Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:17, 2 February 2011

24 December 2024
News and notes: Responsibilities and liabilities as a "Very Large Online Platform" Op-ed: Beeblebrox on Wikipediocracy, the Committee, and everything Opinion: Graham87 on being the first-ever administrator recall subject In the media: Delhi High Court considers Caravan and Ken for evaluating the ANI vs. WMF case From the archives: Where to draw the line in reporting? Recent research: "Misplaced Pages editors are quite prosocial", but those motivated by "social image" may put quantity over quality Humour: Backlash over Santa Claus' Misplaced Pages article intensifies Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols Traffic report: Was a long and dark December
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Archives

/Military history project dialogues /Non-military history project dialogues

User:Cla68/Article draft work page

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)

That's very helpful thankyou. Cla68 (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Your userpage is in a category

 Your userpage User:Cla68/Evidence/Sandbox has a category, and so appears in Category:Misplaced Pages 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: ]. Other categories might be involved too. -DePiep (talk) 01:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I blanked it. Cla68 (talk) 01:40, 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)

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)

• 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)

Spelling

Please stop being silly. I've fixed up your spelling for you . 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)

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 Misplaced Pages Reliable Sources Search engine which allows me to filter through web sites which don't meet Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

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: . Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 9 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 15:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Also,

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 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, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Cla68's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Cla68! Peace, Rlevse 00:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC) 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)

Time to archive a bunch of your talk page ;-) — 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)

Hey, I just did some major surgery on the design section of Hosho. See how it reads for you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks good! Cla68 (talk) 12:03, 18 November 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)

Misplaced Pages: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 specially-tailored version of discretionary sanctions is authorized for the entire topic area of climate change. Enforcement requests are to be submitted to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, which is to replace Misplaced Pages: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);

• William M. Connolley
• Polargeo
• Thegoodlocust
• Marknutley
• ChrisO
• Minor4th
• ATren
• Hipocrite
• Cla68
• GregJackP
• A Quest For Knowledge
• Verbal
• ZuluPapa5
• JohnWBarber
• FellGleaming

• The following users have accepted binding voluntary topic bans;
  • Scjessey
  • KimDabelsteinPetersen
• 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;
  • Stephan Schulz
  • Lar

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,
Dougweller (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban and wikibreak

I was very sorry to see your name on this list. My interactions with you have always been pleasant, and I saw no behavior that would justify such an action.

Oh, well. It looks like your interests are broad enough that you can still contribute to Misplaced Pages, and I hope you do. We'll miss your constructive editing in climate change.

Best wishes, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. The primary reason for me getting involved with the topic was to try to stop the abuses that were going on within it. As the arbcom decision shows, the experience was very bruising. Time will tell whether I accomplished what I set out to do. Nevertheless, I enjoyed working with you on those articles and wish you the best in your continued efforts to improve and expand the topic's information.

By the way, due to real life issues with the demands that Misplaced Pages editing was placing on my time, I've had to stop editing. I have some images that I need to get uploaded as requested by some editors in some threads above. I hope to get those uploaded slowly but surely, but I think my time editing Misplaced Pages will be dramatically less for the indefinite future. Cla68 (talk) 08:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Cla68, I second Pete's note here. I have never seen you put a word out of place ever. I'd like to hope that this great 'ArbCom climate change resolution' makes a difference but it's pretty hard to think it will seeing some of the good names on this list. Anyhow, do what I've been doing for the last six months. Have a life! Alex Harvey (talk) 12:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Alex. Cla68 (talk) 01:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LV (September 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LV (September 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FClimate_change

This is formal notification because you are one of the affected parties. --TS 00:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Continued involvement

In a comment at the clarification request, you wrote:

• TenofAllTrades, me and the others you mention were invited here by the filing party, Tony Sidaway.

I do acknowledge that you were notified of the request, as the guidance of the arbitrators on the topic affects expectations of your future conduct and, should you ever choose to return to the topic, the kind of error you need to avoid. I did not intend that you should break your topic ban, as you did in making an edit there attacking other topic-banned editors:

• It seems that much, if not all of WMC's entire Internet presence is centered on being an advocate battling to influence the content of Misplaced Pages's CC articles (also check the comments to that post and WMC's responses to them). It's up to you guys on how to proceed from here, I offer no suggestions.

You also made comments at the Marknutley enforcement request, to which you cannot claim to have been "invited", and again you used the opportunity to exacerbate interpersonal disputes related to climate change. .

In recent days you have also continued to edit your essay Misplaced Pages:Activist which is worrying because it appears to me at least to be closely related to the tenor of your editing in the climate change topic, and your description of activist psychology seems to be a sly dig at William Connolley. But perhaps others less involved in the climate change topic would judge that essay more kindly.

I'm asking you not to respond to this. I'm asking you please, because the topic ban is there for a purpose and I know you value Misplaced Pages as highly as I do, to take the Arbitration Committee's directions to heart and go and find something else to do. --TS 09:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Tony, I resent your bad faith efforts to try to draw me back into the CC dispute so you can use it to criticize me. It's very transparent what you're doing, and it reflects very poorly on you. No one has caused more unnecessary drama since the CC case closed than you. I really hope that you'll go try and expand an article and at least get one passed by Good Article, which I don't believe you've ever done, and leave the CC article policing to administrators. If you need any copyediting help or any other assistance with a non-CC article, feel free to ask me. I'll crosspost this to your user talk page to make sure you get it. Cla68 (talk) 10:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I've taken this to WP:AE. This is your formal notification. . --TS 11:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Tony, I think it will be helpful for all if you'll accept that you have, as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned, no authority over me, any other editor, or over any topic area. Again, if you'll make an effort to expand and enlarge an article outside of the CC topic area, I'll be glad to help you out. Just let me know which article you choose. Cla68 (talk) 22:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

fuso class

Cla68, First off, I am sorry to hear about everything that's gone on with the recent CC case at ArbCom. In my experience, your conduct as an editor of the 'Pedia has been phenomenal, and your advice and assistance on Japanese Navy articles of an incalculable value. Secondly, I've started rewriting the article for Fuso class battleship and find myself in dire need of images of the class (I think there's a grand total of two or three on all of Commons). Would you happen to have any from your books that you could upload to commons? Thanks again! Cam 19:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll try to get whatever images I have uploaded this weekend. There's a typhoon approaching Tokyo, so it should be keeping me indoors most of Saturday and perhaps Sunday. Cla68 (talk) 22:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

By the way, do you have Anthony Tully's book, The Battle of Surigao Strait? If not, I'll help out with that part of the article. Cla68 (talk) 14:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't have that particular book. I've managed to order Breyer (battleships & battlecruisers 1905-1970), Garzke (axis & neutral bbs in wwii), and Skulski (the battleship fuso) via interlibrary loan, but I think The Battle of Surigao Strait would probably come very much in handy. Thanks in advance! Cam 16:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

And best of luck dealing w/ the typhoon. that can't be fun. Cam 16:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Garzke won't be much help, he only deals with the Yamatos on. :/ Breyer is pretty brief, but he always seems to have nuggets of information no one else has. Not exactly sure why that is. Ed  17:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The typhoon didn't end up being very severe. I have a ton of photos of both battleships. The usual delay is getting my wife to translate the photo captions for me before I can scan and upload them. I'm working on it. Cla68 (talk) 00:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, Fusō is done. Yamashiro next. Cla68 (talk) 10:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Cla, use commons:Template:PD-Japan-oldphoto for the images -- "50 years after the creator's death" doesn't work when you don't know the creator :-) Ed  14:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Actually, the creator of those photos is implicitely known. The photographs were owned by the Imperial Japanese Navy which is why they're public domain. But, I understand us knowing that and convincing the FA reviewers of that are two different things. Cla68 (talk) 22:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, but what's awesome is that oldphoto works for any photo taken before '46, regardless of creator. :) Ed  00:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Yamashiro is done. Cla68 (talk) 10:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Reply to this comment

Hi Cla68,

While your comment may apply to certain editors, in case of me, the situaton is actually the opposite. There haven't been any issues with me editing any articles here. In 2008, when I had more time for Misplaced Pages than I have now, I spend some time rewriting thermodynamics articles. When some months ago another editor made some changes, bringing in a bit more the perspective from chemical engineering (I wrote it more from the theoretical physics perspective), I thought that was a good thing for Misplaced Pages, despite some objections to some issues. These articles should be authored by the Misplaced Pages community, not by "Count Iblis" or any other single editor.

The reason I got in trouble a bit, is due to the factionalist mentality that exists here in some areas to some extent. I defended Brews Ohare despite arguing against him on the speed of light issue and in the ArbCom case about this. Wrong on one issue and having some issues with working together with others, shouldn't automaticaly imply "hopeless case, let's boot him out of Misplaced Pages". But with this stance I took after the ArbCom case, I broke with the faction and as a result, I got branded as being part of the "wrong faction".

What also plays a role here is that the editing issues regarding Brews are not as well visible to outsiders compared to e.g the Climate Change case. What then happens is that I when I got labeled to be "Brews' advocate", that label then stuck, despite being nonsense based on actually editing articles. ArbCom even acted on this by passing an advocacy resstriction (which has now expired).

To see just how ridiculous this is, just imagine that in 6 months from now, William would actually defend you and argue that you should be allowed back to edit CC articles (despite disagreements related to the topic). But then William gets attacked for breaking with his faction, disputes start within his faction, and then ArbCom decides to sanction William for provoking a battlefield atmosphere in his faction.

This is difficult to imagine, but if you were one of just a few sceptical editors here, you can perhaps see how something like this could happen. Count Iblis (talk) 16:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments, but I'm afraid it would be difficult for me to respond without being accused of betraying the spirit of my topic ban. I invite you to join the off-wiki forum and give your thoughts in that thread on how the science topics and the editors who edit them are treated in Misplaced Pages. Cla68 (talk) 06:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Climate change amendment: notification of three motions posted

Following a request for amendment to the Climate change case, three motions have been posted regarding the scope of topic bans, the appeal of topic bans, and a proposal to unblock two editors.

For and on behalf of the Arbitration Committee --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Misplaced Pages:Activist

Misplaced Pages:Activist, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Activist and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Misplaced Pages:Activist during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Climate change case amendment

By motion, the Arbitration Committee has ammended remedies 3.1 and 3.2.1 of the Climate change case to read as follows:

• 3.1) Editors topic-banned by the Committee under this remedy are prohibited from (i) editing articles about Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (ii) editing biographies of living people associated with Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (iii) participating in any process broadly construed on Misplaced Pages particularly affecting these articles; and (iv) initiating or participating in any discussion substantially relating to these articles anywhere on Misplaced Pages, even if the discussion also involves another issue or issues.
• 3.2.1) Editors topic banned under this decision may apply to the Committee to have the topic ban lifted or modified after demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Misplaced Pages and their ability to work constructively with other editors. Applications will be considered no earlier than six months after the close of this case, and additional reviews will be done, unless the Committee directs otherwise in individual instances, no more frequently than every three months thereafter.

— Coren , for the Committee, 21:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

One of the joys of being involved in the Climate Change ArbCom case: Endless Requests for clarification. Here's another.

Sorry to bother you. Here's the request for clarification. Your ability to discuss the case would be affected. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 05:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

A favor?

Hey,

I was considering getting a shakujō - have you ever seen any for sale and would you have a rough idea how much one would cost? TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Most Buddhist temples and sects in Japan sell stuff like that, sometimes over the Internet, but it appears the shakujō isn't a common religious item. Because of its size, it may be very expensive to get shipped. I'll look into it. Cla68 (talk) 23:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking, don't kill yourself over it though, as you say, the shipping might make the price rather unreasonable. I may have to resort to more American methods of smiting the minor devils that plague me. I saw an extremely nice looking one on ebay, but they were asking for 50 grand, which is slightly more than what I'd want to spend on a nice walking stick/conversation starter. Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Fifty grand? I could probably ask some local craftsmen monks to make one from scratch for a fifth of that price. Looks like I'm in the wrong line of work. Cla68 (talk) 01:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, if I'm going to get one made from scratch then I'll get one with 12 rings and hope that in impersonating the Buddha I'll be able to recoup my investment. I found another nice looking one here, but neither the price nor the website are to my liking. If you are curious then here is a link to the 50k one. And on a lighter note, a one-armed Buddhist monk performing a kata with a shakujo. I'm beginning to think that it may be too expensive to purchase a shakujo and I may have to wait until I fulfill my dream of owning a mall that has an on-site Buddhist monastery with imported Shaolin monks for grounds-keeping and security duties. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

That shakujo in the first link doesn't appear to have a full-length staff, which may be why that one only costs $1,000. I'm still trying to get a native Japanese speaker to search some other Buddhist merchandise sites to see what's out there. Cla68 (talk) 13:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I found some more links which I will post on your userpage. Cla68 (talk) 22:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for World War II Allied names for Japanese aircraft

On 16 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article World War II Allied names for Japanese aircraft, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that during World War II, when a new model of the Mitsubishi 'Zero' received its American code name, the prominent general it was named after wasn't very amused? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem! - The Bushranger _{Return fire} 00:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: Editors for the newsletter, GAN backlog reduction drive Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene sums up our "Five years of military history"

Ariel

This wording did not have consensus.Cptnono (talk) 00:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

RfC Senkaku Islands

In this RfC context, please consider an overview here? --Tenmei (talk) 19:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Featured article repair

It's a shame that Attack on Pearl Harbor still needs repair. What do you think? Jehochman 18:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree. It's next on my list after me and Sturmvogel finish Akagi. I just ordered some books on it yesterday, and they may take a few weeks to arrive. I'll let you know when I get started on it. Cla68 (talk) 22:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors, "Military Historian of the Year", New Incubator, Black Project Report Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: bahamut guides us through "Nominating military biographies for deletion"

Congratulations!

		The Military history A-Class medal
		For prolific work on Fred Moosally, Battle of the Coral Sea and Japanese aircraft carrier Hōshō, promoted to A-Class between January 2009 and December 2010, by order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject you are hereby awarded the A-Class medal. Congratulations! AustralianRupert (talk) 11:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow, you have a cool user page.

What a bunch of articles you have done. I just came to read the FA article. My old man was in WW2 and even became a bit of a Nippophile (is that a word) after the war. He actually transhipped the bombs from the Indy to Tinian (or was it Saipan, can never keep those two straight). And he was supposed to do some heroistic thing in Korea going under a bridge on the Yalu river counting trucks for intel, but it was called off. Still earned a designation from the NK as a war criminal (long, funny story). And he did something secret later on when his ship dropped out of moverep in the 50s or 60s, but he would never tell me what and then he died. Anyhow...can't think of anything that special, but if you did an article related to it would be cool. Oh...and I wrestled in high school. What a sport. Nothing like spending the winter wrestling to give some confidence as a young small male!TCO (talk) 01:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

next

Akagi is pretty much ready for your loving attentions. I'll probably put some effort into Ryujo while you're working on Akagi, although the sources are a lot scantier than on the other carriers. I didn't photocopy the portions of Sunburst on the carriers, but I think Dank might be able to add anything I've missed from Peattie. Sources are also scanty on the Soryu and Zuikaku-class carriers. Do think that we should work on the class articles first or the individual ship articles? I'm looking pretty far ahead in our long-term project, but your thoughts would be welcome regardless.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm about ready to get started on Akagi. After that, I'm planning on getting occupied with Attack on Pearl Harbor and related articles. That article (Pearl Harbor) will probably take me about six months to get ready for FAR. In my opinion, it's better to get the individual ship articles to FA before the class article, because you can copy paragraphs from the ship articles to the class article (parts to the whole). I need to get up and run in the morning. Cla68 (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Help needed with a poor quality article

Cla68, could you take a look at the last few sections at Talk:United States and state terrorism and maybe recommend sources and examples of how to fix up that article? Jehochman 21:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll check it out, but I don't think I know any more about that topic area than the next guy. Cla68 (talk) 23:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I left a comment. The problem is that I just don't have time to get involved and help fix that article. This is an example of where a Citizendium-type editing model would work better, keeping an article like this in "development space" until it's ready for publication. Cla68 (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Hello, Cla68! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Misplaced Pages, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

Camp Chapman attack

Hi Cla68,

I've just seen that you have added a reference to Camp Chapman attack. In autumn 2010, the CIA has concluded an investigation, and has communicated some of the findings. I would very much like to add this to the article, but I have limited time right now. The article is a Military history A-Class article right now, and I think it could be nominated for Good article status.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but you know A-class is considered to be a higher level than Good Article? I think if a little more details from the CIA report are included, and some information on subsequent, related events is added, then the article could be nominated for FA. Cla68 (talk) 01:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know much about the details of the article classification systems. One problem with nominating the article for FA status would probably be the scarcity of available information on the event, and the propensity of internet-based sources that support potentially controversial content to disappear from public sight without notice.  Cs32en Talk to me  02:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Dead links are ok if the source is adequately cited (author, publication, publisher, date of publication, date retrieved). I think the article covers the topic well, but I'll give it a harder look when I have a chance. Cla68 (talk) 04:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Hosho FAC

You might want to look over the comments on the Hosho FAC and on the article talk page, particularly those by Cryptic. He wants to move the CV silhouttes from the Notes section and has some other stuff that you might want to consider.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing. Cla68 (talk) 07:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:ACTIVIST

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Thank you for starting WP:ACTIVIST. It outlines a problem area that wasn't covered before. Novus Orator 04:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Question

I saw you comment on Binksternet , and I was wondering what "Iran-related articles" are you talking about? Could you post some examples of your edits here? I frequently edit this topical area, and I don't recall ever encountering you. Kurdo777 (talk) 09:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It has been awhile, so I'll have to look around to see which articles it was. A couple of them were related to the Israel/Palestine conflict in which I added information on Iran's involvement in supplying arms to the Palestinian militants. Other edits were to articles on Iranian military weapons and operations. Cla68 (talk) 09:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you could provide some evidence, like diff links. Are you sure that the editors who reverted you were Iranian? Maybe you just made a wrong assumption. I believe you're generalizing a bit. Most Iranian editors I encounter around here , neither care about, nor have any involvement on topics dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Kurdo777 (talk) 09:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I never said that the editors who reverted me were Iranian. Cla68 (talk) 09:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Disagree with me, but do not call me a vandal.

It is a personal attack.

Continuing down this path will lead to unpleasant results.

Read WP:VANDAL for more on the subject.

Until you decide to apologize for that remark and edit summary, do not edit my user talkpage.

jps (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I would have called this edit vandalism had I seen it show up on my watchlist done by an IP editor or a new redlink editor. Why did you write "piss-poor" as a judgment offered up in a neutral encyclopedia? I defend the term "vandalize" as used by Cla68 to describe that "piss-poor" addition to a doomed FAQ page. Binksternet (talk) 04:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

An interesting commentary, but confusing considering that it is not being done in article-space. Calling a source "piss-poor" is something that might be very useful in a neutral encyclopedia. For example, the Urantia Book is a piss-poor source with regards to historical accuracy. See what I mean? WP:VANDAL defines vandalism a LOT more tightly than just strong language. The edit also has to be content-free. I've gotten in trouble in the past for calling people who are making good faith edits "vandals" when they weren't vandals, so I know what I'm talking about here. jps (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, but Cla68 used the verb "vandalize" to describe your one action, not the noun "vandal" to describe you. Binksternet (talk) 14:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

JPS arb enforcement

re: "he ordered me not to edit his page" . not a big issue, but in the future don't let pissy demands like that stop you from fulfilling administrative requirements. Go ahead and post the notice; he's within his rights to delete it immediately if he doesn't want you on his talk page, but you will have observed due diligence in the matter. that will save you the kind of nitpicky wikilawyering (nitwikilawyering?) that you're already getting. --Ludwigs2 06:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Targeting Yamamoto

If you choose to focus some energy on the Operation Vengeance article, let me know. One thing it needs is a map of the flight plan, another is a better reading flow, less bouncing around. Binksternet (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It is on my to do list and I have all the books that I need for it. I'm not sure when I'll be able to get to it, however. Hoepfully soon. Cla68 (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

There's no time limit, of course! It took me this long to notice you were living in Japan, a fact which gives me some hope that you'll have access to more sources than I do in California, me speaking only American English with a kitchen-table smattering of other Romance languages. I imagine that you might have a better understanding of Warrant Officer Kenji Yanagiya's version of events, an invaluable objectivity.

Congratulations on the FT Guadalcanal Campaign getting the decennial spot at Main page! Great work—fantastic, really. Binksternet (talk) 00:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. By the way, I took a picture of Yamamoto's grave in Tokyo a few weeks ago and will try to get it uploaded soon. Cla68 (talk) 09:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Guadalcanal FT on main page

Hey Cla, as part of Misplaced Pages's 10th anniversary celebrations, your Guadalcanal FT is going to be on the main page. See Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/January 15, 2011. :-) Congratulations! Ed  23:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010

Your military history newsletter – Volume LVIII, December 2010 From the editors • "Military Historian of the Year" • Discussions • The month's new featured and A-class content • Review awards Contest results • A-class medal recipients • bahamut teaches us proper usage of "Jargon and acronyms" To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for clarification

I've submitted a request for clarification concerning your recent edits to Misplaced Pages talk:Activist. See here. --TS 21:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Theistic science theories

Misplaced Pages Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors

Hi! Since you've been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, I wanted to let you know about the Misplaced Pages Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Misplaced Pages in their classes.

If that sounds like you and you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors during the current term, which started in January and goes through early May. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

SPI

Both Jprw and the dynamic IP are editing on the same articles, Roger Scruton and Right-wing politics. Both articles have been semi-protected because of sockpuppetry by the IP, and several of the IP addresses have been blocked for sockpuppetry. There is some similarity between the writing style of Jprw and the IP.

Jprw has chosen to post comments by the blocked IP on talk pages and to restore deleted comments by the IP, which is meatpuppetry. He also has a history of edit-warring.

That evidence is sufficient to create suspicion and the best way to resolve the suspicion is through SPI. The administrators at SPI have experience in identifying sockpuppets and checkuser. It would be wrong however to make accusations outside SPI. If my suspicions are incorrect however it sould be fairly simple for Jprw to end this.

TFD (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The SPI is based on weak evidence and doesn't look to me like it will go anywhere, in spite of you trying to draw in more admins by posting about it at ANI. Cla68 (talk) 02:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

When a page is protected because of sockpuppetry by blocked editors, would you post the comments of those editors in order to assist them in evading the block? TFD (talk) 03:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

You're talking about an article talk page, right? I probably wouldn't restore them, but I probably wouldn't delete them either unless they were posting vulgar vandalism. Again, however, this doesn't appear to have much to do with trying to prove that jprw is a sock. Cla68 (talk) 04:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Might be best not to involve yourself

While I have no doubt that your intentions are good in trying to advise ZuluPapa5, I don't think that your contributions are appropriate in this area. Your advice to ZuluPapa5 that he blank his evidence pages rather than have them deleted directly contradicts the instructions in the Arbitration remedies (#Deletion of evidence sub-pages). I also believe that you're treading very close to your own topic ban in the climate change area, by commenting on content and involving yourself in disputes intimately related to that subject. Finally, your own history in this area makes it difficult for other editors to perceive you as an 'honest broker' here. If you intend to comment further, I would strongly urge you to first seek an official clarification or amendment from the ArbCom; any other route is likely to lead directly to an arbitration enforcement request. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the advice Ten. Cla68 (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, leave it to the "neutrals" like TOAT. :-) ATren (talk) 04:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)