User talk:Commodore Sloat/Archive 1

Welcome to the Wikipedia
Here are some links I find useful


 * Policy Library
 * Cite your sources
 * Verifiability
 * Wikiquette
 * Civility
 * Conflict resolution
 * Brilliant prose
 * Neutral point of view
 * Pages needing attention
 * Peer review
 * Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
 * Village pump
 * Boilerplate text

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~.

Cheers, Sam [Spade] 01:45, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

testing csloat 03:01, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC) hey cool; thanks!

Sayed Qutb vrs. Sayyid Qutb
Should I move it myself, or would you like me to walk you thru it? Have you read redirect? Sam [Spade] 18:46, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Either way; I'm not sure what to do myself. Do I just copy one to the other?  I'll give it a shot....--csloat 19:49, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * You copy and merge the content, and replace the article being redirected w a redirect link to the new article. Go ahead and try it, and I'll keep an eye. Don't worry, you won't break anything that can't be fixed ;) Sam [Spade] 19:55, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I think I did it right; check it out.


 * You sure did! Good work, my man :) Sam [Spade] 07:11, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Iraqi Resistance
Hiya, thanks for your input into Iraqi Resistance. It's a pity you have about as much time as me to deal with such problems. By the way you can sign and date your comments by putting ~ at the end in case you didn't already know. Cheers. —Christiaan 22:37, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I did know about that but I don't always remember to do it.  Yeah I wish I had more time to deal with this kind of problem, but it will be endless - especially when dealing with people like this one, who seems to have all the time in the world to keep making his case.--csloat 08:57, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey send us an email C:

Thanks for your help on the Iraqi insurgency article. ~ Dpr 18:57, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Edit summary
Dear contributor, first I would like to say a big thank you for your time, care, and enthusiasm in editing Wikipedia articles. I hope you find it just as much fun as I do.

I am writing with a small suggestion. I wonder if you could write an edit summary every time you make changes to an article (or when you start a new one). Even a short summary helps. To see how often you have done so in the past, you may go to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=YOUR USERNAME.

Edit summaries are important for a number of reasons. Every time you change an article, a record of that change propagates to every single person who has that article on their watchlist. Most people have an article on their watchlist because they care a lot about it, so they would like to be informed about what is going on with it. Accurate summaries help people decide whether it is worthwhile for them to check a change. This is why your edit summary, which will take you maybe 15 seconds, is a time-saver and a great act of candor to the other people interested in the same article as you. Accurate edit summaries are important because they create trust regarding your contributions and help resolve disputes.

There are other, very convincing reasons for putting an edit summary. More information is available at Edit summary. If at any point you have any questions about this rule (or anything else for that matter), please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you and happy editing! Hyacinth 20:21, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Counterpunch/Saddam
If Counterpunch cites the New York Times, make reference to the Times, not to an opinion outlet with no authority of its own. Everything in that article might be true, but citing it directly in the article does not help Wikipedia's image, as it'll give readers the impression that Wikipedia is getting its information from the leftwing "alternative media"-- an easy way of provoking an unnecessary ideological flamewar. As a general practice, sources like Counterpunch should be avoided. 172 19:16, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The problem is the LAT & NYT articles cited are from the early 1990s, and not available on the web. I suppose this could be cited in a normal (i.e. print-like) footnote, but it's not so easy to do that for a one sentence claim such as this in wikipedia. And if the claim is put in without a link to a source there will be a dozen pro-Reagan wikipedians down my throat for an unsubstantiated claim. I agree a less obviously biased source is preferable. But the claim should not be deleted just because you don't like the political leanings of the magazine. --csloat 19:52, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I hardly mind their political leanings at all, but it's just not an authoritative source used in professional research. My advice is find out Counterpunch's source, verify it, and include it in the article with a footnote. No link to Counterpunch has to be provided. Otherwise, you'd probably have to deal with a bunch of riled up Reaganites eiter without a source or with a link to a left-leaning publication. 172 22:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, when you deleted the passage you said counterpunch is "left wing propaganda", so it did sound like you minded their political leanings. And certainly counterpunch has never produced lies or distortions that I am aware of, so it is not like they have a track record for inaccuracy or shoddy journalism. I don't have a problem with the source being used, any more than any other opinion journal (Washington Times, the Nation, National Review, etc.). But in any case I think you're right that an NYT cite is more credible; when I get time I'll look for it (or feel free to do so yourself, rather than just deleting the whole reference). --csloat 00:56, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Phony Texan Warmongers
As per your request on the WP:VFD page for Category:Islamofascists, Category:Phony Texan Warmongers has been created. By the way, categories should be listed on WP:CFD, no WP:VFD. Best wishes. LevelCheck 20:05, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is this a joke? I did not request this.--csloat 20:20, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

False Accusations and Your Bad Faith
Kindly remember Wikipedia policy on operating in good faith, and stop making false accusations as well as pushing POV in pointless revert wars. The section Jihad as of 80.58.4.42's version (before BrandonYusufToropov's POV pushing) are much better formatted and NPOV balanced as fits Wikipedia policy.Enviroknot 22:43, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No it's not. The whole point of your edits (which are the same as 80.etc because you're probably the same person) is to claim that there is just one view in the Muslim world and it's the same as bin Laden, basically. It's a stupid argument and if you really believed it you would make the argument on the discussion page where it belongs rather than on my user page. --csloat 22:54, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you csloat, there has been a recent plague of POV vandalism by enviroknot in the Jihad article. It is good to see that these acts are being reverted.--Anonymous editor 02:57, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

I am a sockpuppet of nobody, and do not edit as anything but myself. If anyone else is reverting you, it's because they are following wikipedia policy and reverting your POV nonsense.Enviroknot 03:20, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Please look at the compromise version I posted and discuss each edit you want to revert on the appropriate talk page rather than reverting everything. csloat 04:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sarcasm
Never mind, I was being a little sarcastic. I find it interesting that some people who would start name calling so easily always keep their sacred cow, however ancient and mythical, untouched. -- Toytoy 04:05, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Admin warning #1
You made some personal remarks (about me, but that's besides the point):


 * Ed you have a lot of nerve accusing others of bad faith when you keep pretending to be an idiot here in order to push your pov. How many times does the obvious need to be explained to you? The tangential allegations do not merit a second article. They arose as an obvious PR ploy by the Pentagon to respond to the Newsweek fallout. They should be included in one sentence in this article -- not in the intro and certainly not as something that implicitly "balances out" the charges against the US. There's no need for a separate article and there's no need for more than a few words on the topic because it is a red herring attempting to distract attention away from the charges of US abuse of the Quran. As another user noted; you are proposing a malicious fork, and it is really disingenuous for you to then threaten others with reports of bad faith. --csloat 21:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please note the underlined phrases.

Remarks like these are in violation of our official policy described in no personal attacks. For hints on how to get back into compliance with policy, try Avoid personal remarks.


 * Is this a joke? Please get real.  Deal with the arguments, don't whine about personal attacks.  I do think your claims have been disingenuous; the underlined things up there are not personal attacks; they were meant to respond to your claim that people were acting in bad faith - I believe it was you acting in bad faith, and I expressed that.  If you want to report me, let a third party take a look at the comments in context and reprimand me if they like; I believe anyone looking at your input onto that talk page will understand that I am trying to be reasonable about this (along with everyone else piping up on that page) while you are continually making disingenuous comments.csloat 22:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Admin warning #2
You wrote:


 * No, you're not, and I can only conclude you're doing that on purpose. The Wikipedia should mention the alleged prisoner mishandling but it should not make it the central focus of the introduction. Stop pretending you don't understand and stop threatening people on Wikipedia. --csloat 22:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This your second warning. When you accuse another user like that (see underlined phrases above), you are violating the policy detailed in No personal attacks.

When you rack up enough violations, the arbcom will probably come by and give you a warning or probation or something. Wouldn't it be better to take a look at avoid personal remarks? You're a good writer and could contribute a lot if you'd stick to the article. Cheers. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 22:29, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Ed, please. I have not made any personal attacks at all. I am simply responding to the claims you have been making. You are threatening me right here and I am asking you to stop; it is bizarre to interpret that as a personal attack. My perception that you are being disingenuous is not a personal attack. So please stop accusing me of personal attacks -- should I put Admin Warnings on your user page because you're accusing me of personally attacking you? Do you see how silly this is? Now please stop putting this junk on my page.--csloat 22:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Enough, both of you! I don't believe you personally attacked Ed, but I can see how he might have misconstrued that you were having a go at him. I've left a message on Ed's page also, telling him this. My suggestions is to assume good faith. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

An olive branch
LOL, I can't believe you reverted Kizzle's deletion of my summary at S & aQ. Did you actually like my summary? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 19:28, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * It was definitely better than your previous edits :) --csloat 20:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Request for arbitration
There's an rfa concerning you here. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 22:18, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

I see you've withdrawn it. I assume that means you accept the points I made there, and will stop trying to claim that I am personally attacking you, that I am trying to enforce a POV, etc.?csloat 23:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

cut & paste move
Greetings csloat. It looks like you made one of the most popular mistakes on Wikipedia: the cut&paste move. The trouble with c&p moves is that the page history is not kept. When someone looks at the history for the Oplan Bojinka page, they will not see the edits to the Operation Bojinka page. This is, strictly speaking, a violation of the GFDL. But people make this mistake every day -- don't worry about it, I'll fix it. (Update: it's fixed now.)

To correctly move a page, for future reference, see How to rename (move) a page.

Thanks, – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 14:42, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the tip! --csloat 19:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Interested in an L.A.-area Wiki meetup?
It appears as though L.A. has never had a Wiki meetup. Would you be interested in attending such an event? If so, checkout User:Eric Shalov/Wikimeetup.

- Eric 06:19, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The anonymous editor on Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein
Thanks for your work in slaying this troll. One thing to note, though: I don't think his edits constitute vandalism (except the erasure and the duplication, but I'll assume those were mistakes unless he persists). They're POV and wrong-headed, but he believes them to be true and as such they don't yet have the intentional destructiveness necessary to call them vandalism. Thanks again, --Mr. Billion 2 July 2005 20:39 (UTC)

Yes I guess that was going too far - it's just that after a few reverts and without him responding in talk, it is indistinguishable from vandalism.... Is there another term for that particular kind of abuse? --csloat 2 July 2005 21:04 (UTC)

A more positive experience this time around, more or less
I'm quite happy that we managed to come to something more closely resembling agreement in the course of the mostly overheated exchange on the Derrida talk page, despite the rest of that discussion being rather thoroughly and unnecessarily unpleasant. Recalling that your comment that you taught courses on argumentation, I was chuckling to myself when the remark was made that there was only one person who could call himself a philosopher in the discussion and that none of us had any familiarity with formal argument. I was a lit disappointed by the snippiness of our prior exchange there and regret that it effectively foreclosed more substantive exchange; if you've got some background on Derrida and/or would be willing to consider taking the job of editor, have a look at the to-do list shaping up off of Talk:Deconstruction.
 * I'm intrigued about the kind of philosophical texts you use to teach courses on communications (that word immediately brings the Derrida/Searle debate to mind, given that Derrida opens "Signature, Event, Context" with some remarks on the word communications and discussion always seems to come back to questions about the conditions of possibility for communication). Could you point me to a syllabus? Cheers, Buffyg 4 July 2005 23:23 (UTC)


 * I'll check it out. I don't have my syllabus for the argumentation course online though I could probably dig one up to email you; it's been a few years since I taught that course.  But I used the Damer book as well as a book on argumentation by Malcolm O. Sillars, and I used Limited Inc., which of course is nothing if not an extended argument.  A lot of people trained in classical argumentation theory react like our friend Mapro to deconstructive thinking, which many think is just BS or is intentionally obtuse.  It gets tiring arguing with such people at conferences or on wikipedia for that matter since there is usually an unwillingness to even read the texts these people are criticizing.  Anyway I've taught many more advanced courses in rhetoric and communication studies that utilize such texts; this graduate seminar in textual studies might interest you.  I'll check out the deconstruction to-do list :) --csloat 5 July 2005 01:39 (UTC)

CSUN article
I re-added that sentence about the pornography at the CSUN library. It may not be 'of note', but it pertains to the campus. I think it is an interesting fact, and it could tie in to the San Fernando Valley's adult industry. --fpo July 8, 2005 20:22 (UTC)


 * I don't know where the porno is located. I would be interested in finding out though --fpo July 8, 2005 20:22 (UTC)


 * Then where did you get this information? If you put it in wikipedia I assume you have either seen it or have other reason to believe it exists.--csloat 8 July 2005 21:25 (UTC)


 * I didn't add it, User:66.229.215.102 did --fpo 18:27, July 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * It should be deleted unless there is some kind of corroboration. --csloat 18:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I will do a mass google search about it, trying to verify it sometime today or tomorrow. --fpo 23:01, July 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm suspicious. I've worked at CSUN for 11 years and never heard about this, and I've had colleagues in the Center for Sex Research (which is the only reason it sounded possibly credible to me). I doubt anything would come up on google but who knows.  More likely they have a stash of old playboys or something - hardly a "massive pornography collection".  --csloat 23:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I emailed the CSR, see if they reply. --fpo 01:05, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Can you please ...
... take a look at my work here, and perhaps add it to your watchlist? Many thanks, BrandonYusufToropov 13:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Update. User:Carbonite instantly reverted. BrandonYusufToropov 13:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Can you please ...
... take a look at my work here, and perhaps add it to your watchlist? Many thanks, BrandonYusufToropov 13:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Update. User:Carbonite instantly reverted. BrandonYusufToropov 13:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Derrida article vandalism
I reported it yesterday at Vandalism_in_progress. Since it's occured again, I've requested Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism. Hopefully this moderate annoyance will go away shortly. Buffyg 09:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks - I was considering reporting it too since it had happened before. --csloat 11:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The IP has been blocked for 48 hours. Given the irregular period between incidents, I have a suspicion that the problem may recur and require a longer ban.


 * Did you have any thoughts on my deconstruction to-do list? Buffyg 19:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I just saw this old note. I did when I looked at it; mostly I remember thinking, looks like a lot of work :)  I thnk my Wikipedia-editing is mostly reactive; looking at the list makes me think of the things I am supposed to be working on in the non-wikipedia world.  heh..  Anyway I'll keep an eye on some of those pages; I already am watching the ones I have some expertise in.--csloat 23:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

L.A. Meetup Reminder
Don't forget! L.A's first Wiki meetup is TONIGHT at 7:30 at Philippe's in Downtown. Check out the meetup page for details. See you there! (If you can't make it, come to the next one! - Eric 22:01, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Saddam/Al-Qaeda article
Hi, although we are at different points on the ideological spectrum, I was favourably impressed by your last response (in the thread about asking for a cite for a Bush quote). I'm interested in discussing the article further with you, but it's going to have to wait until after this latest renaming flap dies down.

(Frankly, I think trying to do the move was really foolish, because the name has been discussed to death - and beyond - and the current title, while not great, was at least vaguely acceptable to most factions. Any attempt to rename it again should have been preceded by a discussion to find an alterntive name that might be suitable; I suspect a lot of Zen-Master's suggestions, while not as condemnatory as some might like, might have been acceptable to people who opposed the "conspiracy theory" name.)

Anyway, this is by way of being a clue as to why I haven't responded yet. Hopefully the name thing will dry up, and we can get back to discussing the content of the article. (I had some other ideas there too, but again, the naming discussion has pre-empted then.) Noel (talk) 16:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * PPS: Thanks for the little thank-you note about the archiving, but no thanks are needed, really (it clearly needed doing, and I was happy to contribute to the general welfare by doing it). Do you mind if I move that comment to my personal Talk: page - it's not really germane to the article talk: page? Also, it looks like I need to do *another* archive run, to filter out the older topics on the talk: page... And now to ponder a reply to your note about conspiracy theories! Noel (talk) 22:24, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Islam poll
I thought you might be interested in this. Farhansher 04:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations
Keep fighting the good fight, Commodore. Your efforts are crucial and have real importance in this information space. Thank you. -- RyanFreisling @ 23:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Seen [this]? Sigh. Tireless. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Looks like you have your hands full there. I am starting to think Wikipedia should disallow anonymous posting... Troublemakers should at least have to go through the trouble of getting a login id.


 * Hey I'm moving my award to the talk page. I appreciate the commendation, but I'm not too keen on having a hammer and sickle on my user page:) --csloat 07:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Plame Affair
Commodore, Please explain the reason for your Plame Affair revert on the Talk page. Thanks. Anonip 01:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I reverted nonsense. I explained on the talk page but I thought it was obvious. --csloat 01:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

You thought wrong; please see my response on the talk page. Anonip 02:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Commodore -- we meet again! ;) -- as for Merecat's change to Plame affair, I see you're asking for the logic behind it. FWIW, you might want to check out his logic on a debate I was having with him on Katherine Harris.  See Talk:Katherine Harris where he discusses the massive changes he made, prior to mentioning it on the talk page.  (Sound familiar?).  My comment on the redirect with Plame sounds kinda similar to my complaint about what he started on Harris.  Then, I wrote: "With all due respect, making two dozen edits and then asking for a discussion doesn't seems like the most efficient way of shaping up this article."  I wonder what else he's been working on... -- Sholom 05:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * He edits the Bush page a lot... I try to stay away from that page :) -csloat 08:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Terrorism
User:Zephram Stark and his Merry Band of Sockpuppets has returned to reimpose his original reasearch into Terrorism. I've reached my revert limit, sockpuppets or no, and his obstinacy bordering on the delusional is really starting to piss me off. So you might want to take a look while I call it a night. --Calton | Talk 15:53, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Featured picture - comments requested
I'm nominating one of my photos for 'featured picture'. Voting isn't for two days, but I'd appreciate your comments if you feel to add them. -- RyanFreisling @ 15:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Pejorative terrorism
"'Gee, looks like there was a pejorative-terrorist attack in Jordan today.' Get a grip." LOL!! SlimVirgin (talk) 21:31, August 23, 2005 (UTC)



Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Zephram Stark
I have filed Requests for comment/Zephram Stark. Please contribute to it. – Smyth\talk 18:52, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Yo
Thought you'd want to see this 'interesting' series of articles by Klonimus -, etc. See his user page. -- RyanFreisling @ 00:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppet question
You said in Terrorism:Talk that a user can be blocked from a particular article. How could you block all the sockpuppets of that user ? StuRat 02:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't have a clue. I was just guessing that you could block the user.  If you know the sockpuppet names you can block those too, but anon ips would have to be blocked one at a time when used, I assume. --csloat 06:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Doesn't sound like a very effective solution to me, then. StuRat 12:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

RfArb against Zephram Stark
I've requested arbitration against Zephram Stark. Please add any details or comments you feel are appropriate. Carbonite | Talk 16:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

rfpp
it looks like the saddam/al qaeda page is turning a war of attrition. i've actually seen silverback before, so i know how he operates, control-freak steamroll style. you might find it useful to file a page protection request WP:RFPP to let things calm down. just a thought. i'm real busy this week, but i'll have a good look at the article & arguments sometime next week. Derex 22:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I think you misclassify me. I'm not a control freak at all.  I don't try to own articles, and I usually have a couple legitimate points I want to contribute, and I'm usually willing to let others have their say and even control the articles if they are reasonable and tolerant.  I do make stands on principle, where the resistance is unreasonable.  I am especially persistent against the self-righteous, who seem certain there is no other reasonable point of view but theirs.  But I am usually satisfied in showing them that other viewpoints are equally or perhaps more defensible.--Silverback 11:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Fyi, csloat:  -- RyanFreisling @ 16:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Also fyi - There's an RFC open on Silverback. -- RyanFreisling @ 17:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I was just going to tell you myself, but I got in an edit conflict with Ryan. Then I was going to ask Ryan if he wanted to add a response. That saves me some time. BTW, it needs a cosigner in the next 48 hours. 172 | Talk 17:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the question in at the very top of this post, I think it's okay for you to post anywhere, as you're a cosigner. I don't know where it says so in writing; but I certainly wouldn't object myself in any case. Thank you for reviewing my postings. 172 | Talk 14:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Silverback arbitration
I put up a WP:RfAr against Silverback. If you want, you can join the case I started as one of the involved parties. Regards, 172 | Talk 08:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Offer in settlement of our dispute
Have you considered my offer to settle our dispute, by having each of us agree to a 1RR limit on Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda?--Silverback 09:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes; as I pointed out, your offer has nothing to do with our dispute. Your violations of the 3RR were a symptom of our dispute, not the other way around.  As far as I am concerned, our dispute ended when you stopped posting nonsense to those pages.  The RfA against you is not about our dispute but about your conduct and your lack of civility.  The fact that you are posting nonsense only makes that lack of civility more annoying.--csloat 11:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Email
I see that you don't have an account linked to the Wikipedia email. Would you be able to send me a message so that we can talk off Wikipedia? 172 | Talk 10:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello
Hi Csloat. I would be delighted if you would vote here at my rfa. Its pretty controversial at the moment but you and I always get along fine ;). Thank you. :) -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 00:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your support on my RFa. Hope we can continue to work together:) -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 10:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration accepted
Requests for arbitration/Silverback has been accepted. Please place evidence on Requests for arbitration/Silverback/Evidence. You may advance proposed solutions and make comments on Requests for arbitration/Silverback/Workshop. Fred Bauder 14:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It is good to put material into evidence which was included in your original complaint. Fred Bauder 13:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Zephram
Hi, Fred Bauder has drafted a finding of fact describing the focus of the dispute in the Zephram Stark arbitration case, and has added it to the proposed-decision page at Requests_for_arbitration/Zephram_Stark/Proposed_decision, where it is currently being voted on. It says:


 * "The focus of this dispute is the article terrorism which according to Zephram Stark deteriorated due to the aggressive editing and other actions of Jayjg and SlimVirgin. He has waged a campaign to restore what he considers an adequate article, free of the complex ambiguities introduced by his opponents, see Talk:Terrorism/Archive_6 and Requests_for_arbitration/Zephram_Stark/Evidence."

I feel this is not an accurate way to summarize the dispute. Would you mind taking a look, please, and perhaps commenting on it? The discussion is taking place at Requests_for_arbitration/Zephram_Stark/Workshop. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 20:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

another offer in settlement of this dispute
Csloat, you know that, despite my objections to your behavior, I never sought an RfC or the arbitration. I am still willing to settle this dispute outside that process. Keep in mind that the process is flawed unlikely to result in justice. For instance, I would withdraw, even a valid complaint, if an arbitrator was biased against the person my complaint was against, and refused to recuse. You aren't getting justice there, just revenge. Consider the issue raised here:. What are your terms? I offer to leave Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda to you.--Silverback 15:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I am not interested in revenge or even "justice" here, and this is not about Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. It's about the way you participate on Wikipedia.  We all make mistakes, and I am not one to hold grudges, but the things you did on that page and others (and apparently are still doing, though thankfully no longer on that page recently) are destructive to the whole project (as well as to the peace of mind of other editors).  As I understand it, the purpose of the arb process is not revenge or justice but to change a troublesome editor's behavior.  I do not own Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda nor do I consider it my "territory" as you have said elsewhere.  But it's a topic that I have expertise on and I am aggressive about opposing disinformation and blatant politicking on it.  As with other topics that I have some expertise in.  I don't want you to avoid any page that you might have valuable information to contribute to.  But I don't want to waste time fighting with you over contributions of original research, of disinformation, or of meaningless information.  I'm not saying you should back down if you think you are right in a dispute but rather to handle such disputes in a civil manner.  I'm happy to say positive things about you in RfAr when you do positive things worth mentioning.  I am not out to "get" you, despite what you may believe.  Hopefully you are learning from the process, not just being "punished" by it.--csloat 20:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Final decision
The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Requests for arbitration/Zephram Stark case. &rarr;Raul654 00:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Plame affair
Thanks for all of your work on Plame affair. I wish I had more time to help out. --JWSchmidt 00:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Case closed
The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Requests for arbitration/Silverback case. Raul654 06:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Kasparoff 02:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC) Apologies for previous bad behavior, I have now read the rules. csloat continues to avoid NPOV and put biased POV comments and articles on the above 4 pages. Even his above talk shows his lack of neutrality on this issue, 'Cheney to Fitzgerald: "Want to go quail hunting this weekend?"-csloat 22:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC) '

I attempted to remove the biased POV editorial by the Boston Globe, which is all opinion and no fact. I'm not sure why the belongs on these pages and not the news articles and gov't reports I posted, including but not limited to: The Duelfer Report, The Butler Report, The WaPo, The WaTimes, PBS' 'Capitol Report' show, Senate Intel Committee Reports, The Financial Times, among others.

In addition, all *factual* articles and newslinks I posted, with citation, that show where Joseph Wilson lied, backtracked, retracted earlier comments, or 'mis-spoke,' were deleted. I attempted to add/edit the above sources into the relevant sections of the above 4 pages, but csloat wilfully deleted my changes each time. It is against wiki policy and spirit to remove posts which add factual discussion to the topic at hand and are properly cited. I apologize again, for not knowing the 3RR rule.

I am happy to repost commentary tomorrow on those pages, without other edits, and leaving the blatant editorializing of the Boston Globe editorial [funny how that works] be for now. That, at a minimum, does not belong and it is a disgrace to remove quotes from the above news sources and leave that be.

csloat---back to you.

Important AfD
Hello again. Recently I've been having difficulties in getting a sufficient amount of feedback from the top caliber editors of the history and politics articles-- needed in order to establish a consensus in the vote at Articles for deletion/List of modern day dictators. It'll be much appreciated if you can take a look. Regards. 172 22:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Cato
Thanks! :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

If you are around...
We might have to have someone look into this whole thing further: User:MACMILLAN (talk • contribs) The contributions are a little off, don't you think? Maybe I'll see about a sock check from an ArbCom member. -- LV (Dark Mark)  21:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Ummm... check out the Coving history: . Funny, One of Zephram's last edits was to this random article, and one of Peter's first ones was to this random article. Pretty sure this is a done deal, but we need ArbCom confirmation. Thanks. -- LV (Dark Mark)  21:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Slight correction above. -- LV (Dark Mark)  21:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Your comments are welcome
I've asked the ArbCom to perform a sockpuppet check on Peter/Zephram. Please add any comments you may have here. Thanks! Carbonite | Talk 13:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Larry C. Johnson article
No one is smearing Johnson and I resent the accusation. I am simply trying to maintain NPOV in the article. Your suggestion that too much is being made of his pre-9/11 column downplaying the risk of terrorism is pure POV. He held himself out as an international expert on intelligence and security and yet he was 100% wrong on the threat the US faced. That's pretty significant. csloat, you are a well-known POV pusher, esp. on issues related to Iraq (e.g., Iraqi insurgency, Saddam Hussein, and al Qaeda. Your m.o. is to accuse others of POV pushing while repeatedly reverting their edits.  I won't be pushed around by a POV bully.--24.55.228.56 03:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, when the article is read in context, he is not 100% wrong, but that is neither here nor there. The fact is I am not resisting this information being put in the article at all; I am simply stating that it is not that big a deal -- everyone had a pre-911 mindset before 911, and the few who didn't - like Clarke, Scheuer - were seen as paranoid.  The only reason Johnson's pre-911 views have been made an issue is to make a nonsensical smear against him.  I am not pushing you around; I am trying to keep the article useful and relevant and free of idiotic statements and right wing propaganda.
 * As far as his expertise goes, please point to a single source actually questioning his expertise. Something other than innuendo based on something he wrote before 911.  There is no need for personal attacks; I am not a "bully."  If you are not trying to smear Johnson, why is it you insist on implying that he is a liar by putting qualifiers in every statement, when those statements are not contested by anyone on earth?--csloat 03:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Talk:W. Patrick Lang
My sincere apologies for deleting your comment at Talk:W. Patrick Lang. A recent bug/feature of Wikipedia seems be that it sometimes doesn't pogive an alert that I am editing an old version or otherwise getting into an edit conflict. I'll be more careful. Cheers, -Will Beback 02:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

My Response to Your Comment on My Talk Page
My actions are constructive and in defense of wikipedia. I am drawn to articles where an editor with extreme POV on a given topic, such as yourself, attempts to repeatedly insert POV into that topic and bully others. I will not be bullied. Larry C. Johnson is an obscure bit player in the Valerie Plame scandal. Johnson attempted to insert himself into the Plame story by asserting that Plame was a covert CIA agent when named by Robert Novak in 2003. However, since Johnson had himself left he CIA in 1989, there is no way he could know Plame's status. You are a well-known POV pusher, esp. on issues related to Iraq (e.g., Iraqi insurgency, Saddam Hussein, and al Qaeda). You write an anti-Bush blog and you have strong views on Larry C. Johnson and the Plame affair: http://www.shockandblog.com/blog/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=14 You even have a Plamegate poll!   You should not be editing wikipedia articles when you have strong POV views on the subject. I will continue to fight efforts by POV bullies to force their views on others via wikipedia.--24.55.228.56 02:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring on Joseph C. Wilson
Stop edit warring or be blocked. I'm warning User:TDC (talk • contribs) simultaneously. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If you have one person removing stuff persistently, then the majority will tend to put it back, but if he keeps it up he ends up being blocked. If they don't revert him more than necessary, they will not run up a high revert tally and none of them will risk being blocked. If you find yourself doing all or most of the reverting as here, you probably haven't tried hard enough yourself to persuade others that the text needs to be there, or else you have tried and they are not persuaded. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough... In general I probably need to take more breaks from wikipedia and give others time to process recent changes :) --csloat 21:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I appreciate that both you and TDC are committed editors with a lot of passionate interest in the encyclopedia. You maybe both need to just lay off the throttle when things get hot. The talk page is incredibly powerful if you use it right. I have a practise that I follow: if I need to revert someone, I write a section on the talk page called "Explanation of User:Tony Sidaway's revert ofan edit by User:A.N. Other" (or whatever they other fellows username or IP is at the time of the revert. I try to explain my thinking in neutral terms, so that nobody reading it can fail to see exactly why I think the revert is so important.  That nearly always starts a conversation of some kind, and it gives people who may agree with my reasoning to chime in and support it.  And, if necessary, they may be prepared to support it through edits--perhaps taking the idea and refining it, perhaps changing the meaning entirely, but always trying to make the article better. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: User:24.55.228.56 possible user conduct RfC
I really only dealt with that page in passing, so I don't have enough interaction with the anon user to want to sign off on a user conduct rfc yet. I'm content to see how the article RfCs that you filed play out, and to see how the anon user and/or mr j galt deals with it first. If there is continued nonsense that I am aware of, I'll certainly go along. I'm adding the pages to my watchlist to see how it shakes out. &hArr;   | | &oplus; &perp; (t-c-e) 10:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I think you're right and I am holding off on the RfC for now. Hopefully the article rfcs will take care of the problem.--csloat 10:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm likewise glad to add my name to an RfC if the anon user continues the revert war without attempting to resolve it on talk, as he/she has been repeatedly asked to do. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Larry C. Johnson, Valerie Plame and Knights of Solamnia
I protected all 3 of them. Please work out your differences with the other user involved. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm working on it - but I know nothing of Knights of Solamnia ;) -csloat 09:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

2003 invasion of Iraq
Hi, as you already expressed your opinion, could you please return to the discussion page and vote? 84.59.102.68 10:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * As the article is dominated by two US soldiers, namely pookster11 and Swatjester who show their bias e.g. by not even seeing that "Operation Iraqi Freedom" is a propaganda term, it needs particular care. As one of them is grossly ignoring wiki policy and tried to rewrite the whole article I filed a request for comment, please have a look at it: Requests_for_comment/User_conduct. 84.59.112.101 15:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

My bias eh? So because I disagree with you, I'm biased? Operation Iraqi Freedom is the official name of the military operation. It's on the pay stubs. NBC wrote a pictorial book by that name. The name may be charged and POV, but it's factually indisputable that the name of the military operation was OIF, just as the name of the Israeli hostage rescue in Uganda was Operation Entebbe, just as the name of D-Day was Operation Overlord, just as the name of the airborne jump into holland was Operation Market Garden in WW2. These are all factually indisputable, military operation names.Swatjester 15:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi there, when trying to go over the discussion at 2003 invasion of Iraq I saw it has become a big mess. If I see it correctly there was a conflict between an anon and others and now the page has been blocked. I think the anon had a point that an encyclopedia article about any military conflict should not be written exclusively by three members of one the conflicting parties, in this case Pookster11, Swatjester, and Dawgknot who according to this comment all belong to the US military. I therefore suggest to get more people into the boat, that should take the wind out of the sails of bias allegations. As I saw you also edited on that page, would you be willing to help out? Get-back-world-respect 22:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi - I've been staying off that page because of the edit warring, but I'll take another look. It's definitely a mess....--csloat 08:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a non issue. The page is protected. The edit warring ceased due to the anon being investigated for vandalism. We're awaiting consensus on Pooksters version (shortening the article with subarticles) before the block is lifted. BTW, I spoke with GBWR on his talk, and he understand that I'm only on the talk page, I'm no longer editing the article (except to correct typos and other small things that may catch my eye.). Swatjester 08:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Few more examples
Of evidence supporting the 'Plame covert?' issue. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Plame had served for many years at overseas postings for the CIA, and her employment remained classified when she took a headquarters desk job, traveling overseas periodically. (Dec. 9 2005) MSNBC


 * Friends and neighbors knew Valerie Wilson as a consultant who traveled frequently overseas. (Oct. 8, 2003) WAPO


 * ''Fast forward to 2003: Valerie Plame is married to Joe Wilson (the former ambassador’s tales of diplomatic exploits checked out), and they are the parents of 3-year-old twins.
 * ''Known by her married name, she lives a relatively quiet life in an upscale Washington neighborhood, helps run a support network for women suffering from postpartum depression and professes to work for a Boston-based energy consulting firm.
 * ''In truth, she is a covert operative for the CIA and a specialist in weapons of mass destruction, a fact unknown even to close friends and neighbors. MSNBC


 * ''In the summer of 2003, Attorney General John Ashcroft's Justice Department -- acting on a request from the CIA -- agreed to launch a probe of the leak because the department agreed with the CIA's argument that Plame's status, as an NOC staffer, had been classified.
 * ''{...} (At the CIA, she was an NOC - "nonofficial cover" - sifting information on weapons of mass destruction. She worked with a front group, set up by the CIA, to make it appear that she was an energy analyst.) Philadelphia Enquirer

sockpuppets
My apologies over the sockpuppet accusation. The anon was making it very easy to make such a mental jump. Swatjester 21:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Mylroie, Lang, and Johnson
I would be interested to have a discussion with you about these characters. There is much to discuss, for example Lang and Johnson's relationship to Jayna Davis, who believes in Middle Eastern sponsorship of the OKC bombing. You can see some of my views here. Mporter 22:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting stuff. I haven't looked into the Jayna Davis stuff that much, though I remember this stuff from back when OKC happened, and there was an article or two in the Village Voice after 9/11 that brought this up.  I didn't know she worked with Lang or Johnson on this.  An Iraqi may have been involved in OKC, as well as Yousef, but it is more of the same stuff - the whole state sponsorship thesis makes even less sense with Iran behind it than Iraq.  I am certain that Iran manipulated intel to their advantage because they wanted the US in Iraq and Saddam overthrown, but the idea of the Shiite clerical regime backing Sunni extremists in the 1990s is more than a bit far-fetched.  Certainly there have been contacts between Iran and al-Qaeda -- probably more than Iraq -- but al-Qaeda got most of its real economic and logistical support from sources inside the corrupt kingdoms they railed against -- Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar -- as well as failing states like Yemen and Sudan.  Not to mention the use of bases and military facilities built by the CIA and ISI in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, of course.  But in any case, this is a very different train of thought than Mylroie follows, since she takes everything back to Saddam.  I just think the world is more complex than she wants it to be, and she winds up resting her theses on some dubious propositions.  But by all means there should be a page or mention on another page of the OKC/Mideast connection brought up by Jayna Davis -- the idea of al-Qaeda working with the likes of McVeigh and Nicols is a lot less far-fetched; OBL even said he wanted his next big hit after WTC to be carried out by a "lily white."  But still - there has been no circumstantial evidence that I'm aware of that shows AQ types taking any kind of credit for OKC or even rejoicing in the death of infidels, like some did after Katrina for example.  So I'm not sure if this story has many legs, and the key documents that would tell us more are apparently under seal.--csloat 23:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Since this is a talk page, I can unburden myself of opinions that don't belong in an article... I am, let us say, 90% convinced that the 1993 and 2001 attacks were sponsored by Iraq, and that this was obvious from the beginning to the real decision-makers, but that they attempted to solve the problem out of public view, and failed. Obviously, the post-1991 siege of Iraq was public knowledge, but I think the public was actively prevented from perceiving the full picture, and as a result, the post-9/11 war had to be waged in a bizarre counterfactual mode... What I should really do is put up an essay in my own user space here, presenting hypotheses and arguments. I'll let you know if I ever get around to doing that. Mporter 16:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Please do. I am 99% convinced that this theory is wrong, but I am always willing to look at new perspectives.  One thing you should look at if you are so convinced is the money trail.  If there is a money trail from OBL to Saddam then you would have a much stronger case, but so far nobody - not the CIA, NSA, FBI, State Dept, the Mossad, and others, with all their resources - has been able to document such a money trail.--csloat 18:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

RfC opened for Mr j galt
An RfC has been opened here.-- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Terrorism
If I understand right, in this edit, you reverted quite a lot of useful edits (including mine). I thought I would check with you before trying to work these edits back into the article. thejabberwock 16:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That edit is almost 2 months old, so I'm not sure how much I can tell you about it - based on the edit summary I was reverting edits of one of Zephram Stark's sockpuppets. If you think useful information was deleted, please enter it back in. --csloat 17:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

From other page
I dont have much to say about this except for the following. The AP report, (I wish I could track down an author) stated that there was "No indication" of the Iraqi's involvement in terrorism, except that whole part about the detainee travelling to Pakistan to commit terrorism with a member of Saddam's IIS. It like saying that there was no indication that Lizzie Borden murdered her parents other than the bloody Ax she had in her hand.

But have fun, I have a plane to catch. Ten Dead Chickens 05:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you're misreading the AP article -- it seems to me to cast doubt on the idea that there was a plot in Pakistan at all, saying that what is there in the document is an assertion without evidence. You are just repeating the assertion that has been rejected, it seems to me.--csloat 05:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Stalking
Do yourself a favor Bernardo and dont stalk me from article to article. Ten Dead Chickens 19:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "Stalking" would be a more accurate term if, say, I did some IP sleuthing to find out your real name so I could call you that as a way of intimidating you. Glass houses and such.
 * I am not following you from article to article, but I found your most recent edits egregious, and I checked to see if you had edited anything else recently that I knew anything about, and indeed you had. Look, Chickens, I realize we have different points of view, and everyone editing wikipedia has to live with the fact that it is a collective project.  We are not going to convince each other, but if you have changes you think are valid, introduce them without steamrolling and actually engage in discussion about them.  As I have told you over and over, it is better to err on the side of including more information rather than less.  When you are deleting things please make sure your deletions are explained, preferably one by one.  (I don't mind if you make a massive edit, as long as you include a real list of changes in the talk page rather than a hit-and-run edit summary).  Thanks.--csloat 20:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Continued from Shackley: You need to simmer down pal. While it is true that there is no “rule” that you cannot edit any article you want, I find the timing suspicious that moments after you reverted me on the Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda you also reverted me at Theodore Shackley and the CIA two articles that you have not edited prior and all within 5 minutes. This is not the first time you have done this, and I am not the only one you have done this to. As far as any personal information you have on you blog, which you used to have linked on your user page, such as your name, it is not relevant to this discussion. Aside from your name, I don’t know who you are, what you do, where you live, where you work, and your paranoid accusations of me using this information to intimidate you are completely out of line and I would ask you to cease making these rather serious allegations against me. If I have threatened you in any way please provide some substantive evidence of this instead of a baseless accusation against me. People go to jail for cyberstalking, and if that is what you are accusing me of, substantiate it, or retract it. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You're the one who's paranoid. I don't care if you find the "timing suspicious."  I have some knowledge of CIA matters and I checked out your edits there because I thought your edits on the other articles were abusive.  You consider it stalking if I edit two articles that you edited?  And you call me paranoid?  You tell me it's not the first time I've done this; I presume you've been following me around to see what other edits I've done?  Why is that different?  I consider it important to keep misinformation off of wikipedia; when a user keeps inserting such misinformation in abusive drive-by edits that result in massive POV shifts, yes, I will take a look at their other edits to see if they are editing other articles I know something about.  I am not going to avoid editing an article just because I have edited another article the same user has edited.  As for you "stalking" me, you went out of your way to figure out my name so you could call me by it -- this is an intimidating gesture, especially when your own name is shrouded in such mystery (TDC? DTC? Chickens? Tortured Cudgels?  WTF?).  Then you make it clear that you know where I live -- while you only named the state, I'm well aware that the DNS records you got that information from also includes my full name and home address.  As for accusing you of cyberstalking, get real.  I could care less that you know my address, and I'm not afraid of you coming to come "get" me.  I mentioned this only in response to your accusation of stalking based on me editing two articles.--csloat 19:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I am paranoid? You are the one who admitted you were following me from article to article chief, but let me refresh your memory for you:
 * The fact is I looked at your user contributions to see if you were engaged in the same kind of heavy-handed drive-by massive POV edits and censorship on other pages that you were engaged in
 * So according to you, the "fact is" that you were following me from article to article, a clear violation of Harassment. I have not been combing your edits, as you have been mine, but several other editors have expressed their concerns to me with respect to your harassment of them. I doubt you have any real knowledge of the “CIA” outside of what you have read, and your layman’s knowledge of the subject is no more noteworthy than anyone else’s (Ala the sagacious Wayne Madsen), but you continually push your POV down every article you involve yourself in. That’s a shame, but nothing that has not been seen before. I don’t get anything from any DNS records, whatever those might be, I simply read your blog and its pretty evident what state you live in, and if you recall, the only reason I said was to defend you against sockpuppetry. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, but harrassment is continually badgering me on my user page with charges of stalking. I did not "follow you from article to article."  I looked at your user contributions.  If that is in violation of wiki policy, it would be easy to fix wiki software so I couldn't see your contributions.  I edited two pages.  You consider that harrassment, yet you call me paranoid.  Whatever.  I suggest you familiarize yourself with Wiki policy on harrassment and "stalking."  From the page you linked but did not bother to read:


 * The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor. This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. The important part is the disruption - disruption is considered harmful. [emphasis added]


 * As for the rest of the crap that you wrote here, talk about pot and kettle. You are the one who relentlessly deletes valid information that doesn't concur with your POV.  As for my blog, you got my name from DNS records; it's not on the blog, and yes it's bloody obvious what state I live in.  Again, the only reason for you to use the name was to try to intimidate me, and again, I don't care about it, I only mentioned it because you are accusing me of "stalking" you.  I suggest you get a grip, and I'm going to ask you to please stop putting this crap on my user talk page.  If you want to start an RfC for "stalking" based on my edits to two articles, feel free; otherwise, please leave me the hell alone.--csloat 21:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Harassment is not continually “badgering” you on you user page, this is called dialogue and it can end at any moment either party would like it to, and I believe there is a difference between the two. While it is not a violation to look at my contributions, I believe that the button is there for a purpose, you used it to follow me around articles and revert my edits. Not investigate them, not discuss them, not ask me where I got my information came from, but just to revert them, plain and simple. That is what you have done, by your own admission I might add, and I decided to handle this matter without going to the babysitters. I have asked you to come to the talk pages, in good faith, to resolve these issues, but you have steadfastly refused to provide any meaningful justification, so I am left with few alternatives. As far as your verbatim quotation of the policy, perhaps I could provide my own emphasis:


 * The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor. This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. The important part is the disruption - disruption is considered harmful.


 * As you have not justified what policy I was in violation of, you never took the time to explain with anything other than a facetious quip in the edit summary, I believe this fits into the definition of harassment. I am not alone in this opinion, many contributors have privately shared a similar experience when dealing with you.


 * Your clairvoyance aside, the only reason I used your name was because I believed you to be a vampire whose presence would end if I brandished your name. Seriously though, nothing menacing was meant by it, and if you felt threatened by it, I guess it goes to show that perception is really everything. But since you have “kindly” asked me to discontinue this line of inquiry, I will oblige, but make no mistake, I will not allow your behavior to continue unopposed. Consider this my last post on this issue unless it raises its head again. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

TDC, this is the last time I will ask you to stop badgering me on my user page. I investigated any edits I made, and I only made two edits, so stop the BS. It is you that have been following me from page to page trying to pick fights with me; all I did was check a couple of articles for misinformation. To quote the harrassment policy you are so fond of misreading, I was "checking up on an editor to fix errors." Your assertion that "many contributors" (how many is "many"?) have "privately shared" stalking charges with you is ludicrous. While there are other neocons here who do not like my contributions (e.g. Silverback), those editors are all quite assertive and clear in telling me and others what they think; stated simply, I don't believe you. Finally, your claim that you "brandished my name" in order to make my presence end, that is by definition an attempt at intimidation. You are incorrect that I felt "threatened" by that, but again your statement is quite telling. But this is irrelevant -- I don't care about that, as I have said; I only brought it up in response to your ridiculous personal attack accusing me of "stalking."--csloat 22:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Page Moves
Hi. I can see you've been here a long time, so you're probably used to doing these things the way they used to be done, but: Page moves should not be performed with cut and paste any longer. The new page is stray from the edit history, which is important for copyright and giving editors their moral right of being listed as an author. For example, you replaced The Black Room with a dab page, and then pasted the article into The Black Room (album). The new article had you listed as the sole author, even though you'd not written a single word of the article! The correct way is to move a page first. (Please read on though, as I'm not entirely sure that The Black Room should be moved anywhere).

Secondly, please don't replace longstanding articles unilaterally. The Black Room has been in that slot since 2003. There's no article on that torture cell, and I don't see why there needs to be an article on something as specific as a single jail cell. There was no incoming links to The Black Room from non-KLF articles until you just added them, and a Google search for the black room doesn't put the cell onto the first page of results. Remember comprehensive, high quality articles are generally better than a series of low grade stubs.

It might also be that the cell is actually "the black room" (lower case)? A slot which is currently free.

All that said, if you have an article ready to go and you're adamant that it's necessary and must be "The Black Room" and not "the black room" please let me know. We don't need a dab page for only 2 selections, we can use one of the Disambiguation templates. (That stands true for now, it seems that really the strongest candidate for this slot might be a film from 1935, but that currently has no slot either). --kingboyk 20:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

New page for Iraqi Perspectives Project
csloat, you did a good job writing about the Iraqi Perspectives Project and while the subject is similar, the IPP deserves its own page. In the Iraqi Perspectives Project, the documents had all been translated and studied. The Operation Iraqi Freedom Documents have not been fully translated and studied so there has been no screening of the content of the documents. Since the subjects are closely related, each page has a link to the other to make it easy for readers to find. Nice job, by the way.RonCram 16:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The study is based on the same documents, Ron. The IPP is the study; it is based on the same set of documents.  Thanks for your compliment but please do not try to obfuscate the issue here.  You are flat out wrong that "there has been no screening of the content" of the OIF documents, and I think you know this.--csloat 19:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Good work as always
Just wanted to pass along my thanks for your diligent fact-checking and willingness to spend the time necessary to validate the claims surrounding this latest 'document dump'. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Re-write of Terrorism
Someone is attempting a massive POV re-write of Terrorism; would you mind taking a look? Much appreciated. Jayjg (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds like Zephram Stark is back.--csloat 01:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so in this case; it would be helpful if you could take a look and comment, in any event. Jayjg (talk) 19:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, can you give me a diff of what you're talking about? I'm looking at this revert and, while I like the version you reverted to better, I don't see the massive POV shift you say is there.  Maybe I'm missing it, or just looking at the wrong diff?-csloat 21:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Michael Scheuer
See my comments at that page. Merecat 21:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

RFC started on Merecat
In light of recent events (not discussing disputed edits, edit warring and making personal attacks) this Requests for comment/Merecat has been started. Maybe you want to make an observation there, if not OK. Sincerely Nomen Nescio 18:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Merecat
He is currently up to the same Plame style tricks on Katherine Harris, please take a look. --Gorgonzilla 15:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Mary O. McCarthy
Regarding your comment about searching high and low to confirm my text, search here:

http://www.foxnews.com/specialreport/index.html

Click "Two Sides of the Story?" and you'll be taken to a javascript video window that has the text in question. The statement was made by the CIA's director of Public Affairs. Unfortunately, as I've learned, I can't link to the javascript video. You should be aware, however, not all TV video is transcribed. You will not necessarily find everything at Google, Yahoo or even Lexus Nexis. Cheers. --DaveThomas 17:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I can't watch the video (seems to be windows-only), but I take your word on what is said in it.--csloat 19:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Larry C. Johnson
Am I mistaken, or did you revert 4 times in the last 24 hours there? I'd prefer to not have to 3RR report you. Perhaps you could restore the priot edit and correct your transgression? Merecat 17:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * you are mistaken. Now please stop threatening me. Thanks.--csloat 18:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I dont think he is mistaken. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

3RR
Please see talk page for Michael Scheuer. I generally don't like blocking, but I think this is the least ambiguous option in this case.--CSTAR 21:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Your actions are reasonable. Once I realized what I did on the Larry Johnson page, I self-imposed a wiki vacation.  Frankly, I feel ganged up on (on that page) by users with whom I have had adverse interactions in the past, RonCram being one of them (perhaps the most reasonable of the group).  I apologize for violating the rule - I was counting incorrectly, but I shouldn't have to count my reverts at all -- even three reverts in 24 hours is more than should ever be necessary.  I'm going to unilaterally withdraw from the debate over chronological order on Johnson -- I still don't think anyone has responded to my arguments there, but I will accept the "consensus" even though nobody is willing to offer a reason for the change.  I think these articles should reflect what is notable about these people according to authoritative sources; Ron, TDC, and galt are interested in making them into hatchet jobs (and merecat seems interested only in baiting me).  This has gotten all too personal thanks to past interactions with these people and I regret letting it get to me.  I think people should be focused on improving the articles rather than on proving their side.--csloat 07:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ron, TDC, and galt are interested in making them into hatchet jobs 
 * LOL! Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Case in point. It's clear the interest of these editors is to gang up and discourage csloat. Thankfully, he's a lot tougher and a lot brighter than that. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's pretty clear much of this is personal for these editors -- just look at their gloating on Talk:Larry_C._Johnson. TDC is especially transparent, since he has not even attempted to discuss the substantive issues at stake, but has only jumped on the bandwagon to make personal attacks.  Again I regret having gotten sucked into their little game.--csloat 17:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, how many times have I edited the article? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no idea. But it's pretty telling that when we've had substantive conflicts over issues on other articles, you have slinked away from the argument (except when you win the argument, e.g. Wayne Madsen, in which case you bring it up over and over in other arguments).  But when you see other editors taking shots at me, you are quick to get your kick in as well as quick to pounce on my 3RR violation even though you had not been participating in the discussion.  It appears the last time you were active on the page was to complain about my blog.  I think we would all be better off if we focused editing on improving the articles rather than on taking shots at each other.--csloat 18:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thats good advice, I hope you take it. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Even to that last post by clsoat, you have to respond with obnoxia. Are you even interested in the article content at all, or just motivated by a desire to attack and disrupt? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have edited the article once, and only once and ghanged one word, I could care less about it. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Which makes it even more significant that you would stalk my changes on it and pounce on me on the talk page for that article, as well as pounce at the opportunity to enforce the 3RR. Good day.--csloat 22:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You should be the one to talk to anyone about stalking. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 00:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL. that again. go away. thanks.--csloat 03:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Cole Page
Just an aside, "apologist" doesn't mean he's apologizing. See here. Feel free to delete this if you like. Armon 04:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Uh-huh. So let's say "Muslim advocate" then.  Didn't think so.--csloat 05:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a note, I have noticed many times that Elizmr applies consistent double standards based on how she views an article. She will engage in discussion but don't expect to "win" -- she tends to talk around in circles. We need to push the most relevant conflicts to a RfC or further. I suggest that we pick out the most core/relevant battle(s). Everyone else in my experience is rational and straightforward to deal with -- even if they disagree. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 05:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The pragraph I deleted is very simialr to the one preceeding it, including such identical pharses as "Goldberg criticized Cole's reliance on ad hominem arguments [37]" which is later repated as "Goldberg criticized Cole's reliance on ad hominem arguments [39] and near-identical pharses such as "I wonder if he has even ever read a single book on Iraq" later repeated as "Goldberg did not name any book he has read on Iraq".. What is the info you feel uis not duplicate? Isarig 23:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The second passage is a response to Goldberg's criticism. The fact that Goldberg could not even name a single book on Iraq is certainly a significant indication of his expertise. Certainly far more of one than Cole's possible ignorance of Hebrew, for example (as an aside, he actually does discuss the meaning of hebrew words at times, so I'm not sure we have evidence of that ignorance other than a grad student's blog).--csloat 23:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * So are the preceeding paragraphs, and Cole already makes that claim about Goldberg's lack of familarity with Iraq in them. Again I ask you - what is the info contained in the second paragraph which is not already menationed in the first? Isarig 23:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I see the problem. I deleted the duplicate sentence, and the rest of it seems to flow in the actual order of the debate now.--csloat 23:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Merecat is Rex071404
FYI - Merecat, the editor about whom you commented on RfC, has been [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Rex071404_has_violated_his_ArbComm_permanent_ban_on_article_John_Kerry. shown] to be a likely sockpuppet of User:Rex071404. Thought you should know. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey are you editing at the moment?
If so, leave a message on my page -wanna discuss your last edits on Cole. cheers Armon 14:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The Commodore
Just out of curiosity, are you a descendant of John D. Sloat? -- Mwanner | Talk 22:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC) (from Sloatsburg)
 * Nope, but I used to live near a street named after him :)--csloat 22:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Juan Cole page
Hey Commodore, I left a note on the talk page and noticed you'd not answered and had addressed something below. Could you see it and reply? I think it is an important point and would like to have some dialog on it in order to move forward. It starts, "Hey Sloat..." and ends, "Is that part clear?" I know this beginning and end do not make it sound particulaly compelling, but if you could take a look I'd really appreciate it. Elizmr 23:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * edit summary: "let's cut this silliness" is unnecessary uncivil and a personal attack. Elizmr 00:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't be so sensitive. Thanks.--csloat 01:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Please consider increasing your level of professionalism for the good of the project. Elizmr 02:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Please consider worrying about your own professionalism and not mine. Thanks.--csloat 04:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm going to have to support Elizmr here, your actions on that article has not been a model of civility, furthermore I think it is extremely impolite to answer another editors friendly request with a retort asking them to not be sensitive.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi. Who are you?  I don't see you at all on that page.  It is nice of you to intervene, but it would help if you followed the whole conversation on that page.  Elizmr may be totally sincere here, but his/her actions on that page have made me doubt that sincerity.  I believe that the concern that my comment about "silliness" is a personal attack is phony, a red herring.  Perhaps I am incorrect, in which case I apologize.  But if you read Elizmrs contributions on that talk page (specifically, for example, the one referred to in the first entry in this section) you will find no model of civility.  I am not defending all my actions on that page -- the consistent efforts of Elizmr and two others to turn a biography page into a defamation page are extremely annoying to me, since the biography in question is of a respected scholar and commentator in my field of research.  I have apologized there for my violation of the 3RR, but I do not think I should have to apologize for trying to keep wikipedia biography articles from being turned into character assassinations.  I also announced a self-imposed ban on editing the page even before I was blocked; I believed such an action was a sign of good faith.  But I suppose I cannot expect such signs to be noticed by a third party who comes to my talk page to intervene in a discussion he has not participated in before. --csloat 16:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see you on the page now. The second I was blocked, you made your first edit to that page, to tell me that my post was rambling, rude, and uncivil.  If so, I apologize to anyone offended by it.  The facts are clear; I have cited specific evidence to support my points, and the claim that Karsh's criticism of Cole is what makes Cole a notable figure is demonstrably incorrect.  Perhaps telling someone they are incorrect is a personal attack?  I'd be really pleased if people on that page talked about improving that page rather than about who is more civil.--csloat 17:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sloat, I have actually made quite a few edits on the page in order to improve it over the last few days. Civility is a wiki guideline and there is a pretty simple way to get me to stop talking about it.  Stop the behavior.  Elizmr 18:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This is exactly the sort of insincerity I was talking about Elizmr. If you would like to improve the page, one of the best things you could do is actually read an article or book by Cole.  Instead you have chosen to focus on me.  Please I must ask you again to stop posting on my talk page.--csloat 22:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to ask you to stop badmouthing me on the Juan Cole talk page if you don't mind. You waited until I was blocked and then launched personal attack after personal attack, falsely claiming that I am holding up editing on the page, when I'm not even allowed to edit it.  Before that you posted a long list of alleged incivility, only one or two comments of which actually meet that criterion (and one of which is from months ago).  I have not denied getting frustrated there and I have already acknowledged and apologized for expressing that frustration in an unproductive manner, and I voluntarily withdrew from the page to cool myself down.  I'm not sure what more I'm expected to do; if you think that is still uncivil, and deserving of your continued personal attacks, I don't know what to say.--csloat 22:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I did not realize you were blocked from the Cole talk page; I thought it was only the article page at the sandbox. I honestly don't know anything about reverts or blocks---I have never done a revert and don't even know how to do one.  I have also not made any personal attacks against you.  I once made a sarcastic comment, that's it, when you said you couldn't find something in an article I cited and I went back and found it again, and then modeled a reply on Cole's reply to Goldberg. (see, I do read Cole!)  Mostly I have just pointed out examples of your incivility which I do truly believe is impeding progress on the page; this is not insincerity.  According to Wikipedia, I am supposed to do this on your talk page.  If you would stop doing this kind of thing, I would stop calling you on it.  I don't enjoy calling you on it.  I just want to write the article.  OK?  Elizmr 23:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW, if I honestly hurt your feelings I am sorry. If you feel like I have attacked and can point out where please do, because I don't think I have. OK? Elizmr 00:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

All of your recent comments on the Cole page included comments that could be considered personal attacks. You did not hurt my feelings; I have thick skin. Sometimes I assume the same of others, and sometimes I do not keep as cool a head as I should - I apologize if any of my comments hurt your feelings too. You claim you are just pointing out incivility, but telling someone they are wrong is not incivility. I'll try to be less abrasive about it, but please stop dwelling on it. This is a lot of verbiage and allegedly hurt feelings over me calling a dispute "silly." I still think the dispute is silly.

By the way, if I seem to take it personally it is because I think the dispute is offensive as well. There is a lot of real antisemitism in the world, Mr./Ms. Elizmr. It is insulting to see it trivialized with gratuitous references to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in what is meant to be a biography page about an academic, just because little weblog happens to piss off Hitchens et al. And I also get annoyed at people who refuse to debate the actual issues. I presented several substantive reasons why the Karsh quote should go. You (and, more importantly, those who are doing the reverting) have specifically answered none of them. It gets annoying to have to keep repeating the same arguments for people who refuse to respond to them. I was warned that you were difficult to deal with when I first started editing on that page (see above). Perhaps you will offer some evidence to challenge your reputation in that regard, but so far, I am sorry to say that my interactions with you have not been pleasant.--csloat 00:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * as far as unpleasant interactions, I would say the same, but I'd rather edit the article than discuss this. Elizmr 03:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule at :. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. Stifle (talk) 08:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Bold text