User talk:Cla68/Holding area

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Cla68&oldid=490249978 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avanu (talk • contribs)

I liked it and kept it. Thank you very much. Cla68 (talk) 06:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I nominate you as the first Coordinator of
  Ling.Nut3 (talk) 00:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Thanks, but I'm not really on a side in this debate. I simply don't have a problem with paid editing being allowed or banned. It doesn't matter to me either way and I'm simply interested in a reasonable debate and reasonable solutions. -- Avanu (talk) 01:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My first question is whether or not WP policy requires that the paid editor be a neutral, uninvolved editor never previously associated with the page to be edited for pay or any WikiProjects linked to it?

My second question is whether WP policy requires the person or organization that would potentially hire the paid editor be never previously associated with the page to be edited for pay or any WikiProjects linked to it?

My third question is how is someone who wants to pay an editor supposed to contact that editor? I feel certain contacting that editor on WP would be a violation. Am I correct in that?

Sincerely,

Factseducado (talk) 14:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any such policies would be unenforceable by WP. WP couldn't regulate how/where/how much/etc a paid editee received from a company/university/political group/etc. The only thing WP could do is regulate what occurs here. What paid editors are supposed to do relative to self disclosure/failure to disclose. How paid editors are to be treated/regarded. How their edits are to be reviewed. Etc. It might be a case where flagged revisions comes into place when a paid editor works on an article. The problem that you suppose, supposes that a person is hired directly to work on WP. But I suspect a fair number of them end up doing so as a byproduct of their job. I suspect that the majority of CURRENT paid editors are office employees whose job it is to monitor their companies articles or improve educational material around their companies products. Another form of paid editor might stem from a company who discovers a need to improve ancillary articles. E.g. A chemical engineer might find it advantageous to improve the articles on certain checmicals/processes as they know potential clients might come here to figure out what the chemist is saying. The intention might not be to sell anything, but to educate so that the client can better understand what the company does. The one thing that can be done is making Q3 part of the policy... no on wiki contact.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Edit conflict; I haven't yet read Balloonman's post]

(1) There's no policy or guideline preventing paid editing, nor regulating its interpersonal circumstances. The current situation—which I can't see changing—is that no one, whether paid editor, client, or volunteer editor, has to be personally neutral about anything; what does matter is that your edits be neutral. For example, I hold extremely antagonistic views about religion, to which I'm required to and do apply a strong neutralising filter when it comes to direct edits and comments on talk pages. I expect editors of opposite views to do the same. This is part of the genius (in that word's older sense) of the project.

(2) There's no such requirement. Again, all we can reliably go by—and the only thing that matters in the end for our readers and the project's public reputation of non-commercial neutrality—is the product. Paid editors, in my view, need to spell out to clients the rules of the game in terms of balance and neutrality. There are plenty of organisations and people who want balanced and neutral articles about themselves.

(3) Through the "Email this user" button to the left. Tony (talk) 15:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I agree with everything Tony says... I have biases too... but my biases are, hopefully, countered by A) myself and B) those who hold the opposite view. I think having user boxes on pages helps in this regard, because people can go there and see what my potential biases might be. It also helps because it helps to self-declare myself as a a person interested in a subject. It shows that I am both knowledgable on the subject and potentially biased on the subject. A paid editor would similalry be knowledgable on the subject and biased on the subject---but right now we have no controls/mechanisms to identify such.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tony and Baloonman, the information you provided has been helpful. Thank you for clarifying these WP policies. Sincerely, Factseducado (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cla68. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm

}} template.

Factseducado (talk) 15:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cla, good to see you (at Viriditas) -- did your CC block finally expire? If so, you may want to look in at

Good morning! No, I'm still not allowed to talk about that subject. I can ask again in about six months for the ban to be lifted. If there's any other topic you would like to talk about, however, I'm free to do so. Cla68 (talk) 01:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you don't understand. I don't respond to you on article talk pages. I don't respond to you on project pages. I avoid every topic you are actively involved in. I don't respond to you on my talk page. I don't allow you to have conversations with other people on my talk page. I've asked you multiple times to leave me alone. We do not interact well together. Please leave me alone. Hipocrite (talk) 22:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Hipocrite, and you have yet to answer this question, if you don't want to interact with me, then why did you show up at a topic two months ago that I have edited for years? It doesn't make sense. Could you please answer the question? Cla68 (talk) 22:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I answer your question, will you accept a binding page ban from my talk page? Hipocrite (talk) 23:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not, Hipocrite. If we are going to participate in the same topic area, then Wikipedia's mechanisms for dispute resolution, as well as open compromise, collaboration, and cooperation, need to be open for both of us to use. This means that we need to be able to post to each others' talk pages. Notice that I haven't banned you from my talk page, told you to keep your distance, or anything like that. Like I said, I have been editing the LaRouche topic for years. You started participating there about two months ago, which is odd since you seem to want to avoid me. If you are going to participate there, you are going to have to find a way to cooperate and communicate with me, because that's how the wiki works. Cla68 (talk) 05:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hipocrite, it's just not practical (socially or in terms of policies and guidelines) to impose these orders on another user, and it would make you look stronger and bigger if you maintained a more laissez-faire attitude to the matter. Tony (talk) 10:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no longer participating in the discussion over at

Sure, no problem. By the way, I was reading a December 2011 Forbes today that someone gave me, and in an article about Smashburger, it said that Americans eat 13 billion burgers a year, 43 for every man, woman, and child. Fifty percent of Americans eat at least one burger a week, according to the article (Colao, J.J., "Here's the Beef", Forbes, 19 December 2011, pp. 104-108). Anyway, I don't think it's such a big deal if there is a picture with the nav box or not or what it is. Cla68 (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed a similar point earlier in the discussion, so it's possible you missed it: According to the American Meat Institute, the consumption of beef in the U.S. has been in decline since the 1970s, while chicken and turkey consumption has been on the increase. In 2007, per capita beef consumption was 65 pounds (33.2 was hamburger) while Americans consumed 86.5 pounds of chicken and 17.3 pounds of turkey per person.[8] According to 2012 data, beef consumption has dropped as much as 12% per capita since the 2007 numbers were released. Anyhoo, the bottom line for me is that we need to use navboxes for navigation, and you've done that extremely well in your own work. This tells me you are not just writing for editors but for readers, and I respect that because that's the kind of viewpoint we need; too many editors make changes based on what they desire, forgetting that we are writing and adding content for an audience other than ourselves. To me at least, there seems to be an inability to see beyond our own noses when it comes to content work. Btw, how much would you charge to bring peace to FA? ;-) Viriditas (talk) 23:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the number of hamburgers consumed doesn't necessarily lend itself to a weight comparison, because perhaps most hamburgers carry less meat than is often consumed when people eat chicken or turkey in one sitting, so numbers of hamburgers consumed in one sitting might outnumber number of meals of chicken or turkey, but maybe not. Anyway, my criteria in choosing a picture for navigation boxes, such as this one was simply because it was a visually striking picture. We really need to give peace a chance at FA, don't we? Cla68 (talk) 23:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could do it for charity! :) Viriditas (talk) 04:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a note to let the main editors of Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on June 4, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 4, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Pearl Harbor raid in December 1941 and the invasion of Rabaul in the Southwest Pacific in January 1942. The following month her aircraft participated in a combined carrier airstrike on Darwin, Australia, helping secure the conquest of the Dutch East Indies by Japanese forces. During the Battle of Midway in June, Kaga and the other carriers were attacked by American aircraft from Midway Atoll and the carriers Enterprise, Hornet, and Yorktown. Dive bombers from Enterprise severely damaged Kaga; when it became obvious she could not be saved, she was scuttled by Japanese destroyers to prevent her from falling into enemy hands. In 1999, debris from Kaga was located on the ocean floor; the main body of the carrier has not yet been found. (more...

)

]

The Bugle: Issue LXXIV, May 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Bomzibar on Chiang Kai-shek; Nick-D on the Falklands War Interview: Article writers discuss biographies Op-ed: Nick-D examines using news articles as sources

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 12, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 01:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cla68, please post the diffs for your assertions posted on the evidence page ASAP. Otherwise, I will remove your statement as an unfounded, unsupported assertion.

For the Arbitration Committee,

-- Lord Roem (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, plan and organize your evidence in a sandbox before you post it on the evidence page. Do your best to submit completed arguments/evidence. Thanks, Lord Roem (talk) 23:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed a portion of your evidence which links to a discussion that was hatted as an unfounded and unsubstantiated list of diffs against RfC participants. If you have specific and egregious examples, post those independently. Do not post a link to a discussion and list of diffs that, broadly speaking, doesn't support the assertion. -- Lord Roem (talk) 23:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not edit war with one of the case clerks. It is the quickest way to find yourself topic banned from the case --Guerillero | My Talk 00:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I only edit war with ArbCom clerks when I haven't done anything wrong. Cla68 (talk) 00:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You edit war with the Arbitration Committee's clerks at your own peril. They act with the authority of the Committee on behalf of the Committee - if you are directed by a clerk to do (or not do) something, then very likely an Arbitrator has asked them to do so or agreed that it's the appropriate action to take. This is the case here. Do not edit war with clerks.

a/c) 01:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Unless an arbitrator tells me to remove it, I will present evidence as permitted by the case rules. If I get blocked...well, sometimes you have to stand up for yourself when you think you're right. Cla68 (talk) 01:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just

a/c) 02:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

So if diffs relate to things that were "hatted" they aren't permitted? That strikes me as making it rather easy for those in power to prevent those outside of power from providing evidence. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 00:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Advice to the clerks...you all usually do a really good job. If, however, you do something that gets in the way of someone trying to present evidence, with diffs, which is the entire point of evidence, then you may be incorrectly interpreting your instructions. Cla68 (talk) 00:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Hersfold's comment above. If you would like to offer evidence about personal attacks made during the RFC, the best way is in this format: "In actu said X [1] [2] [3] [4]." Make sure that the diffs support the accusations you are trying to make. Using the kitchen sink method, like TParis pointed in his hatting statement, isn't going to work. --Guerillero | My Talk 01:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarification in case no one recalls, my actions including blocking Cla68 and hating that discussion was mostly rejected as legitimate admin actions by the community in a review shortly after the block. I'm not questioning the Arbclerk, but if rejecting the evidence is related to my hat then I'd suggest simply removing the hat. Not trying to upset anyone, but I want all things to be properly considered by the Arbclerk when deciding what to do. I've no opinion on the edit war or whether or not Cla68 can use it. My only concern is that you guys are fully informed that the post-review was critical of my actions.--v/r - TP 02:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been lurking this case - it's interesting to me, but I haven't had enough interaction with the parties to get involved, nor do I feel strongly about it one way or another. I have a question about the Russavia diff in your evidence, though. Considering the comment at the top of that page (entitled "Just quit already") and signed by the charming username "Ash=Fae=F4g" (eyeroll), wouldn't AGF suggest that Russavia was legitimately referring to that comment? Again, I'm just honestly curious, and I'm not involved; I won't mind if you don't want to answer. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 23:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Russavia was responding to Volunteer Marek's request, but if he was responding to a trolling comment, then that may mitigate his/her remark. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. Cla68 (talk) 23:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I mean, I see how you got there, since Russavia's comment was a new section at the bottom of the page, and the troll I'm referring to was at the top. It's mostly just that the trolling provided some amiguity to the situation. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 00:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	education in training
	Thank you for your profound coverage of topics around Japanese military history and martial arts, and for your free advice how to write articles of a quality ready to be featured, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cla68. Thank you for your recent submission of evidence for the Fæ Arbitration case. As you may be aware, the Arbitration Committee asks that users submitting evidence in cases adhere to limits regarding the length of their submissions. These limits, currently at 1000 words and 100 diffs for parties and 500 words and 50 diffs for all others, are in place to ensure that the Arbitration Committee receives only the most important information relevant to the case, and is able to determine an appropriate course of action in a reasonable amount of time. The evidence you have submitted currently exceeds at least one of these limits, and is presently at 408 words and 80 diffs. Please try to reduce the length of your submission to fit within these limits;

• Hi Cla68! As you've already been granted an exception for your evidence, it would be great if you could remove your five least favorite diffs to bring you in line with the limit SirFozzie set. If you could please do this over the weekend, that would be very helpful. Best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 06:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no preference Lord Roem. If you need to blank my entire evidence section to comply with ArbCom evidentiary protocol, I'm fine with it. Do what you need to do. Cla68 (talk) 12:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If it would be permitted and/or helpful, I could copy the "traveling circus" part to my own section and thus drastically reduce the diff numbers on Cla's section. The only diff I was going to put in about the accountability issue was this one, just for the purpose of documentation. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 13:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you SB_Johnny, that sounds like a good compromise :). Lord Roem (talk) 18:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, will do as soon as I can, and leave it to you two to clear out whatever needs to be cleared from Cla's section. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 21:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• All done (I assume it's fine for Cla to just link to my section to replace that part of his own). Thanks for the understanding, Lord Roem (arbitrary rules for arbitration sure can be a pain, eh?) --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 22:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks SB. Cla68 (talk) 22:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I set a poll up here, please contribute. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 29, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the Chaco War and the Bougainville Campaign Op-ed: Remembering conflict

Please do not comment on my talkpage anymore. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you stop edit warring? Cla68 (talk) 22:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cla68,

I just realized that I missed to tell you that the translation of your article Battle of Tulagi and Gavutu-Tanambogo I made got awararded as Lesenswert () in the german Wikipedia and probably will be featured article of the day on 7 August. Lesenswert is equivalent to A-Class in en:Wiki. I work together with an other user in de:Wiki who just made some maps and got some new sources published between 2007 and 2009 highlighting the japanese side of combat to get the article on featured status. If you want I can inform you about interesting sources worth to also put into the english article. Until that thank you for the excellent article. Regards --Bomzibar (talk) 10:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at Fasttimes68 recent contributions page, you will see that it has gotten obsessive and frankly, pretty bad. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Fasttimes68&dir=prev&offset=20120204183018&limit=500&target=Fasttimes68 Also note that he and the banned user JuliannaRoseMauriello http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/JuliannaRoseMauriello&offset=&limit=500&target=JuliannaRoseMauriello have the same obsession with Adams, sockpuppets, and more. Can they be the same person? There is a distinct pattern. One more thought, Hoary is just as bad. Look here. http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikifam=.wikipedia.org&wikilang=en&order=-edit_count&page=Stephanie+Adams&max=1000&grouped=on&ofs=0&max=1000 CYHWT (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

]

The Bugle: Issue LXXVI, July 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors: Wikimania 2012; special projects note Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the Australian 25th Battalion Interview: Article writers discuss buildings and fortifications Op-ed: Hawkeye7 reports on a weekend workshop

Superb. I was interested to read in Japanese Wikipedia about influential grandson 昌三, who ran JARL for more than 40 years. LittleBen (talk) 09:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am just going to say this If you claim Revert warring once more which is wholly unwarranted as you have now done twice I will report you for being highly uncivil and for taking article ownership. Stop making unwarranted claims which are constituting a personal attack on my character. Sport and politics (talk) 23:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cla68. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sport and politics (talk) 21:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Could you check Toyoaki Horiuchi, a Japanese captain. It should be improved in many respects. --Ichiro Kikuchi (talk) 06:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aloha. If you are interested, feel free to participate in the Talk:Barefoot running/GA1 review. The more experts with eyes on this, the better. Viriditas (talk) 20:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You are among the top contributors to this Featured Article. Work has begun on changing the citation format and referencing conventions in use on the article. There is a discussion underway at the

Prioryman said, "he's also participated in deliberate off-wiki outing and harassment of Wikipedians." You answered, "Just to add that Prioryman is correct here. Earlier this year he was banned from UK Wikimedia chapter-run events (excluding London meetings) because of this." After Peter Damian pointed out to WM UK that the email statement was false and defamatory, it was removed from the mailing list. So, to keep repeating something that has been retracted is dishonest and disingenuous. Also, did you know that you're not supposed to out the real names of anonymous editing accounts on Wikipedia as you just did? You just did what you accuse him of doing. Why is it ok for you to do what you accuse him of doing? Cla68 (talk) 12:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've rev/del'd my post. The ban took place. Whether it was undone I don't know. Do you actually know it was undone, or that the email was removed from the mailing list? I thought his real name was known here. I'd never out deliberately and you probably know that.

talk) 12:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

As an aside, Cla68, do you think that posting a link to the outing on

oversight to have the information removed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

If he'd told me I'd have dealt with it - he could have done that and emailed Oversight. Peter Damian said he wouldn't appeal the ban, he contested the charges. I'm checking on the status of the ban. In any case, it took place and was made for the reasons given.

talk) 12:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I think the whole post needs redacting as it is far too easy to find PD's identity from the above.--

talk) 14:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Just because an accusation is made does not mean that it is correct. The email in question was redacted, the ban overturned. Nothing has changed as far as PD is concerned, he has, subsequently, neither done nor said anything that would warrant redacting the email and overturning the ban if either had been valid in the first place. That members of WMUK mailing lists are running around the interwebs spreading falsehoods is unfortunate but not surprising. John lilburne (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a comment on this tomorrow. I don't think anyone is running around deliberately spreading falsehoods. So far as I know, the relationship now between Peter Damian and WMUK is cordial. The outing claim was incorrect as he outed himself 3 years ago on Jimbo's page (as I pointed out at

talk) 21:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

It's hardly cordial if you're still "banning" him individually from your get-togethers. I could understand not inviting people who are banned from editing WP (since that's the whole point), but then that would be tricky too given recent events. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 22:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not me as I'm just a member and such things would be done by the board, but I am trying to clarify the situation about the ban, which I think has been rescinded but as I'm not positive about that I can only say what I know. I'll be able to say more later on today.

talk) 05:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Didn't happen and as it's the weekend tomorrow can't happen until Monday at the earliest, sorry.

talk) 19:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

They call it stormy Monday, yes but Tuesday's just as bad. Wednesday's even worse; Thursday's awful sad.

Perhaps the Eagle will fly of Friday. John lilburne (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello '68 !

I wanted to thank you for coming as reinforcement when you saw that a contribution about new statistics on atheism in the world had twice been blanked out.. even before it had any chance to reach WP's readership...

As i happened to come across the talk page of "Vobisdu", i even noticed that you were rather firm in trying to "cool" him down !

First, i must also plead (partially) guilty, and admit that i should have refrain my [bloody] habit, to write as i speak, i.e. : passionately ! Hence, all those bold type letters, plus the italics etc..

(Fortunately, WP didn't use the apostrophes' trick for underlining, so it's too boring to put all these mark-ups, otherwise, my posts would also be plagued with it !)

Apart from that "text-wrapping" bug... could you tell me what's happening with en:wikipedia in those days and age ???

I had been a wikipedian, "in another life", since 2005, but i took a (very) long wikileave. Then i decided to "get back to it" earlier this year, but i feel completely flabbergasted : this kind of mishap about a text only based on facts (reliable and indisputable figures about certain categories of people) would never have taken place, as far as i can remember, by the time i was an "eminent" contributor in the mid-2000's ! ! !

Do you happen to know about these characters (no names : "no personal attacks"), who have been so active on this "Atheism-talk page" fuzz recently... ????

I have never indulged in paranoïa. So, i'm not saying that there is a conspiracy among those three (or others). It just seems to me that they all are "firm against the wind" to try to tear apart in several shreds, or delay as long as possible the wp-emergence of the results of the Gallup study...

I dived back into all these archived (and desperate) battles against the "reliability" of the sources saying, for example, that higher educated people tend to become less religious (a detail to which, by the way, i don't give a damn personnaly).

I cannot not notice that a certain number of religious contributors are permanently mobilized to sneak their POV, everywhere they can, even against obvious "adverse" consensus...

Did you notice anything like that ? Is it a "known fact" among NPOV wikipedians ???

Forgive my long message..

If you've got a moment to drop me a few lines on my talk-page --or, if you prefer, on my email--, i would greatly appreciate.

Hasta la vista !

--Mezzkal (talk) 23:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your trolling and edit-warring over the AN/I thread title is pathetic. Grow up. Prioryman (talk) 12:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prioryman, didn't you ban me some time ago from posting to your talk page? If so, why are you posting to mine (even though you always will be free to do so)? Cla68 (talk) 12:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the legacy of World War II Op-ed: Bomzibar on German military history

I'd be happy to discuss content with you in a civil way. And we could do it here so we don't inflame the situation.Momento (talk) 08:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 18:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to thank you for giving me support during the the initial stages of this article. As expected it was very controversial and despite all my efforts and patience, the situation may be getting out of control, so if I'm not in a position to come back to this page, thank you again.--Andromedean (talk) 09:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the attempted removal of this article again, it is subject to the Dispute Resolution procedure. As you were involved in the early stages perhaps your experience would be useful? It has however changed substantially since then including the title.--Andromedean (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 08:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I just started an ANI on the IP editor for repeatedly restoring material that was removed per RfC at

Cla, further to the idea of a BLP committee I raised a few weeks ago, please see User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Brainstorming:_How_can_we_improve_the_Wikipedia_complaints_system.3F. Best, JN466 13:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI I created a DYK for the Camp bastion raid and listed you as a co-author, since you've put quite a bit of work into it as well. Palm_Dogg (talk) 13:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wikimedia UK, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: AustralianRupert on artillery in South Australia, and Nick-D on Venice's empire Op-ed: Nick-D on the "Kokoda: Beyond the Legend" conference

Thank you

		Military history reviewers' award
		By order of the Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts }} to your user space

Disambiguation link notification for October 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Death of Osama bin Laden (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver

)

added a link pointing to Vanity Fair

The Situation Room (photograph) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver

)

added a link pointing to Vanity Fair

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An ipsock of Echigo mole left a trolling notification on your user talk page. I removed it since the editor placing it, using an illegal anonymising tor node, has been identified and blocked for 3 years. The edit has already been placed among a series of edits by 3 ipsocks of Echigo mole (see the latetst series of SPI report, Oct 16 & Oct 20). The removal is covered by the recent arbcom motion and those challenging it or trying to enable Echigo mole, as you now seem to be doing, could easily find themselves being blocked under the current motion passed by the arbitration committee. Please read that through that motion [7] and look at the most recent SPI reports and block logs of IPsocks on Echigo mole. Roger Davies carefully explained to you a month or more ago the problems with the banned editor Echigo mole. Perhaps you could go back and reread what he wrote. Mathsci (talk) 10:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the diff. Everyone, please feel free to read it and see how dangerous and subversive it is. This is the first time someone has ever removed a non-vandalism diff from my talk page. It this isn't

Battleground behavior by Mathsci, I don't know what is. Cla68 (talk) 10:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm sure you are more than aware that SPI reports rarely involve single diffs in isolation. They rely on comparisons between different edits/editors. If you find it hard to follow the SPI reports or to understand the motion recently passed by arbcom, there are administrators out there willing to help you. Good luck, Mathsci (talk) 11:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I replied at the enforcement board. Just a word of advice based on my own experience...when editing WP starts be a contest of wills between you and some anonymous yahoo, then it's best to step away and gain some perspective. Cla68 (talk) 14:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mathsci keeps saying that you were talking to Roger Davies about this, but I don't see where this conversation took place. Was it off-wiki?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we had an exchange of opinions during the amendment/clarification request you posted awhile ago. Cla68 (talk) 23:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiousity, how does Mathsci know that the IP is a sock of that user? There doesn't appear to be a SPI and the IP hasn't been blocked. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very good question. Mathsci, could you point to the administrative forum where it was decided that this IP was a banned editor? Cla68 (talk) 23:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The IP was blocked as a

shovel. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you. So, where was this discussed before Mathsci removed the comment from my page, and why didn't an admin remove it instead of one of the parties to this ongoing conflict? Cla68 (talk) 03:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I know nothing of the specifics. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment removed, since superseded (see below)

Please see

Per this AE thread, you are indefinitely prohibited from

I have no idea why you felt the need to mention me in your filing. I have no interest and my only involvement was trying to stop an editor I considered in good standing, ie you, from self-destructing. Frankly I wish I hadn't. Wee Curry Monster talk :01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Since Wee Curry reverted my answer from his talk page without responding, I will repost it here:

• I'm not allowed to comment on a certain individual outside of the an ArbCom forum, but to narrowly address your concern without commenting on that individual, I felt my evidence was compelling and deserved consideration. When you hat someone's evidence in an administration forum, the person, such as I, may feel you have deprived them of their right to give their side in a matter. So, I hope you understand my frustration. It took a lot of time to put those diffs together, and I felt I made my case. If you didn't agree, why didn't you say so in a comment instead of hiding my evidence behind a hatting template? Cla68 (talk) 01:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correction. I tried to respond but you pasting your comments here resulted in an edit conflict.

I gave a statement why I hatted that comment, which also suggested if you disagreed you were welcome to undo it. It was clear that Mathsci took the suggestions to drop it, I suggested you did the same. I don't think you're doing yourself any favours here and that is simple, frank, honest advice. I really would drop it, if I were you. Similarly no you didn't make a case, you come across as pursuing a vendetta against Mathsci and i am only telling you an honest opinion. Please, i have no desire for furtger involvement. Wee Curry Monster talk 01:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WCM, why would I agree with someone hatting my evidence? I can't comment on the rest that you say. Cla68 (talk) 01:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a report at

]

The Bugle: Issue LXXIX, October 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; milestone for the Fortifications task force; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/October 2012/Hawkeye7 on mission command Op-ed: The ed17 on how The Bugle could be improved

Have to say that I took a shining to the quotes you have at the top of this page a little while ago and have since modeled my own talk page on that a bit. Granted, the quotes I added are not quite as obscure or provocative as yours, but I think they are good marks of my personality.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those are good quotes. The first one reminds me of a similar thought I read somewhere, something along the lines of, "[Such-and-such political group] proclaims their belief in freedom of ideas, but is offended to learn that some people exercise their right to have different ideas than they do." Cla68 (talk) 10:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the quote on my page is from a Dilbert comic strip. :D --The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some bright spark during a discussion at

taken --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cla68, you may remember briefly commenting on this article back in September. I notice you seem to be the most experienced editor who posted there, so you may be able to recommended the best course of action, if any remain.

The article has since been through extensive discussion, RFC, and a DRN with considerable acrimony and polarisation amongst in the process. The DRN was closed prematurely with a somewhat skewed version in my opinion. However, it was still supposed to be subject to further minor editing further to subsequent discussion, but one editor seems intent on removing it. I am personally reluctant to throw it back to the DRN volunteer, since I've noticed that one person pushing all the dispute policy options isn't popular, although I have suggested another editor who is mostly in agreement with me may wish to do so.

Is mediation the last port of call?

What is the situation if a controversial article attracts a lot of opposition due to bias despite little good reason to remove or compromise it. Are Wikipedeans supposed to be mostly immune from this disease so the majority are always right, or do we live in the real world? How could a subject such as global warming be 'agreed upon' though a democratic process rather than the science for example? Surely there must be some eventual board who takes a responsible position and locks it --Andromedean (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cla68, before you responsd to the above, which contains wild and baseless accusations which are without foundation, consider the principles of Wikipedia being primarily based on good faith. The above comments by Andromedean show a large amount of bad faith and there are numerous instances throughout the whole discussion and still continuing now which demonstrate further the bad faith being employed by Andromedean. Andromedeanis also shopping to try and stack the discussion with those they think will be supportive or at least sympathetic. Sport and politics (talk) 09:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as you're one of the main contributors to USS San Diego (LPD-22), I wanted to ask you if we should make note on the article that ESPN College Gameday will be live on the San Diego next week?--Daytona 500 14:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems appropriate to me. Cla68 (talk) 01:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the one-way ban is still in effect I think you should self-revert your recent comment to stave off any potential concerns. Personally, I am trying to avoid any unnecessary sidebar discussions about this matter because it isn't worth creating the additional firestorm.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We're supposed to be allowed to conduct dispute resolution with each other, but the way a few admins have been acting in relation to this situation, it might be better to be overly strict about it. Cla68 (talk) 02:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I think more requests regarding this restriction will just generate more futile drama, I know it is your decision about whether to raise legitimate concerns about your own sanction. However, I would ask that you try to keep me out of any discussions about these restrictions by restricting it specifically to your restriction. I am really tired of dealing with this matter.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Cla68 (talk) 08:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of appeals, is there a way for me to get back on WO? I would try not to get into any non-Wikipedia discussions and avoid any prolonged arguments if that would help.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will see what I can do. Cla68 (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robert Madgwick, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ronald Walker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that you deserved something a bit extra for all of the amazing work you've done for the project. I've nominated you for a gift from the Wikimedia Foundation! --The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robert Madgwick, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Boy Scouts (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Sturmvogel_66, AustralianRupert, and Nick-D look at ships, soldiers, and railways Op-ed: Nick-D on navigating the FA and A-Class review processes

You may not have noticed, but I've started the review at Talk:Lionel_Gilbert/GA1--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_Race_and_intelligence and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide
  .

Thanks, -SightWatcher (talk) 01:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A request for enforcement concerning you has been filed at

I keep my word, so here you go. Just a brief 24 hour block to get you off this situation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Future Perfect, prepare to defend yourself at ArbCom, because as soon as I'm unblocked that is where I will be heading to request a review of your actions. Also, get your defense ready to explain why you have made the decisions you have made over the past year or so which has created this situation. You are supposed to helping build an encyclopedia, not getting in the way. You are getting in the way. Cla68 (talk) 07:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would unblock, thanks to the total lack of consensus, but doing so is apparently not allowed without "the written authorization of the Committee, or ... following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI)." Sigh. This is why I stay away from AE.

[majestic titan] 07:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Cla: I have no problem unblocking you as long as you promise to restrain yourself from further unnecessary comments about Mathsci during the AE thread and related discussions – i.e., any comment that is not strictly focussed on your defense of your own actions and the merits of the case about you. I agree that normally a user has a right to respond to somebody who brings an action against them, but there is a difference in the case of interaction ban complaints. Scenario: (1) A is interaction-banned from B. (2) A violates the interaction ban. (3) B complains against A's violation. (4) A, citing his right of response, now acts as if he was free to comment on B any way he likes during the discussion of the complaint. Result: B has effectively put the interaction ban out of force. In this situation, it was not Mathsci who first chose to interact, it was you (by making comments about him at the Arbcom page that were not necessitated by the substance of the case as relating to you). In this situation, you remain obliged to respect the interaction ban even during the ensuing procedures, to the extent possible.

The ed, I don't consider this an Arbcom "enforcement" block in the strict sense. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Future Perfect, I don't think you have a leg to stand on with your rationale for this block. I'm allowed full leeway to defend or explain myself in dispute resolution, with no condition other than avoiding personal attacks or BLP or the other usual rules. You're deeply involved in this situation, and I think it's clouding your judgement because you evidently took a position on it long ago and have, as a result, created a lot of trouble for a number of content-creating editors. So, get your diffs and reasoning ready, because we're headed for an ArbCom request. Cla68 (talk) 10:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the AE request thread has been brought to a quick close, I am lifting this block as (hopefully) no longer necessary. I trust you will now take notice of the reminder stated in the conclusion [8], which, as you will notice, is based not just on my own take on the situation but also that of several other admins, including ErrantX, Heimstern and Akhilleus. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Future Perfect, first you block me so I can't give my side in the AE request, then you quickly close it before I can respond to any of the comments made while I was blocked. You have got to be kidding me. After I file the ArbCom case request, hopefully later today, I hope you will be able to explain why you have done what you have done, without simply telling ArbCom to "F-off" like you did last time. An extremely intelligent defense, if I say so myself, and one that reflects very well on you. Actually, I hope you again try to use that defense, because I think it illustrates very well your approach to this entire situation. Cla68 (talk) 22:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly think it would be a very bad idea to submit such request. Yes, this is a common practice to wait 24 hours before closing an AE request. However, in this case admin(s) will argue that they closed the case quickly because (a) the matter is already under direct consideration by Arbcom; and (b) they closed it quickly per consensus among admins to minimize disruption of precisely the type you are going to create by submitting this complaint. This is all so petty. No reason for new case. But that's your decision. My very best wishes (talk) 02:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC) But if you talk about this, any conflicts with banned users will not be taken by arbcom simply because these users are already banned. The conflic is between you and Matschi. If you want that conflict to be taken by arbcom, then welcome. My very best wishes (talk) 15:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sir/Maam, if you could see the evidence that I'm finding, I think you would agree that a case is definitely warranted here. If I could, I would compile it all on a page in my userspace so that all interested parties could see it and participate with building it if they wanted to, because this isn't between me and Future Perfect at Sunrise, this is between he and the WP community. However, the evidence directly touches on an item that I'm not allowed to comment on on-wiki at the moment, except on ArbCom pages like AE, so, unfortunately, the first time you see my case will be when I post it to RfAR. Cla68 (talk) 04:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Now I can see. Well, if you wanted to bring a case about an abusive administrator, you should not bring anything about Mathsci, should not emphasize your own block, and most important, should not remove evidence about other users. However, I would rather not tell anything specific about this administrator, given his continuing participation on AE and the fact that I continue editing in these areas. My personal view is that he should simply stop his participation in enforcement of discretionary sanctions. My very best wishes (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I recently reviewed the AE report about you, and I agree arbitration would be warranted, if only because when the report was closed it was with the expectation that the matter would be taken there. Is your plan to make the request before or after Christmas? I ask because when you make the request I might decide to comment in it, but my internet access will become more spotty as the holiday approaches. Another risk is that the arbitrators will view the request as stale if it's delayed too long. --Mors Martell (talk) 21:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if I can get three or four hours of uninterrupted time, I hope to get it done today or tomorrow. Cla68 (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cla! I seem to have inadvertently reverted one of your edits here. I can only explain this with fat fingers on the track pad. Sorry. The ed17 had already fixed it when I noticed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all Stephan. I appreciate the note. Cla68 (talk) 10:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'tis the season

see also Otello or acting on evidence, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not currently clerking the Race and intelligence amendment request. My comment is in the section below. NW (Talk) 03:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cla. The Bugle runs a semi-regular interview series where we ask various editors to discuss a particular topic. Our next interview aims to bring together editors working in areas of military history that are perhaps under-represented in the English Wikipedia, for instance Japanese history. Would you mind adding your views to the questions here? Our goal is to despatch this edition prior to Christmas, so if you can respond in the next two weeks, that'd be great. Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I edit Wikipedia while i'm at work! But, then again, i'm allowed to, so... Silverseren^C 04:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are one of the few, I believe. I guess it depends on how much a person spends on it. Cla68 (talk) 05:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Tetsuya takeda.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to
   di-replaceable fair use disputed
   }}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Cla68, Thanks for you advice at my appeal. I just wanted to drop you a line to let you know that I understand and appreciate it, but will not be following it for the reasons I gave in my closing statement. As others have pointed out, I don't believe I ever violated the editorial policies of WP, i.e., I believe that the ban was unjustified. I'm not ready, if you will, to "make peace with the establishment" (though you may counter that I also don't have a very high tolerance for ambiguity! ;-) ). My appeal was intended to offer an occasion for ArbCom to reflect on the wisdom of the ban, not merely a petition for me, personally, to be allowed to get back to work. My interest in WP is increasingly impersonal, even "academic". I just feel a responsibility to put my editing where my mouth is. These days, I am developing some criticisms of the 9/11 articles for publication elsewhere, and I would normally say that the right way to express that criticism is to try to improve the articles first. That avenue of critique is not open to me, however. In any case, thanks for your advice. Happy editing, and see you next time.--

Unfortunately, receiving unfair sanctions is a rite of passage for many non-admin, content-oriented editors in Wikipedia. Cla68 (talk) 23:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a note to let the main editors of

Nationalist Chinese Air Force. The small size of the ship and her assigned airgroups (usually around 15 aircraft) limited the effectiveness of her contributions. As a result, the carrier was placed in reserve after her return to Japan from China and she became a training carrier in 1939. During World War II, Hōshō participated in the Battle of Midway in June 1942 in a secondary role. After the battle, the carrier resumed her training role for the duration of the conflict and survived the war with only minor damage. She was used as a repatriation transport after the war and was scrapped in 1946. (Full article...

)

talk) 23:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

ArbCom case request

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Future Perfect at Sunrise and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide
  .

Thanks,

Arbitration case request concerning Future Perfect at Sunrise

Hi Cla68. As a majority of the Arbitration Committee has voted to decline the Arbitration concerning Future Perfect at Sunrise, I have delisted the case request. NW (Talk) 18:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXXI, December 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Simon Harley on British battleships and Nick-D on the French Resistance Interview: Five editors discuss some less-represented areas of military history Op-ed: Ian Rose looks back on 2012

The Bugle is published by the

this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

'Tis that season again...

	Happy Holidays!
	Hope you and your family are enjoying the holiday season, Cla! [majestic titan] 06:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply ]

What he said. :) --The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 15:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga

Hello.

I recently uploaded an image on to wikipedia commons that had been in the scrap book of an American aviator. I was wondering if you might look at this image:

I was thinking it was an image of an A6M Zero fighter launching from the deck of the Kaga. I had never seen the image before. As I saw you did a fair amount of editing on the Kaga page I thought you might have an interest and would be able to offer an opinion as to what it is we are looking at. Thanks for your consideration. Gunbirddriver (talk) 09:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I am not even sure if that image has been commonly viewed or not. It seems familiar, but I'm not sure. Gunbirddriver (talk) 09:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not my area of expertise, but it looks like there is a bomb underneath. Was that common for Zeros? I'm wondering if it isn't an

[majestic titan] 20:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Zeke with detachable auxiliary fuel tank.

Kablammo (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Mmm, or there's that. Good call.

[majestic titan] 23:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Cl, here is the first upload, before the legend was cropped off.

Kablammo (talk) 03:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh, wow, there are a number of people interested in my mystery. That's great! I did track down another version of the photo, which was added into wicki commons a couple of years back. The editor had listed it as coming from a book in Japan on Japanese aces of WWII. The photo appears to be more cut down and it has been reversed, apparently by the editor after it had been added. Here is the photo:

It was added by a Japanese editor named Soica2001. I have left a message on his wikimedia talk page asking if he can add any information. It would seem the two images are from the same negative, but clearly the prints used to add them to the commons were thousands of miles and many years apart. The recent image above is from a photo CDR William Balden found on the Marianas in 1944 and added to his scrap book. It recently was added to a public file (Nav.source or something I believe). Whereas Soica2001's image came from a book in Japan. Balden's image (uncropped) does have Japanese writing on it, so if we could get Soica2001 or someone else fluent in Japanese to look at it we might be able to solve the mystery. Thanks for your consideration. Gunbirddriver (talk)07:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunbirddriver2 (talk • contribs) [reply]

Could it be the Soryu?Gunbirddriver2 (talk) 07:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Not unless the image is reversed. Akagi and Hiryu were the only carriers with port-side islands.
  Kablammo (talk) 15:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

That's true, but the first upload of the lower image, the one from Japan loaded by Soica2001 was aligned as the one above, and he subsequently reversed it, I think because he realized just what you have pointed out, that if it was an image of a plane launching from the Akagi then the island had to be on the opposite side, so he assumed the image had been reversed inadvertantly before, and he reversed it himself. But then he is taking someone's word that the image represents what it claimed to represent, a Japanese ace by the name of Lt Saburo Shindo launching from the Akagi in the second wave of the Pearl Harbor attack, but I do not believe that is correct.

Kablammo, do you believe as I do that both images are prints from the same negative? Thanks for your help. Gunbirddriver (talk) 00:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an image from the Akagi on that same day for comparison: Thanks. Gunbirddriver (talk) 00:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are other versions on Commons, under several categories; one contains a translation of the text under the photo, but does not identify the CV. I did not note that link when I saw it but will look for it later. I don't know how to distinguish between Kaga and Akagi by their islands. The rotating props on the images look look different but otherwise the images seem to be the same.

Kablammo (talk) 15:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

This upload of the first image of this section translates the accompanying text as:

"Subtitles "出撃に向ふ航空母艦上の海鷲" (A naval aircraft making a sortie from an Imperial Japanese Navy aircraft carrier) and "海軍省" (Ministry of the Navy of Japan) cropped.

Kablammo (talk) 20:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

After reviewing the images at this site, It seems to resemble Soryu the most, although this could also be possible.

Kablammo (talk) 20:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks very much for the translation, and for reviewing the images. I was hoping the Japanese captions might have been a little more specific, but it was good to know what they say. I have tried to communicate with the Japanese editor that uploaded the photo, and another Japanese editor that has worked on their carrier sections, but no word back from them as yet. Granted, my google translation might have been a bit rough. Anyway, thanks for the help! Gunbirddriver (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to note a recent upload by the US Navy Department Library to Facebook of this image: [9]

[majestic titan] 12:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

So there it is, again.

Navy Department Library "After looking at available photographs of Japanese aircraft carriers, we believe this to be the Kaga."

Hmmm. I brought this up over at Combined Fleet and it was pointed out that the photo had appeared in a Japanese book, a volume that was part of a series on Japanese warships of the second world war (Maru Special #6: Japanese Naval Vessels Aircraft Carriers Shokaku & Zuikaku at p6). There it had been identified as the Shokaku at Coral Sea. The commentor went on to point out that the radar array looked correct for Shokaku, so I identified the photo that way, but I believe there still is room for considering other possibilities. In addition, I think the story of the photograph itself and the naval aviator who found it is interesting. Thanks Ed17, and thanks Cla68. Gunbirddriver (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The island does resemble this image (also linked above), and Shokaku's island was to starboard.

Kablammo (talk) 02:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Happy New Year!

		Best wishes for the New Year!
		Here's wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013! Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my FA process, thanks to many dedicated Wikipedians! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness, man, archive your talk page! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will be updating the Patrick M. Byrne article and would like your support

His article seems famous on Wikipedia and a high point of controversy, I would like your support, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhalluka (talk • contribs) 09:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A word of caution

That revert was particularly unhelpful and improper. If you have issues with an enforcement annotation, raise the issue at AE or directly with the committee – reverting it yourself with a pointy edit summary is stoking drama for all the wrong reasons. You shouldn't have done that; but more importantly, you really shouldn't do it again. — Coren ^(talk) 14:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Most people think that shadows follow, precede, or surround beings or objects. The truth is that they also surround words, ideas, desires, deeds, impulses and memories." - Elie Wiesel. Cla68 (talk) 08:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... I don't get the reference, Sorry. — Coren ^(talk) 14:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coren, our words, ideas, desires, deeds, impulses, and memories don't exist independently of our surroundings. They cast an effect, a "shadow", on our surroundings and environment. So, the actions of editors in Wikipedia ripple throughout the entity of WP, effecting the way that "light" strikes the rest of us. Coren, when I was student, if I didn't understand something, I at least attempted to give an answer. Giving an "I give up", sounds flippant, arch, and as if you could care less. One of the reasons I've cleared my watchlist and have decided to no longer help fight article deterioration, or even vandalism, is because it seems like you and your fellow arbitrators could care less. Please prove me wrong. Cla68 (talk) 11:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese source for carrier information

I'm starting work on some of the more obscure Japanese carriers, like Shimane Maru-class escort carrier, and I've seen references to Maru Special No. 38 on Japanese aircraft carriers. Apparently it's the second volume to focus on their carriers and I'm wondering if you've got access to a copy as it has some info that isn't available in any of my English-language sources.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could ask at the J-aircraft or at Tully's Port if any of the regulars there have that issue and are willing and able to scan the article you need and send it to you. I could also probably order it online here in Japan, if it's still available, and send it to you. It might take awhile. The article will be in Japanese and my language ability isn't good enough to be able to read much of it. Cla68 (talk) 09:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXXII, January 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Mongol naval power Op-ed: Crisco 1492 on war films

The Bugle is published by the

this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

More nonsense

[10]

Your question about tourism in Gibraltar

I moved your question to Prioryman to the talk page of the RfA. The "questions for the candidate" section of the RfA is (unsurprisingly) for questions for the candidate. Prioryman is not currently an RfA candidate, interesting though such a prospect might be. --

talk) 16:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Now that would be quite a circus.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Cla68 (talk) 13:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Wants to Fly

Hi Cla68, Sometime ago you had expressed some concern on the talk page of this article regarding the excessive length of the synopsis of this film. I have today viewed the film and taken copious notes with time notations. On that basis I have revised and simplified the synopsis and its now down to 725 words instead of 925 words (

WP:PLOT recommends 400-700 words). If you have a few minutes sometime could you look at it and give me some feedback? I'd very much appreciate it. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello! Looks good to me. Cla68 (talk) 00:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking it over. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Cla68. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Business.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Pine^✉ 20:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIII, February 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at US Army leadership since World War II

The Bugle is published by the

this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply

]