User talk:Cla68/Holding area

Question at Wikipedia_talk:Tool_apprenticeship
Hi Cla68, I just left a question for you at Wikipedia_talk:Tool_apprenticeship, could you take a look? Thanks! Dcoetzee 03:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I answered. The fact that you asked me a follow up question is a good sign that you all are trying to do this right. Cla68 (talk) 11:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

TimidGuy ban appeal arbitration case
An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy ban appeal. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy ban appeal/Evidence. Please add your evidence by, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy ban appeal/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 09:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Keeping an eye on
Note to self to keep an eye on this discussion. Cla68 (talk) 00:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

COI allegations
I believe that the topic has a serious problem with WP:ACTIVISTs. Perhaps you don't think that's a problem on Wikipedia.  Will Beback   talk    00:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * All of my edits are visible in my contribution list.   Will Beback    talk    01:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Akagi FAC
I'm pretty well finished tweaking Akagi myself, at least until I get the new edition of Hata in a couple of weeks, but I'm wondering if you want to keep on polishing it. You've added some new info, but also a lot of second, third and fourth cites to info that was already cited. I don't see a whole lot of value of doing this as it seems redundant to me, but you probably feel differently. Anyways, let me know if you'd prefer some more time to work on the article before we initiate the FAC. I'd really like to get confirmation of Hoyt's bit about the lost aircraft from Japanese sources as I'm not impressed with his work as a historian.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I may be able to finish up tonight or tomorrow reviewing other sources. Hoyt, I believe, does cite his source for the information on the loss of the carrier's airgroup in the Sea of Japan, but I will check it again tonight.  If you want to remove it, I'm fine with that. Cla68 (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I will check Agawa's bio of Yamamoto also to see if he confirms the story and/or has any additional details. Cla68 (talk) 07:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm done. Cla68 (talk) 13:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you actually use anything from the new edition of Hata? If so then please specify which ones, using all three authors.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You need to answer Nikkimaria's question about footnote 37.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delayed response. I'll try to answer today. Cla68 (talk) 05:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

FAC delegate resignation
FYI. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 04:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Arawe ACR
Hi, have you finished commenting in the Battle of Arawe A class review? The review has been listed for closure, and I've suggested keeping it open until you're done. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 07:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Great job. Cla68 (talk) 07:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Thanks a lot for your excellent comments on the article and contributions to it. Nick-D (talk) 07:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Berg
Chuck, any attempt at sending cards to the foundation will be useless. You know that Kylu, supposedly a female, was confirmed to be a genuine person by Bastique, but then it turned out it was a dude? What kind of credentials do they accept if they can be fooled like that (or likely, they just accept selected individuals, honest or dishonest that they are, as long as they fit their goals)? Tempaccount6 (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The real point of my question is that Scotty's remonstrations appear to be disingenuous. Cla68 (talk) 23:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, at least give Berg recognition for losing 120 pounds, even if it was with surgical procedures and not good natural methods (such as detaching his butt from the chair and walking)! Tempaccount6 (talk) 23:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The person in question has some sympathy from me on that point. Two years ago I actually gained weight while training for a marathon!  I wish weight was easier to lose, but so far I haven't, knock on wood, had to resort to surgery. Cla68 (talk) 23:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Is ScottyBerg's editing akin to what Mantanmoreland would add/subtract to the Gary Weiss article? I haven't investigated whether they are or aren't.--MONGO 00:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, his edits to the article since 4 January are similar to the kind of edits that Mantanmoreland used to make. Cla68 (talk) 00:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So, you find them to be generally protective and possibly promotional?--MONGO 01:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you remember how the last Mantanmoreland sock farm was exposed? Cla68 (talk) 11:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't recollect exactly...but I do know that WordBomb's "farm" was full of hogs...and it appears he or at least his surrogates are still active on this matter...on and off wiki.MONGO 12:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, WP's administration still owes him an apology for how he was treated when he first tried to alert them to Mantanmoreland's dishonesty. It's still not too late. Cla68 (talk) 05:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year
Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

South American dreadnought race
Hey Cla. A lot of newspapers accused the Japanese of plotting to buy the Minas Geraes class, so I was wondering what the Japanese media had to say about it all... but obviously I can't read Japanese, so I decided to contact you. Would you be able to look at some online archives (if there are any) and let me know if there is anything? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't read Japanese very well either, but I will see what I can find. Cla68 (talk) 01:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a ridiculously late follow-up, but did you ever find anything? Many thanks. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries! Yeah, that wouldn't help much... I can make do with Google Translate for Romance languages because I can tell what links are close to what I want, but Japanese characters are far and beyond me. Thanks anyway! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Battle of Rennell Island
This is a note to let the main editors of Battle of Rennell Island know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on January 29, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/January 29, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or his delegate, 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 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:



The Battle of Rennell Island took place on 29–30 January 1943, and was the last major naval engagement between the United States Navy and the Imperial Japanese Navy during the Guadalcanal campaign of World War II. The battle took place in the South Pacific between Rennell Island and Guadalcanal in the southern Solomon Islands. In the battle, Japanese naval land-based torpedo bombers, seeking to provide protection for the impending evacuation of Japanese forces from Guadalcanal, made several attacks over two days on United States' warships operating as a task force south of Guadalcanal. In addition to approaching Guadalcanal with the objective of engaging any Japanese ships that might come into range, the U.S. task force was protecting an Allied transport ship convoy that was carrying replacement troops to Guadalcanal. As a result of the Japanese air attacks on the task force, one U.S. heavy cruiser was sunk, a destroyer was heavily damaged, and the rest of the U.S. task force was forced to retreat from the southern Solomons area. Partly because of their success in turning back the U.S. task force in this battle, the Japanese were successful in evacuating their remaining troops from Guadalcanal by 7 February 1943, leaving Guadalcanal in the hands of the Allies and ending the battle for the island. (more...) UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: Fortifications
Hi. I was wondering if I could get your opinion on something. I'm trying to flesh out the Lahaina Fort section on Lahaina Banyan Court Park. Based on your informed opinion about fortifications, what information should be covered by this section? I ask because I have a lot of it, but I don't know what is important to add and what is unimportant enough to leave out. As someone interested in military history, exactly what data points should it contain as a general overview? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 04:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delayed reply. There is a group of editors in WP:MIL who specialize in articles on fortifications and castles, so I'll ask them to help you out.  I don't have any experience in that topic. Cla68 (talk) 23:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks ever so much! I can use all the help I can get. Like I said, I have the data, I just don't know what's important to include. :) Viriditas (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late action on this, I just asked for assistance at MILHIST. Cla68 (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

ScottyBerg RfC
You have been mentioned on this RfC.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Jimmy's response
Has the co-founder answered the questions regarding copyrights we posed some days ago? I can't find anything right now. Gravitoweak (talk) 14:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, he didn't answer. Cla68 (talk) 22:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, i re-posted what you and Youreallycan wanted to ask, which is: Jimmy, your comment to CNN about the the wikipedia community being the voters seems at odds with that declared by the foundation (and followed) - did you know the foundation's position as to who was allowed to, encouraged to join in the vote? : Is that correct? Gravitoweak (talk) 19:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Three questions for Will Beback
Will Beback has so far failed to answer these three questions over at AN:
 * Are you an administrator?
 * Did you conduct an off-wiki investigation into the editing history of Rlevse's wife?
 * Did you threaten Rlevse that if he did not leave the project, you would reveal the details about his wife that you found in your investigation? Cla68 (talk) 04:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Fæ
I'm not going to come here throwing block threats around, but if you feel that the hat was wrong, the appropriate thing to do is to discuss it with me on my talk page or seek a consensus at ANI to reverse my decision. Please do not "summarize" that section again.--v/r - TP 23:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I told you to stay off my talk page before and I mean it. Now kindly bugger off and stop being a pain in the posterior. Prioryman (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Prioryman, but dispute resolution procedures required it. Cla68 (talk) 00:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, right - pull the other one, it's got bells on it. Prioryman (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Final warning Do not continue to post personal attacks in Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Fæ, or you may be blocked from editing. I had hoped it wouldn't have to come to this, but if you can't see how your edits are inappropriate, then a block may be neccessary to prevent you from disrupting that RFC.--v/r - TP 00:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Cla, I'm going to say this as someone who knows that you've said some nice things about me on WR, which I appreciate. My advice, that of course you didn't ask for, is to drop this. It's only going to blow up, and do no good. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a method to my madness, which I will put on TParis' talk page. Cla68 (talk) 04:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I've mentioned your re-insertion at ani. Sorry your alleged attacks are NOT NPA/CIVIL violations, but your allegations are.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 05:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Several editors claimed, or implied, that Delicious Carbuncle, is a homophobe. In other words, they commented on the editor (the individual), not the edits (the individual's behavior).  I alleged that this violated NPA, because it does.  I commented on those editors' behavior, not them as people, and I supported my assertion with diffs.  Therefore, I did not violate NPA. Cla68 (talk) 10:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If you had kept your focus to one or two editors, you might have had a case. Unfortunately, most of the edits for most of the users you cited are in no way shape or form personal attacks.  Hell, one person you cited discounted the notion of it being gay related, but stil considers it to be harrassment.  So since htat person deems it harrassment, they are listed as making an attack?  Or cyber pooftery? You've lowered the bar for what is considered to be Civil/NPA violaitons to such a low level that it becomes an impediment to discussion.  By including those you loose credibility in this claim.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 23:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We disagree that ad hominem arguments are personal attacks. That is fine.  You can disagree with me, but don't edit war to prevent me from stating my opinion where everyone can see it.  I addressed the behavior, not the person, as the NPA policy dictates, and I backed-up my opinion with diffs.  So, I violated no policy.  You can post your own, dissenting response if you want to, but you, or TParis, have no policy-backed rationale for deleting my comments or blocking me. Cla68 (talk) 00:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Blocked; February 2012
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. v/r - TP 14:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm also writing a block review on WP:AN that will address this issue as I asked you to do several times. I will give you the link here and copy over any of your comments if you have any.--v/r - TP 14:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey what happened? Gravitoweak (talk) 14:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy to copy the comments over, I didn't realize the unblock request was one of the comments you wanted copied. I sort of expected a "Hey, copy this to AN:".  I'll copy it now although I think the block is going to expire in a minute or two anyway.--v/r - TP 14:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, it just expired so I guess I'll just wait for you to respond to the AN thread.--v/r - TP 14:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Block review. Thank you. v/r - TP 14:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Feb 2012
Cla, the witchhunt you're participating in seems to be causing severe and possibly long term damage to the real life career prospects of one of most productive volunteers. As you seem to lack the ability to reliably use the correct gender when referring to others or even to write a coherent sentence, maybe you could step away from the RfC and restrict yourself to activities more in line with your competence? I have a similar view about the other WR accounts. At any rate, please don't post about this matter on my talk again. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * FeydHuxtable, please refrain from resorting to ad hominem arguments if you disagree with something that someone says in Wikipedia. Agreed? Cla68 (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Can I request a hold?
Hello. Can I ask that you (just for a little while) put a hold on the whole "Fae/personal attack" series of edits? If for no other reason than that it does not appear to be an effective way of getting the message through? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 13:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm finished with that part of it for now. It is part of a larger effort I've started to try to tamp down on the use of ad hominem attacks by Wikipedians on each other, along with other logical fallacies.  If you have this page on your watchlist, you will see what takes place as it progresses and I welcome your participation. Cla68 (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Pedantic logical point
Note that ad hominem and personal attack are logically distinct, because you can have a personal attack which is not an ad hominem, and you can have an ad hominem which is not a personal attack.

For an example of the first, suppose you say that your argument is not feeble, therefore you are not an idiot. I reply that you are an idiot, therefore your argument is feeble. This is not an ad hominem, because I have addressed your argument, by modus tollens. But it is clearly a personal attack on you. Conversely, if I reply 'you are a great guy, therefore what you say is correct', that is an ad hominem because it addresses your personal qualities rather than your argument itself. But it is a compliment, not an attack.

Arguments that someone is from Wikipedia Review therefore their arguments are unsound or invalid are clearly ad hominem. Even to say an argument is biased is ad hominem. Ad hominem is any form of words that fails to engage with the content of what the speaker is saying, and engages with personal qualities or motives or reasons or whatever. Hope that helps. 86.183.162.176 (talk) 14:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you are right. An ad hominem argument is not always a personal attack.  Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd go even further and say that the permissibility of an ad hominem should be determined by the contribution to the discourse, by whether it raises or lowers the level of intellectual honesty. Pointing out e.g. a clearcut conflict of interest which the editor in question decided to keep out of the debate and which cannot reasonably be assumed to be common knowledge does technically constitute an ad hominem. But imho it is not only permissible, but mandatory for anyone to try and give everyone involved and particularly less-intimately-knowledgeable onlookers a chance to gauge the arguments by their actual merits. Which brings me to my current major pet peeve in WP policy: There's a widely-quoted policy called "Assume good faith", but there is no policy "Act in good faith". And the meaning of this status quo is that some of our policies are geared towards protecting some of the worst, longest-term and most well-established miscreants among WP editors. Cla, I admire your attempts at improving Wikipedia, but this crowd does not want change. They love their fallacies, they love this dysfunction, and that's why any intelligent person should give up on Wikipedia sooner rather than later. --87.79.225.165 (talk) 13:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with the IP; ad hominem comments are not always illogical or a fallacy. The most obvious example is pointing out a conflict of interest, which the IP editor already outlined. If someone publishes an article claiming that secondhand smoke does not cause cancer, then it is entirely reasonable to point out that person's employment by a tobacco company. Far from being a logical fallacy, providing such information is considered essential in any ethical scholarly enterprise, even though it could be considered a form of ad hominem. A second situation in which ad hominem arguments are reasonable is in pointing out apparent hypocrisy. If you make a vigorous moral argument against behavior X, but in fact you routinely engage in behavior X, then it is reasonable to point out that your personal behavior calls into question the sincerity of your moral argument. Technically, that's an ad hominem approach, but it's neither illogical nor a fallacy. MastCell Talk 23:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Pointing out COI or hypocrisy aren't personal attacks if supported by evidence, but they are still usually ad hominem logical fallacies, because they don't directly address the content of the issue at hand. They address the credibility of the speaker, but not the veracity of the speaker's argument, because only an analysis of the actual content of the speaker's message can identify it's truthfulness. Cla68 (talk) 00:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The point is that an awareness of conflicts of interest, and of potential hypocrisy, is essential to any informed analysis of a speaker's message. That's presumably why reputable scholarly publishers inform readers of such conflicts. MastCell Talk 00:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I admit it can be helpful. I recently read a report on the Fukushima nuclear disaster written by several Japanese academics.  I noticed that it was edited by a US government scientist who I happen to know is heavily involved in environmental activism (if I said his name you would recognize it).  It didn't necessarily discredit the paper, but it told me that I needed to more carefully examine the paper's argument and conclusions before deciding to believe it. Cla68 (talk) 00:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Of interest
I've mentioned your name here. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 06:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Editing at the Transcendental Meditation movement articles
"Good grief. Is this what it's like to edit the TM topic? Are you guys constantly being accused of editing from work, COI, socking, and the like? If so, it's unbelievable that it has been allowed for you all to be treated this way for so long."--Cla68
 * The atmosphere for editing at the Transcendental Meditation articles (Template:Transcendental Meditation movement) has been most uncongenial for several years. Outside editors and admins have quickly felt overcome by the fumes and escaped as soon as they could. I was tolerated for awhile on the Talk page, but my edits rarely survived, and I finally left to escape the attacking.


 * Will BeBack has been the longest-term anti-TM editor, and with a notable exception or two is usually fair and polite, with no apparent POV agenda. I said at the start of the 2010 arbitration that I thought a good solution would be to ban all the current editors (including me for completeness) and allow only neutral editors to continue the work. That was considered obviously unworthy of consideration. I know an enormous amount about the subject matter, and am able to be neutral, but under the current owners of the article, who require scrupulous adherence to all WP policy, my expert input is not wanted or used.


 * The Talk pages of this set of articles are filled with petty arguments applying all the various policies in various combinations, and even some WP:Wikilawyering as well. The few changes that are approved for the articles give them lopsided information, even though all the policies are followed. When you read an article, every few words or sentences you are pulled first toward TM as a wonderful discovery for mankind, and then away from TM as being pseudoscientific claptrap. If two such extreme points of view must be presented, I would have preferred that they be separated, so readers can read each POV without interruption. David Spector (user/talk) 17:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're saying. One way to fix an article that is in that situation, from what I've observed, is to completely rewrite the article on a page in your userspace (like I am currently doing here, although there aren't any content dispute problems with that article as far as I'm aware).  Once you have it rewritten, link to it on the talk page of the actual article and ask for comments/critiques.  Once you have a version that most people agree on, move it over and paste on top of the current article. Cla68 (talk) 07:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but that would be an enormous amount of work (it's not just one article!). I wish I had that time and patience and even the slightest expectation that it would be accepted by the editors who WP:OWN these articles. Let me be clear: you are recommending that I spend many days of time I do not have to create fair, balanced articles that do justice to all the topics. Then, you are recommending that I offer these articles to these completely polarized editors who amuse themselves by finding ways to insult each other without being even slightly un-WP:CIVIL, expecting that they will welcome my magnum opus with open arms and lovingly replace the current articles with mine. Were you, perhaps, attempting a bit of humor? (Your actual suggestion was far more fantastical: you suggested I be WP:BOLD and simply overwrite the articles with mine, inviting the fastest mass reversions ever seen on WP.) Instead of asking me to do the impossible, you and your fellow admins should work to improve the problem areas in WP. You say you don't know how to do that? Here is an idea: create a new procedure wherein all the editors sitting on an article (or, in this case, a whole group of articles) are blocked or banned (sorry, I don't know the technical difference) from editing those articles, with an unlimited expiration. Have some neutral editors lined up to take over. The new editors would read, research, and rewrite the articles, as needed, to bring them up to a good level of quality. Then the team of new editors would vanish into the night, leaving the articles in good shape, ready for additions as history unfolds. Such a new procedure would have stood a chance of being accepted earlier in WP's history, but now there is too much fondness for what exists, and too little imagination left for such a revolutionary concept. Wait, it's not actually revolutionary, since all I am talking about is enforcing WP:OWN. David Spector (user/talk) 20:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right, it is time consuming. It is, however, a workable way to fix an article.  I have seen it done before in a way that was effective enough that the warring factions were forced to reluctantly agree that the proposed article was better-written, more neutral, and flowed better than the current faction-ridden article.  Anyway, I'm not an admin.  I think your idea, however, is workable, but the Wikimedia Foundation would block an attempt to do as you suggest, because they put higher priority on maximum participation than on building accurate, well-written, balanced articles. Cla68 (talk) 00:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * the Wikimedia Foundation ... put[s] higher priority on maximum participation than on building accurate, well-written, balanced articles. Ya got that right!  Cla, I haven't fully followed that arbcase, but as a MEDRS person, I'm most uneasy about the proposed decisions.  Admins don't understand WP:MEDRS, many editors don't respect it, who will watch that?  I wonder if the arbs would even get it if not for a medicine editor (Cas) on the committee?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, what I meant about problems with articles was from partisan editors, not from expert or non-expert editors. Based on my experiences, some topic areas have editors who are experts in that topic, but who are also really, really politically biased.  I agree with you that the medical articles need people who know what they are doing, but I would say even more important is that those people aren't trying to push a specific agenda, no matter how knowleadgeable they are on the subject. Cla68 (talk) 00:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But my specific question relates to the problem that very few admins on Wikipedia understand or even know of the existence of WP:MEDRS, much less how to determine if a source meets that guideline, so if an editor who previously violated that is being unbanned, but expected to comply with MEDRS, who will be watching that? It's a problem everywhere I edit medically:  advocates use primary and lay media sources to push POV, and most admins and outside editors don't even realize the guideline breach, or that the way to solve the content disputes is to enforce adherence to MEDRS.  The autism suite of articles was an enormous POV walled garden in 2006, and it got cleaned up when a group dove in and forced MEDRS compliance.  (Kind of like what you're saying above, about getting it written right, problem disappear-- that happened there.)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok. I understand what you mean.  Yes, in that case, admins need to understand how to enforce MEDRS and how to encourage compliance among well-meaning, but inexperienced editors. Cla68 (talk) 01:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm just wondering how they will enforce it. I raised my question over on the arb board discussion, where I noticed some unbecoming grave dancing.  Regardless of how one felt about those users, they are still real people, and I'm well aware that the kiddie admins are aiming for me, and plenty of them would like to dance on my grave next.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If there are any pages that I could help out on by putting on my watchlist, please let me know which ones. Cla68 (talk) 01:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Watchlist notice
I saw your suggestion on the RfC's talk page. I've already made a request for that. You may wish to support it, because that too is decided by consensus. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Terrillja talk  02:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

ARBCC topic ban lift request
Note to self with link to keep this watched. Cla68 (talk) 00:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Fiji Infantry Regiment
G'day, today I came across a question that you left on Talk:Fiji Infantry Regiment in November 2006. Sorry that no one has responded until now. I've left an answer there for you, if you are still interested. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Senkaku Islands dispute
Is there any chance you could stop adding every news story about SI to that article? Wikipedia is expressly WP:NOTNEWS. We should not be listing a month by month chronology of every minor incursion, along with the obligatory calling of ambassadors and strongly worded statements. That whole chronology needs to be about 60-80% shorter than it actually is, and adding more and more incidents isn't helping...I just don't have time right now to do the major edits needed. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. If I wanted to know the history of the Senkaku Islands dispute, that's the kind of detail I would be interested in.  I suggest at the end of each year we remove the bullet points of each incident and summarize them in a couple of paragraphs. Cla68 (talk) 11:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That simply is not what Wikipedia does. We don't list year by year, event by event. We provide a summary overview of a dispute. Furthermore, we're never supposed to have bulleted lists when prose is acceptable. Instead, that article should have sections like "Encounters between naval vessels" and "Diplomatic efforts". What you're talking about simply isn't an encyclopedia article. Like i said, I'm not going to be making the changes right now, but it is on my long-term "to do list"; I'll seek talk page consensus before doing anything major, of course. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Cla68/threat charges
User:Cla68/threat charges, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cla68/threat charges (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Cla68/threat charges during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 23:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Good grief. Cla68 (talk) 10:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Re:this. I recommend moving it to your talk page instead.  They can delete your user page but policy prevents them from deleting your talk page. --Vanished User 13579 (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Trayvon
In case there is some confusion, the family spokesman had already confirmed the reason for the suspension before Drmies took any action in this case. Drmies never claimed that the information was false or dubious, just that it shouldn't be included. Dragons flight (talk) 03:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. Cla68 (talk) 04:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You said, at AN, "I don't think there would be an edit war, because currently et cetera." Now that is something I might agree with. I am not sure the many detractors (including you, I guess) understand that that was one of the things I was hoping for--that a consensus be established among a broader group of editors than just the three or four who were discussing the matter on the talk page. I don't know if you're still calling for my head or not, but you have to admit that there's some hysteria going on at AN. Oh, as I've said before, I am perfectly willing to be overruled by an admin, and the argument you brought up (half of which is cited above) is precisely the kind of thing that would be relevant. All this screaming from some editors about censorship and violations of sacred obligations will go nowhere, and I am sure you know that. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It has been my experience with articles about highly publicized media-intensive events, that things for the most part take care of themselves, because so many people are watching and participating with building the article, and the mass media is quick to confirm or publicize new details. I don't think I called for your head, just called for you to unlock the article since you locked it.  I understand that its a fine line between enforcing BLP and getting in the way of trying to build a complete, up-to-date article. Cla68 (talk) 22:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I had passport photos taken today. My head actually looks a lot less attractive than I though it did. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Must be the haircut:) Cla68 (talk) 04:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

selfreverted

 * seems you are right, the capital letters and the spelling 'ver-MOOTH' led me think its improper. i have self reverted, thanks for informing--  Ð ℬig  XЯaɣ   07:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

My doorstep
Do not darken my doorstep again. If you continue to follow me around the encyclopedia, I will seek a binding interaction ban between us. Hipocrite (talk) 23:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

And I will participate in any arbcom case which is opened whereby the evidence is about your HOUNDing issues, for I too an greatly fatigued of your multi-year effort to "get me". We already saw your saga against SlimVirgin and later WMC...--MONGO 23:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hipocrite, if you look higher up on that BLPN page, you will see I had participated in a previous discussion on the same issue, BEFORE you did. So, actually, you followed me to that topic.  MONGO, same thing.  You know that I was in the Pentagon during the 9/11 attacks, so I have more than a passing interest in the topic.  That's the only topic, as far as I know, where our paths of crossed in the last few years.  You, however, have followed me around.  A certain recent MfD vote ring any bells?  For you two to follow me around and then accuse me of following YOU takes a lot of gall.  While we're here, Hipocrite, stop threatening other editors and calling them racists.  MONGO, why don't you and the other 9/11 editors stop the campaign against The Devil's Advocate?  I will post this on both your talk pages to make sure you get it. Cla68 (talk) 02:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

fyi
You've been mentioned here. Nobody Ent 02:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 19
Hi. When you recently edited Senkaku Islands, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ministry of Defense (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) 09:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Advertising paid editing on your user page
Hi Cla68. I see that you are selling your editing services on your user page. I think that WP:NOTADVERTISING prohibits that sort of thing. Would you be willing to take that down? Gobōnobo + c 05:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't violate WP:NOTADVERTISING. I am offering to improve the encyclopedia in exchange for compensation.  There is no policy in Wikipedia that forbids that. Cla68 (talk) 05:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you consider using the reward board instead? I note with some interest that in the 2009 paid editing RFC you indicated that you would take half as much money for an FA. If WP:NOTADVERTISING doesn't apply, I think WP:UP probably does. Gobōnobo + c 06:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems to fall within the limitations of WP:UP to me, as it is related to Wikipedia, and it's not excessive. So long as Cla68 notifies this page and the talk pages of any articles that xe is paid to edit (though I wonder if the statement is actually serious) of xyr COI and abides by WP:COI, then this seems fair. I don't know how a business would ever stumble across this ad, so I doubt its effectiveness, but should you have any success, I recommend availing yourself of the services found at WikiProject Cooperation/Paid Editor Help; in particular, User:WWB Too provides an excellent model for appropriate COI editing behavior (and is, in fact, probably more cautious than strictly required). Of course, were Cla68 to add in animated gifs and flashing advertisements to call attention to this add, then WP:UP might become relevant. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * (also ) While I personally don't approve of paid editing, Cla's right in that there's no rule against it as long as it's done in good faith (eg, editing rather than spaming). It seems sensible for editors offering paid editing services to display this on their user page as part of being transparent. Cla, if you get any takers, how would this work? I presume that you would make it clear which articles you'd been paid to edit - especially during assessment processes. Nick-D (talk) 08:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * (also also ) A very bold move. I've been operating under the impression that paid editors should not add content anywhere in Wikipedia that could be seen as a Call to action for others to hire them.  Perhaps I am wrong?  Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   10:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Completely agree. Carry on I say, but just be careful. This seems to be an unusual thing, but so long as you stay neutral I really don't see what the fuss is about. It's just that paid editors have a tendency to be biased, so I would recommend that you be extremely careful here. But feel to edit I say! Good luck! Jesse V. (talk) 06:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Cla68 advertising his services as a paid Wikipedia editor. Thank you. Monty 845  17:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Cla68, there seems to be general (but not unanimous) agreement at ANI that, while there is no policy forbidding you from being paid for editing, actively advertising your services on your userpage is inappropriate. Would you be willing to be cooperative and either remove the advertisement from your userpage, or at least refactor it such that it is no longer an advertisement but more of a disclosure that you are a paid editor?  It's unlikely that you're getting much business from people randomly dropping in on your userpage, and it would be easier for everyone if you were cooperative rather than having people go to the trouble of starting RFC's about it.  Thanks.  ‑Scottywong | spout _  20:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's strange; the discussion has been going for all of three hours, too soon to judge consensus, but regardless of the short duration, I don't see that agreement at ANI at all. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I don't see that consensus either. --John (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not that it matters, but Jimbo seems to agree. See User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 104  ‑Scottywong | comment _  21:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Jimbo and Cla have been bitching and trolling at each other for ages. --Errant (chat!) 21:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

While some may wikilawyer that the guideline WP:UP does not apply because of the connection to Wikipedia, the policy  WP:SOAP is very clear "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages." Please remove the advertisement now. -- The Red Pen of Doom  23:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Red pen, this is not the place for this discussion, especially since the current discussion at ANI does not support your position. At best, there is no consensus on the statement. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Show me one person who is saying the POLICY WP:NOT is not being flagrantly violated? Yes there are lots of people who are saying the wording of the GUIDELINE WP:UP might allow it. -- The Red Pen of Doom  00:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:SOAP speaks of article space, external links, articles about companies. Here we have a simple announcement on a user page, without more. We also have a lot of soapboxing, but not from Cla68. Kablammo (talk) 01:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Nick, I imagine that someday soon it will make more sense for FA nominators who weren't paid to declare such when making a nomination, because I believe that most editors who take the time to take an article to FA-level quality will be paid to do so. Cla68 (talk) 00:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * @Cla68: I'll give you a barnstar if you help me get List of self-publishing companies to WP:GA status. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I am afraid that you skipped down too far. It starts out quite clearly: "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and [[user pages."]] -- The Red Pen of Doom  01:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Red Pen is right, WP:SOAP is policy,  CLA68's ad fails this policy and needs to be removed per that same policy.

@-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons► Moon Base Alpha -@ 16:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Seeing no consensus at the now closed discussion that this user page should be exempt from Policy, I have removed the inappropriate content. -- The Red Pen of Doom  18:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Join the CLub
BTW, my main criticism is that you list your price... that's just bad business practice.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 22:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Worse, you've pitched it so low you'll ruin it for the rest of us. For example my standard charge is $250 per article edit, and in a special deal with the Association of Manufacturers of Industrial Acids I get $450 for each caustic comment I post about meretricious complaints on the noticeboards. How are editors like me going to make an honest living from Wikipedia now? You've started a price war that will surely lead to school kids advertising FAs for a couple of ecstasy tabs a pop. Shame on you.  Writegeist (talk) 22:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I was hoping to charge more than that. Maybe I can make my name brand well-known through flash ads?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: Orangemike

 * My statement was intended to stir things up a little by forcing a discussion on the issue of paid editing. The correct thing that Orange Mike and the others who think like him should have done was to ignore me. Of course, they apparently don't have sufficient situational awareness to realize that. By bringing it up in administrative forums and Jimbo's talk page, they have now likely cemented it in place as an acceptable practice. The thing is, if someone really is willing to pay me that much for a FA-level article, I am willing to accept and do it.

Hmmm. I thought that Orangemike should have contacted you on your talk page first, before taking it to ANI. Viriditas (talk) 04:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I see now that he filed after Gobonobo contacted you. Still, it would be nice if the filing editor attempts to resolve the issue as well, although this isn't always possible. Viriditas (talk) 05:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that OrangeMike took it to ANI, because we now have it established after discussion in an administrative forum that openly editing for pay is allowed by Wikipedia's policies and culture. Cla68 (talk) 23:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Need your advice... taking your idea and gonna make millions!
Hey Cla, I need your advice... now there are some people who have the talent/skill/and writing ability that they can help an article progress to FA status. At the same time, there are other editors whose mastery of the English language dictates that the encyclopedia would be better off NOT editing. To that extent, I would cast myself in the later categroy... so I was thinking, for a mere five dollars per article, I will agree NEVER To edit said article... I figure that all I have to do is get people to pay me not to edit 1% of the articles out there and I'll be able to retire!--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 06:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You'll need to apply to the federal government. Only they pay people not to do stuff!--regentspark (comment) 16:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL...--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 17:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ROFL. I just bought John Stossel's book "No They Can't". I think you know where my position is, I don't need to say anymore. Jesse V. (talk) 06:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I will look into buying that book for my Kindle. Cla68 (talk) 23:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for amendment Climate Control
Your request for amendment has been declined. No motion or conclusive support for the lifting of the topic ban was achieved. For the Arbitration Committee --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Protected
Hey Cla, I protected your userpage because of the edit warring. If you'd like to make an edit to it, let me know and I can unprotect it or make the change for you, whatever you'd prefer. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 21:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

A discussion at the administrators notice boards
A discussion has been initiated at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents about whether or not the community will come to a consensus to allow an advertisement on your user page. -- The Red Pen of Doom  18:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether or not the advertisement is real, but if it is, I think all this fuss is doing a better job of advertizing Cla68's services than a post on a user page ever could :-) ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The post on Jimbo's talk page was especially helpful in getting the word out. Jimbo's talk page is likely the most watched user talk page in Wikipedia. Cla68 (talk) 05:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You've made your point and started up several new discussions. Would you be willing to remove the advertisement until those discussions are finished? --Onorem♠Dil 17:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Heh, I just noticed this whole thing and I find the hyperventilation hilarious. I was wikignoming for a long time, not paying attention to Wikipedia space - and I just found out I missed the de-sysopping and banning of the insufferable Wont Beback. Many thanks for your work on that case, and bravo on your current endeavors. Kelly hi! 20:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In response to your comment above about Jimbo's talk page... That's nuts! I've never seen so many people watching a single page! How do they get any work done? I have to take pages off my watchlist when they get over 30 edits in a day because it's too distracting. I kind of feel sorry for poor Jimbo who can't "unwatch" his own talk page that looks like it gets around 100 edits daily. And to have to constantly deal with that little orange notification that you have new messages... Well, I'm going to shove off and quit bugging you on your talk page. Good luck. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Queries
Cla, 'tis an impressive list of FAs on your user page.

You may have noticed that I came out in favour of allowing paid editing at the debate. However, that was a purely pragmatic view; paid editing involves a nest of moral and logistic issues that the project doesn't seem willing or able to manage—at least not yet.

I noticed during a quick glance, "You can't have too many footnotes, but you can have too little." First, having seen a lot of FA candidates in which reftags litter the text, some of them clearly redundant and defensive, I quaver at your encouragement. Editors need to be a bit discriminating to avoid, for example, the same reftag number after three or four consecutive sentences—that's irritating to readers. You don't see reftag bloat in academic articles.

You might consider correcting the grammar: "You can't have too many footnotes, but you can have too little few."

Does your fee depend on whether the nomination succeeds? Will you declare at the nom page that you've been paid to do it? Do you have a personal code of ethics for your clients to read and understand? [PS as an afterthought, I guess I'm partly asking these questions as possible Signpost coverage, so you may wish to respond by email.]s

Cheers, Tony   (talk)  11:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I LOL'd at the grammar correction. That's one of the nuiances of the language that I'd never pick up on.  But I agree, the flat rate isn't a good method... is the rate the same for a scientific articles as for something you are familiar with?  What about something where finding sources might be hard/nigh impossible.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 13:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Tony, thanks for the critique and grammar correction. I will fix that.  Since I don't have any control over the FA process, and that is how it should be, I will probably need to change the wording of my offer to "FA-level quality".  I can and will promise to make the articles I work on as complete as possible based on the sourcing available and that I will submit them for FA consideration.  I haven't decided yet if I will declare for each article if I am being compensated or not, I may leave that up to the client.  I probably should write a personal code of ethics, that's a good idea. Cla68 (talk) 23:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think disclosure would be expected. Again, while I don't mind your mentioning that you are willing to work for $$$, and appreciate that you will announce it, I do think your "advertisement" should be a little less blatant.  E.g. Cla68 is a professional writer who is willing to improve articles on Wikipedia for a fee.  For more information see [link].  If it was that, then you couldn't possibly be criticized (beyond the scope of people who don't believe in paid writing) but it undermines the advertising bit.  (I mean, it would be full disclosure and a link to your business---which many people do.)--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 15:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Cla68
User:Cla68, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cla68 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Cla68 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. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 22:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Bwilkins, I really expected better than this of you. Cla68 - ya made your point, kin we stop with the zOMG dramaz now?  I get it.  Everyone gets it.  Yea .. people get paid to edit here.  It's not a big shock to anyone with half a brain.  But then again, hey - if ya get that $1000 .. well then - good on you. — Ched :  ?  20:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Goodness. I'm not going near there, but will someone tell Wehwalt he can't vote twice?  On the same day, noless!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm actually glad it was done. We have a policy already in place that bans advertisments, and yet, certain sysops seem to want to ignore it and insist on consensus where one already exists, instead of action. Good work, BWilkins @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons► Moon Base Alpha -@ 20:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Bwilkins, no logical fallacies please. You lose any chance at a higher moral ground when you resort to such tactics.  By the way, my userpage is not currently against any policy in Wikipedia.  If you don't like it, you need to try to change the policies, not try to nominate my userpage for deletion. Cla68 (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * @Cla68He doesn't have to WP:SOAP already is policy. @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons► Moon Base Alpha -@ 23:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read SOAP very carefully. I did.  It does not prohibit announcing your services or availability to improve Wikipedia.  Cla68 (talk) 00:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have read it carefully. Looks like you missed the top couple of lines:

''Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for:'' ''' Consensus already exists in the form of this policy. Remove the add already ''' @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons► Moon Base Alpha -@ 11:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Two appearances at ANI, Jimbo's page, and Rfc... and an MFD? Sounds like Forum Shopping to me.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 23:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Consequences: undisclosed COI editing, arbcom acceptance of COI editing, lax notability standards
Nice back story at Douglas E. Lynch (see talk also). Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIII, April 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Paiding editing prediction
Hi. I saw this edit of yours. I'm curious: is there a particular reason that you're making this prediction now? It's been over eleven years since Creation and from where I'm standing, I haven't seen much to suggest that a change is gonna come. If you don't mind sharing, what are you seeing that leads you to believe that a dramatic increase in paid editing is impending? --MZMcBride (talk) 14:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I could very well be wrong, of course, but I get the impression that there are a number of Wikipedia observers/participants who would like to be paid to edit, and are simply waiting for a time when community resistance to it is low enough to allow them to do so without being blocked, hectored, or ridiculed. I think that time is happening now. Cla68 (talk) 01:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe. The problem, of course, is that mobs are often uncontrollable. What's acceptable (or unopposed) today can quickly be condemned tomorrow.
 * I had a run-in with a paid editor recently at MarkMonitor. King4057 is very upfront and open about his conflicts of interest and he diligently used the talk page and a user subpage draft. If every paid editor acted as he did, there really would be no problem. The current approach by (particular) paid editors is a "radical transparency" approach, it seems. The idea is that if you do everything out in the open, you can't later be punished because everyone was aware of what you were doing and who you were doing it for. It's a novel approach and it seems to be working fairly well for paid editors... for now. It wouldn't surprise me if ultimately these editors were digging their own graves. The old guard still has the influence and the administrative power. I'm not sure we'll see any big shifts while this remains the case. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want to be paid, I would change the bit on your page that says "I am 43-years old." Not the best advert. Ericoides (talk) 15:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Um ... he's too young? Tony   (talk)  16:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As you very well know, the clue's in the edit summary. Ericoides (talk) 17:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not supposed to be a hyphen? I fixed it, thank you. Cla68 (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * MZM, not all of the "old guard" is against paid editing -- not that I have much influence here any more. In the last couple of years I find myself cringing whenever Jimmy Wales inserts himself into a dispute; he has a remarkable knack for either picking the worst side in a dispute or, when he has a good point, finding the most unproductive way to advocate for it. -- llywrch (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oooh llywrch, hearing another person say that makes me feel so very happy. Not that the Jimbo is capable of recognizing criticism like that. I can tell you that from personal experience.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  16:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think disclosure is enough. Paid editors that create otherwise complete articles with major omission (ie "hide information") or other forms of manipulation are still open to criticism. This editor disclosed, but her editing still really bothered me. I think Wikipedia editors are sometimes overly sympathetic to the editor too, such that PRs that disclose and use Talk can have an undue influence. What disclosure should award someone is a stronger leniency to AGF, but not protection from criticism. Even in the dated and somewhat poor example of my work (this is King4057), we added controversies, etc. The best defense against criticism is to just do good work, be fair and honest, use citations properly, disclose even less flattering events. I think Wikipedians care most about the outcome (a better encyclopedia) and the process takes a back-seat to that. But it just makes sense to leave all the final content decisions in the hands of someone that serves the reader's best interest, just like I would in traditional PR with a publication, where I might offer a contributed article that is vetted and posted by someone who serves the reader. My rant. :-D CorporateM (Talk) 22:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The MFD of your Page is at DRV
The MFD closure of your page is now at drv--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 21:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Invasion of Tulagi (May 1942)
This is a note to let the main editors of Invasion of Tulagi (May 1942) know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on May 3, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/May 3, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or his delegate, 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 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:



The invasion of Tulagi, on 3–4 May 1942, was part of Operation Mo, the Empire of Japan's strategy in the South Pacific and South West Pacific Area in 1942. The plan called for Imperial Japanese Navy troops to capture Tulagi and nearby islands in the Solomon Islands Protectorate. The occupation of Tulagi by the Japanese was intended to cover the flank of and provide reconnaissance support for Japanese forces that were advancing on Port Moresby in New Guinea, provide greater defensive depth for the major Japanese base at Rabaul, and serve as a base for Japanese forces to threaten and interdict the supply and communication routes between the United States and Australia and New Zealand. Without the means to capably resist the Japanese offensive in the Solomons, the British Resident Commissioner and the few Australian troops assigned to defend Tulagi evacuated just before the Japanese forces arrived on 3 May. Despite considerable losses inflicted by carrier-based American planes, the Japanese occupied the islands. (more...) UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I was just curious to see how this might look
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)

First coordinator of WikiProject Paid Editing

 * I nominate you as the first Coordinator of WikiProject Paid Editing (please see this). I will propose some suitable barnstars next weekend...no wait, User:Avanu can do it... – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 00:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)

How would WP policy dictate a potential client contact an editor willing to work for pay?
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)
 * 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)


 * [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)
 * 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)

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)

double curly brackets You've got mail
Factseducado (talk) 15:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Just a hello
Cla, good to see you (at Viriditas) -- did your CC block finally expire? If so, you may want to look in at Talk:Climategate -- as I'm making Yet Another try at making this a bit more NPOV-compliant. Hope all is well -- Pete Tillman (talk) 18:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)

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

Re: American cuisine
I'm no longer participating in the discussion over at Template talk:American cuisine, but I wanted to bring something to your attention. In the discussion, you proposed several images for use in the series navbox. However, none of the navboxes that are used in the featured articles you've worked on have images. This is similar to the footer currently in use in all of the American cuisine articles, namely Cuisine of the United States. In most of your FA's, you start off with an infobox about a specific military campaign, which typically features an image. Most of the regional cuisine articles that use this template should be structured in the same way.  For example, we should have an Infobox cuisine that features information about the specific cuisine (let's say Hawaiian cuisine) with an image of that particular cuisine in the lead. Beneath that infobox, we should have navigational templates without images, similar to the ones you use beneath all of your infoboxes; for example in Battle of the Eastern Solomons, you have the infobox in the lead followed by several navigational campaign boxes. In the same way, each regional cuisine article in the American cuisine set should have an American cuisine template without an image, providing only a text interface for navigating related articles. Would you be willing to support this idea based on your own usage in MILHIST articles? Viriditas (talk) 09:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * You could do it for charity! :) Viriditas (talk) 04:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga
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 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 or his delegate, 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 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:



Kaga was an aircraft carrier of the Imperial Japanese Navy. Originally intended to be one of two Tosa-class battleships, Kaga was converted under the terms of the Washington Naval Treaty into an aircraft carrier as the replacement for the battlecruiser JAPANESE BATTLECRUISER Amagi, which had been damaged during the 1923 Great Kanto earthquake. Kaga's aircraft first supported Japanese troops in China during the Shanghai Incident of 1932 and participated in the Second Sino-Japanese War in the late 1930s. With other carriers, she took part in the 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 USS Enterprise (CV-6), USS Hornet (CV-8), and USS Yorktown (CV-5). 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...) UcuchaBot (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIV, May 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ opened
An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at 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, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 01:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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 &#124;  My Talk  00:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I only edit war with ArbCom clerks when I haven't done anything wrong. Cla68 (talk) 00:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 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. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 01:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I'd just point something out to you then... Hers fold  (t/a/c) 02:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 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 &#124; talk✌ 00:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 &#124;  My Talk  01:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Your Arbitration evidence is too long (Fae case)
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; this guide may be able to provide some help in doing so. If the length of your evidence is not reduced soon, it may be refactored or removed by a human clerk within a few days. Thank you! If you have any questions or concerns regarding the case, please contact the drafting Arbitrator or case clerk (listed on the case pages); if you have any questions or concerns about this bot, please contact the operator. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold ArbClerkBOT(talk) 05:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 &#124; talk✌ 13:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you SB_Johnny, that sounds like a good compromise :). Lord Roem (talk) 18:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 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 &#124; talk✌ 21:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 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 &#124; talk✌ 22:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks SB. Cla68 (talk) 22:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:American cuisine
I set a poll up here, please contribute. --<span style="font-family:lucida sans, sans-serif;">Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

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

GOCE July 2012 Copy Edit Drive
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Request
Please do not comment on my talkpage anymore. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Why don't you stop edit warring? Cla68 (talk) 22:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

International Award
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)

Banning
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)

Talkback
Sport and politics (talk) 09:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVI, July 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Japan Times "Taisho Democracy" article
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)

Revert Warring
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)

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

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at 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)

Hello! Could you check Toyoaki Horiuchi ?
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)

Barefoot running
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)

Guadalcanal Campaign format changes
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 talk page for the article. Feel free to participate. Kablammo (talk) 22:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Your implication that I am not telling the truth
In the thread about Peter Damian you claim my allegations are false. Here's the email: Several respected members of the Wikimedia community – and several members of our charity – have approached us voicing their concerns about (Redacted), an ex-Wikipedia user who was banned from the project for harassing volunteers on and off Wikipedia. Given his past and present conduct, which includes harassment and publishing personal details of Wikimedians, we do not feel that we can guarantee the security of our volunteers if he is permitted to attend our events.

To that end, Wikimedia UK have banned (Redacted) (known on Wikipedia as User:Peter Damian) from attending any Chapter-run events (not including the London meetups) until further notice. (Redacted) is, of course, still welcome to communicate with the charity through email and post, and this ban is subject to review in future if circumstances change.

For the Wikimedia UK Board of Trustees, Richard Symonds Office & Development Manager Wikimedia UK

Would you like to strike your post? Dougweller (talk) 09:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. Dougweller (talk) 12:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As an aside, Cla68, do you think that posting a link to the outing on WP:AN was remotely sensible? That will just attract dozens of editors to look at the outing. Next time, just quietly remove the information and email oversight to have the information removed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 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. Dougweller (talk) 12:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the whole post needs redacting as it is far too easy to find PD's identity from the above.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 WP:AN but I wouldn't expect Cla68 to have known that. Dougweller (talk) 21:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 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 &#124; talk✌ 22:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 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. Dougweller (talk) 05:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Didn't happen and as it's the weekend tomorrow can't happen until Monday at the earliest, sorry. Dougweller (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


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

Yet another fuzz about "religiosity" and "atheism"..

 * 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)

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

The Bugle: Issue LXXVII, August 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Prem Rawat
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)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * 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)

Technologies used in cycling
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)

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)

Military history coordinator election
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)

ANI on IP at Long War Journal
I just started an ANI on the IP editor for repeatedly restoring material that was removed per RfC at Long War Journal. Since you participated in the RfC, this notice is just an FYI. You are not mentioned in the ANI. GregJackP  Boomer!   19:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

BLP committee
Cla, further to the idea of a BLP committee I raised a few weeks ago, please see User_talk:Jimbo_Wales. Best,  J N  466  13:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

September 2012 Camp Bastion raid
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)

Disambiguation link notification for October 4
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)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVIII, September 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project and/or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

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)

Motion about postings of Echigo mole
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 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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&#39;s Advocate (talk) 17:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * The IP was blocked as a Tor node. That pretty much makes it a duck with a shovel. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * You're welcome. I know nothing of the specifics. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

FYI
comment removed, since superseded (see below)

FYI
Please see WP:AE, where, on the advice of Future Perfect at Sunrise, you have been added as an additional independent party in the ongoing request. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 06:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Interaction ban
Per this AE thread, you are indefinitely prohibited from commenting on, or interacting with,, broadly construed, anywhere on Wikipedia. You may appeal this ban at AE or to the arbitration committee at WP:A/R/CA. T. Canens (talk) 11:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom
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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

FYI
There is a report at WP:AE concerning you, because you have violated the interaction ban above. That interaction ban prohibits you from discussing me anywhere on wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 03:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIX, October 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ian Rose (talk) 02:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Quotes
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&#39;s Advocate (talk) 05:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Well, the quote on my page is from a Dilbert comic strip. :D --The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Carlson's patrol
Some bright spark during a discussion at T:MP on what to do for the TFA on November 6 had the idea of running Carlson's patrol, as it would mark the 70th anniversary of the start of the patrol, and be a politically neutral US-related article for presidential election day. I have nominated it at WP:TFAR and if you have any views for or against, please express them there. Regards, BencherliteTalk 12:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * taken --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Controversies at the 2012 Olympics - Technologies in Track Cycling
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? It seems rather pointless in view of this latest 'discussion'. In fact several mostly uninvolved editors are now gathering for the kill. This would be a shame for the article, compromised though it is. I also think that removal vindicates the tactics used by more involved editors which is far more damaging.

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)


 * 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)

USS San Diego
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?--<font face="century gothic" color="#000000">Daytona  <font face="century gothic" color="#556B2F"> 500  14:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems appropriate to me. Cla68 (talk) 01:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

SilkTork discussion
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&#39;s Advocate (talk) 01:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)

Request regarding further appeals
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&#39;s Advocate (talk) 07:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. Cla68 (talk) 08:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 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&#39;s Advocate (talk) 17:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I will see what I can do. Cla68 (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 14
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)

Disambiguation link notification for November 26
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)

The Bugle: Issue LXXX, November 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

GAN
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)

Amendment request
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests 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—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

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

WP:AE
A request for enforcement concerning you has been filed at WP:AE. Mathsci (talk) 02:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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, 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Unintentional revert
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)
 * No problem at all Stephan. I appreciate the note. Cla68 (talk) 10:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Treats for your article work
<div style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; background-color: #ddd; border: 5px solid #ddd; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); border-radius: 0.5em;"><p style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 0;">'tis the season see also Otello or acting on evidence, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Clerking
I am not currently clerking the Race and intelligence amendment request. My comment is in the section below. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 03:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Bugle interview
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)

Comment
I edit Wikipedia while i'm at work! But, then again, i'm allowed to, so... Silver seren C 04:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)

Replaceable fair use File:Tetsuya takeda.jpg
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 the file description page and edit it to add, 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)

Thanks for the advice
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.--Thomas B (talk) 08:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)

Main page appearance: Japanese aircraft carrier Hōshō
This is a note to let the main editors of Japanese aircraft carrier Hōshō know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on December 27, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/December 27, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or his delegates, , and , or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you can change it—following the instructions at 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:

Hōshō was the world's first commissioned ship to be designed and built as an aircraft carrier, and the first aircraft carrier of the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN). Commissioned in 1922, the ship was used for testing aircraft and equipment, and to evaluate operational methods and tactics. She provided valuable lessons and experience for the IJN in early carrier air operations. Hōshō and her aircraft participated in the Shanghai Incident in 1932 and in the opening stages of the Sino-Japanese War in 1937. During those two conflicts, her aircraft supported Imperial Japanese Army ground operations and engaged in combat with aircraft of the 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...) UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom case request
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests 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—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * 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. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 18:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXI, December 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

'Tis that season again...

 * What he said. :) -- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 15:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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 Aichi D3A. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Zeke with detachable auxiliary fuel tank. Kablammo (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Mmm, or there's that. Good call. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Cl, here is the first upload, before the legend was cropped off. Kablammo (talk) 03:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


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

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




 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

Just wanted to note a recent upload by the US Navy Department Library to Facebook of this image: Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 12:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * The island does resemble this image (also linked above), and Shokaku's island was to starboard. Kablammo (talk) 02:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
Goodness, man, archive your talk page! Best, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

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)

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. &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "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)
 * ... I don't get the reference, Sorry. &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXII, January 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

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. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Now that would be quite a circus.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 17:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yup. Cla68 (talk) 13:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

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.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 00:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello! Looks good to me. Cla68 (talk) 00:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking it over. Cheers! --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 01:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
--<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#008C3A 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#01796F -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;"><b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#01796F;">✉ 20:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIII, February 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)