstrated, lack of editorial oversight, and clear attempts of ax-grinding means no, Metropolis is absolutely unsuitable as a reliable source in this instance and quite frankly contaminated beyond redemption - what is needed are actual reliable sources independent of it.
- 3)I don't think it's notable but, putting aside my personal perspective, after much discussion it was agreed on that the following sentence about Devlin's flip-flop (from support to criticism) was free of BLP issues & fact laundering: "Mark Devlin, who at the time was the publisher of Metropolis, initially supported the Nick Baker campaign but withdrew his support in 2004 and publicly criticized the support group's campaign tactics". This is sourced to the Swindon Advertiser, Gloucestershire Echo & The Citizen.
- I'm putting a copy of this message on the Baker discussion page as it would be easier to continue the discussion there as other editors may want to weigh inStatisticalregression (talk) 08:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
RfC note to self
Note to self to remember to follow this content RfC I just started. Cla68 (talk) 01:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- I have been starting to work with ChrisO and Hipocrite on a proposal related to renaming the CRU hacking incident article. Based on your comments at the RfC it seems that you might be willing to sign on to this proposal. We are intending to approach people on their user pages to try and build some momentum and for this proposal and hopefully build a growing set of editors who are willing to accept this as a reasonable compromise and then stand together to defend it. Please stop by and weigh-in with your opinion and feel free to sign on if you are willing to help push this and defend it. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 03:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Just FYI
I just complained about Tarc at AN/I (WP:ANI#Tarc's ongoing abuse). The least of it was this comment [2] 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: [3] - 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)
Your VOTE 2 vote at CDA
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;
- Do you prefer a 'desysop threshold' of 80% or 90%, or having none at all?
- As a "rule of thumb", the Bureaucrats will automatically de-sysop the Administrator standing under CDA if the percentage reaches this 'threshold'. Currently it is 80% (per proposal 5.4).
- Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.
This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;
- Do you prefer a "rule of thumb" 'auto-desysop' percentage of 80%, 90%, or "none"?
- Where "none" means that there is no need for a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop.
- Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.
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;
- Clarify what you meant if you voted "none".
- In cases where the question was genuinely misunderstood, change your initial vote if you wish to (please explain the ambiguity, and don't forget to leave a second choice if you have one).
- Please do nothing if you interpreted the question correctly (or just confirm this if you wish), as this query cannot be a new vote.
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)
CRU article name
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)
The Real Global Warming
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)
- I haven't read the book, I added the link after reading a synopsis of it in a third party source. I'll check out the discussion. Cla68 (talk) 08:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for lending your voice to the debate.Jprw (talk) 08:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Autoblocks
Just letting you know, we have an auto-block finder. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 07:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- It seems like whenever someone gets unblocked, it takes awhile for the autoblocks to be manually resolved. It's a step that shouldn't be necessary. Cla68 (talk) 07:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- True. I've forgotten to do it myself. There is a link to the tool in the unblock page though. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 07:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Booker
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)
What's you take on the RfC as it stands now?
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)
Talkback
Message added 04:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Airplaneman talk 04:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- Looks good :). Nice to meet you, Airplaneman talk 19:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Copyedit request
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)
- Thank you very much. The article has a much better shape now. I highly appreciate your help. If possible, could you also copy-edit the Korean claim section which seems to be more seriously in need of copyediting. Anyway, thanks again. --Caspian blue 17:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks again. I tweaked a little bit since the cited source does not exist, and the mention of Liancourt Rocks without source can give a misimpression over the sovereignty and a POV concern. (that is not your responsibility of course, but the writer)--Caspian blue 23:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Booker again
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)
- Where are the sources for your allegations? Again, we don't make these judgements, we allow our readers to look at the sources and decide for themselves on their credibility. Cla68 (talk) 22:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Let an uninvolved admin review the name of the climategate article
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)
Johnny Weir
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)
Running
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)
Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
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:
- Proposal to Close This RfC
- Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy
Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
PA
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)
- That's not the only PA that he's done recently, so that one is the proverbial straw. Cla68 (talk) 07:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- I have filed an enforcement request. Cla68 (talk) 09:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- Well seems like it was closed for want of an RFC/U. Thanks again for showing concern. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Wikibreak
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)
- The marathon is done. My time was 4:34. The weather was horrible, sleet, rain, and windy, I was overhydrated, and I can barely walk today. I'm really proud, however, to have done it. Cla68 (talk) 03:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Congrats! Any marathon that you finish is a good marathon. :) So, what are the crowds like for the Tokyo marathon on sleet, rain, and windy days? Don't worry, though, you'll recover quickly. A little Advil or Aspirin to help keep the inflammation down for a day or two works wonders. Hey, post a picture of your medal so I can see what the Tokyo one looks like. --GoRight (talk) 04:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Hey, where are you in this picture? :) It must have been wicked fun in spite of the weather. --GoRight (talk) 04:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you. I'm about 75-100 meters from the front. I'm wearing a yellow runners cap but I can't find it in the crowd. Cla68 (talk) 04:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, and the crowds were great. Tokyoites apparently love to cheer on marathoners. I must have heard "Gambatte!" and "Gambarimasu!" 10,000 times. Cla68 (talk) 04:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Well done! Pity about the weather, but there's a great "thank goodness I got through that" feeling at the end, even for relatively minor walks like I've been doing. The snow's been terrific here, but two feet of snow turns an easy hill walk into a real slog. Marathons are something else which I can't even aspire to, congratulations! . . dave souza, talk 09:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, and the crowds were great. Tokyoites apparently love to cheer on marathoners. I must have heard "Gambatte!" and "Gambarimasu!" 10,000 times. Cla68 (talk) 04:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you. I'm about 75-100 meters from the front. I'm wearing a yellow runners cap but I can't find it in the crowd. Cla68 (talk) 04:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Hey, where are you in this picture? :) It must have been wicked fun in spite of the weather. --GoRight (talk) 04:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Congrats! Any marathon that you finish is a good marathon. :) So, what are the crowds like for the Tokyo marathon on sleet, rain, and windy days? Don't worry, though, you'll recover quickly. A little Advil or Aspirin to help keep the inflammation down for a day or two works wonders. Hey, post a picture of your medal so I can see what the Tokyo one looks like. --GoRight (talk) 04:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Incidents at SeaWorld parks
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)
- Hi - Feel free to chime in with the name discussion; you will recall that you agreed with the consensus to exclude names on the Incidents pages during the Monorail incident discussion back in July 2009. Hope you're doing well. SpikeJones (talk) 04:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thx for suggesting the conversation stay on point as much as it can. (hey, even though we've discussed this very topic before and occasionally agree and disagree on the outcome depending on the breeze, we can recognize when civility needs to come into play at the same time) SpikeJones (talk) 04:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal has begun
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)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)
The February 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) 22:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Request for help
I am will shortly be posting to WP:AN with the request below. Any support would be appreciated.
Request to WP:AN
"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:
- User:Peter Damian (old)
- User:HistorianofLogic
- User:Logicist
- User:Here today, gone tomorrow
- User:Renamed user 4
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)
PA complaint
your involvement in climate change advocacy [4] is a serious PA. Retract it William M. Connolley (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- Seriously? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- PA is not some sort of currency to be tossed around. Grow a thicker skin. The main violation in that statement is grammar. Jehochman Talk 19:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- "grow a thicker skin" is your contribution to a civil wikipedia? Wonderful. Perhaps you might care to suggest that the "skeptics" do the same William M. Connolley (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- "PA" may not be the correct term for it; "unsubstantiated allegation of WP:COI" is more like it. Either way, WMC's rv in question was info that didn't match its source, and this part of the talk page discussion was just some silly escalation. More along, gentlemen and ladies, lesson learned (don't make accusations, cite sources properly), nothing more to see here... Awickert (talk) 20:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
There's a big literature out there
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)
desmogblog
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? [5] thanks mark nutley (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- If a blog is noteworthy, I don't see any problem with giving their opinon on stuff and letting the reader decide what is true. I'll check Infotrac and NewsStand about the Watts blog. Cla68 (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the help :-) I created the article but for some reason it seems to want to redirect to watts article? any idea`s on how to fix this? mark nutley (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Dave's recommendation for further reading
Regarding the history, Spencer R. Weart, who is well qualified as a historian with a physics background,[6] 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)
My talk page
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)
- I hope you're beginning to realise why, even if the Guardian had said what you thought it had said, we would not resort that as fact. If a newspaper were our only source on science, we would have no choice, but there are far more reliable sources on these subjects and newspapers are wrong on science at least as often as they are right, if only because the reporters frequently do not understand what they are writing about well enough to do a decent job. Tasty monster (=TS ) 16:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- Because of course no scientist has ever been wrong, right tony? mark nutley (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- I have no idea what this argument is about (although I'll bet it has to do with global climate change), but I would like to point out to Mark that "of course, scientists are normally wrong" as well.</sarcasm> One scientist can be wrong, but a grand consensus of scientists? Not nearly as likely... I agree with Tasty that more substantial sources would be preferable, but I don't see anything wrong with also adding sources to papers like the New York Times—a renowned paper with a good reputation for accurate articles. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 16:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- WMC, here's the thing you don't seem to understand, we (WP) don't care who is right or is wrong. We just report what the sources say and the reader then draws their own conclusions. You can't remove sourced information from major newspapers just because you personally disagree with it. If you have scientific papers that contradict what the newspaper is reporting, then add that information to the article as well. Don't just delete the stuff you don't like and leave it at that. It's wrong, and contrary to how a wiki works. Your approach may work on your own personal website, if you have one, but not here. Cla68 (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- Or rather, we would put what the scientific paper says, and leave out how the newspaper interprets it unless we're talking about social reaction to science rather than science itself. Otherwise we'd end up sourcing either good or mistaken interpretations alongside the original source, which would muddy the waters. As a matter of fact, I'd rather not cite newspapers at all for science, because of the above and if there isn't a scientific work on which they're reporting, they're just making stuff up. And there's almost always a spin. <sigh>I suppose this is why I've been avoiding global warming related stuff.</sigh> Awickert (talk) 06:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- So far, I haven't seen any evidence that the paper was makig stuff up. The information has been removed, but nothing has been added explaining the phenomenom that the newspaper is claiming occurred. If there is a scientific paper out there talking about what happened, that would be better than the newspaper. It appears, however, that the newspaper is all we have. So, we report the information and the reader decides if it is true or not based on the source. We don't decide that for them. Cla68 (talk) 07:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- In the situations that I have seen in which the newspaper is all we have on the topic of global warming, I generally see the writing approach one of two endmembers: "global warming is a commie hoax" or "global warming is going to kill us all tomorrow". The Guardian typically falls into the latter of these two fallacies, as does it in this section. While The Guardian is a WP:RS, I personally feel that it is doing our readers a severe disservice to put an article that quotes the probably off-the-top-of-the-head speculations of a couple scientists on a par with what we see in the mainstream scientific literature that has been vetted and confirmed. I think that this is one of the great things about WP:DEADLINE: we can hold ourselves to a high standard and can afford to wait until greater accuracy is possible and recent events are put into a broader context. And there really is such a fantastic body of scientific literature about the Gulf Stream that I think it's a pity to put such weight on sensationalist reporting. Awickert (talk) 07:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I do remember as a child the "global cooling" scare of the early 1970s. I remember seeing these terrifying reports of an impending ice age on the evening news and my parents watching it wide-eyed and then asking each other how we could prepare for years of freezing temperatures in the summer (we lived in Alabama). So, I can see the point about being suspicious about media hysteria. The newspapers are usually able to find some scientist somewhere to give them a good, supporting quote, aren't they? Cla68 (talk) 07:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's the exact concern that I have, and if you look through the scientific literature, there's not much more than a couple over-trumpeted papers about global cooling that were unfortunately not sufficiently rebutted by the rest of the scientific community. I have seen scientists I know who, on TV, have had their quotes sliced and butchered by a reporter who had already decided what that person was supposed to say or who simply didn't understand them because of insufficient background in the topic and/or physical intuition. And I really disapprove of scare tactics used by some environmentalists and some uninformed members of the Left. And that's the thing. I really wish I could use the newspapers in good conscience, and quite a bit of reporting in them is quite good. But the juicy and controversial stuff is far too often atrocious. Awickert (talk) 07:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thinking about this further, I'm generally happy to cite newspapers on facts (thermohaline circulation weakening for 10 days), but not on interpretations. Awickert (talk) 08:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- Not even on facts without a basic sanity check. I recall a recent story where the reporter consistently wrote "altitude" where it should have been "latitude." (There was never a correction.) The non-US press tends to do a little better, in my experience. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I do remember as a child the "global cooling" scare of the early 1970s. I remember seeing these terrifying reports of an impending ice age on the evening news and my parents watching it wide-eyed and then asking each other how we could prepare for years of freezing temperatures in the summer (we lived in Alabama). So, I can see the point about being suspicious about media hysteria. The newspapers are usually able to find some scientist somewhere to give them a good, supporting quote, aren't they? Cla68 (talk) 07:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- In the situations that I have seen in which the newspaper is all we have on the topic of global warming, I generally see the writing approach one of two endmembers: "global warming is a commie hoax" or "global warming is going to kill us all tomorrow". The Guardian typically falls into the latter of these two fallacies, as does it in this section. While The Guardian is a WP:RS, I personally feel that it is doing our readers a severe disservice to put an article that quotes the probably off-the-top-of-the-head speculations of a couple scientists on a par with what we see in the mainstream scientific literature that has been vetted and confirmed. I think that this is one of the great things about WP:DEADLINE: we can hold ourselves to a high standard and can afford to wait until greater accuracy is possible and recent events are put into a broader context. And there really is such a fantastic body of scientific literature about the Gulf Stream that I think it's a pity to put such weight on sensationalist reporting. Awickert (talk) 07:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- So far, I haven't seen any evidence that the paper was makig stuff up. The information has been removed, but nothing has been added explaining the phenomenom that the newspaper is claiming occurred. If there is a scientific paper out there talking about what happened, that would be better than the newspaper. It appears, however, that the newspaper is all we have. So, we report the information and the reader decides if it is true or not based on the source. We don't decide that for them. Cla68 (talk) 07:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- Or rather, we would put what the scientific paper says, and leave out how the newspaper interprets it unless we're talking about social reaction to science rather than science itself. Otherwise we'd end up sourcing either good or mistaken interpretations alongside the original source, which would muddy the waters. As a matter of fact, I'd rather not cite newspapers at all for science, because of the above and if there isn't a scientific work on which they're reporting, they're just making stuff up. And there's almost always a spin. <sigh>I suppose this is why I've been avoiding global warming related stuff.</sigh> Awickert (talk) 06:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- WMC, here's the thing you don't seem to understand, we (WP) don't care who is right or is wrong. We just report what the sources say and the reader then draws their own conclusions. You can't remove sourced information from major newspapers just because you personally disagree with it. If you have scientific papers that contradict what the newspaper is reporting, then add that information to the article as well. Don't just delete the stuff you don't like and leave it at that. It's wrong, and contrary to how a wiki works. Your approach may work on your own personal website, if you have one, but not here. Cla68 (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- I have no idea what this argument is about (although I'll bet it has to do with global climate change), but I would like to point out to Mark that "of course, scientists are normally wrong" as well.</sarcasm> One scientist can be wrong, but a grand consensus of scientists? Not nearly as likely... I agree with Tasty that more substantial sources would be preferable, but I don't see anything wrong with also adding sources to papers like the New York Times—a renowned paper with a good reputation for accurate articles. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 16:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- Because of course no scientist has ever been wrong, right tony? mark nutley (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
desmogblog and your request
To create some article so the redlinks may begone :) [7] 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)
- Alright! Yes, I checked Infotrac and NewsStand yesterday and got about 30 hits on this topic. I'll list them on your page with hidden article texts. Cla68 (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- I think it would be great if both the DeSmogBlog and Watts Up With That articles could reach Good Article at the same time. Along those lines, I just asked WMC if he would be willing and able to take the lead in that effort. Cla68 (talk) 00:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- Erm, ok i know i`m not the brightest at times but what do you mean by hidden? If you think certain editors will allow WUWT to ever achieve anything other than a stub (which is what they are aiming for, tony already having done it in fact) then you are far more optimistic than I :-) mark nutley (talk) 16:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- To avoid a copyright violation I hide the article text within the citation. You can see the text when you edit the page. I definitely expect those editors to be willing, in the spirit of collaboration, cooperation, and compromise, to expand and enlarge the Watts Up article in an objective and neutral manner, just like we're trying to do with the DeSmogBlog article. If they decline to do so, then I plan on doing it once we're finished with the DeSmogBlog article. Cla68 (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- Cla, i am unsure how to use what you have found as refs. There are no url`s for me to cite from. And a lot of the material, although it mentions the center seems to focus on the dalai lama. Thanks mark nutley (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- I saw enough information there to start an article. I'll take care of it, hopefully today or tomorrow. Like I said, once DeSmogBlog is nominated for GA, I'll start on Watts Up, unless those other editors I asked to do so have gotten it finished already. Cla68 (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- OK, I started it but an only about half-way through the references. I'll try to finish it up tonight. Cla68 (talk) 06:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- I saw enough information there to start an article. I'll take care of it, hopefully today or tomorrow. Like I said, once DeSmogBlog is nominated for GA, I'll start on Watts Up, unless those other editors I asked to do so have gotten it finished already. Cla68 (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- Cla, i am unsure how to use what you have found as refs. There are no url`s for me to cite from. And a lot of the material, although it mentions the center seems to focus on the dalai lama. Thanks mark nutley (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- To avoid a copyright violation I hide the article text within the citation. You can see the text when you edit the page. I definitely expect those editors to be willing, in the spirit of collaboration, cooperation, and compromise, to expand and enlarge the Watts Up article in an objective and neutral manner, just like we're trying to do with the DeSmogBlog article. If they decline to do so, then I plan on doing it once we're finished with the DeSmogBlog article. Cla68 (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- Erm, ok i know i`m not the brightest at times but what do you mean by hidden? If you think certain editors will allow WUWT to ever achieve anything other than a stub (which is what they are aiming for, tony already having done it in fact) then you are far more optimistic than I :-) mark nutley (talk) 16:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- I think it would be great if both the DeSmogBlog and Watts Up With That articles could reach Good Article at the same time. Along those lines, I just asked WMC if he would be willing and able to take the lead in that effort. Cla68 (talk) 00:43, 16 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)
Hi, I've been reading this aticle with intrest as I am actually writing a whole article about the japanese occupation of Nauru in the french wikipedia. From what I've been reading, one of the factors leading to the second attemp of invasion was the raid of Makin in August 1942 which was a proof of the wickness of Japanese forces in the Gilbert area at this time. References can be find there [8]. Best regards --Kimdime (talk) 12:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- It was written with material that can't be find online, specially this book, it is still a work in progress, many things have to be added perhaps even a subarticle about Nauruan exile on Truk Islands, but I have a question, what is exactly called "Operation RY" ? Is it the first attempt of invasion, the first plus the second or the whole period of occupation of the Island by japanese troops? Regards.--Kimdime (talk) 07:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Arbcom request
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)
- I don't know of any misconduct on Lar's part. Cla68 (talk) 00:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- All the more reason to work together, sharing our information and cooperating. We both have an interest in the integrity of the sanctions regime and can present a better case together than individually. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- Addendum: I'm not sure this rises to the level of a request for a full-blown arbitration case. It seems more like a request for clarification. What do you think? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- Nope, it isn't a clarification. Stephan knows the rules about using admin authority. Requests for ArbCom review of admin actions goes in the requests section not clarification. Cla68 (talk) 01:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- I do not see where policy dictates such. Perhaps I have overlooked it, in which case I would appreciate a pointer. Have you "exhausted all other methods of dispute resolution" as required by policy, or do you instead consider that this arises to the level of an "emergency"? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- Nope, it isn't a clarification. Stephan knows the rules about using admin authority. Requests for ArbCom review of admin actions goes in the requests section not clarification. Cla68 (talk) 01:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- Addendum: I'm not sure this rises to the level of a request for a full-blown arbitration case. It seems more like a request for clarification. What do you think? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- All the more reason to work together, sharing our information and cooperating. We both have an interest in the integrity of the sanctions regime and can present a better case together than individually. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Coordinator elections have opened!
Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Re: Edit conflict
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)
Tokyo meetup
Hi, do you've any interest to plan a Wikipedian meetup in Tokyo around April 2010? --Saki talk 09:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- I responded on your talk page. Cla68 (talk) 22:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- So how about April 3, 2010 at afternoon time anywhere in Tokyo? Please confirm your attendance here. --Saki talk 01:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- How about April 10 then? --122.208.43.18 (talk) 15:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
- I'm just butting in here, but that's still short notice for most people. Maybe you should aim for the end of April? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- How about April 10 then? --122.208.43.18 (talk) 15:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
- So how about April 3, 2010 at afternoon time anywhere in Tokyo? Please confirm your attendance here. --Saki talk 01:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Need advice on writing history articles...
I find your essay on how to write history article is most helpful, but since I'm still new at this, I really hope to get more advice from you.
Right now I'm involved in a content dispute over how much "human elements" is needed in a milhist article. Would you mind take look at the article Battle of the Ch'ongch'on River and see how to improve the "human elements"? Jim101 (talk) 22:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Coordinator election
Thank you for your support MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- Likewise. Just a quick note to thank you for your support at the election, very much appreciated. I notice you're in Japan - I used to live in Suzuka, Mie-Ken. Miss the place! Anyway, see you around the Milhist pages! Ranger Steve (talk) 20:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Yamato
Hey, Cla68, I've got a bit of a problem.
Japanese battleship Yamato is currently at FAC, and an oppose has come up arguing that I have relied too heavily upon combinedfleet. Would you happen to have any major literature on Yamato that could replace some of the citations in the article? Thanks in advance, and sorry for the short notice; I didn't think this would be an issue, but apparently it is. Cam (Chat) 04:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Just throwing this out there: if you have access to Skuski's The Battleship Yamato, we would love you forever. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- When it comes to the IJN, I have just about everything in English. I've been kind of busy lately, but I'll try to work on it later today (JST). Cla68 (talk) 06:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Request
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)
- Listed on your talk page. Cla68 (talk) 00:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, i`m still trying to figure out how to find the urls so i can use them as refs though ? mark nutley (talk) 23:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- And again thanks, if you have a second or two to spare could you take a gander at this and give me your opinion on it thus far? mark nutley (talk) 01:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, i`m still trying to figure out how to find the urls so i can use them as refs though ? mark nutley (talk) 23:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Cooperate, collaborate, and compromise
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)
- This is one of those catchy but meaningless phrases. We have a fellow over at greenhouse effect who insists that everyone from Joseph Fourier onward has gotten it all wrong, and that the greenhouse effect cannot possibly exist. He of course has no sources to back him up, and people have been incredibly patient in explaining things to him, yet he keeps asserting over and over and over and over that he's correct. Pray, how does one "cooperate, collaborate, and compromise" with such a person? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- You use the content dispute resolution process. Cla68 (talk) 22:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- This fellow stretches even my bounds of WP:AGF. I've spent enough hours trying to politely explain, and he just repeats himself or ignores me. I suppose I could use the content dispute resolution process, but it seems relatively straightforward as (a) he has no real sources, and (b) though this doesn't count for wiki, he is making a fundamental error with conservation equations. In any case, I've just decided it's not worth my effort. I hope you don't mind my stalking your talk page though, and I do agree that when possible, collaboration and cooperation (and compromise when both parties are correct) is the way to do things. Awickert (talk) 05:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- If someone just consistently refuses to work well with others then I guess we're supposed to use the RfC-RfAR process. I'm sure you're well aware of it as well as how time consuming and painful it is. This may be one of the biggest weaknesses of a wiki, besides cabalism, which is how to deal with dedicated editors who just won't cooperate. Cla68 (talk) 06:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- This fellow stretches even my bounds of WP:AGF. I've spent enough hours trying to politely explain, and he just repeats himself or ignores me. I suppose I could use the content dispute resolution process, but it seems relatively straightforward as (a) he has no real sources, and (b) though this doesn't count for wiki, he is making a fundamental error with conservation equations. In any case, I've just decided it's not worth my effort. I hope you don't mind my stalking your talk page though, and I do agree that when possible, collaboration and cooperation (and compromise when both parties are correct) is the way to do things. Awickert (talk) 05:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- You use the content dispute resolution process. Cla68 (talk) 22:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Advice needed
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 [9] 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
Thank you very much for your support on the coordinator elections. – Joe N 14:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
The Real Global Warming Disaster
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)
Lacroix/Wells
Heya Cla. From Google Books, it looks like Lacroix and Wells' Japanese Cruisers in the Pacific War has some good information on the Japanese battleship Tosa (sandbox link), but I can't access most of it. Is there any chance you can add information from there to the article? Many thanks, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Sure. Will do. It might take me a few days but I'll get to it. Cla68 (talk) 13:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- There's no real timeframe. That thing has been languishing in my userspace since September, so....a few days won't hurt. :-) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 15:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Just a quick poke to ensure that you haven't forgot. If you haven't, sorry. :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for reminding me. I'm going to try to get it done today. Kaigun also has some information, so I'll be adding that also. Cla68 (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Further note to remind myself to check if I have any other pictures of the ship that I can upload. Cla68 (talk) 05:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- I do have three other pictures of the ship I can upload if they aren't already in Commons. One is of the ship coming off the slipway, another of it being prepared for the explosive testing, and another of it being prepared for scuttling. Cla68 (talk) 12:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- Wow, thanks a lot! I wish I had a scanner like yours... my university's scanner always leaves artifacts, like this. I can Fourier them away, but it's not the same. :/ —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, one last request: can you doublecheck the paragraph with the {{dubious}} tag? If I remember right, there was a contradiction between Lacroix and Breyer on either the amount of water or the list... —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- I do have three other pictures of the ship I can upload if they aren't already in Commons. One is of the ship coming off the slipway, another of it being prepared for the explosive testing, and another of it being prepared for scuttling. Cla68 (talk) 12:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- Further note to remind myself to check if I have any other pictures of the ship that I can upload. Cla68 (talk) 05:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for reminding me. I'm going to try to get it done today. Kaigun also has some information, so I'll be adding that also. Cla68 (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Just a quick poke to ensure that you haven't forgot. If you haven't, sorry. :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- There's no real timeframe. That thing has been languishing in my userspace since September, so....a few days won't hurt. :-) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 15:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
quick poke, I think you missed this because of the comments below :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- Hey Cla, are you finished? If so, I'll move it to the mainspace and DYK it. :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC):
- No problem at all. Thank you so much for your additions; I really appreciate it. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
The Real Global Warming Disaster as a good article nominee
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)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
PLEASE STOP YOUR HARASSMENT OF ME!
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)
- Please do not YELL. If you have evidence of harassment or personal attacks, please post it - here or on my talk page.Otherwise, you are simply screaming at a co-editor. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 13:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- I believe that this is what caused TallMagic to start yelling. Multiple people have warned Cla68 to let TallMagic maintain his privacy and to stop linking him to his old username which (presumably) is or is close to his real life name, in violation of WP:OUTING. Screaming about it isn't the best way to go about it, especially since this matter already has admin attention, but I can understand being frustrated. -- Atama頭 15:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- If nothing has happened since, then the situation is already handled. Cla has received feedback and has not continued his behavior. If he does, I suggest going to ANI, as this, poorly phrased and in all caps as it is, probably meets the requirement of trying to discuss with the other editor. I see below that Cla is not addressing the specific concern, but rather objecting to the use of the word "harassment". This is unhelpful. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 15:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- I believe that this is what caused TallMagic to start yelling. Multiple people have warned Cla68 to let TallMagic maintain his privacy and to stop linking him to his old username which (presumably) is or is close to his real life name, in violation of WP:OUTING. Screaming about it isn't the best way to go about it, especially since this matter already has admin attention, but I can understand being frustrated. -- Atama頭 15:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- (To TallMagic) Your use of the word "harrassment" cheapens the term and experiences of those who have been real victims of harrassment, like this guy. This attack website on Derek Smart lists "Bill Huffman" as the site's owner. An account by that same name has been trying to control or heavily influence that article's content for some time. Also, I have serious concerns about the use of the archived version of the Oregon database in order to add negative information to the WIU article. I will continue to notify you so that you can give your side as I continue to look into this using Wikipedia's various administrative forums. Cla68 (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Nature news article re HS controversy
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 Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)
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)
ANI thread
Just so you'll know, a thread has been opened on the WP:ANI board about you. You can find that here [11]. Dayewalker (talk) 06:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
BLP stuff
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)
- I made some suggstions at the bottom. Cla68 (talk) 23:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- By the way, you might need to start an article on the Bishop Hill blog first before starting one on Montford. Cla68 (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your suggestions, I also followed your advice on doing an article for the blog first [12] mark nutley (talk) 12:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- I already searched for sources on the blog, and I didn't find very many. It's Alexa rank appears to be fairly low. I'm not sure if it's notable enough enough for its own article, but I'll see what you come up with. Cla68 (talk) 12:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- The BBC mentioned what the blogs commentators wrote, i figure thats pretty notable :-) mark nutley (talk) 13:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well i can`t find anything else about the blog, if you have ten could you give it the once over before i put it into mainspace? It be here,thanks mark nutley (talk) 09:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- The BBC mentioned what the blogs commentators wrote, i figure thats pretty notable :-) mark nutley (talk) 13:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- I already searched for sources on the blog, and I didn't find very many. It's Alexa rank appears to be fairly low. I'm not sure if it's notable enough enough for its own article, but I'll see what you come up with. Cla68 (talk) 12:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your suggestions, I also followed your advice on doing an article for the blog first [12] mark nutley (talk) 12:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- By the way, you might need to start an article on the Bishop Hill blog first before starting one on Montford. Cla68 (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Refs at end of page
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)
- Actually, Kim D. Peterson put the refs that way soon after I started the article and was the first time I had seen refs done that way also. I thought that system appeared to be more efficient, because as the article expands and refs are used multiple times, editors won't have to search through to find previous citations to format the "ref name"s correctly. Cla68 (talk) 22:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm, it may be better, but I'd like to see an official notification about it before I start using it. ► RATEL ◄ 00:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Alternative wording
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)
Help with weird ref issue
[13] 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)
Tokyo meetup
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)
- Director of Creative Commons Japan has just confirmed his attendance and perhaps we should expect some more peoples belongs to CC in the meetup so you could start making plans now. Anyways, everyone is asking for exact venue and time, so what do you say? --Saki talk 15:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- I do not think so if we really should have to make reservation in advance for a very few peoples. We just have to decide of a appropriate location where we could meetup and then, we can look for any good restaurant around. Do you any best place in Shibuya or Shinjuku? 5 pm is best. --Saki talk 17:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- Im going to cancel Tokyo meetup at the moment, we had only 5 confirmed attendees from which 3 Wikipedians which I dont think are enough for a meetup when the city is Tokyo. Will wait for a right time ahead. --Saki talk 12:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
References question
I see that you have an interest in WWII events related to the Pacific. I recently expanded Raid at Cabanatuan while using multiple sources found online and in my local library. Before pursuing FA at some point, one area that I have been unable to find details on is the Japanese reaction to the raid. Do you know of any sources that cover this (all of the ones I have used are mostly pro-American and don't focus on Japanese except for death counts)? If you know of any other sources that would be helpful for the article, I'd appreciate it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for replying. I would appreciate anything you stumble across, and I'll continue to keep looking. I know that is something that would be brought up at FAC, so hopefully I can at least find one source that includes even just one quote from the other side. The language barrier is going to be difficult to pursue Japanese sources on the event, if any even exist. Anyway, thanks again. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:48, 21 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)
Editwarring on DeSmogBlog
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)
RFC advice
[14] 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)
Proposed RfC - Internet Traffic Rankings/Reports
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)
- I'll try to get one drafted in the next couple of days. I promised to have a content RfC done for a different article by today so I need to take care of that one first. Cla68 (talk) 05:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps I'll offer one in this space before you then. Whatever works. JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
How about the following...
- An RS/N is in progress relating to WP:RS considerations for citing website traffic data returned by internet traffic reporting websites such as "Alexa" and "Quantcast". Comments/observations are solicited and welcome.
--JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- I think the discussion should have it's own, separate page and be structured as an RfC. Later today I'll make a draft of what I'm talking about. Cla68 (talk) 22:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- I believe resolution is best served by approaching attendant issues in some logical order. If the community determines that Alexa web traffic data reporting does not meet the mandates of WP:RS, every other question becomes moot.
- As to a proposed RfC, the prevailing "issue", at the moment and as I see it, is Alexa WP:RS. While "RfC"'s are normally placed within an article talk page, WP:RS/N presents a different situation as the RS/N "Talk" page is not designed to host a specific issue but rather the RS/N process itself. Whether an RfC might be placed within the RS/N itself to solicit more input is unclear to me. Would it be more appropriate to place one in the article "talk" soliciting input to the RS/N? I just don't know. JakeInJoisey (talk) 11:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- I was thinking of a stand-alone RfC, like this one. Since over 1,000 Wikipedia articles use Alexa or Quantcast, I think a stand-alone RfC is justified. I would also ask the Signpost to announce it, to try to get maximum input. I'm not sure if I'm going to get to the draft tonight (JST) but should have something soon. Cla68 (talk) 12:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- You are, of course, welcome to approach this in any fashion you deem appropriate. However, the issue of Alexa WP:RS is a relatively simple one and really shouldn't require much drafting of anything. I strongly recommend that you consider utilizing the "KISS" principle first before some additional "in depth" RfC approach. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- FYI, I have placed an RS/N notice within the respective talk pages of the "Alexa", "Quantcast" and "Compete" articles. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- You are, of course, welcome to approach this in any fashion you deem appropriate. However, the issue of Alexa WP:RS is a relatively simple one and really shouldn't require much drafting of anything. I strongly recommend that you consider utilizing the "KISS" principle first before some additional "in depth" RfC approach. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- I was thinking of a stand-alone RfC, like this one. Since over 1,000 Wikipedia articles use Alexa or Quantcast, I think a stand-alone RfC is justified. I would also ask the Signpost to announce it, to try to get maximum input. I'm not sure if I'm going to get to the draft tonight (JST) but should have something soon. Cla68 (talk) 12:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- I think the discussion should have it's own, separate page and be structured as an RfC. Later today I'll make a draft of what I'm talking about. Cla68 (talk) 22:34, 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)
Example please
[15] of WMC following MN to other forums? Thanks --BozMo talk 10:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
RFC advice
[16] 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)
Sorry about this
But i need some help :), yes again. [17] 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)
DYK for Japanese battleship Tosa
The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help with this, Cla. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Your Opinion?
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)
Wouldn't do this if I were you
[18] 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)
- Remember I took this to ArbCom before. Like I said there, the enforcement needs to be run as a tight ship, or else it will quickly degenerate into a paper tiger. Cla68 (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- BozMo, IIRC, Schulz' top 5 articles edited are all CC articles. His assertion that he is "Lar uninvolved" is ludicrous. ATren (talk) 01:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Use AN/I?
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)
Per your request
Talk:Judith_Curry#Curry.27s_notability.... Guettarda (talk) 14:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
CA
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. [19] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- You have now misrepresented my comment on the AfD - please self-revert and do not edit my comments. You may edit your own comments - but not mine - thank you. This is a warning. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- I removed my refs and the accompanying texts as you requested, and left your links. You need to be more specific about what your concern is. Cla68 (talk) 06:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well - i've restored the text that you removed, you changed:
- You have got to be kidding? None of these articles are about Climate Audit, and only one of these mention it in more than 1 paragraph, 5 of the references mention it in a brief one sentence:
- Here are the links to the actual articles/Op-Ed's - and i've written how much CA is mentioned - as well as put a paranthesis around what focus it has (Climate Audit or McIntyre).
- Into:
- :Here are the links to the actual articles/Op-Ed's - and i've written how much CA is mentioned - as well as put a paranthesis around what focus it has (Climate Audit or McIntyre).
- Changing the meaning rather completely. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Apology[20] accepted. I probably overreacted to what may have been a mistake, since the mistake made my comment look as if it meant something different. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well - i've restored the text that you removed, you changed:
- I removed my refs and the accompanying texts as you requested, and left your links. You need to be more specific about what your concern is. Cla68 (talk) 06:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
1RR violation
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 TC 05:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- That's not a revert at all. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Sure is it. The original edit noted the media mentions were "in passing." This phrase has been removed, and no alternate wording expressing the same idea has been introduced. So it's a revert. I added an idea, Cla removed it--that's a revert. Yilloslime TC 06:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- It looks like he edited your edit. If he had removed it entirely, I would have called it a partial revert, but he just tweaked it. Stop wikilawyering, start collaborating, kthnxbai. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- An idea was expressed in my edit which is now completely missing. This goes beyond "tweaking" and into the realm of "reverting". Yilloslime TC 06:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Five > "a few," and despite most being "in passing," it being even mentioned as a important blog by many major press outlets is probably a good indicator of notability, and I'm not convinced that is a necessary qualifier. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- (ec) I'm talking more about the "in passing", and the question is not about the merit of the edit in the first place, but whether Cla's edit constitutes a revert. Lemme put it to you this way: if I now go add the word "briefly" to the end of the sentence in question, would you not consider that a revert? Yilloslime TC 06:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Five > "a few," and despite most being "in passing," it being even mentioned as a important blog by many major press outlets is probably a good indicator of notability, and I'm not convinced that is a necessary qualifier. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- An idea was expressed in my edit which is now completely missing. This goes beyond "tweaking" and into the realm of "reverting". Yilloslime TC 06:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- It looks like he edited your edit. If he had removed it entirely, I would have called it a partial revert, but he just tweaked it. Stop wikilawyering, start collaborating, kthnxbai. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Sure is it. The original edit noted the media mentions were "in passing." This phrase has been removed, and no alternate wording expressing the same idea has been introduced. So it's a revert. I added an idea, Cla removed it--that's a revert. Yilloslime TC 06:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
A sort of mentorship
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)
One last Tosa question
This was a point brought up in the FAC. Would your sources happen to say exactly where she sunk? Lengerer seems to say that it was off Okinoshima, Munakata, but all other sources I have say that it was in the Bungo Channel... —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- Unless there is another Okinoshima that is not on Wikipedia? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Something to perhaps add to your section in the Lar RFC
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)
- 3 of Boris's diffs come from before, the rest were after. I will try to dig up earlier examples.ATren (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
- Here are a list of diffs from the last 6 months or so, if you want to incorporate them into your RFC view:
- From WMC:
- [21] "Diffs please, not Lar-like ambiguity" - gratuitous mention
- [22] "Lar's team" - how is this worse than "cadre"?
- [23] "Tell Lar he's being silly"
- [24] "Lar won't rest..."
- [25] "Lar has no shame": PA
- [26] "Don't accept ...Lar's (word)"
- [27]
- [28] "I think LHVU and Lar's general competence and fitness to rule on this is neatly summarised by their inability to spell Ratel" - BLATANT PA
- [29] "Lar has lost contact with reality" - BLATANT PA
- [30] "You will make Lar sad" - mocking
- [31] "Lar will get upset" - mocking
- [32]
- [33] mocking
- [34] "Too much to expect Lar to bother"
- [35] "do you get it now?" - condescension.
- From Boris:
- [36] commentary on Lar's worldview
- [37] Snark
- [38] adds Lar to arbitration to make a WP:POINT
- [39] "stretching uninvolved to the breaking point"
- [40] implies that Lar supports equal coverage for flat earth
- [41] "there are some people you will never reach (cough Lar cough)"
- [42] commentary on Lar's rambling
- [43] mocking
- There's also the "millilar" crap above. Tonight I'm going to search Stephan's edits, and perhaps Guettarda. Of course, if you don't use these for the RFC, they might be useful if this goes to arbcom, which seems inevitable. ATren (talk) 13:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- I will be putting these and any others you find in the RfC. I don't necessarily agree that this needs to go to ArbCom. I have confidence that the team of admins currently involved with the climate change probation will act and put a stop to all of this nonsense which the diffs above show is going on. Cla68 (talk) 22:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- Guettarda:
- [44] misrepresents Lar as baiting WMC, when it was WMC who called him "old fruit" after Lar explicitly asked him not to.
- [45] "or maybe my expectations are too high" - snarky, condescending comment
- [46] "…and it's my own fault if I allow myself to be shocked" - expanded snark
- [47] refers to Lar's "obvious bias", accuses Lar of supporting "anti-science" activism
- [48] - accuses Lar of bias, back in February
- Stephan Schulz:
- [49] new term "Lar uninvolved", which mocks Lar's involvement status again
- [50] Lar's "posturing (is) ridiculous and counterproductive"
- [51] "Neutral Lar" mocking his neutrality
- [52] more "microLar" - defines a "Lar" as a unit of measure so large that a unit value would approach black hole density
- [53] "microLar" - using Lar's supposed bias as a unit of measure
- [54] "...has to be the stupidest thing somebody has said in this discussion for a long time."
Your editing privileges have been suspended for 24 hours
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)
- If you agree to a voluntary restriction of 0RR on that article, I am willing to unblock you per LHVU's indication, in his absence. Just fill out an unblock request and I'll get to it. The WordsmithCommunicate 13:45, 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. Jayron32 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 think there is a good case to be made that the redirect (not blanking) was the correct solution. No information was lost. Had Cla been reverting vandalism, he would have said so at the time, not in arrears William M. Connolley (talk) 07:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)
The April 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) 19:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
ANI post about BLP
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)
- ChrisO, you've been editing in a higly disruptive manner for something like a week now. Blanking the section in DeSmogBlog, attacking a new editor at the Bishop Hill article talk page, now attacking a living person which is a big wiki no-no. You're an experienced editor so you should know that we're not allowed to talk about living people that way. I think you need to step away from the AGW articles for awhile. I'll cross-post this to your page so that it will count as a step in dispute resolution. Cla68 (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- You're an experienced editor too, and I'm pretty sure you know the policy against harassment. Lay off it now. It does not show you in a good light. If you have a concern about something I've posted, bring it up on my talk page and I'll resolve it, but don't go running to AN/I in a blatant attempt to get me sanctioned without even giving me a chance to resolve the issue. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Not helpful. Not what I meant at all.--Chaser (talk) 01:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Kansai mini-unconference
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)
2/0
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)
- Also, Polargeo just wheel-warred on Bishop Hill. I've confronted him on his talk; do you think that should go to arbcom too? He's clearly involved, and he clearly wheel-warred, so it's a serious transgression of two serious rules. His reversal 15 minutes later is mitigating, but I still think arbcom should decide. What do you think? ATren (talk) 13:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Solomon as a source
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)
- I have been using Solomon's book just to list background academic and career information. Do you have anything that contradicts anything that I have added so far? If not, then there isn't a problem. Cla68 (talk) 12:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- By the way, two of the 35 or so scientists that Solomon profiled disputed his depiction of their stance, and two of five book reviewers took issue with the accuracy of his book. In fact, I'm the one who found and addedone of those reviews to the book article. So, we don't appear to have a majority opinion in RS that Solomon's book is "riddled with errors". Cla68 (talk) 12:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- 2 out of 35 explicitly and publicly disputed his depiction (actually, AFAIK Shaviv did so as well - that makes at least 3). That is not a reliable source. As for the 5 reviews: One is in the Moonie paper, two are by conservative think tank fellows. The other two are critical. It does not matter if a non-RS gets some things right - it's still not a good source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- One of those two (Weiss) isn't discussed in the book. Do you have a source for Shaviv? Nevertheless, the book qualifies as a reliable source according to WP's verifiability policy. Anyway, so far I've only used it to source uncontroversial bio information. Cla68 (talk) 23:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, but it clearly matches "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion." in WP:V. Note that original publication was as a series of editorials/blog posts, i.e. sources only good for the opinion of the author, not for facts. Republication of the same stuff does not change this. And the publisher at [55] does not have a reputation for fact-checking and reliability, either. See here for Shaviv. Do you think such a list of errors is a sign of good fact-checking? BTW, assuming you have the book - are the listed errors (like the 15% and the 2.5x) fixed? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- The original publication was a series of editorials/columns published by The National Post which definitely meets the definition of a reliable source. The Post is putting its name, as the publisher, on the editorials. The book publisher's website shows that they like to publish books with a conservative viewpoint, but doesn't say that they don't have a reputation for fact checking. If you're more comfortable with attribution, I can put "According to Lawrence Solomon" at the beginning of every paragraph that uses his book as a source which doesn't have back-up from a second source. I don't have a problem with that. Thank you for the link to Shaviv's response. I'll add that to the Deniers article. Shaviv doesn't dispute, however, Solomon's information on Shaviv's academic career. So, I still haven't seen anything that anyone disputes any of the curriculum vitae information contained in Solomon's book, which so far is all I'm using the book for. Cla68 (talk) 07:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Done. Although Shaviv's and Solanki's personal websites wouldn't normally qualify as reliable sources, I think they're ok in this case to give their side. Solanki's post, however, is now a dead link, but I left it in anyway. Cla68 (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- "The Post is putting its name, as the publisher, on the editorials" - no, that's exactly why opinion pieces and editorials are marked as such and carry a byline. In this case, the publisher clearly marks these as opinions by the authors, not the official stance of the paper. See Wikipedia:RS#Statements_of_opinion. Anyways, this is going in circles. Solomon is not a reliable source because he (reliably ;-) gets things wrong. As an unreliable source, we should not use him for statements of fact. Attributing the opinion gets around that problem, but creates the new problem of weight - why do we care about his opinion? As for Solanki's page: The link [56] works for me. When did you try it? There was a failure of DENIC two days ago which rendered nearly all of .de unreachable - if you have a sufficiently bad name server, he might still cache the wrong NXDOMAIN generated then. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- I guess we're going to have to disagree. We can ask for an independent opinion at either the RS or BLP noticeboard if you like. I have no problem with that. Because Solomon is obviously trying to summarize and synthesize the opinions of the various people he profiles in his book, I was going to be very careful about using anything but the curriculum vitae stuff with Solomon as the sole source. Adding positive information to BLPs shouldn't be a big deal with sole sourcing which meets the WP:V policy, and the curriculum vitae information is positive. It's the controversial or negative information that requires more robust sourcing. 10:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I tried to attribute Solomon, but I was reverted. Cla68 (talk) 11:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Oh dear, probably this should have been on the t page. Anyway, your problem was Attributing the opinion gets around that problem, but creates the new problem of weight - why do we care about his opinion? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- I guess things like that happen when there is a breakdown in communication. Like you said, I should have explained in advance on the talk page. In this case, I think Solomon's book is ok, because it's being used to add noncontroversial, positive, curriculum vitae information to the article. Cla68 (talk) 11:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well, if you look at Landsea's CV page here, you can see that Solomon is somewhat overinflating the award - Landsea was one of 4 authors of a paper that was given the award. As usual, he inflates positive information about scientists he can misrepresent to support his POV. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- I guess things like that happen when there is a breakdown in communication. Like you said, I should have explained in advance on the talk page. In this case, I think Solomon's book is ok, because it's being used to add noncontroversial, positive, curriculum vitae information to the article. Cla68 (talk) 11:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Oh dear, probably this should have been on the t page. Anyway, your problem was Attributing the opinion gets around that problem, but creates the new problem of weight - why do we care about his opinion? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I tried to attribute Solomon, but I was reverted. Cla68 (talk) 11:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- I guess we're going to have to disagree. We can ask for an independent opinion at either the RS or BLP noticeboard if you like. I have no problem with that. Because Solomon is obviously trying to summarize and synthesize the opinions of the various people he profiles in his book, I was going to be very careful about using anything but the curriculum vitae stuff with Solomon as the sole source. Adding positive information to BLPs shouldn't be a big deal with sole sourcing which meets the WP:V policy, and the curriculum vitae information is positive. It's the controversial or negative information that requires more robust sourcing. 10:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- "The Post is putting its name, as the publisher, on the editorials" - no, that's exactly why opinion pieces and editorials are marked as such and carry a byline. In this case, the publisher clearly marks these as opinions by the authors, not the official stance of the paper. See Wikipedia:RS#Statements_of_opinion. Anyways, this is going in circles. Solomon is not a reliable source because he (reliably ;-) gets things wrong. As an unreliable source, we should not use him for statements of fact. Attributing the opinion gets around that problem, but creates the new problem of weight - why do we care about his opinion? As for Solanki's page: The link [56] works for me. When did you try it? There was a failure of DENIC two days ago which rendered nearly all of .de unreachable - if you have a sufficiently bad name server, he might still cache the wrong NXDOMAIN generated then. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Done. Although Shaviv's and Solanki's personal websites wouldn't normally qualify as reliable sources, I think they're ok in this case to give their side. Solanki's post, however, is now a dead link, but I left it in anyway. Cla68 (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- The original publication was a series of editorials/columns published by The National Post which definitely meets the definition of a reliable source. The Post is putting its name, as the publisher, on the editorials. The book publisher's website shows that they like to publish books with a conservative viewpoint, but doesn't say that they don't have a reputation for fact checking. If you're more comfortable with attribution, I can put "According to Lawrence Solomon" at the beginning of every paragraph that uses his book as a source which doesn't have back-up from a second source. I don't have a problem with that. Thank you for the link to Shaviv's response. I'll add that to the Deniers article. Shaviv doesn't dispute, however, Solomon's information on Shaviv's academic career. So, I still haven't seen anything that anyone disputes any of the curriculum vitae information contained in Solomon's book, which so far is all I'm using the book for. Cla68 (talk) 07:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, but it clearly matches "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion." in WP:V. Note that original publication was as a series of editorials/blog posts, i.e. sources only good for the opinion of the author, not for facts. Republication of the same stuff does not change this. And the publisher at [55] does not have a reputation for fact-checking and reliability, either. See here for Shaviv. Do you think such a list of errors is a sign of good fact-checking? BTW, assuming you have the book - are the listed errors (like the 15% and the 2.5x) fixed? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- One of those two (Weiss) isn't discussed in the book. Do you have a source for Shaviv? Nevertheless, the book qualifies as a reliable source according to WP's verifiability policy. Anyway, so far I've only used it to source uncontroversial bio information. Cla68 (talk) 23:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- 2 out of 35 explicitly and publicly disputed his depiction (actually, AFAIK Shaviv did so as well - that makes at least 3). That is not a reliable source. As for the 5 reviews: One is in the Moonie paper, two are by conservative think tank fellows. The other two are critical. It does not matter if a non-RS gets some things right - it's still not a good source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- By the way, two of the 35 or so scientists that Solomon profiled disputed his depiction of their stance, and two of five book reviewers took issue with the accuracy of his book. In fact, I'm the one who found and addedone of those reviews to the book article. So, we don't appear to have a majority opinion in RS that Solomon's book is "riddled with errors". Cla68 (talk) 12:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Edit summary
Hey, I was curious to know what your edit summary here[57] meant in English. I stuck it into Google Translate and came up with "T Stiff Noodles"! ScottyBerg (talk) 18:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- It didn't mean anything. As I was typing the summary I accidentally hit a button on the Japanese laptop I was using and it switched over to Japanese script. I didn't notice until I had hit enter. My next summary, however, means "mistaken." I then rebooted the computer so it would switch back to the Roman alphabet. Cla68 (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. I thought you were being sophisticated! P.S., as a CC veteran I'd love to get your thoughts on my essay. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Shenyang J-11
I believe you acted in good faith as I found the Kyodo News article that states this but historically Kanwa Defence Review has not been the most reliable of sources. I'm not citing this as an encyclopedic source as it is a forum and the fact that it is a cesspit of stupidity and useless unproductive discussion but if you scroll down to the 12th post, there are images of the J-11 participating in the PRC national day parade (See). I have no objection to your edits, but would like to err on the side of caution and add that information in when a more reputable defence source like Janes reports on the matter. If you find that acceptable, would it be okay to remove that information from the article for now?
Thanks, Vedant (talk) 12:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Also, sorry for reverting your edit immediately, in the future I'll try to discuss edits so that there is consensus before any action is taken. If you feel up to the task though, one of my major to-dos is the article on the PLAAF as it features a ton of unsourced information as well as inaccurate service numbers. Vedant (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Cheonan
Hi, you just added a citation of the Washington post to the sinking of the Cheonan article and said it was from the 13th of May. Di you mean the 20th of May (today)? Gregcaletta (talk) 03:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Question on sources
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)
Wikibreak
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)
Confused
You seem to be badly confused [58]. Perhaps a break would indeed be a good idea William M. Connolley (talk) 09:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Re: RfArb
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)
- I believe you and thus, owe you an apology for misinterpreting your words. Cla68 (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Not to worry - I edit Opposition to water fluoridation and understand toxic editing environments. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
What's sauce for the...
Would you care to comment on [59]? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 17:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Is there something wrong with these edits? ATren (talk) 19:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Cla68 has persistently objected to WMC deleting comments from his talk page. Hipocrite is noting that Marknutley engages in precisely the same practice, so that Cla68 may also want to bring this up with Marknutley. (Hipocrite can of course correct my interpretation as necessary.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- What he said, except I don't need Cla68 to bring it up with MN or you. However, when Cla68 comments next about how deleting things from your talk page is problematic, I'll have this ready-made unremoved list of times when people who agree with Cla68 remove things from their talk page. Note that I don't remove things from my talk page.Hipocrite (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- I don't feel removing messages from your talk page is problematic, so I'll have to decline. Hipocrite (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Hipocrite and Short Brigade, you seem to be missing my point. The point is that WMC has no higher moral ground when it comes to a dispute between him and Lar. One example of this is that Lar is open and willing to discuss disagreements or differing points of view with other editors on his talk page. WMC usually summarily deletes comments he apparently finds disagreeable. Cla68 (talk) 22:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- I don't feel removing messages from your talk page is problematic, so I'll have to decline. Hipocrite (talk) 21:30, 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)
- If you see how long my talk page is right now, you can see that me and you both do the same. In fact, most editors allow others to leave messages on their talk pages without quickly reverting the ones they don't like. Cla68 (talk) 04:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- I do the same. If someone has said what they have said, then so be it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- As do I, to the point that people sometimes complain about the length of my talk page. But if others prefer to keep their page clean there's nothing wrong with that -- even if it means they delete my comments. If I want my words immortalized I'll publish a book. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- I do the same. If someone has said what they have said, then so be it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
CC essay talk page
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)
Singer
Thank you, I appreciate that. It's a difficult editing environment, to put it mildly. SlimVirgin talk contribs 07:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Outstanding Questions
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)
- The committee members haven't, as far as I'm aware, commented on the diploma mill editing by your two accounts, so it doesn't seem to me that they're awaiting any further discussion from either of us. I'll answer your questions here, however, as I understand them. I have not communicated with Derek Smart in any form or capacity, ever. I surmised the name of the university that was involved in the dispute between you and Smart because one of the emails on your site gave the university's initials. When I searched in Wikipedia under those initials, the university/diploma mill that both your accounts had edited came up. Cla68 (talk) 05:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Derek Smart has never claimed a degree from WNU, as far as I know. Here's a google search of "WNU" on http://follies.werewolves.org. [61] The initials do not exist on the Flame War Follies website. It appears that you are not being honest, Cla68. Please give a full accounting of why you are saying such things. Bill Huffman (talk) 06:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry "Bill", but I'm not going to get into this with you. The Committee doesn't appear to be willing to tackle the diploma mill issue so I'm letting it drop. In conclusion, you shouldn't be using Wikipedia as part of your personal feud with someone. You're fortunate (arguably) that you were't banned for using an unauthorized sock account and for being evasive when asked to come clean about it. So, stay away from the Derek Smart article and don't do anything further on Wikipedia which appears to be aimed at carrying on your personal battle with the guy. Cla68 (talk) 15:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
He does appear to have a point - You said "one of the emails on your site gave the university's initials." Are you sure that's true? Hipocrite (talk) 15:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)- I agree with Hipocrite. Which is a fantastic sentence, it should be said. That aside, what you believe appears to relate to a personal feud, seems to me to be uninvolved. I also think it isn't ideal for you to order Mr. Huffman to do something that the Committee hasn't (at this time) mandated, only requested, and for you to do so based on reasons that seem to be only assumption (that Bill Huffman is participating in Wikipedia only to advance a feud). I invite that if you assumed better of him, you may see things in a different light! 72.192.46.9 (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know whose sock you are, but you are unwelcome here, 72. Hipocrite (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- I am no ones sock, Hipocrite. I have no account on Wikipedia, but I invite that this does not make me unwelcome. 72.192.46.9 (talk) 20:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sure Hipocrite did not intend to be rude. Cla68 (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Actually I think the rudeness here was also mine, if there was any rudeness here at all. When I wrote that, it seemed like a simple statement, to be followed (as it was!) by an assurance on his talk page. Rereading it now, it reads to be snippy rather than simply being direct, which I honestly did not intend! 72.192.46.9 (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sure Hipocrite did not intend to be rude. Cla68 (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- I am no ones sock, Hipocrite. I have no account on Wikipedia, but I invite that this does not make me unwelcome. 72.192.46.9 (talk) 20:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know whose sock you are, but you are unwelcome here, 72. Hipocrite (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry "Bill", but I'm not going to get into this with you. The Committee doesn't appear to be willing to tackle the diploma mill issue so I'm letting it drop. In conclusion, you shouldn't be using Wikipedia as part of your personal feud with someone. You're fortunate (arguably) that you were't banned for using an unauthorized sock account and for being evasive when asked to come clean about it. So, stay away from the Derek Smart article and don't do anything further on Wikipedia which appears to be aimed at carrying on your personal battle with the guy. Cla68 (talk) 15:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Derek Smart has never claimed a degree from WNU, as far as I know. Here's a google search of "WNU" on http://follies.werewolves.org. [61] The initials do not exist on the Flame War Follies website. It appears that you are not being honest, Cla68. Please give a full accounting of why you are saying such things. Bill Huffman (talk) 06:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Kirishima photos
Hey, Cla68, I just started my rewrite of Japanese battleship Kirishima, and I'm wondering if you might have any photos that would be useful for the article (I'm most in need of stuff from 1915-1926, essentially pre-reconstruction). Cam (Chat) 22:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm on the road at the moment, but as soon as I'm back home in a few days I'll check to see what I have and try to get them uploaded in a timely manner. Cla68 (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Done. Cla68 (talk) 11:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thank-you very much my good sir! Cam (Chat) 01:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Please let me know when you get closed to finished and I'll add any additional details I have from my library. Cla68 (talk) 02:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- One other question related to Haruna's FAC: Does any of your literature on the IJN say what a "special service ship" is? Cam (Chat)(Prof) 02:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC) p.s. - we're still running into trouble with the copyright stuff. What year was the book you scanned it from published? Other option: Does it say who the photographer was and when they died?
- The book does not give a copyright date, which is common with Japanese books, and does not give the photographer's name, which is also common in Japan when the photographer is working for a large organization, either government or media organization. In this case the photographer was almost certainly working for the Imperial Japanese government, which is one reason why the images are public domain. I'll look to see what a "special service ship" is. Cla68 (talk) 02:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- One other question related to Haruna's FAC: Does any of your literature on the IJN say what a "special service ship" is? Cam (Chat)(Prof) 02:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC) p.s. - we're still running into trouble with the copyright stuff. What year was the book you scanned it from published? Other option: Does it say who the photographer was and when they died?
- Please let me know when you get closed to finished and I'll add any additional details I have from my library. Cla68 (talk) 02:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thank-you very much my good sir! Cam (Chat) 01:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Done. Cla68 (talk) 11:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Cla, a question has been raised at Talk:Cactus_Air_Force#SBD_Tires. I have replied, but do not have a copy of Sherrod. As time allows could you look into this? Regards, Kablammo (talk) 19:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Cla, I just found your library subpage and see that Sherrod's history is not listed there.. Kablammo (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)
The May 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) 17:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Hiya, sorry to hit you with something on the day you get back from your semi-wiki-break, but your "mild oppose" is (almost) the only thing holding this up, and it's been suggested the ACR should be closed for lack of progress, and it would be nice if we don't all have to do this all over again. I'm asking the same question of Sturm: is it your sense that modern sources are using or avoiding the term "Kate"? (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 03:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- If I have time today I'll go through and change all the references to "Kates" and "Vals" to their proper designations then remove my objection. Cla68 (talk) 03:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, I let Sturm know, and I believe that works for him. I'm still curious which terms modern English sources tend to use; I'll do some digging before FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 03:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Need a favour
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)
- Sure, I'll try to get this done by tomorrow. Cla68 (talk) 01:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks mate good of you, no need to rush though gotta try and save the gore effect first lol mark nutley (talk) 08:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Akagi
Just to give you a heads-up, but sometime in the next several months, I'll be bringing up the Akagi article for ACR as well. You might want to work your magic before hand.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:27, 10 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:
- The issues raised in the "Sock Puppet Standards of Evidence" and "Stephen Schultz and Lar" requests may be raised and addressed in evidence in this case if (but only if) they have not been resolved by other means.
- Preparation of a formal list of "parties to the case" will not be required.
- Within five days from the opening of the case, participants are asked to provide a listing of the sub-issues that they believe should be addressed in the committee's decision. This should be done in a section of the Workshop page designated for that purpose. Each issue should be set forth as a one-sentence, neutrally worded question—for example:
- "Should User:X be sanctioned for tendentious editing on Article:Y"?
- "Has User:Foo made personal attacks on editors of Article:Z?"
- "Did Administrator:Bar violate the ABC policy on (date)?"
- "Should the current community probation on Global Warming articles by modified by (suggested change)?"
- The committee will not be obliged to address all the identified sub-issues in its decision, but having the questions identified should help focus the evidence and workshop proposals.
- All evidence should be posted within 15 days from the opening of the case. The drafters will seek to move the case to arbitrator workshop proposals and/or a proposed decision within a reasonable time thereafter, bearing in mind the need for the committee to examine what will presumably be a very considerable body of evidence.
- Participants are urgently requested to keep their evidence and workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible.
- The length limitation on evidence submissions is to be enforced in a flexible manner to maximize the value of each user's evidence to the arbitrators. Users who submit overlength diatribes or repetitious presentations will be asked by the clerks to pare them. On the other hand, the word limit should preferably not be enforced in a way that hampers the reader's ability to evaluate the evidence.
- All participants are expected to abide by the general guideline for Conduct on arbitration pages, which states:
- Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in Arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.
- Until this case is decided, the existing community sanctions and procedures for Climate change and Global warming articles remain in full effect, and editors on these articles are expected to be on their best behavior.
- Any arbitrator, clerk, or other uninvolved administrator is authorized to block, page-ban, or otherwise appropriately sanction any participant in this case whose conduct on the case pages departs repeatedly or severely from appropriate standards of decorum. Except in truly egregious cases, a warning will first be given with a citation to this notice. (Hopefully, it will never be necessary to invoke this paragraph.)
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
FAC for Kaga
You've done a huge amount of work on the Kaga article, more than I ever expected you to do. I'd be happy to share credit at FAC and make you a co-nom if you'd like. Just let me know when you're done with the article and I'll make the nomination.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- You did most of the heavy lifting on the article, so I don't think I deserve a co-nom. I'm not quite finished with it yet. I hope to have it done by this Thursday or Friday, including starting stubs on the red links I added. Cla68 (talk) 22:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Heavy lifting be damned, you've done an outstanding job filling in details. Many of which I knew nothing about and to the article's benefit. Mind you, I'm not entirely altruistic about this, as I'm contending for the WikiCup and it would be very handy to be able to submit two articles at a time for FAC. Especially as I have a number of articles about Japanese carriers by Lengerer and friends on hand and can do the basics while you add in stuff from Hata, etc. Otherwise I'm going to have to get my own copy. Again, I'd ask that you reconsider and let me get you the recognition you deserve for your work.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Well, another reason is that I'm probably going to be away from a computer for a couple of weeks very soon so I wouldn't be available to help with the FAC nomination and responding to the reviewer's comments. That's why I want to finish the additions by this week. Cla68 (talk) 00:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not going to nominate it yet before the beginning of July and would be happy to delay for an extra couple of weeks if necessary.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Well, another reason is that I'm probably going to be away from a computer for a couple of weeks very soon so I wouldn't be available to help with the FAC nomination and responding to the reviewer's comments. That's why I want to finish the additions by this week. Cla68 (talk) 00:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Heavy lifting be damned, you've done an outstanding job filling in details. Many of which I knew nothing about and to the article's benefit. Mind you, I'm not entirely altruistic about this, as I'm contending for the WikiCup and it would be very handy to be able to submit two articles at a time for FAC. Especially as I have a number of articles about Japanese carriers by Lengerer and friends on hand and can do the basics while you add in stuff from Hata, etc. Otherwise I'm going to have to get my own copy. Again, I'd ask that you reconsider and let me get you the recognition you deserve for your work.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Aichi D1A
Cla68, what's the reasoning behind splitting Aichi D1A into two separate articles? Are they really that different, beyond different Type numbers and spats? The article certianly wasn't a long one, which is one major reason for splitting aircraft articles. - BilCat (talk) 05:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- For that reason only, because of the different Type designations. If you prefer that they remain as one article, I have no objection and will help recombine them. Cla68 (talk) 05:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I've raised the issue at WT:AIR#Aichi D1A split for further input, as I do not know much about the Japanese aircraft to give a good opinion on the issue. But from the content of the articles themselves, I'd say separate articles aren't warranted at this time. - BilCat (talk) 05:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I like your evidence
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)
Wikibreak
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)
- Update. The rental office at the place I'm staying currently does have a computer with Internet access in the lobby, which I check once a day or so when I'm not at the beach. So, if you need to ask me anything I can respond here or to email on a limited basis. Othewise, I'm busy trying to find out why the beach isn't quite as fun as it was when I was eight years old. Cla68 (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's amazing how much we love sand as 7 year olds and how much we hate it as 40-somethings. :-) ATren (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Reflecting on lost youth and innocence is actually kind of depressing. My kids seem to be having a good time, which means I must be in the same situation as my father was when I was whooping it up on the beach all those years ago. Cla68 (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- May I suggest Fern Hill by Dylan Thomas for a poetic rendition of the thought.
- And on a more mundane level, should you wish to take a break from both your wikibreak and further elegies of innocence and youth, you may find this FAC up your alley, should you wish to review it. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 02:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Reflecting on lost youth and innocence is actually kind of depressing. My kids seem to be having a good time, which means I must be in the same situation as my father was when I was whooping it up on the beach all those years ago. Cla68 (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's amazing how much we love sand as 7 year olds and how much we hate it as 40-somethings. :-) ATren (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Climate change moving to Workshop
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)
FAR
Just the messenger, an article you have worked on: Michael Brown Okinawa assault incident, has been nominated at FAR: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Michael Brown Okinawa assault incident/archive1 -MBK004 19:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for letting me know. Cla68 (talk) 01:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Weird, I was just coming here to tell you that the Stars & Strips has done something to their archives...I was looking for some of the original articles from the Michael Brown trial and they appear to have moved. Ugh... Kelly hi! 03:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- If I remember right, Stars and Stripes article links used to go dead right around the three-year mark, which means I was operating under a deadline with both that and the Ehime Maru article to get the articles finished while the links were still available. Once the links go dead the only way I know of for me to access the articles is at the newspaper's archive at Hardy Barracks in Tokyo. Cla68 (talk) 04:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- If there are any other Stripes articles you're worried about losing, let me know and I'll help archive them with WebCite. Kelly hi! 05:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Sure thing. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 05:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- No worries. BTW, I'm on Okinawa right now...don't know for how long, though. Kelly hi! 05:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- While you're there, I suggest going to Okinawa Churaumi Aquarium if you haven't been already. It's well worth the trip. It's best if you get in there right as it opens before it gets crowded. I like the shark tank up to the left of the main tank in the "learning room" the best. Cla68 (talk) 05:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, yeah - I lived here for several years (99-02). The aquarium is great. My favorite attraction is the Underground Naval Headquarters complex where Minoru Ōta made his last stand. Kelly hi! 05:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oh okay, then there's nothing I can tell you about that island that you probably don't already know. I visited the underground IJN complex also. I remember the sleeping room that was so small that the IJN troops had to sleep standing up during breaks in the battle. Please enjoy your time back on the island. Isn't the Okinawa triathlon around this time of the year over near White Beach? Cla68 (talk) 05:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Triathlon? Oh man...I'm still working toward my first marathon. That said, I hope you eventually turn your inestimable ability toward the Battle of Okinawa - your Guadalcanal stuff is fantastic and I'd love to see this expertise expanded to the later war...maybe Iwo Jima too? (fingers crossed) Kelly hi! 07:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- The Battle of Okinawa definitely needs work. Fortunately, it is one of the few Pacific War battles with extensive sourcing on the Japanese side as well as the US. I hope to get to it someday soon. I meant watching the triathlon, of course. Good luck on the marathon training. Cla68 (talk) 07:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Triathlon? Oh man...I'm still working toward my first marathon. That said, I hope you eventually turn your inestimable ability toward the Battle of Okinawa - your Guadalcanal stuff is fantastic and I'd love to see this expertise expanded to the later war...maybe Iwo Jima too? (fingers crossed) Kelly hi! 07:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oh okay, then there's nothing I can tell you about that island that you probably don't already know. I visited the underground IJN complex also. I remember the sleeping room that was so small that the IJN troops had to sleep standing up during breaks in the battle. Please enjoy your time back on the island. Isn't the Okinawa triathlon around this time of the year over near White Beach? Cla68 (talk) 05:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, yeah - I lived here for several years (99-02). The aquarium is great. My favorite attraction is the Underground Naval Headquarters complex where Minoru Ōta made his last stand. Kelly hi! 05:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- While you're there, I suggest going to Okinawa Churaumi Aquarium if you haven't been already. It's well worth the trip. It's best if you get in there right as it opens before it gets crowded. I like the shark tank up to the left of the main tank in the "learning room" the best. Cla68 (talk) 05:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- No worries. BTW, I'm on Okinawa right now...don't know for how long, though. Kelly hi! 05:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Sure thing. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 05:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- If there are any other Stripes articles you're worried about losing, let me know and I'll help archive them with WebCite. Kelly hi! 05:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- If I remember right, Stars and Stripes article links used to go dead right around the three-year mark, which means I was operating under a deadline with both that and the Ehime Maru article to get the articles finished while the links were still available. Once the links go dead the only way I know of for me to access the articles is at the newspaper's archive at Hardy Barracks in Tokyo. Cla68 (talk) 04:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, are you going to refute Ironholds or respond to his comments by editing the article? YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
arbcom evidence
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)
- I appreciate the advice. My evidence section will be revised before it goes final. I'm using the actual section as my scratch paper instead of a page in my userspace or an off-wiki Word document. I'm throwing a lot of diffs up there and some of them will probably come off around the time of the deadline. Cla68 (talk) 11:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)
|
|
|
June's contest results plus the latest awards to our members |
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. |
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Source`s Review
When the arbcom thing is done could you look at the ref`s used here [62] 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)
Copyright violations
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)
- According to how I read that policy, it's ok to link to the website containing the texts of those emails, just not to the individual emails themselves. Cla68 (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think any borderline linking to illegal content should be handled conservatively on a case-by-case basis. As it appears that the emails plus an index comprise the entirety of that site, I would not link there myself, but I will leave it to others to decide if you would like to do so. The current solution also works for me, thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Wikilawyering section
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)
- Thank you, but unless the Committee extends the deadline, it's too late. Cla68 (talk) 10:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Broken evidence
This first link in the BLP evidence of the Climate change case is broken: [63]. 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)
- Was this who made this link somewhere? I can't find it if so. Cla68 (talk) 01:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Pifeedback
Pifeedback
Could you give your opinion on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Pifeedback.com?ChaosMaster16 (talk) 12:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
Ms. Sparky
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)
- If you can find a transcript of the Senate hearing where she testified, it should give some background, including mention of her blog. I couldn't find it in my own searching around. Otherwise, like most blogs it's hard to find any secondary sources on it. Is there a Big Book of Blogs out there somewhere? Cla68 (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- The web criteria are selective. I imagine they have to be, for otherwise we'd have many thousands of articles, as there are millions of blogs and tens or hundreds of millions of websites. It may be premature to have an article on this one, much as we may like it. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Scope of CC probation
In response to your query on Rlverse's talk page, the probation applies to all climate change articles (broadly construed).
From the probation page:
- Pages related to Climate change (broadly construed) are subject to the following terms of article probation:
- Any editor may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to,edit warring, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith.
- Sanctions imposed may include restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors, bans from editing the climate change pages and/or closely related topics, blocks of up to 1 year in length, or any other measures the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
- For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions (note: enforcing this provision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute).
- Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to these provisions; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
- Sanctions imposed under this provision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard(template), or the Arbitration Committee.
- Administrators are not to reverse such sanctions without either (1) approval by the imposing administrator, or without (2) communityconsensus or Committee approval to do so.
- All sanctions imposed are to be logged at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Log.''
- Any editor may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to,edit warring, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith.
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)
Articles for deletion nomination of 2007 USS Harry S. Truman E-2C crash
I have nominated 2007 USS Harry S. Truman E-2C crash, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 USS Harry S. Truman E-2C crash. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. YSSYguy (talk) 07:47, 18 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)
- Well, I warned one of the editors involved for an uncivil attitude. As far as the WP:SYN debate, that will take me some time to sort out as I know very little on the topic. Cla68 (talk) 01:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you. Your action seems to me profoundly imappropriate. Please reconsider. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- No. I've seen other editors in other topics use that "Why are you even here since you obviously don't know what you are talking about" approach to dealing with editors who disagree with existing content in an article. That attitude is profoundly wrong for a wiki. If you disagree with someone's suggestion, talk it out without insulting them. Most editors are able to do this. Cla68 (talk) 01:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- It depends on the ignorance - and the degree to which the editor acts on subjects in which he knows nothing. Claiming (twice) that the Roman Empire existed two to five centuries before its foundation and then arguing on that basis (like arguing about Rome's wars with Carthage while not knowing what the Punic Wars were; it's the combination that will not do) was a waste of Cynwolfe's time and Wikipedia's resources. This is not a political point of view; it's not even a scientific dispute; it's the equivalent of arguing about mathematical articles without understanding multiplication. She dealt with it with exemplary patience; she didn't need a brickbat from you. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Baloney. There is absolutely no call to talk down to someone that way on an article talk page. She could have said, "I don't agree with you, and I think the sources back me up because..." or something along those lines, but to respond with, "if you lack the most fundamental knowledge of the subject matter" and "this is as banal an assertion" and "If you have no interest in history, why are you trying to edit an article on the subject?" is clear bullying and it is unacceptable. I will report her to the proper forum if she does it again. Cla68 (talk) 04:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- You're taking these remarks in isolation (especially the "banal" one, which was in reference to an assertion I made myself! if you're going to make such extreme accusations, please read more closely). I came into that discussion thinking that neither civil wars nor the Punic Wars really belonged there, and in the course of trying to read up on the topic, found that indeed they might. Surely this demonstrates that I acted in good faith and with an open mind and based my views on scholarship, not preconceptions or gamesmanship. I was trying to present evidence to someone who rejected a list of sources before he even had time to look at them (check the time code), who was blithe about the difference between Greeks and Romans, and who kept demanding "give me a straight answer" when I was doing my best to do so (you don't call that bullying?) and accused me of "obfuscating" in regard to the question of whether the Punic Wars should be included in a list of wars between democracies. Why? Because I was trying to examine whether the constitution of either the Roman Republic (distinguished from the Roman Empire by its form of government) or the Carthaginian Republic could be verified as having a democratic element. What's a more straightforward way to address the question? And then, after lengthy discussion and objecting strenuously and persistently to the inclusion of the Punic Wars in the article, he admitted that he hadn't really known what wars we were talking about. Look, I know several people who would like to contribute to Wikipedia, both professional and serious amateur scholars, because they recognize what a widely accessed and potentially valuable resource it is, but they don't want to waste time on that kind of pointlessness, so they stay away. Now, I would never fault anyone for not knowing about a series of wars that took place more than 2000 years ago. And having taught for several years, I know that people who have a genuine interest in a topic but a limited body of knowledge can participate in and contribute to discussion in a meaningful, provocative way. But arguing on the basis of nothing more than "because I don't know anything about this, it must be OR and synthesis," and then rejecting legitimate sources that verify claims — that's obstructionism for its own sake, and Wikipedia is not helped by pretending otherwise. Cynwolfe (talk) 06:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Baloney. There is absolutely no call to talk down to someone that way on an article talk page. She could have said, "I don't agree with you, and I think the sources back me up because..." or something along those lines, but to respond with, "if you lack the most fundamental knowledge of the subject matter" and "this is as banal an assertion" and "If you have no interest in history, why are you trying to edit an article on the subject?" is clear bullying and it is unacceptable. I will report her to the proper forum if she does it again. Cla68 (talk) 04:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you. Your action seems to me profoundly imappropriate. Please reconsider. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Japanese battleship Hiei
Hey,Cla68, I just completed my rewrite of Japanese battleship Kirishima (now at GAN), and am moving onto Japanese battleship Hiei. As per my usual request at this point in the article-writing process, would you happen to have any uploadable images of Hiei that I could use for the article? Thanks in advance, Cam (Chat)(Prof) 05:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
P.S. - Also, Haruna is undergoing a pre-FAC copyedit at the moment. Anything you can add to the article is greatly appreciated.
- I'll check for both Kirishima and Hiei today or tomorrow. Cla68 (talk) 05:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- I have more pictures of the two ships than I thought, so it may take me several days to get them all uploaded. I found two more images of Kaga also, including one that might should be added to that article. Cla68 (talk) 23:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hiei is done. Cla68 (talk) 11:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- I have more pictures of the two ships than I thought, so it may take me several days to get them all uploaded. I found two more images of Kaga also, including one that might should be added to that article. Cla68 (talk) 23:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Source`s Review
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)
- NWT and Quadrant are definitely RS. The Geological Society of London is ok as source for its own opinion. I'll go ahead and add something to the article using those sources. Cla68 (talk) 22:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm not sure on NWT. I thought it was the Swedish newspaper, but it turns out to be a Dutch site. I'm researching it. Cla68 (talk) 22:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- It`s a science magazine mark nutley (talk) 23:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- I found its entry on the Dutch Wikipedia, so I'm adding it right now. Cla68 (talk) 23:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- Cool, you could have left one for me :) Geological society is a good one, nice to have some reviews from the egghead crowd :) mark nutley (talk) 23:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry for hogging it. If you can translate Dutch (Google translate isn't up to par, in my opinion), please add a couple of quotes. Cla68 (talk) 23:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- Got another review from Hawaii Reporter what do you think?
- Sorry for hogging it. If you can translate Dutch (Google translate isn't up to par, in my opinion), please add a couple of quotes. Cla68 (talk) 23:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- Cool, you could have left one for me :) Geological society is a good one, nice to have some reviews from the egghead crowd :) mark nutley (talk) 23:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- I found its entry on the Dutch Wikipedia, so I'm adding it right now. Cla68 (talk) 23:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- It`s a science magazine mark nutley (talk) 23:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm not sure on NWT. I thought it was the Swedish newspaper, but it turns out to be a Dutch site. I'm researching it. Cla68 (talk) 22:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Politeness
Re [64]: 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)
RfC for MMfA at WP:RS
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)
Stop
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)
- I responded. Tony, I think you're taking this stuff a little too seriously. Remember, Wikipedia doesn't care who is right or wrong. We just report on the topic. Cla68 (talk) 22:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Tony, Cla68 is just trying to stir things up for the benefit of arbcom while the decision is being negotiated. So, the less reaction to this kind of thing the better. Remember there is no deadline for cleaning up the articles when stuff like this happens. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- AGF, SBHB. I'm not trying to bait anyone, I'm just giving my opinion on the topic which is ok for that forum because it was in user space. If someone becomes angry at someone for having a different opinion, IMO it means that that editor's personal feelings on the topic are a little too strong. Cla68 (talk) 07:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Here's a little more, at least what is my perspective. ArbCom is focusing on behavior rather than article content. Here is the case.[65] Using such a silly book for scientific information would, in my opinion, be similar to using the book Chariots of the Gods? as a scientific reference work. However, this issue would probably be considered a content issue not a behavior issue. I assume that Cla68 knows that the book is held in very low esteem by most experts. I'll guess that he is hoping for a Wikipedia editor reaction that he can then use as an example of the poor behavior on the part of the Wikipedia editors that try to support the scientific consensus view within climate change related articles. Regards, Bill Huffman (talk) 03:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Tony, Cla68 is just trying to stir things up for the benefit of arbcom while the decision is being negotiated. So, the less reaction to this kind of thing the better. Remember there is no deadline for cleaning up the articles when stuff like this happens. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
The so-called topic ban
Does it permit edits like [66] or [67], 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)
- I gave up on the voluntary ban after ArbCom announced that their impending decision was not as imminent as they had originally indicated. Cla68 (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- So am I released from it as well, or did you only tell this to your brothers in arms? Hipocrite (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't announce it to anyone, I just started editing again. Hipocrite, you seem to be treating this topic as a battleground. If you can't avoid doing so, then I think you should continue with the voluntary topic ban. Are there any other subjects that you find interesting? Cla68 (talk) 22:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't have enough time on my hands right now to do anything to defend myself against ArbCom right now - I don't even edit any CC articles. Thanks, though. Have you considered asking MarkNutley, ATren or AQFK to even start with the topic ban? Hipocrite (talk) 22:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Remember, I had asked both you and Mark on the talk page of one of the articles to follow it. It's not that hard to edit other topics. While we were having this conversation, I used today's issue of the Japan Times to add this [68] [69] information to a completely unrelated topic. I enjoyed doing it. If the CC topic area feels like a constant battle to you, then I don't understand how you could be having any fun participating in it. Cla68 (talk) 22:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Try taking up golf! ;-) dave souza, talk 23:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Mr. Kincaid's passion for the minutae of golf reminds me of the guy I heard about who poured himself a tall glass of wine from a newly opened bottle, then took a sip each hour for 12 hours while recording detailed notes on how the wine tasted over that time. Sounds like something I could do with a straight face. Cla68 (talk) 23:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Try taking up golf! ;-) dave souza, talk 23:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't have enough time on my hands right now to do anything to defend myself against ArbCom right now - I don't even edit any CC articles. Thanks, though. Have you considered asking MarkNutley, ATren or AQFK to even start with the topic ban? Hipocrite (talk) 22:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't announce it to anyone, I just started editing again. Hipocrite, you seem to be treating this topic as a battleground. If you can't avoid doing so, then I think you should continue with the voluntary topic ban. Are there any other subjects that you find interesting? Cla68 (talk) 22:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- So am I released from it as well, or did you only tell this to your brothers in arms? Hipocrite (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Malicious editing
Please see WP:AN/I#Malicious sabotage of RSN comments by Cla68. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- This is a blatant and malicious lie. I demand that you retract it at once or face the consequences. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's just Cla68 stirring the pot and trying to provoke an emotional reaction for the benefit of Arbcom. See also two threads up. The less attention paid to such stuff the better. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Chris, I think your feelings on the topic are a little too strong, because it is effecting your perspective and the way you are reacting to content disputes which otherwise really shouldn't be a big deal. Cla68 (talk) 02:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Your refusal to retract or refactor your malicious claim is noted. Explain yourself or face the consequences. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Chris, I think your feelings on the topic are a little too strong, because it is effecting your perspective and the way you are reacting to content disputes which otherwise really shouldn't be a big deal. Cla68 (talk) 02:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's just Cla68 stirring the pot and trying to provoke an emotional reaction for the benefit of Arbcom. See also two threads up. The less attention paid to such stuff the better. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
File:MarineMichaelBrown.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:MarineMichaelBrown.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. Jay32183 (talk) 07:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
File:MarineMichaelBrown.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:MarineMichaelBrown.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. Jay32183 (talk) 07:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
"The Gore Effect" - name change?
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)
- I'm under a voluntary CC topic ban right now. Cla68 (talk) 01:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- No rush...whenever you can get around to it, I'm confident it will be supported. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Voluntary CC article restriction clarifications
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)
- I thought user talk pages were ok, but if they're not, then that post to Tony Sideaway's talk pages will be the last one I make regarding CC articles on someone's talk page during this restriction. I won't be commenting on that merger proposal because of the voluntary topic ban. Cla68 (talk) 01:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification, Cla68, as you'll have seen from the list discussion there's some flexibility in how each of us interprets this. I personally will avoid arguing any CC issues, and look forward to a peaceful few days! . . dave souza, talk 06:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Please review
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)
- I'm kind of busy this weekend, but I'll relook it first chance I get. Cla68 (talk) 01:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Romanization for words of English origin
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:
- You should give feedback on the first suggested compromise and are highly encouraged to provide other solutions.
What this invitation is not:
- This is not a vote on including or excluding such romanizations.
- This is not a vote on compromises either.
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)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Sorry if I'm being a nag, but this is an issue that must be addressed. Thanks. IronDuke 03:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
- Cla68, it appears to me that you're establishing a pattern of disruptive interaction with others here on Wikipedia. I'm not sure how you pick your victims or why. What is more important is that this disruptive pattern is becoming visible to others, e.g., User:Bill Huffman, User:Cynwolfe, and now User:IronDuke. Bill Huffman (talk) 17:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Disruptive Interaction Pattern Becoming Visible
It seems that a recent interaction on Dave Souza's talk page could also be interpretted as being a disruptive interaction. [70] To try to be complete, here's the Cynwolfe incident. [71] Here's the IronDuke incident that I'm referring to. [72] The incident where you carried out a full multiple week campaign against me me was, of course, much more extensive. I describe it here. [73] 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)
- I have no idea whether Cla68 is bullying you in this instance, but I would just like to point out a chink in the chain. In the Ironduke case you refer to, Cla68 just says that personal attacks are not proper, and that how or why Cla68 came to be interested in a topic is also irrelevant. Cla68 is basically just rephrasing Wikipedia policy, as far as I understand it (eg "Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.") I'd also suggest that the Ironduke case is dubious because it would seem Ironduke himself has a 'visible pattern' of resorting to personal attacks in lieu of actual conversation. I found this comment of Cla68's, "I've noticed that when it comes to that topic area, you [Ironduke] often seem to let your emotions get the better of you," very familiar.
- But again I don't mean to say that your criticism of Cla68 is unfounded; just saying that this particular example may not be as robust as you think it is. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 00:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- IP, "Bill Huffman" is apparently upset because I helped end his use of Wikipedia to attack Derek Smart, with whom he apparently has had a long-term vendetta against. Cla68 (talk) 04:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well I wouldn't know. But it may be of value to you to know your opinion regarding Ironduke is not an idiosyncracy of yours; he does appear to have a habit of failing to respond to an argument with anything except personal attacks. This is precisely what I (without knowledge of your issues with him) have pointed out to him quite a few times on the Helen Thomas discussion page. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 04:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- OK, I'm going to put that and other articles that IronDuke regularly edits on my watchlist. If he continues with the same type of behavior I will report him to the appropriate authorities. Please let me know if he continues with the behavior. Cla68 (talk) 04:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- As I was stalking your talk page I became interested in this exchange and had a look at your discourse with IronDuke. I find the whole thing extremely bizarre that the issue of his incivility was turned on its head, and instead he and a couple of other editors turned this into a semi- accusatory inquisition into how you happened to come across IronDuke's incivility. Bill Huffman's criticism seems to be cloaked in the same bizarre suspiciousness in total disregard of the actual issue for which you appropriately warned ID (in my opinion). I read Huffman's diffs and I fail to see a pattern of disruptive interaction on your part at all. For whatever it's worth ..... Minor4th 05:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Don't worry about Bill Huffman, he's just an SPA who has had his SP turned off and doesn't know what to do about it other than to attack the main person who helped turn it off. The IronDuke situation, however, is much more serious. It's directly related to this arbcom case, in which IronDuke was fortunate, IMO, to escape without a one year topic ban, as you can see by the diff I had objections to. If you'll check the workshop page for that case, you'll see that IronDuke openly admits to having no intention of following WP:NPOV. For an editor who has been around as long as he has, I don't understand why he is allowed to get away with behaving the way he does. If he does it again, I will be reporting thim to the ArbCom enforcement board. Cla68 (talk) 06:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- As I was stalking your talk page I became interested in this exchange and had a look at your discourse with IronDuke. I find the whole thing extremely bizarre that the issue of his incivility was turned on its head, and instead he and a couple of other editors turned this into a semi- accusatory inquisition into how you happened to come across IronDuke's incivility. Bill Huffman's criticism seems to be cloaked in the same bizarre suspiciousness in total disregard of the actual issue for which you appropriately warned ID (in my opinion). I read Huffman's diffs and I fail to see a pattern of disruptive interaction on your part at all. For whatever it's worth ..... Minor4th 05:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- OK, I'm going to put that and other articles that IronDuke regularly edits on my watchlist. If he continues with the same type of behavior I will report him to the appropriate authorities. Please let me know if he continues with the behavior. Cla68 (talk) 04:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well I wouldn't know. But it may be of value to you to know your opinion regarding Ironduke is not an idiosyncracy of yours; he does appear to have a habit of failing to respond to an argument with anything except personal attacks. This is precisely what I (without knowledge of your issues with him) have pointed out to him quite a few times on the Helen Thomas discussion page. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 04:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- IP, "Bill Huffman" is apparently upset because I helped end his use of Wikipedia to attack Derek Smart, with whom he apparently has had a long-term vendetta against. Cla68 (talk) 04:18, 15 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 [74] 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)
- What i see here bill is your apparent following of Cla, if cla posts on a talkpage to remind an editor to remain civil that is not disruptive. But i see you post across multipile talkpages and forums to complain about the fact that Cla and you had a disagreement which you appear to be unable to get over, perhaps you should mark nutley (talk) 08:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Cla ignores Huffman, as should everyone. ATren (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Cla68 has also apparently said false things about IronDuke in his last response. He seems to allege that IronDuke was lucky to escape sanctions in an arbcom case that he points at, yet IronDuke isn't even mentioned in that case, at least not that I can find. I know that Cla68 has told blatant total lies regarding me. He apparently does the same thing against others. He has told those lies in an apparent attempt to bully others. This is disruptive behavior and he should stop doing it. Bill Huffman (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oh dear. I suggest that this discussion is an unwise use of time by everyone, and it would be well for all to go their merry ways without further interaction. In other words, break it up, nothing to see here, please disperse. If this does come to the attention of ahem, authorities, I suspect that everyone will be less happy than they think they deserve to be.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Cla68 has also apparently said false things about IronDuke in his last response. He seems to allege that IronDuke was lucky to escape sanctions in an arbcom case that he points at, yet IronDuke isn't even mentioned in that case, at least not that I can find. I know that Cla68 has told blatant total lies regarding me. He apparently does the same thing against others. He has told those lies in an apparent attempt to bully others. This is disruptive behavior and he should stop doing it. Bill Huffman (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Cla ignores Huffman, as should everyone. ATren (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Cla68, Ironduke's behaviour is of course continuing, and I suppose it will never stop. Most recently, I have followed Wikipedia's guidelines for dispute resolution and have put forward an RfC. His contribution was to demean me and told everyone else to ignore my RfC. He also appears to be getting his friends to come along and support him, although that is obviously a hard claim to prove. But what I'm getting from looking at his page is that he is anti-arab or pro-Israeli (one or the other), and that people of that ilk kind of know each other and attempt to get each other's support when an argument isn't going their way. He went to Brewcrewer's page and complained about me being 'a series of numbers' (even though Wikipedia policy says there's nothing wrong with being an IP address), after Brewcrewer had gone to the Helen Thomas page and made a change and just called me a troll -- no other explanation given for the change, and no reason given for such an allegation. Epefleeche has even gone so far as to call me a 'vandal,' also without explanation (except that, in his opinion, 'Ironduke is right'). I know I shouldn't make claims about Ironduke's motivations, but after the treatment I've had from him and his friends, it would seem that at the very least they think making (entirely false) claims about someone's motivations is fine; and, as Ironduke likes to tell me, he is a wikipedia expert. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 00:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, for some reason, when I hit 'undo' in the history, the diffs are all replaced by, "The edit could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits; if you wish to undo the change, it must be done manually." But if you hit this link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Helen_Thomas, you'll see down the bottom my RfC. Ironduke's response is "If anyone is seriously entertaining the idea that HT's comments, which seem to have ended her career, shoud be somehow censored or ameliorated, I advise them to start a thread apart from this disruptive IP's. We shouldn't be encouraging this sort of thing." Not only is he calling me a disruptive IP, but he's using that to undermine my RfC. (The irony, here, being that it's me following Wikipedia policy for the resolution of disputes, and it is him who is attempting to disrupt that.) You could also look to the massive section 'Conjecture' at the top of the talk page, if you were so inclined. He started off alright, there was a bit of gentle ribbing back and forth, but then when he was on the ropes his responses lost all content except for things like "You don't understand what's going on!" "I'm not interested in having my work challenged by you," "I suppose I should have followed my first instinct, which was that having a discussion with you would be a waste of time," "At last we begin to agree .... you know virtually nothing about I-P affairs or Helen Thomas" and so on. It's a little hard to follow, because there are about three different strands of convo in that section, but at each point when he leaves a convo it is with a snide remark about me rather than a rebuttal of what I've said. Also, in the history of the article, if you look at his reversion on 3rd August, 1:47, his reason for the reversion is "I don't owe you an explanation other than what's already on talk. Please let editors who are doing actual work do their work. Thanks." (He does start this off with a compliment, but his reason for the change is a personal thing about me). After that he essentially stopped giving explanations, except for every now and again saying "See talk" (he has not added anything new to talk since his personal attacks). Sorry that I can't get the actual diff urls, but I hope this gives you a place to start if you decide to proceed. And, btw, thanks. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 04:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Alright, sorry about the wait, here's the diffs (in the same order as above): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHelen_Thomas&action=historysubmit&diff=378989239&oldid=378984172; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Helen_Thomas&diff=prev&oldid=376875177; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Helen_Thomas&diff=prev&oldid=377020482; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Helen_Thomas&diff=prev&oldid=376874451; and the link for the reversion where his edit summary includes "I don't owe you an explanation other than what's already on talk. Please let editors who are doing actual work do their work" is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Helen_Thomas&diff=cur&oldid=376860819. Are these what you were looking for? Thanks, 203.45.146.36 (talk) 02:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Michael Brown FAR
Hi Cla68! Are you still working on the Michael Brown FAR? If so, there is an unresolved image issue on the page, and Ironholds should probably be pinged to get any further comments from them. If you are still interested in working on the article, please let me know when you feel you have addressed the comments already on the page and I (or you) can begin pinging other possibly interested editors to try and get some further reviews. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 15:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, I forgot about it. I'll get to it probably tomorrow. Cla68 (talk) 15:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ping? Ironholds has left some final comments and there is one image issue to be resolved. Dana boomer (talk) 14:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
torps
Hey, Cla68 We've got a bit of a discussion going on over at Japanese battleship Yamato that you may be able to help with. Do any of your sources mention the Yamato class being outfitted with torpedo tubes? Cam (Chat)(Prof) 20:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm traveling right now and don't have access to my library. It will be about a week until I can look this up. In the meantime, you might ask at Tully's about it. Cla68 (talk) 12:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)
|
|
|
July's contest results, the latest awards to our members, plus an interview with Parsecboy |
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. |
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
The Deniers
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)
Some thoughts on your IOWA piece
Hey Cla68! Read through the comments re: your diligent IOWA explosion materials. Looked for some additional sources to help with balance, and generated some nuggets from them. Feel free to use as you wish; the articles are pasted right in. Sorry about the length, but they were not online. --Coldplay3332 (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Text Regarding the campaign to distract the public;
Four years after the explosion onboard the battleship IOWA, veteran CBS journalist Mike Wallace summarized the failed case against alleged murdered and Gunnersmate, Clayton Hartwig:
No matter that last Thursday the U.S. Navy apologized to the family of Clay-ton Hartwig. The fact is that, in what amounted to flat-out character assassination, the Navy, for two years, continued to trash the reputation of one of its one, gunner's mate second-class Clayton Hartwig, held him directly responsible for the murder of 46 of his shipmates killed by the explosion of a 16-inch gun aboard the Battleship USS Iowa. We have been following the story the past two years, and from what we have learned, the Navy had to know almost from the beginning that Hartwig was not responsible for the blast. What the Navy did was selectively leak false derogatory information about Hartwig in order to shift the blame away from safety problems with the Iowa's guns and gun powder and to focus instead on a dead man who could not defend him-self.
Text Regarding the reason for distracting the public;
Turret One’s Officer, Dan Meyer, recounted the substance of his disclosure to Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) professional staff and retired Navy Captain, Richard Debobes in 2001.Recounting the Senate committee’s oversight sight investigation of the IOWA incident, Meyer recalled a late afternoon wardroom briefing in December of 1989 by chief investigator Joe Miceli. Meyer identified the briefing as the first observed instance of investigative intransience. The head of the General Accountability Office (GAO) investigative team was told that the U.S. Navy was sticking to the theory that a suicide bomber destroyed Turret Two and was not endorsing any theories attributing the explosion to a technical failure within the Battleship Program. Meyer indentified the need to defend the Battleship Program as a possible motive for the intransience. In this regard, Meyer was of the same mind as Earl Hartwig, retired Navy veteran and father to the accused murderer. In response to Meyer’s offered explanation, Admiral Kelso responded, “There's not one life that I would trade the battleships . . . I just can't believe that. I would never make any decision like that. The young men are too important to me.”[2]
Text Identifying the True Cause of the Explosion;
In 1999, 60 Minutes anchor journalist Mike Wallace asked former IOWA Commanding Officer, Larry Seaquist, whether the explosion was most likely caused by unstable gunpowder pushed into the gun with too much force. Seaquist responded in the affirmative, “At the center of it was unquestionably the fact that the powder, this 550 pounds of powder that were being pushed into the barrel behind the projectile, were unstable. There were reports from the crew of flashes. 'We've got a problem here.' So, in my mind, there is no doubt left about what happened in the gun room. It was this disaster when bad powder, bad training and overram suddenly came together, and you had an explosion.”[3]
Meyer on Causation:
Meyer believed the explosion to be an accident. He stood by his view despite being viewed as disloyal. A Congressional probe forced the U.S. Navy to revise its findings and apologize to the Hartwig's family two and a half years later. [4]In 2001, Meyer stated that [i]t was in the Iowa situation where we first had officers turn against enlisted personnel. Coming from a naval family, it just turned my stomach . . . [the Navy] 'was like a family firm, and when you see those kinds of decisions made, the betrayal was pretty clear.[5]Meyer’s position on the investigation concurred with the Navy only in that the cause of the explosion was ultimately not discoverable given the lack of surviv-ing eyewitnesses and the handling of the evidence immediately following the explosion. The former Turret Officer, however, believed the oversight investigation of Sandia National Laboratory supported the finding that a ordinance handling malfunction could have caused the blast. [6]
Chief in undermining the Navy’s credible was it’s admitted unapproved and protracted leak of information to the Washington Post and other media outlets. Selective release of information appeared to be an intentional effort to win national news media outlets such as the Washington Post and NBC News over to the ‘suicide bomber theory.’ CBS proved that NBC broadcasted leaked material. The Navy itself identified the Washington Post source. It was Joseph Miceli, the Navy’s chief investigator into the IOWA explosion. Miceli gave and an unauthorized briefing and leaked the case against Hartwig.[7]
Text Showing a Disinterested Third-Party Review of the Movie;
The Houston Chronicle’s review of A Glimpse of Hell at the time of the movie’s release gives an indication of the films post-release reception. The Chronicle stated that neither Moosally nor the U.S. Navy were portrayed as the good guys. The heroes were Lieutenant Dan Meyer played by Robert Sean Leonard and First Class Petty Officer Dale Mortensen played by Daniel Roebuck. The film portrays Meyer and Mortensen taking on the Navy senior leadership by insisting that “the tragedy aboard the 50-year-old Iowa was caused by aging equipment, lack of money for replacement parts, ill-trained men and lax leadership. The Navy's brass does not want to hear that.”
But the Chronicle also noted that Moosally was not depicted as the villain. That role was reserved for special agents of the former Naval Investigation Service (now Naval Criminal Investigative Service) in pursuit of an alleged deliberate plot to blow up the ship, a mur-der-suicide with homosexual overtones.
The reviewer noted that although the Navy set a moratorium on use of the “16/50 Triple Gun Turret, the investigation portrayed in the film, headed by a composite character called “Admiral Langlett” (played by John Doman) ignored testimony regarding aging or malfunctioning equipment. The Admiral then relies on the Naval Investigative Service report and tells the Hartwig family and American public "the Navy has determined Clay did it."
After the fictitious Admiral Langlett scapegoats ClaytonHartwig, questions of a cover-up escalate through the remaider of the film. Congressional hearings on the Navy's contro-versial findings are held. The character Moosally's testimony is pivotal if not sympatheticl-ly-depicted in the Congressional hearings. The Houston Chronicle thought James Caan’s performance to be “moving in that climactic moment.” The reviewed closed by noting that A Glimpse of Hell was “a fascinating, well-done drama. It is obviously one-sided, but it does - very effectively - raise questions about a cover-up that have never been fully answered.”[8]
Text Balancing Depiction of the South Carolina Litigation;
Plaintiff’s filings in South Carolina alleged A Glimpse of Hell implied incompetence by Moosally leading to the explosion and that Miceli was lacking competence as an accident investigator, falsely accused him of directing a cover-up. The suit alleged Miceli was falsely accused of commanding a naval station that mixed old, unstable gunpowder that caused the explosion.[9]
Moosally and Miceli’s South Carolina litigation alleged:
- 1) the book falsely claimed the captain of the Iowa, Fred Moosally, was incompetent;
- 2) the Iowa's executive officer, Commander John Morse and Commander Robert Fin-ney, the ship's operations officer, were also made to look incompetent;
- 3) the book also called Moosally "a consummate politician," who was willing to fire naval artillery shells at more than 100 civilian demonstrators in Beirut, Lebanon, to prove a point to his Navy superiors;
- 4) the book falsely stated that Moosally ran a ship that 'was an accident waiting to hap-pen.' This allegedly implied that Moosally's stated incompetence was a cause in the explosion that killed 47 men;
- 5) the suit also alleged wrongful tort on behalf of retired Captain Joseph Miceli because his competence as an accident investigator was castigated;
- 6) Miceli also alleged he was accused of commanding a naval station mixing the old, unstable gunpowder that caused the explosion;
- 7) finally, the suit claimed Miceli was falsely accused of directing a cover-up and lying about the location of the body of a crew member, Clayton Hartwig, so Hartwig could be falsely blamed for causing the blast. [10]
At the height of the IOWA litigation, Meyer respond to a Charleston, South Carolina Post and Courier questioning regarding the motivation behind the lawsuit my stating, "Why me? I'm the only officer on board that went to bat for the Hartwig family and said the Navy chain-of-command was probably at fault.[11]
Text Showing Other Venues Which Criticized Command Competence;
The book A Glimpse of Hell was not the only instance that incompetence was alleged re-garding IOWA’s operations in conjunction with a broadcaster or publisher. In 1999, CBS Producer Charles S. Thompson – author of the book – appeared on 60 Minutes II and summarized performance deficiencies he allegedly documented in writing his book. Unlike the book publishing effort with W.W. Norton or the movie release with FX Networks, this effort was done with broadcasting company CBS. On national television, Thompson summarized his research as documenting that:
- 1) The first time Moosally took the IOWA out of the port of Norfolk, he almost collided with four different vessels;
- 2) Moosally put the IOWA aground in the Norfolk channel;
- 3) IOWA’s s own records showed that equipment had not been repaired, hatches were welded shut and firefighting gear was missing;
- 4) IOWA’s gunnery crew was not adequately trained, especially in Turret 2, in which 13 out of 59 were trained to either handle ammunition or to perform their duties;
- 5) Turret Two’s powder hoist operator had never fire live ammunition prior to the day of the explosion, nor had the rammerman or the acting gun captain.”[12]
Item on Meyer, Remorse:
Perhaps showing some evidence of post-traumatic stress syndrome disorder in 2001, Meyer still wondered whether he could have prevented the Iowa deaths by expressing more forcefully his concerns about defects in the gunnery system. [13]
Item on Meyer, taking on Admirals Millgan and Kelso:
Clear of the Fleet and matriculated at Indiana University School of Law—Bloomington, former Turret One Officer Dan Meyer spoke with Mike Wallace regarding inconsistencies in the Navy’s factual representations. On the issue of Clayton Hartwig’s body and its po-sition with respect to the gun breech, Meyer’s direct observation was that the gunnersmate at least 17 feet away from the gun breech. The Navy insisted that Hartwig was adjacent to the gun breech and therefore close enough to place an alleged detonator. This placed Meyer in direct confrontation with Rear Admiral Richard Milligan and Chief of Naval Operations, William “Bill” Kelso. [14]In his comments, Meyer implied ‘reverse engineering’ as an explanation for the Navy’s insistence on the location of Hartwig’s body.[15]
- * * *
The Associated Press State & Local Wire April 6, 2004, Appeals court rules publisher can be sued in South Carolina CHARLESTON, S.C.
The author of the book "A Glimpse of Hell" cannot be sued for libel in South Carolina, but the publisher of the book about the 1989 explosion aboard the USS Iowa that killed 47 sailors can, the state Court of Appeals has ruled. The Court of Appeals ruled Monday that the book's publisher, W.W. Norton & Co. of New York, had sufficient personal or business ties to South Carolina to warrant a lawsuit but author Charles C. Thompson II did not. The ruling reversed a lower court decision.
Circuit Judge Victor Rawl tossed out a lawsuit two years ago that alleged the book falsely made the Iowa's captain, Fred Moosally, look incompetent along with retired Capt. John Morse, the Iowa's executive officer, and retired Cmdr. Robert Finney, the battleship's operations officer. Retired Capt. Joseph Miceli alleged the book falsely accuses him of a cover-up. The four officers sued the author, publisher, and former Iowa crewmember Daniel Meyer. Meyer may have provided information to Thompson, a former producer for CBS News' 60 Minutes who worked with correspondent Mike Wallace on reporting the Iowa explosion, the original lawsuit said.
Charleston lawyer John Kerr, who represents Thompson and Norton said he was pleased that the ruling protects the author. "Norton's main focus was to keep the author from being sued in South Carolina," Kerr said. "If an author could be sued in any state where the book was published, it would have a chilling effect on the ability of authors to write about sensitive subjects and issues."
The plaintiffs' lawyer, Stephen DeAntonio of Charleston, said he's "exploring all angles" regarding the case.
The book implies incompetence by Moosally led to the April 19, 1989, explosion that destroyed a gun turret by falsely claiming he ran a ship that "was an accident waiting to happen," the original lawsuit says. Moosally, Morse and Finney all were aboard at the time.
Miceli says the book castigated his competence as an accident investigator and falsely accused him of directing a cover-up. The suit says Miceli also is falsely accused of commanding a naval station that mixed old, unstable gunpowder that caused the explosion.
DeAntonio also represents a fifth plaintiff, retired Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Dale E. Mortensen of Michigan, who filed a similar suit later. DeAntonio said Mortensen was in a nearby gun turret when the fatal explosion occurred. None of the plaintiffs or defendants live or work in South Carolina, a point the defen-dants argued in their original motions asking Rawl to dismiss the suit. Moosally and Morse live in Virginia, while Finney and Miceli live in Maryland.
In its ruling, the appeals court agreed that neither author Thompson of Maryland nor source Meyer, now a Washington lawyer, had sufficient personal or business ties to South Carolina.
Publisher Norton, however, "has continually endeavored to exploit the South Carolina market," the court ruled. Moreover, the Charleston County Public Library has five copies of "A Glimpse of Hell" and 2,900 other titles published by Norton, "a testament to the company's commercial presence within South Carolina," the appeals court said.
The Associated Press State & Local Wire June 5, 2001 Briefs from Burkittsville, Frederick, Grantsville BURKITTSVILLE, Md.
A former Navy officer whose career became fodder for a television movie has been elected mayor of Burkittsville, the setting for the hit film "The Blair Witch Project." Dan Meyer ran unopposed and received 57 votes in Monday's election in the town of about 200.
Meyer was the main battery officer aboard the battleship USS Iowa in 1989 when an explosion ripped through one of the ship's gun turrets, killing 47 sailors. His role in the subsequent investigation was the subject of an FX cable movie, "A Glimpse of Hell," that aired earlier this year. The Washington lawyer has objected, along with many other residents, to Burkittsville's treatment by the makers of "The Blair Witch Project," a mock documentary horror film that became a hit in 1999. Town officials were unaware that Burkittsville was the setting for the film until curiosity seekers began pouring in.
The Houston Chronicle March 16, 2001 COMPETING WITH CAAN; Actor has two movies going head-to-head on different networks ANN HODGES, Houston Chronicle TV Critic
JAMES Caan bumps heads with himself on Sunday, starring in two movies on competing cable networks. It's a Caan Film Festival for his fans, but a setback for the actor himself. on Showtime, Warden of Red Rock puts Caan back in the saddle again for a Wild West mano a mano with a mean-as-a-snake David Carradine.
On FX, he's the real-life U.S. Navy captain of the USS Iowa in a provocative docudra-ma that stirs up the still-controversial investigation of the 1989 tragedy that cost the lives of 47 sailors aboard that battleship.
The title, A Glimpse of Hell, is an apt description. And it's the better movie of the two, unless you're a diehard Western fan. Caan is impressive in both, but he has more to do, and a far more appealing role, as John Flinders, the true-grit warden of Arizona Territory's Red Rock Prison.
In A Glimpse of Hell, neither he, as Capt. Fred Moosally, nor the U.S. Navy come out looking like the good guys. The heroes here are Lt. j.g. Dan Meyer (Robert Sean Leonard) and 1st Petty Officer Dale Mortensen (Daniel Roebuck).
Meyer and Mortensen take on the top brass of the Navy when they insist that the tra-gedy aboard the 50-year-old Iowa was caused by aging equipment, lack of money for re-placement parts, ill-trained men and lax leadership. The Navy's brass does not want to hear that.
Agents of the Naval Investigation Service are the villains. Their relentless pursuit of what they insist is a deliberate plot to blow up the ship - a murder-suicide with homosexual overtones - is akin to storm troopers.
There are hints along the way that could point to more than friendship between crew-men Clay Hartwig (Dashiell Eaves) and Kendall Truitt (Jamie Harrold), but there are also hints that the master chief's obsession with breaking records could have caused the catastrophe.
That explosion in the Iowa's 18-inch gun turret is graphically reproduced aboard this movie company's decommissioned Canadian freighter, and scenes of that carnage are not for the squeamish.
The Navy sets a moratorium on the firing of 18-inch guns until the cause is found, and opens an investigation, headed by Adm. Langlett (John Doman). He ignores testimony on aging or malfunctioning equipment, and based on the NIS report, tells the family of Hartwig, who died, horribly, in the explosion, that "the Navy has determined Clay did it." That conclusion is also announced publicly.
Shortly after that, though, questions of a cover-up escalate, and congressional hearings on the Navy's controversial findings begin. Moosally's testimony is pivotal, and Caan's performance is very moving in that climactic moment.
For the record, the battleship Iowa was decommissioned in 1990, and the captain re-tired. A year later, the Navy apologized to the family of Hartwig, but it never exonerated him. Officially, it said the exact cause of the explosion could not be determined.
This is a fascinating, well-done drama. It is obviously one-sided, but it does - very ef-fectively - raise questions about a cover-up that have never been fully answered.
Warden of Red Rock is set in 1910, in the last frontier of the Arizona Territory. Auto-mobiles are just starting to ride the range alongside the horses, and the sheriff wears a bowler, not a Stetson, a sure sign that times are changing. The sheriff's played by Brian Dennehy, who's also an executive producer.
The times, and the character that Caan plays, make this movie just a little bit different from most other Westerns in which the good guys chase the bad guys through the desert.
Red Rock Prison is home to the meanest lawbreakers in the territory, and warden John Flinders (Caan) runs it strictly by the book, but with a humane heart. He's the kind who tells the prisoner, on his last night before the hanging, to "come upstairs and eat that last meal with me."
That death-row dinner guest asks the warden to deliver his wedding ring to his about-to-be widow, Maria (Rachel Ticotin). She and her daughter are living in a mud hut down the road, just this side of starvation.
Before long, Flinders is renting a house in town for Maria, and he's just about over his shyness to come courting, when trouble arrives on his prison doorstep.
Before Flinders became a warden, he was a bank robber, and his best buddy in those bad old days was Sullivan (Carradine). Now Sullivan's turned up to serve time in Red Rock Prison. But he has no intention of staying. He's barely signed in before he's plotting how to break out and escape over the Mexican border.
When he goes for it, Flinders goes after him.
Warden of Red Rock was shot in Durango, Mexico, and that landscape is an essential ingredient. If it looks familiar, that's because this region has played host to many of Holly-wood's Western heroes, including John Wayne. The first movie made around here was The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, and Maria's adobe shack is a leftover from that.
A Glimpse of Hell, 7 p.m. Sunday, FX. Grade: B+. Warden of Red Rock, 7 p.m. Sunday, Showtime. Grade: C+.
Associated Press Online
March 13, 2001
TV Movie Explores USS Iowa Blast
DAVID DISHNEAU
BURKITTSVILLE, Md.
The Navy was like family to Lt. j.g. Dan Meyer until he felt betrayed.
He was the main battery officer aboard the battleship USS Iowa during Caribbean training exercises April 19, 1989, when an explosion ripped through one of the ship's gun turrets, killing 47 sailors. The Navy initially blamed one of the dead seamen, Clayton Hartwig, suggesting he deliberately detonated the gunpowder in a suicide over a homosexual affair with another crew member.
Meyer believed the explosion was accidental. He stood by that theory, despite being viewed as disloyal, until a congressional probe forced the Navy to revise its findings and apologize to Hartwig's family 21/2 years later.
A Glimpse of Hell, airing Sunday at 8 p.m. EST on cable's FX, focuses on the rela-tionship between the Meyer, played by Robert Sean Leonard, and ship Capt. Fred Moo-sally (James Caan), who demands loyalty above all. After reading the Navy's initial report on the explosion, Moosally tells Meyer: That is the Navy's position. Therefore it is mine and it is yours. The real-life Meyer, now a Washington lawyer who lives in rural western Maryland, left the Navy in 1991, unable to reconcile his duty to protect subordinates with the military code of blind loyalty.
It was in the Iowa situation where we first had officers turn against enlisted personnel, Meyer said. Coming from a naval family, it just turned my stomach.
The son of a submarine commander, Meyer said the Navy was like a family firm, and when you see those kinds of decisions made, the betrayal was pretty clear.
He now agrees with the Navy that the cause of the Iowa explosion will never be known since all the eyewitnesses are dead and some of the evidence was tossed overboard. He believes the findings of the federal Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico, which analyzed the Navy's findings at Congress' request and determined a gunpowder handling mistake could have caused the blast. The movie's producers did not ask the Navy to participate in the film, relying instead on technical advice from Meyer; Capt. Larry Seaquist, a former Iowa commander; and William Burnett, an enlisted man under Meyer's command.
Director Mikael Salomon (Hard Rain) calls A Glimpse of Hell a morality tale that parallels a recent Navy disaster, the collision between the submarine USS Greeneville and a Japanese fishing boat off the coast of Hawaii that killed nine people. They should come clean and immediately put everything on the table. I think in the long run, it certainly pays to tell the truth, Salomon said.
FX Networks President Peter Liguori said he hopes the movie changes the lingering public perception that the Iowa was blown up by that gay guy.
That 'gay guy theory' was an easy out for the Navy. That 'gay guy theory' preyed on a deeply seated public prejudice, which is, 'that gay guy' means he was different, therefore 'that gay guy' means he was suspect and went to the inevitable atrocity of 'that gay guy' is capable of anything, including mass murder, Liguori said.
I feel that was a horrible disservice to the 47 sailors, including Clay Hartwig, who gave their lives in service to this country.
Meyer still wonders whether he could have prevented the Iowa deaths by expressing more forcefully his concerns about defects in the gunnery system. He ponders the ques-tion while tending his yard and restoring the 110-year-old farmhouse he rents in Burkitts-ville.
The tiny town reluctantly served as the setting for another movie, the mock documen-tary horror film, The Blair Witch Project.
Meyer sees a relationship between the two pictures.
With the 'Blair Witch' thing, you were looking at a movie that had a fictitious account of the town, he said. In the Iowa story, it was the exact opposite. The media product is more accurate to the truth than any official finding.
The Post and Courier (Charleston, SC) March 2, 2001 4 sue over depiction in book about Iowa blast Suit filed in Charleston County claims 'A Glimpse of Hell' is libelous TERRY JOYCE; Of The Post and Courier Staff
Four naval officers, including three who served on the battleship Iowa in 1989 when an explosion killed 47 sailors, have sued the author and publisher of a book about the accident for libel and defamation of character. Another former Naval officer who reportedly supplied information to the author is among those being sued. At issue is "A Glimpse of Hell," a book by Charles C. Thompson II and published by W.W. Norton & Co. of New York. According to the suit filed Feb. 15 in the Charleston County Court of Common Pleas, the book falsely claims the captain of the Iowa, Fred Moosally, was incompetent.
Moosally sued along with retired Capt. John Morse, the Iowa's executive officer, and retired Cmdr. Robert Finney, the ship's operations officer. All three were made to look incompetent, the suit claims. Moreover, the book calls Moosally "a consummate politician," who on another occasion was willing to fire naval artillery shells at more than 100 civilian demonstrators in Beirut, Lebanon, to prove a point to his Navy superiors.
"The book falsely states that Moosally ran a ship that 'was an accident waiting to hap-pen.' This implies that Moosally's stated incompetence was a cause in the explosion that killed 47 men," the suit says. Moosally and Morse live in Virginia, while Finney lives in Maryland.
All were aboard on April 19, 1989, when Turret No. 2 exploded. A fourth officer, retired Capt. Joseph Miceli of Maryland, is also a plaintiff because the suit says his competence as an accident investigator was castigated. Miceli also is accused in the book of commanding a naval station that mixed old, unstable gunpowder that caused the explosion. The suit also claims Miceli is falsely accused of directing a cover-up and lying about the location of the body of a crew member, Clayton Hart- wig, so Hartwig could be falsely blamed for causing the blast.
Daniel Meyer, another former officer on the Iowa, is a defendant along with Thompson and the publisher. According to the suit, Meyer, who now practices law in Washington, D.C., is believed to have provided information to Thompson. The plaintiffs' lawyer, Stephen F. DeAntonio of Charleston, said the suit was filed in Charleston "partly because it's legal to file anywhere the book is distributed and partly be-cause this is still a Navy town."
Thompson, a former producer for CBS News' "60 Minutes," worked with veteran newsman Mike Wallace on reports dealing with the Iowa explosion. Thompson said this week that he hoped the suit would be dismissed, but added "I don't think if it were tried down there that I'd have any trouble (winning)."
Meyer was on the Iowa's bridge when the explosion occurred. He said he was "not surprised that Thompson and Norton are being sued, but a little surprised that I was sued."
"Why me?" Meyer asked. "I'm the only officer on board that went to bat for the Hartwig family and said the Navy chain-of-command was probably at fault."
Stephen King, chief financial officer for Norton, declined comment.
CBS News Transcripts
60 MINUTES II (9:00 PM ET)
April 14, 1999
CLASSIC: THE TRASHING OF CLAYTON HARTWIG; US NAVY REPORT ON USS IOWA EXPLOSION 10 YEARS AGO INITIALLY BLAMED CLAYTON HARTWIG; EVIDENCE SHOWS INEXPERIENCE OF CREW TO BLAME ANCHOR: MIKE WALLACE
CLASSIC: THE TRASHING OF CLAYTON HARTWIG MIKE WALLACE, co-host:
Tonight's "60 Minutes" Classic sheds new light on one of the darkest chapters in US naval history. It happened exactly 10 years ago next Monday. (Footage of explosion of guns on USS Iowa) WALLACE: (Voiceover) April 19th, 1989, a deadly explosion onboard the battleship Iowa. Forty-seven crewmen lost their lives during a test firing of one of its massive guns. At first the Navy thought the blast might have been an accident, but then stories began to leak about a homosexual affair between two sailors: Clayton Hartwig and Kendall Truitt. Hartwig, it was said, had been jilted by Truitt and, in despair, had blown up the gun to commit suicide and had taken 46 shipmates with him. At least that was the Navy's story. Well, "60 Minutes" broadcast two reports on the explosion and the allegations against Clayton Hartwig. New evidence has now surfaced that reveals, for the first time, that the Iowa was an accident waiting to happen and that Hartwig was a convenient and innocent fall guy. But, first, our original stories. (Excerpt from "60 Minutes") Unidentified Admiral: (From press conference) It's the conclusion of this investigation that the tragic explosion onboard USS Iowa on 19 April was caused by a wrongful, inten-tional act, most probably the insertion of a detonating device between powder bags one and two behind the projectile, and that Gunners Mate 2nd class... (Photo of Hartwig) Admiral: (Voiceover) ...Clayton Hartwig was the most likely person to have introduced that detonating device. WALLACE: (Voiceover) "60 Minutes" set out to see whether the admiral was right in fingering Hartwig. Do you think that the case that the Navy makes against Hartwig would be sufficient to obtain a criminal indictment against Clayton Hartwig? Admiral: Personally, yes. WALLACE: You do? Admiral: Yes. I think the case that we have in this investigation is very solid. I think the evidence is there. The findings of fact and opinions support the conclusion. (Photo of Hartwig) WALLACE: (Voiceover) What would drive Hartwig to kill himself and to murder 46 of his shipmates? Admiral: He's a--a man who talked of suicide to four individual witnesses. WALLACE: When? Where? Admiral: On--onboard the ship, the witnesses that were interviewed by the Naval Investigative Service. (Footage of Mullahy and Wallace) WALLACE: (Voiceover) Gunners mate John Mullahy, a survivor of the Turret 2 blast, was Hartwig's friend. Mr. JOHN MULLAHY (Gunners Mate): I've never seen him despondent. He was looking to go to London on his orders. And so I was sitting down and we were making up a list of all the necessity items that we would need, like the adapter plugs for your electrical outlets. WALLACE: Wait a minute. Are you saying, John, that the night before the explosion, and which it's suggested that he wanted to blow himself and his shipmates up, he was talking to you about what he was going to do in London? Mr. MULLAHY: Yeah, 45 to 50 minutes. (Footage of Truitt at press conference; Truitt and wife coming out of home; photo of Hartwig) WALLACE: (Voiceover) Reportedly the Naval Investigative Service, NIS, said Kendall Truitt was Hartwig's lover. Truitt has denied this. He is married. And the Navy has now acknowledged that the leaks about him were untrue. According to Truitt, Hartwig was dating a young woman who occasionally danced in a bar to help pay her way through college. If he had this relationship, for instance, with this young woman, where did all the talk about homosexuality come from? Mr. KENDALL TRUITT (USS Iowa): I'd like to ask you the same question. I think a lot of it stemmed from the fact that neither one of us came back drunk all the time and we could carry on an intelligent conversation without, you know, having to talk about cars or just this or that. WALLACE: Do you think Clay Hartwig was conceivably suicidal? Mr. TRUITT: No, not--not at all. If he was--there are so many fallacies with their theory. If--if indeed he was suicidal and he wanted to kill himself and wanted to go out in the big bang that they said he did, he could have gone into the magazine, taken out a bag of powder and taken a Bic lighter and stood there until it blew up. (Footage of Navy videotape showing servicemen loading bags into chamber; photo of Hartwig; serviceman handling bag) WALLACE: (Voiceover) The Navy released this videotape, including dramatized scenes, to demonstrate, they say, that the blast occurred between bags one and two of the powder charges. The Navy says that as gun captain, Hartwig was in a perfect position to insert a detonating device between those two bags. You're saying that--that Hartwig placed the detonator in between rolls one and two in a lead foil package? Admiral: In between propellant charge bags one and two, yes. WALLACE: Did you rule out any scenario that could have said, 'Listen, this is an acci-dent which we simply cannot explain?' Admiral: Mike, we've looked for an accident. That was the goal. We were look-ing--what caused this accident? We were--we--the purpose was to find out what caused this so it will never happen again. WALLACE: You don't have any fingerprint. You don't have anything--even the--even the FBI says that what you are alleging is not so. At least it's inconclusive as far as they are concerned. Admiral: Mike, there is no other cause for this accident. We have looked at everything. We've ruled out everything. We conducted a thorough investigation, and it all comes together to the only conclusion that I could and I did make, and that's the one that you're well aware of. This was a deliberate act most likely done by Petty Officer Hartwig. (End of excerpt) WALLACE: And that is how we left this story the first time: that the explosion was a de-liberate act most likely done by Clayton Hartwig. But two years later the Navy had a dif-ferent spin and it came from the chief of naval operations, Admiral Frank Kelso. Admiral FRANK KELSO (Chief of Naval Operations): (From press conference) I extend my sincere regrets to the family of GM-2 Hartwig. There is no clear and convincing proof of the cause of the Iowa explosion, and the Navy will not imply that a deceased individual is to blame for his own death or the deaths of others without such clear and convincing proof. And despite all efforts, no certain answer regarding the cause of this terrible tragedy can be found. WALLACE: However, that apology was not as categorical, not as clear-cut as the fami-ly of Clayton Hartwig wanted, and eight years ago when we did our second story, the Navy still maintained that Hartwig's body was found right next to the gun. (Footage of Dan Meyer walking with Wallace onboard a ship) WALLACE: (Voiceover) However, former Lieutenant Dan Meyer, one of the first officers on the scene after the explosion, said that he could place Hartwig's body far away from the site of the explosion, and other crew members backed up his story. It was common knowledge among the crew that Hartwig was found 17 feet away, cor-rect? Former Lieutenant DAN MEYER: Oh, yes. (Footage of US naval ship and crew) WALLACE: (Voiceover) If the location of Hartwig's body was common knowledge among the Iowa crew, why did the Navy keep insisting that he was found right next to the gun? Lt. MEYER: Well, it fit the official findings of the investigation, and it worked very well in that regard. And without his body being in that position, the whole suicide theory starts to look dubious. (Footage of Meyer and Wallace) WALLACE: (Voiceover) We asked Lieutenant Dan Meyer if the former skipper of the USS Iowa told his men what to say when questioned. Lt. MEYER: His standard line throughout the investigation was to support the Navy's investigation. WALLACE: Forget where Hartwig's body was found, just go with what the Navy said. Lt. MEYER: That's right, in the official lines. (Footage of Moosally at hearing; Meyer and Wallace; Kubicina and Wallace) WALLACE: (Voiceover) The former skipper of the USS Iowa, Captain Fred Moosally, since retired from the Navy, declined to talk with us. Dan Meyer, who had intended to make the Navy a career, resigned his commission in disgust over the Navy's handling of the Iowa investigation. And Clayton Hartwig's sister, Kathy Kubicina was devastated by the injustice done to her brother's memory. Ms. KATHY KUBICINA (Hartwig's Sister): There are people all over the world who be-lieve that that explosion was caused by a fight between two homosexuals, and that has never been the case. So that damage can never be undone. (End of excerpt) WALLACE: And only now, nearly 10 years later, are questions surrounding the blast being answered, largely due to the efforts of two people. (Footage of Seaquist; painting of USS Iowa) WALLACE: (Voiceover) One of them, Captain Larry Seaquist. He was skipper of the Iowa until 10 months before the disaster. Since he retired from the Navy in 1994, Captain Seaquist has been doggedly trying to get the Navy to reopen its investigation. Captain LARRY SEAQUIST (Retired, US Navy): Iowa is a live matter. It is--there is no statute of limitations on professional ethics. (Footage from "NBC Nightly News") Capt. SEAQUIST: (Voiceover) They continued to manipulate the public by leaking in-formation about the mad homosexual bomber theory, even though they knew that wasn't true. Unidentified Reporter: (From "NBC Nightly News") The Navy sources said there was a special relationship between the two men that had gone sour six months earlier. Capt. SEAQUIST: So in every place you look, they--they--they--they did things which were, in my personal view, illegal, not just immoral, not just unprofessional, but blatantly and with decision aforethought decided to do things that were illegal. (Footage of casket being carried by servicemen) Capt. SEAQUIST: (Voiceover) These were deaths. This was not sexual harassment. These were dead people in a turret. And they decided to make everything come out a different way. (Footage of Thompson; book cover "A Glimpse of Hell"; Thompson; photo of Moosally; footage of guns fired on ship) WALLACE: (Voiceover) Charles Thompson started looking into the Iowa explosion within days of the blast. He was producer of our original "60 Minutes" reports, and now he's written a book he calls "A Glimpse of Hell" about the Iowa. He interviewed over 150 individuals and relied on 25,000 Navy documents to support his new findings. One of the revelations in Thompson's book is that Fred Moosally, captain of the Iowa at the time of the explosion, had allowed the condition of the gun turrets to deteriorate and, furthermore, says Thompson, Moosally had mostly desk jobs before assuming his post as captain. CHARLES THOMPSON (CBS Producer): The first time he took the ship out--out of the port in Norfolk, he almost collided with four different vessels. He wa... WALLACE: On his maiden voyage? THOMPSON: On his maiden voyage. He put the vessel aground in the Norfolk chan-nel and was lucky to get it off. WALLACE: Again, on his maiden voyage? THOMPSON: On his maiden voyage. (Footage of Thompson; photo of USS Iowa) WALLACE: (Voiceover) Thompson says the Iowa's own records showed that equip-ment had not been repaired, hatches were welded shut and firefighting gear was missing. He also found that the gunnery crew was not adequately trained, especially in Turret 2. THOMPSON: Only 13 out of 59 were trained. WALLACE: Trained to do what? THOMPSON: To either handle ammunition, to do whatever their job was. The powder hoist operator had never done it before. The rammer man had never done it before. The--the acting gun captain had never--never functioned before. WALLACE: What--when you say, 'had never done it before,' had never done what be-fore? THOMPSON: Never fired live ammunition before. WALLACE: Until the one in which... THOMPSON: Until it blew up. (Footage of Senate Armed Services Committee in session; displays being put on easel; animated display) WALLACE: (Voiceover) In their effort to find the cause, the Senate Armed Services Committee commissioned tests that showed the explosion was most likely caused by un-stable gunpowder pushed into the gun with too much force. Capt. SEAQUIST: At the center of it was unquestionably the fact that the powder, this 550 pounds of powder that were being pushed into the barrel behind the projectile, were unstable. There was reports from the crew of flashes. 'We've got a problem here.' So, in my mind, there is no doubt left about what happened in the gun room. It was this disaster when bad powder, bad training and overram suddenly came together, and you had an explosion. (Footage of Moosally at table) WALLACE: (Voiceover) And what has happened since to Fred Moosally? He did not respond to our attempts to reach him for this report. THOMPSON: He's a defense contractor. He got a Legion of Merit for this, but he's a--a defense contractor... WALLACE: He got a what? THOMPSON: A Legion of Merit. He was--he was decorated for this. WALLACE: For what? THOMPSON: For keeping the ship from sinking. (End of excerpt) WALLACE: And Admiral Kelso's statement of regret is all the Navy has said about the trashing of Clayton Hartwig. The Navy has not absolved Hartwig for causing the death of 46 sailors, and his family for seven years has been suing the US government to try to reclaim his reputation. Announcer: (Voiceover) 60 MINUTES II will continue in a moment. (Announcements)
CBS News Transcripts 60 MINUTES (7:00 PM ET) October 20, 1991 THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE EXPLOSION ABOARD THE USS IOWA ANCHOR: Mike Wallace
Mike Wallace, co-host: No matter that last Thursday the US Navy apologized to the family ofClayton Hartwig. The fact is that in what amounted to flat-out characterassassination, the Navy, for two years, continued to trash the reputationof one of its one, gunner's mate second-class Clayton Hartwig, held himdirectly responsible for the murder of 46 of his shipmates killed by theexplosion of a 16-inch gun aboard the Battleship USS Iowa. We have been following the story the past two years, and from what wehave learned, the Navy had to know almost from the beginning that Hartwigwas not responsible for the blast. What the Navy did was selectivelyleak false derogatory information about Hartwig in order to shift theblame away from safety problems with the Iowa's guns and gun powder andto focus instead on a dead man who could not defend himself. Here is thestory Navy officials leaked five weeks after the explosion to FredFrancis, Pentagon correspondent for NBC News. Fred Francis (NBC News, Pentagon Correspondent): One official withintimate know-ledge of this explosion which killed the 47 men said, quote, No way this was an accident.' The entire investigative effort today isfocused on two men, 24-year-old gunner's mate Clayton Hartwig, who diedin turret two, and 21-year-old gunner's mate Kendall Truitt, who was oneof the survivors. The Navy sources said there was a special relationshipbetween the two men that had gone sour six months earlier. Wallace: What the Navy was saying was that Hartwig was a homosexual andhad been jilted by Truitt and that, in despair, Hartwig blew up the gun. Here is what the chief investigating officer, Admiral Richard Milligan,told me two years ago. Do you think that the case that the Navy makes against Hartwig would besufficient to obtain a criminal indictment against Clayton Hartwig? Admiral Richard Milligan (Chief Investigating Officer): Personally, yes. Wallace: You do? Milligan: Yes. I think the case that we have in this investigation isvery solid. I think the evidence is there. The findings of fact andopinion support the conclusion. Wallace: But that is not what the Navy said last Thursday, when AdmiralFrank Kelso, the chief of naval operations, who inherited theinvestigation from his predecessor, issued a public apology. Admiral Frank Kelso (Chief of Naval Operations): I extend my sincereregrets to the family of GM-2 Hartwig. There is no clear and convincingproof of the cause of the Iowa explosion, and the Navy will not implythat a deceased individual is to blame for his own death or the deaths ofothers without such clear and convincing proof. And despite all efforts,no certain answer regarding the cause of this terrible tragedy can befound. Wallace: Two years ago, the most important piece of evidence againstHartwig was the Navy's flat assertion that Hartwig was the gun captainwhen the explosion occurred, and the Navy made this demonstration tape tohelp prove their case. They claimed that Hart-wig, as gun captain, wouldhave stood on the right next to the open breech where he could sabotagethe gun by inserting a detonator between two powder bags as the gun wasloaded. Again, Admiral Milligan two years ago: Milligan: I have inclusive evidence that Hartwig, as a gun captain, isthe man who is in the proper position who has access, who has opportunityand who, because of his expe-rience and knowledge, has proven his abilityto build explosive devices such as it would take to cause that accidentto happen. Wallace: But within the past two weeks, we have spoken with men who wereaboard the Iowa on that fateful day. Brian Scanio was the first maninside the turret after the explosion. He was decorated for his heroicefforts in fighting the fire. We talked to him aboard the Iowa, now inthe Philadelphia Navy yard. Did you find Hartwig's body? Did you see it? Brian Scanio: I saw Hartwig's body. Wallace: Was he gun captain that day? Scanio: I don't think he could have been. Wallace: Why? Scanio: From the position where his body was found. All the people thatwere in the center gun, five people that we found... Wallace: Right. Scanio: ...were all blown back toward... Wallace: Straight back? Scanio: Yeah, toward the back of the ship. Wallace: Right. Scanio: The force of the explosion was a couple of million pounds persquare inch. Wallace: OK. Scanio: There's no way, if he was standing in front of the gun, that hecould have been blown down. Wallace: And where did you find him? Scanio: He was down a ladder, right by an escape hatch that goes down themachinery decks, about 20 feet away from the center gun. Wallace: In other words... Scanio: It's actually in the room, but it's down below in the pits. Wallace: So he would have had to have been blown back, down... Scanio: Well, he couldn't have been blown back and down. He would havehad to have been blown back, bounced off, and went 10 feet forward anddown. Wallace: What you're saying is that couldn't have happened? Scanio: No, not by the laws of physics, it couldn't have happened. Wallace: Shortly after the explosion, former Navy Lieutenant Dan Meyerwas sent into the turret to identify the bodies. If, indeed, Hartwig was the closest man to the gun, he would have beenscorched, no? Lieutenant Dan Meyer: Oh, yes. It was a big flash fire. Wallace: I mean, skin burned off? Meyer: Blackened. Wallace: Well, here's a picture of the tattoo, apparently--a variety ofpictures of the tat-too--Clayton Hartwig's body, which--which survived,which leads one to believe that per-haps he was, indeed, 17 feet away, asreported. Meyer: And also when you compare him to the rammerman, who was very, veryblack-ened, he doesn't look very much like that particular corpse looks. Wallace: When I sat down with Admiral Kelso after his news conference, Ishowed him what Brian Scanio and Dan Meyer told us. The admiral praisedScanio's heroism but said the Navy still endorsed the opinion of apathologist who placed Hartwig next to the breech in the gun room. Kelso: What he says is that it's most probable that that's--that that'swhere he was, based on his evaluation, and this is a gent who does thisall the time for a living. And he is very credible, talking to him aboutknowing. And but I--but he says it's most probable. Wallace: It was common knowledge among the crew that Hartwig was found 17feet away. Correct? Meyer: Oh, yes. Wallace: So I would think that the crew would think--if they knew thebody was 17 feet away and they started blaming Hartwig, the crew wouldsay, in effect, Bull.' Meyer: Well, they did. They said it quite often, and I was called on thecarpet for that quite often. Wallace: If the location of Hartwig's body was common knowledge among theIowa crew, why did the Navy keep insisting that he was found right nextto the gun? They kept telling you that it was he, and he was the closest man to thegun. Meyer: That's right. Wallace: And that was convenient. Meyer: Well, it fit the official findings of the investigation and workedvery well in that regard. And without his body being in that position,the whole suicide theory starts to look dubious. Wallace: We asked Lieutenant Dan Meyer if the former skipper of the USSIowa told his men what to say when questioned. Meyer: His standard line throughout the investigation was to support theNavy's inves-tigation. Wallace: Forget where Hartwig's body was found, just go with what theNavy said. Meyer: That's right, in the official lines. Wallace: The former skipper of the USS Iowa, Captain Fred Moosally, whohas since retired from the Navy, declined to talk with us. Meantime, allalong, Hartwig's sister, Kathy Kubicina, has been trying to clear herbrother's name. It would not have been cleared today had she not takenit upon herself to work full time to uncover the truth. Kathy Kubicina (Clayton Hartwig's Sister): It took me until August of1990 to find some-one, a former crew member, who would finally tell mewhere my brother's body was located after the blast. Wallace: Sixteen months after the accident. Kubicina: Yes. Wallace: And in all that time, she got no help from the Navy. Kubicina: I've had to take my brother's autopsy photos and drive down toNorfolk, Vir-ginia. I've had to look up sailors, meet them behind bushes,in alleys, in the back seats of cars at 2:00 in the morning. Wallace: Why--why all the secrecy? Kubicina: Because they were sworn to secrecy while they were still aboardthe ship. Wallace: By whom? Kubicina: I was told that the former commander of the Iowa told them thatthey were never, under any circumstances, to talk to me personally, me,about any of the aspects of the investigation. Wallace: Kathy Kubicina wasn't the only one dissatisfied with AdmiralMilligan's report. The Senate Armed Services Committee conducted its owninvestigation, and Captain Joe Miceli, Admiral Milligan's chiefinvestigator, was one of the strongest defenders of the Navy report whichaccused Hartwig of setting off the explosion. Lieutenant Dan Meyer, whohad intended to make the Navy a career, resigned his commission indisgust over the Navy's handling of the Iowa investigation. December '89, Dan. Meyer: Mm-hmm. Wallace: After questions had been raised about Admiral Milligan'sinvestigation, find-ings--Congress is now investigating--did you go to ameeting in the Iowa wardroom with Captain Joe Miceli, chief technicalinvestigator for Admiral Milligan? Meyer: Yes--late afternoon, evening. Wallace: What did Miceli say at that meeting? Meyer: That's when the heels were dug in on the--on the--the suicidetheory. He told the head of the GAO team, I think it was, that the Navywas sticking to the suicide theory and was not endorsing any technicalconcepts. Wallace: This is nine months after the episode, and the Navy is--somebodysaid that he said, The Navy sinks or swims on the suicide scenario.' Meyer: That is a direct quote from that meeting. Wallace: Lieutenant Meyer said he decided that Captain Miceli was totallyunwilling to consider any cause other than suicide. Meyer: He was the biggest proponent for the battleship program. That washis baby. He was a career technician in powder and the senior man inthat area, and that was his baby, and that was his program. Wallace: What was at stake for Captain Miceli and the Navy if theycouldn't make their Hartwig story stick? Two years ago, Earl Hartwig,Clayton's father, himself a former Navy gunner's mate, had thisexplanation. Earl Hartwig (Clayton Hartwig's Father): Four battleships that are on theline right now would be the main reason, because if they found themdefective, I don't think the govern-ment would support an antiquated pieceof equipment that may kill hundreds of other people down the line. Kelso: There's not one life that I would trade the battleships for--thatif I knew I was going to lose as a result of that. I just can't believethat. I would never make any decision like that. The young men are tooimportant to me. Wallace: But Hartwig's sister, Kathy Kubicina, says that the Navy'sbehavior for the past two years doesn't bear out Admiral Kelso'ssentiment. Kubicina: The fact remains that information was deliberately leaked tothe media before the first investigation was over. Wallace: Who leaked it? Kubicina: I wish I knew. I absolutely wish I knew. Wallace: We showed the NBC News story based on the leaked information toAdmiral Kelso. Where in the world would a leak... Kelso: I don't know, and they don't... Wallace: ...like that come from? Kelso: They don't identify. Wallace: Navy? Kelso: What? But who--I don't know who the Navy leak is. That doesn'tidentify who the leak is. Wallace: Although Admiral Kelso could not identify the source of the NBCleaks, the Navy did confirm the source of a leak to the Washington Post.The Navy said that Captain Joe Miceli, the same Captain Joe Miceli whofor the past two and a half years has been chief technical investigatorof the Iowa explosion, gave an unauthorized briefing and leaked the wholecase against Hartwig to the Washington Post, a case that Admiral Kelsorepudiated last Thursday. In Kelso's presence, we asked the chief ofnaval information, Admiral Brent Baker, about Miceli's leaks. Why would he be leaking to the Washington Post? What was in it forsomebody to leak to the Washington Post? Admiral Brent Baker (Chief of Naval Information): You'll have to talk tothe people in-volved. I had--I don't know. Wallace: Then can we talk to Miceli? You will let--you will let... Baker: It is up to Captain Miceli whether he wants to talk. The Navydoes not demand that any officer talk to the press. It's up to him. Wallace: We have tried several times to talk to Captain Miceli, but hehas told the Navy he doesn't want to talk to us. Kubicina: The damage has been done. Although we've never been subjectedto any-one's remarks personally, that they really thought my brother didit, there are people all over the world who believe that that explosionwas caused by a fight between two homo-sexuals, and that has never beenthe case. So that damage can never be undone. Wallace: You're satisfied he was not a homosexual? Kelso: I have no evidence to tell me he was a homosexual. Wallace: Kathy Kubicina is very grateful for Admiral Kelso's apology, butthe Hartwig family has no intention of withdrawing the $ 40 millionlawsuit they have filed against the Navy. Kubicina: It would be the same thing as 30 months ago someone coming upand--and killing one of my family members in a drunk driving accident andthen for them to come up to me and say, Well, I was drunk. I apologize.I really didn't mean for it to happen.' You just can't let it go. Wejust absolutely at this point cannot let it go. They--the Navy, themilitary, all branches of the military have to understand that theenlisted men means the backbone of the military. And they just can't beallowed to do this to people.
HSI stuff
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)
- I'm writing an essay which is indirectly related to what you're talking about. I'll let you and others know when I complete my first draft and welcome your input. Cla68 (talk) 23:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you
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)
Activist essay
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)
- It's not clear if the essay refers to WP:NPOV as policy, or to your personal view of what NPOV means. Can you clarify? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- You might consider File:Man sitting on a dead horse (1876 - 1884).jpg for Flogging a dead horse -- which should be referenced, along with Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. I haven't had a chance to read your draft yet. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- Interesting draft, just read it. One comment so far: I don't entirely agree with the sentences (my bolding), "The difference between neutral, good faith editors and those who are not is fairly obvious. Editors operating in good faith will usually try to find some way to cooperate, collaborate, and compromise with almost all other editors." I would say that this is not entirely the case. In science, where I edit, there are more absolute standards that are held without compromise. For example, there are some things published that say that the Earth is expanding. Granted, the most recent mainstream-published one is from 1960 (well, there was one more recent thing in a non-geophysics journal). All of our modern knowledge shows that the Earth is actually very very very slowly contracting, but is basically static in size. There are a lot of semi-professional-looking sources that contest the mainstream science, and no answer for mainstream science because the idea that the Earth is expanding has been long abandoned as incorrect (and didn't have many supporters in the first place). To an outsider, this can often look like a mess, as both sides do have journal articles, and mainstream science has no real refutations in peer-reviewed journals. But to an insider, the facts are very obvious. There is no room to budge or compromise here, and I was involved in a protracted nasty argument for my stance. My point is that in topic areas where fact is more clear-cut, just who is the fringe POV pusher is hard for an outsider to see, and compromise would compromise the factual integrity of the article. Awickert (talk) 04:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- You're proceeding from the mistaken assumption that accuracy of our content is relevant. We just care about reporting what the sources say, right Cla68? If the sources are outdated or patently insane, that's not our problem. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- The policy does say, "verifiability, not truth." I wasn't the one who wrote it, but I agree with it because of the way that WP is currently structured. Some social media encyclopedias, like Citizendium, do allow expert contributors to make content decisions. WP, as it currently exists, does not. Cla68 (talk) 22:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- You're proceeding from the mistaken assumption that accuracy of our content is relevant. We just care about reporting what the sources say, right Cla68? If the sources are outdated or patently insane, that's not our problem. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- Interesting draft, just read it. One comment so far: I don't entirely agree with the sentences (my bolding), "The difference between neutral, good faith editors and those who are not is fairly obvious. Editors operating in good faith will usually try to find some way to cooperate, collaborate, and compromise with almost all other editors." I would say that this is not entirely the case. In science, where I edit, there are more absolute standards that are held without compromise. For example, there are some things published that say that the Earth is expanding. Granted, the most recent mainstream-published one is from 1960 (well, there was one more recent thing in a non-geophysics journal). All of our modern knowledge shows that the Earth is actually very very very slowly contracting, but is basically static in size. There are a lot of semi-professional-looking sources that contest the mainstream science, and no answer for mainstream science because the idea that the Earth is expanding has been long abandoned as incorrect (and didn't have many supporters in the first place). To an outsider, this can often look like a mess, as both sides do have journal articles, and mainstream science has no real refutations in peer-reviewed journals. But to an insider, the facts are very obvious. There is no room to budge or compromise here, and I was involved in a protracted nasty argument for my stance. My point is that in topic areas where fact is more clear-cut, just who is the fringe POV pusher is hard for an outsider to see, and compromise would compromise the factual integrity of the article. Awickert (talk) 04:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, we should shoot for both accuracy and verifiability, and use editorial discretion to filter out the trash. The problem being, one editor's trash can be another's treasure... ;-) Is there actually a policy for Ed. Discr?? That's one that KDP likes to use, and mostly I agree, though not always with the specific discretion being applied. See above. --Pete Tillman (talk) 05:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- Read it now. A little shrill, but basically on-target. It will be interesting to see if any of SBHB's more-activist associates show up....
I'll look for more cute photos tomorrow. Bedtime here. Best wishes for the essay, Pete Tillman (talk) 05:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- Not a bad first start, Cla68, but I'm seeing lots of confirmation bias. You may wish to base your observations on solid data. For example, in my own experience, I found that many people weren't interested in GA or FA because they wanted to preserve original research in the article, not because they were activists. For me, this was specifically true on the hippie article, where after several years, the OR is still in the article due to at least three stubborn editors, and the article is unable to pass GA as a result. Viriditas (talk) 09:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- Note also that the FA (and by extension GA) process has been roundly criticized by external evaluators; see e.g., here. In reality GA/FA status merely indicates that the article is properly formatted, adheres to Wikipedia's standards in terms of style and referencing, and the standard of English is reasonably good. Some people would rather spend their time on other things, like substantive content. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not a fan of the GA process because it's just one person's opinion, but the FA process is rigorous nowadays, and it's a myth that it's all about formatting. There is too much focus on formatting, in my view, but it's also about quality of content, neutrality, text-source integrity, quality of sources. And there's a regular team of reviewers so it's no longer a case of sufficient numbers who like the article or editor turning up to vote. I think it would be very difficult to get a poorly written, biased article through the current FA process. And I do agree with Cla that activist editors tend not to want fresh eyes looking too closely. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 15:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- The evidence is otherwise. Take an uncontroversial article like wind, for example. I was stunned to learn it was an FA because it was chock-full of basic factual errors from the second sentence onward. It's been improved since then but how did it ever get through FA in that condition? Some FAs are good, but if the reader must already have a thorough understanding of the topic to determine whether FA content is reliable or not, how useful is FA as an indicator of content quality? People often claim that the problematic FAs are old ones and that standards are higher now, but wind passed FA only in June of last year. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- Huh. Thanks for that, So no knowledgeable person peer-reviewed it? (Goes to wind). Looks like you did a batch of editing last November -- hopefully fixing the worst bloopers. Ah weel -- hazards of volunteer work. At least, being uncontroversial, your fixes should stay up ;-{ --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- The evidence is otherwise. Take an uncontroversial article like wind, for example. I was stunned to learn it was an FA because it was chock-full of basic factual errors from the second sentence onward. It's been improved since then but how did it ever get through FA in that condition? Some FAs are good, but if the reader must already have a thorough understanding of the topic to determine whether FA content is reliable or not, how useful is FA as an indicator of content quality? People often claim that the problematic FAs are old ones and that standards are higher now, but wind passed FA only in June of last year. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- I can't comment on Wind, because I know nothing about it. I know there have been articles that were promoted that perhaps ought not to have been, and I'm not saying the system is perfect, but it's improving year by year as the reviewers become more experienced. Every FA year (like WP in general) is more like a decade in terms of experience. But the point, Boris, is not that all FAs are ipso facto good articles; it is that activist editors tend not to want to expose their articles to the current FA process, and the more rigorous the process becomes, the more that's likely to be true. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed that activist editors likely will not want the publicity. But the essay argues the reverse: lack of interest in the GA/FA process is a sign of activism. That's a basic logical fallacy known as Affirming the Consequent (i.e., "since we know A implies B, then B must also imply A" where in this case A is activism and B is lack of interest or skepticism toward the GA/FA process). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'd have to a agree with Boris here. "Absence of evidence..." dah dah dah. A weak part of your essay, imo, might be better struck. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed that activist editors likely will not want the publicity. But the essay argues the reverse: lack of interest in the GA/FA process is a sign of activism. That's a basic logical fallacy known as Affirming the Consequent (i.e., "since we know A implies B, then B must also imply A" where in this case A is activism and B is lack of interest or skepticism toward the GA/FA process). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- I can't comment on Wind, because I know nothing about it. I know there have been articles that were promoted that perhaps ought not to have been, and I'm not saying the system is perfect, but it's improving year by year as the reviewers become more experienced. Every FA year (like WP in general) is more like a decade in terms of experience. But the point, Boris, is not that all FAs are ipso facto good articles; it is that activist editors tend not to want to expose their articles to the current FA process, and the more rigorous the process becomes, the more that's likely to be true. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- In its place, you might consider expanding the section on "hostility" to include baiting newbies. I know, since it happened to me a couple of times. Very disconcerting. You could also add (or reference) a bit about hostile Activists driving away editors with professional qualifications in the controversial topic. Oh, and check out Gretel, here.... <G>, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- On my low-res monitor I thought the cat was puking. The pic works either way, actually. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- I appreciate all the constructive criticism and suggestions and I'm going to try to incorporate it all into the essay over the next few days. Cla68 (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- Cla68...Your essay is way off. I really don't think you have a clue what its like to have to deal with fringe "science". You'd be surprised how many published 9/11 CT POV pushers I ran into when trying to keep their idiotic notions out of this website. Plus, some of these people have websites that run ads along with their hokie video docudramas...geez, you start googling 9/11 related stuff and you run into a gauntlet of misinformation and foolish youtube videos...it's enough to make one vomit, I assure you. I think most editors around recognize I am much more conservative than the average Wikipedian, and I truly do wish Connolley and his "cabal" were wrong about the information they cite, but sadly, I don't see any substantive evidence that refutes AGW. In a similar pattern that the 9/11 CTers would employ, using little innuendos to make mountains out of molehills, AGW deniers use the same tactics, taking tidbids of things and trying to lump them all together to try and show that AGW is bunk. I'll tell you what is bunk though..the way such things as Cap and Trade is set up...not only will it do little to alleviate AGW, it will raise energy costs for consumers while a few investors will get filthy rich...the CCX...(Chicago Climate Exchange)=Joyce Foundation=Generation Investment Management (Al Gore)=Goldman Sachs=carbon offsets=no reduction in AGW.--MONGO 21:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- MONGO, I agree with you about the importance of dealing with the 9/11 truthers and similar, but the problem is that guidelines and policies intended to deal with issues like that have been extended and extended to the point where any minority view risks being dubbed "fringe" or UNDUE, and excluded. I'm seeing it all over the project now. Christian editors want to call the idea that Jesus might not have existed (note: just the doubt about it) fringe and comparable to Holocaust denial. Science editors want to see articles by intelligent design proponents excluded as sources — in the article about intelligent design itself, because not peer-reviewed and therefore fringe. (When did we decide as a project that sources had to be peer-reviewed?) The BBC is not allowed as a source on statins. The New York Times excluded as a source on climate change. A book about the hockey stick controversy not allowed as a source — in the article about the hockey stick controversy.
- It has reached the point where I no longer want to be involved in this project, because it's wall-to-wall POV pushing, which always happened, but it happened because the policies were ignored. Now, the policies are being used to keep out entirely legitimate points of view, and new guidelines are being written so that each specialism is defining what it regards as a reliable source in its field, which minimizes the cross-fertilization of ideas and criticism. It's a crossroads for Wikipedia, without a word of exaggeration. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- Mongo, it sounds to me like the 9/11 conspiracy activists were easily identified because they tried to use self-published websites so it seems to have been a clear case of activism. Sometimes, however, it isn't so obvious unless you weigh the evidence as a whole. I've seen in several different topic areas, including some that might surprise you (I won't mention them here, but I may start a thread on WR, because I'm not trying to engage in dispute resolution with those editors via this essay), the behaviors I detail in the essay. As SV points out, the removal of reliably sourced information, including material sourced to independently published books and articles from major newspapers, is often a hallmark of editors who are trying to control the tone and message of a topic area and may be a sign of activism. The double standard of attacking BLP subjects of idealogical adversaries while protecting other BLPs from the same, may be a sign of activism. Biting newbies and being rude to other editors who try to make good faith changes to the articles, may be a sign of activism. If all three are occurring together, then you probably have an activism problem in your topic. Cla68 (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- BLP's are an area I avoid...that's just me...I have made few contributions about living people...so what's been going on with that arena is not something I am well aware of, though I have seen the evidence on the arbcom case. In dealing with 9/11 subjects, there were plenty of published sources that the "truthers" kept trying to pass off as reliable references...though none of them had been peer reviewed by the engineering community and/or specialists that had a good understanding of aviation and civil engineering. I think one of the problems with the entire AGW debate has been the overly alarmists efforts such as the docudrama An Inconvienent Truth, which I think has done a disservice to efforts to understand AGW...looking at that docudrama, the way the graphics are done, one would think that Florida is going to be submerged in 6 months or less...it is sensationalist claptrap. The other thing one has to wonder though is rationale...who stands to lose the most if we switch off greenhouse gas emissions? Who has the money to pay someone to edit AGW denial...who has the bigger pocketbook? If AGW were bunk and it was still being peddled as science, what profit would that bring? Maybe GE and GM, the largest patent holders on green technologies? You see where I am going here? I have more to add about the subject regarding the misuse in undue and other issues by tomorrow.--MONGO 23:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- Mongo, it sounds to me like the 9/11 conspiracy activists were easily identified because they tried to use self-published websites so it seems to have been a clear case of activism. Sometimes, however, it isn't so obvious unless you weigh the evidence as a whole. I've seen in several different topic areas, including some that might surprise you (I won't mention them here, but I may start a thread on WR, because I'm not trying to engage in dispute resolution with those editors via this essay), the behaviors I detail in the essay. As SV points out, the removal of reliably sourced information, including material sourced to independently published books and articles from major newspapers, is often a hallmark of editors who are trying to control the tone and message of a topic area and may be a sign of activism. The double standard of attacking BLP subjects of idealogical adversaries while protecting other BLPs from the same, may be a sign of activism. Biting newbies and being rude to other editors who try to make good faith changes to the articles, may be a sign of activism. If all three are occurring together, then you probably have an activism problem in your topic. Cla68 (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- It has reached the point where I no longer want to be involved in this project, because it's wall-to-wall POV pushing, which always happened, but it happened because the policies were ignored. Now, the policies are being used to keep out entirely legitimate points of view, and new guidelines are being written so that each specialism is defining what it regards as a reliable source in its field, which minimizes the cross-fertilization of ideas and criticism. It's a crossroads for Wikipedia, without a word of exaggeration. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- MONGO, the thing is that we're not supposed to add or remove things just because we don't like them or don't agree with them. Wikipedia articles should reflect what's out there. Readers should never feel a sense of jarring when they come here, a sense of "but what about this, or that? where's that point I saw argued in the New York Times? where is all the stuff about X that I keep reading about?" Our articles should reflect those published sources, then expand and explain. We can't say "oh well, it's whoever stands to lose the most who has managed to push this article into The Times, so we're just going to ignore it." SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- The entrenchment may have spilled over...in combating against nonsense, there may have been some instances where notable issues may be suppressed due to a little overzealousness in ensuring inroads aren't given to innuendo and unscientific opinion. NYTimes has this report here which is fromthis pdf...--MONGO 11:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- MONGO, the thing is that we're not supposed to add or remove things just because we don't like them or don't agree with them. Wikipedia articles should reflect what's out there. Readers should never feel a sense of jarring when they come here, a sense of "but what about this, or that? where's that point I saw argued in the New York Times? where is all the stuff about X that I keep reading about?" Our articles should reflect those published sources, then expand and explain. We can't say "oh well, it's whoever stands to lose the most who has managed to push this article into The Times, so we're just going to ignore it." SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:18, 30 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)
- Postmodernism is a valid form of art, but as for its role in the humanities and academia, it has largely been discredited, and rightly so as it is complete nonsense. Humanities, is in fact, being greatly influenced by the modern evolutionary synthesis, however the United States educational system greatly lags behind in this regard due to the enormous influence of Christian fundamentalists. So, if there is evidence that a postmodern philosophy or worldview is being promoted, it should be shown for what it is. Viriditas (talk) 01:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
-
For "Gotcha" editng
-
Sirius Admin
-
There must be some use for this...There must be some use for this...
-
The Blog Deleter
Deep enough! --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not clear about why there's such angst about this essay. I wrote an essay too. Big deal. It is an expression of your personal opinion. Is there some problem if it doesn't conform with Wiki policies to a T? My initial reaction upon reading it was that you took your own personal experiences in the Climate Change articles, during which you have edited in a fashion that has raised vigorous disagreement, and then carved this essay around it. But I can't find myself getting excited about your expressing your opinion. Am I missing something? ScottyBerg (talk) 01:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- This essay is based on four and a half years of editing Wikipedia and observing, during that time, how editors acted with many different topics. In my experience, the three behaviors listed in the essay were common in just about every topic area in which there appeared to be participation by blocs of agenda-driven editors. Cla68 (talk) 02:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, that isn't good enough to avoid confirmation bias. You may want to read scientific control as an informal suggestion for improvement, and review actual instances of "participation by blocs of agenda-driven editors", such as those found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GregJackP/Archive, when Minor4th and GregJackP were accused of being the same editors. Viriditas (talk) 02:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- To answer my own question, apparently people care about this essay because of the view that this essay undermines established policies, per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Essays#Acceptance_of_essays. Am I correct? As for confirmation bias, I agree but I think that is an understatement. ScottyBerg (talk) 02:50, 30 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)
- I appreciate all the feedback. I'm going to move the essay into main space now. Cla68 (talk) 10:11, 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)
- No. Not primary sources. From what I've seen activists will make it very obvious that they're pursuing an agenda, because they'll argue that non-self-published books and major newspapers and magazines can't be used in an article. I don't want to give any examples related to this essay, because I'm not trying to use it to pursue dispute resolution. But I know of many examples of what I'm talking about. Cla68 (talk) 22:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'll come at it the other way. I have tried to keep an eye on schizophrenia and major depressive disorder as two examples - the sheer size of each means we only use secondarily sourced material - anything else just doesn't cut it notability-wise WRT what we already have in the articles. We've created subpages on cause and treatment so issues can be explored further, but watching both articles can be taxing as alot of people with investment in just about any aspects feel their segment of information is critical to the article. These often involve primary sources. I try not to delete information, but transfer it to a more appropriate location (subarticle etc.) Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well, then you're proving my point about how to tell the difference between an activist and a good faith editor trying to follow NPOV. You are making an effort to include the essence of the information in some form, in some way. You're attempting to compromise, collaborate, and cooperate with the other editors, as opposed to what activists do. As a hypothetical example, I might add a paragraph to an article sourced to the New York Times and some book published by an independent publisher. If the paragraph gives a contrary view to the prevailing opinion in the article, an activists will usually just revert the paragraph out of hand without starting a talk page discussion on it. If I start a talk page discussion, the activist will likely start in with "The New York Times can't be used as a source in this topic" or "The person who wrote that book is a nutcase/non-expert/minor advocate/etc and can't be trusted", while at the same time insinuating that I'm a moron, not familiar enough with the page history, and that I might be editing on behalf of some banned editor. There is rarely a fine line, in my experience, between the behavior of activists and good faith editors trying to follow NPOV. Cla68 (talk) 23:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'll come at it the other way. I have tried to keep an eye on schizophrenia and major depressive disorder as two examples - the sheer size of each means we only use secondarily sourced material - anything else just doesn't cut it notability-wise WRT what we already have in the articles. We've created subpages on cause and treatment so issues can be explored further, but watching both articles can be taxing as alot of people with investment in just about any aspects feel their segment of information is critical to the article. These often involve primary sources. I try not to delete information, but transfer it to a more appropriate location (subarticle etc.) Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- As a very minor point, your illustration File:Battle strike 1934.jpg is too small for my aging eyes to make sense of in the draft. Needs a bigger thumb, a witty caption, or both. --Pete Tillman (talk) 21:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
RfC: Partisan sources
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)
Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision
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)
- Could you link to the vote in question? I don't understand what you're referring to. Cla68 (talk) 20:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Milhist A-class and Peer Reviews Jul-Dec 2009
Military history reviewers' award | ||
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your good work helping with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews during the period July-December 2009, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste |
Milhist A-Class and Peer reviews Jan-Jun 2010
Military history reviewers' award | ||
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your good work helping with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews for the period Jan-Jun 2010, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. Ian Rose (talk) 09:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste |
Your userpage is in a category
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)
Okay then....
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)
- Where is the RS Noticeboard thread on it? I looked and can't find it. Cla68 (talk) 20:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- there. I can't believe the amount of text on this one point. I am also unaware if this is a 0RR on 1RR on article probation pages or what. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- The two uninvolved editors at the noticeboard appear to be saying that her opinion can't be used at all, neither her original blog post or her follow-up comment. Cla68 (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Seems like a bit of a reductionist/nuclear option to me. I do think that none is better than one, but would like to see warts'n'all two. What do you think? Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- I usually try to follow what the regulars at the noticeboards say, so in this case I would vote for the "none" option, which I believe SA just did by removing all mention of it. Cla68 (talk) 23:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Cla -- FYI -- I noticed you were very involved in editing this article when it was GA nominated. I would like to get this article to GAR, and I have requested peer review. Since you are back to editing, your help would be appreciated in getting this article up to GA standards. By the way, I don't think that is what the uninvolved editors on the noticeboard were saying -- seems to me they were only commenting on the SPS caveat, but I could be wrong. Minor4th 00:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- OK. I think I checked Infotrac and ProQuest NewsStand and couldn't find any more information for the article. I'll check again and will also try to check Lexis/Nexis. Cla68 (talk) 00:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Cla -- FYI -- I noticed you were very involved in editing this article when it was GA nominated. I would like to get this article to GAR, and I have requested peer review. Since you are back to editing, your help would be appreciated in getting this article up to GA standards. By the way, I don't think that is what the uninvolved editors on the noticeboard were saying -- seems to me they were only commenting on the SPS caveat, but I could be wrong. Minor4th 00:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- I usually try to follow what the regulars at the noticeboards say, so in this case I would vote for the "none" option, which I believe SA just did by removing all mention of it. Cla68 (talk) 23:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Seems like a bit of a reductionist/nuclear option to me. I do think that none is better than one, but would like to see warts'n'all two. What do you think? Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- The two uninvolved editors at the noticeboard appear to be saying that her opinion can't be used at all, neither her original blog post or her follow-up comment. Cla68 (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- there. I can't believe the amount of text on this one point. I am also unaware if this is a 0RR on 1RR on article probation pages or what. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:54, 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. Minor4th 00:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- If a writer later corrects or caveats a statement they made, then it has to be noted. The problem is that her follow up was as a comment. So, in my opinion, it's either all or none for that information. Cla68 (talk) 00:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- I've watched this debate, but I haven't gotten involved because I've withdrawing from editing in this topic area. But my opinion is that the retraction should probably nullify the original statement, and none of it should be used. ATren (talk) 01:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- That was my original thought too -- remove the whole thing, and that is the state of the article last I checked. However, looking at the issue more closely, her follow up Twitter post was not a retraction. She had apparently been receiving a deluge of angry mail, and she expressed regret generally -- I took it as regret that she had been swarmed by advocates, and perhaps regret that readers took her recommendation as an endorsement of the science content of the blog, a subject she said she was unfamiliar with. She did not retract her recommendation of the blog though and continue to remark about its positive features. She has some editorial control over that column at the NYT, and can retract or clarify the comment but hasn't. I don't want to come off sounding like an activist here, which is why I did not restore the content after SA removed it -- but this is the most notable review of the blog, and it's quite something to get a mention in the NYT. The article just doesn't seem complete without that in there -- on the other hand, it does seem incomplete to include the NYT bit without any sort of qualification. The thought of sourcing an opinion about the blog to a Twitter feed just makes my skin crawl. Further comments? Minor4th 01:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- I've watched this debate, but I haven't gotten involved because I've withdrawing from editing in this topic area. But my opinion is that the retraction should probably nullify the original statement, and none of it should be used. ATren (talk) 01:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Now that I think about it, if I'm "writing for the enemy" -- I have to admit that a similar issue came up on Monckton whereby there were reliable sources taking Monckton to task about his "claim" to be part of the House of Lords, and he answered in rebuttal, but various editors (namely ChrisO) would not allow the explanation in the article because it was self published. That really irritated me and seemed unfair to Monckton to portray him as a lunatic liar when he gave a reasonable explanation that was excluded from the article. It's a bit different because that was a very clear BLP issue that ended up making the article subject look stupid --- more egregious than the NYT review of a blog, but the point remains, including the NYT bit by itself does not present the entire picture. Y'all are right. Minor4th 01:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Basic courtesy
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)
- How about allowing a merge discussion to proceed without trying to disappear the article so quickly? Cla68 (talk) 13:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIV (August 2010)
|
|
A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles, including a new featured sound |
Our newest A-class medal recipients and this August's top contestants |
|
To change your delivery options for this newsletter please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC) |
Spelling
Please stop being silly. I've fixed up your spelling for you [75]. If you can't cope with that, don't comment there. Thanks William M. Connolley (talk) 11:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Should I take that as a "no" that you won't be helping me expand the Climate Audit article? Cla68 (talk) 12:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thought certain editors were not meant to edit other peoples comments mark nutley (talk) 12:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- I really don't know what the current status of that sanction is. Anyway, that edit doesn't really bother me. Cla68 (talk) 12:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ah good. Meanwhile, certain other editors are supposed to at least pretend to withdrawn from Cl Ch William M. Connolley (talk) 12:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- I really don't know what the current status of that sanction is. Anyway, that edit doesn't really bother me. Cla68 (talk) 12:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thought certain editors were not meant to edit other peoples comments mark nutley (talk) 12:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Climate Audit
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)
- Because of its central involvement in Climategate, there is actually quite a bit out there on Climate Audit. I've started listing sources here. I'm listing sources there not only for the Climate Audit article, but also for Hockey stick controversy, RealClimate, Soon and Baliunas controversy, etc because those articles are all directly related to each other. Cla68 (talk) 04:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- I could also help a bit, although my WP volunteer time right now is very limited. I do know CA and the controversy well, and have contributed to most of the articles you (Cla) mentioned. I've +/- stopped doing hot-controvery CC stuff -- too stressful. Best wishes, Pete Tillman (talk) 05:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- Any help you wish to give with the article would be greatly appreciated. I find the "blog battles" aspect of the CC topic (RealClimate, CA, WUWT, DeSmogBlog) and how some of it has been carried over into Wikipedia, with followers (or participants/contributors) of the different blogs trying to claim their use as reliable sources in CC articles, very interesting. DeSmogBlog and WUWT I think are about as good as we get them with the sources available right now. After CA I'd really like to get a complete article done on RealClimate. Cla68 (talk) 05:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- I could also help a bit, although my WP volunteer time right now is very limited. I do know CA and the controversy well, and have contributed to most of the articles you (Cla) mentioned. I've +/- stopped doing hot-controvery CC stuff -- too stressful. Best wishes, Pete Tillman (talk) 05:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- Um. I'd forgotten that CA & McI had been split into two articles again. I'm more of a "lumper" but agnostic in this case. This does cool my enthusiasm to spend time on this -- I may do bit, and will follow you fellows' work, but I'm way over-committed right now, sigh. And up too late again.... Pete Tillman (talk) 06:00, 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)
- 4chan and The Million Dollar Homepage are featured articles. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- DeSmogBlog, Operation Clambake, Slashdot and Whedonesque.com are good articles. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Trolling
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)
- WMC, in contrast to your attitude about your talk page, you are free and welcome to post on my page whenever you desire. I have never "banned" anyone from my talk page. I archive all the threads on an archive page where others can peruse them if they desire. I don't delete comments that I don't like. I believe the only edits I've ever removed were bot notices. Cla68 (talk) 07:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
In case you didn't see it
Just in case you didn't see it: [76]. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Barnstar of Integrity
The Barnstar of Integrity | ||
For your tireless support on the sourcing of Climate change alarmism and the subsequent ANI. GregJackP Boomer! 18:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC) |
more photos
Hey, Cla68, Thanks for all of your help so far with finding photographs of the Kongo battlecruisers for use in the articles; it's been a massive help. I'm rewriting Kongo as we speak, and I'm in need of high-quality photos of her from all periods of her career. Would you happen to have any? I promise you this will be the last time I ask for photos of the Kongos (seeing as this is the last of the five articles to be rewritten). Cam (Chat)(Prof) 15:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Also,
The Photographer's Barnstar | ||
For all of your staggeringly valuable assistance with finding photos of the Kongo class battlecruisers during the rewrites of the various article associated with the topic. Your help is hugely appreciated! Cam (Chat)(Prof) 15:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC) |
The Milhist election has started!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.
With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team, Roger Davies talk 21:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
CC
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. --JN466 23:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Happy Cla68's Day!
User:Cla68 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Use of sources
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)
Japanese carriers
I know that you've been busy of late, but I'd just like to remind you that Kaga and Hosho are ready for you to work on whenever you are to do so.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
If it helps any..
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:
- A specially-tailored version of discretionary sanctions is authorized for the entire topic area of climate change. Enforcement requests are to be submitted to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, which is to replace Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement.
- Experienced administrators, and especially checkusers, are requested to closely monitor new accounts that edit inappropriately in the topic area.
- Within seven days of this remedy passing, all parties must either delete evidence sub-pages or request deletion of them.
- The following editors are banned from the topic area of climate change, and may not appeal this ban until at least six months after the closure of this case (and no more often than every three months thereafter);
- The following users have accepted binding voluntary topic bans;
- The following administrators are explicitly restricted from applying discretionary sanctions as authorized in this case, as is any other administrator fitting the description of an involved administrator;
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,
Dougweller (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- ^ Mike Wallace, 60 Minutes, The Investigation into the Explosion Aboard the USS IOWA (Oct. 1991).
- ^ Mike Wallace, 60 Minutes, The Investigation into the Explosion Aboard the USS IOWA (Oct. 1991).
- ^ Mike Wallace, 60 Minutes II, Classic: The Trashing of Clayton Hartwig; U.S. Navy Report on USS IOWA Explosion 10 Years Ago Initially Blamed Clayton Hartwig; Evidence Shows Inexperience of Crew to Blame (Apr. 14, 1999).
- ^ Western Maryland news in brief, Associated Press State & Local Wire (Nov. 8, 2002).
- ^ David Dishneau, TV Movie Explores USS Iowa Blast, Associate Press Online (March 13, 2001).
- ^ David Dishneau, TV Movie Explores USS Iowa Blast, Associate Press Online (March 13, 2001).
- ^ Mike Wallace, 60 Minutes, The Investigation into the Explosion Aboard the USS IOWA (Oct. 1991).
- ^ Ann Hodges, Competing with Caan; Actor has two movies going head-to-head on different networks, Houston Chronicle (March 16, 2001).
- ^ Appeals court rules publisher can be sued in South Carolina, Associated Press State & Local Wire (Apr. 6, 2004).
- ^ Terry Joyce, 4 sue over depiction in book about Iowa blast; Suit filed in Charleston County claims ‘A Glimpse of Hell” is libelous, The Post and Courier (Charleston, SC)(March 2, 2001).
- ^ Terry Joyce, 4 sue over depiction in book about Iowa blast; Suit filed in Charleston County claims ‘A Glimpse of Hell” is libelous, The Post and Courier (Charleston, SC)(March 2, 2001).
- ^ Mike Wallace, 60 Minutes II, Classic: The Trashing of Clayton Hartwig; U.S. Navy Report on USS IOWA Ex-plosion 10 Years Ago Initially Blamed Clayton Hartwig; Evidence Shows Inexperience of Crew to Blame (Apr. 14, 1999).
- ^ David Dishneau, TV Movie Explores USS Iowa Blast, Associate Press Online (March 13, 2001).
- ^ Mike Wallace, 60 Minutes, The Investigation into the Explosion Aboard the USS IOWA (Oct. 1991).
- ^ ’Reverse engineering’ is a metaphor for an administrative investigative practice of deciding, often on gut instinct, what a particular finding ought to be and then proceeding with the collect and presentation of facts in a manner which leads to that particular finding.