User talk:Gatoclass/Archive 2

Archive of 2007

Transcendental Meditation
''Can't help but notice, after being away for awhile, that all of Askolnick's criticism of TM has virtually disappeared from this page and what is left is pretty much a promotional piece for the practice. Most unfortunate, and not up to Wiki standards IMO Gatoclass 07:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)''
 * I'm sorry to say that I think promotional pieces are the Wiki standard for articles on subjects like religion—any subjects that evoke passionate partisanship. The editors that care the most will win, because they're the ones that are ready to pour unlimited time and energy into articles and talkpages, and into resisting any tittle of change. And who cares the most? That would be one-issue editors that are here purely in order to make and keep their own piece promotional. So there's a depressing logic about the poor quality of these articles. I remember when I tried to edit Prem Rawat for NPOV... nothing doing, the Rawat-ers would have none of it. I'm very sorry Askolnick left, he was a valuable counter-balancing force on articles like Transcendental Meditation and Natasha Demkina. But I can't say I was surprised. The "counter-balancing" role is a hard, unpleasant, unthankful slog. :-( Bishonen | talk 13:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Orwellian
"although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime" - this in your mind can mean what, besides a call for the destruction of Israel? The way war is peace, love is hate, etc.? --Leifern 16:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

3RR warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors.  Nish kid 64  20:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Israeli Apartheid
you wrote: ''"Your opinion of Finkelstein is irrelevant. He amply fits the definition of a reliable source. And A&M don't back up their assertion with any evidence, any more than Finkelstein does." '' That is 100% right.Kritt 04:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

3RR violation
You've violated 3RR at Sabra and Shatila massacre. Please recall that "An editor does not have to perform the same revert on a page more than three times to breach this rule; all reverts made by an editor on a particular page within a 24 hour period are counted." Please revert yourself before you are blocked. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 23:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The first two reverts you were calling Lewis a "Jewish historian". The last 3 you were inserting "Some critics claimed the coverage was biased." It adds up to 4 reverts. If you force me to do the diffs, I might was well put it on WP:AN/3RR. Jayjg (talk) 23:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

israeli apartheid count
Hi, I'm working through the arguments now; !counting the !votes, so to speak. I got a little distracted. I'll be finished in a minute. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bucketsofg (talk • contribs) 23:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

rename proposal
Whenever you get a chance im looking forward to your views/input on this.--Urthogie 14:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not the only one who has shown interest. I can name three others at least, including G-Dett, Jayjg, and Y Not.  This idea has a lot of interest, please continue working on it with me.--Urthogie 13:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Human rights in the West Bank:


 * Settlements
 * Violence
 * Public services
 * Water
 * Etc.


 * Property law
 * West Bank barrier
 * Military activity
 * Roadblocks and checkpoints
 * Detention and torture
 * House demolitions
 * Targeted assassinations


 * Views on the settlements
 * Support
 * Opposition (including apartheid allegations)
 * Mixed


 * International law

How's that look? By the way, Status of Arabs in Jerusalem is already covered under Human rights in Israel and Arab citizens of Israel. Although a Human rights in Jerusalem article may be worth considering.--Urthogie 15:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's what we have so far, then:
 * 1) It's original research to mix the unoccupied Gazans with the occupied folks in the West Bank.  That would serve only to confuse people who don't know about the regions to begin with (this defines most of our readers).
 * 2) I think the article would come to represent the facts.  There is no way to discuss the region without discussing the settlers as well.  If the facts don't make the settlers look good (I'm pretty sure this is the case), then there is no reason to worry about discussing their human rights, especially in conjunction with Palestinians.
 * 3) What alternative would you suggest to "Views on the settlements"?  Surely not "Apartheid: is it the case?".  We want a more broad discussion of the issues, not just to have an apartheid yes/no section.  So what would you suggest as a better name for the section where people would express your views on how people are treated?


 * Property law
 * Violence
 * Public services
 * Water
 * Etc.


 * West Bank barrier
 * Israeli military activity
 * Roadblocks and checkpoints
 * Detention and torture
 * House demolitions
 * Targeted assassinations


 * International law

How's that? It seems like we would still have to address the section concerning point #3 though.--Urthogie 15:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

How about...
Whether Gaza is occupied or not is debated. From its article:

"Israel maintains that its occupation of Gaza ended with the unilateral withdrawal. The Palestinian Authority and some legal and human rights experts hold that the occupation is still in force due to Israel's continued and complete control of the Strip."

So how about we call the article, Israeli policy in the Palestinian territories or simply Israel and the Palestinian territories? The structure could be this:


 * Property law
 * Violence
 * Public services
 * Water
 * Etc.


 * West Bank barrier
 * Israeli military activity
 * Roadblocks and checkpoints
 * Detention and torture
 * House demolitions
 * Targeted assassinations


 * Views
 * Criticism (this would include allegations of apartheid)
 * Support
 * Mixed


 * International law

This seems pretty solid, then, no?--Urthogie 16:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello. Sorry to butt in, but if the pair of you can come up with a good solution for this, then give me a shout on my talk page and I'll help drum up support.-- Z leitzen (talk)  16:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't resort to personal threats
You can not have me banned from the page. You should read WP:OWN. The page will go to a name voting procedure and be changed to stop this lie. Amoruso 13:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If there were to be a discussion on your participation on the Deir Yassin page, then postings like the following might be considered highly relevant: "Too much undue weight is given in wikipedia to the fantastic myth of palestinian refugee. There are no refugees but justified population transfers have taken place as in every part of the world at the time, the uniqueness of this one is that it was made voluntary by the Arabs in Israel ............ Amoruso 12:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)" PalestineRemembered 20:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

"historian"
You are probably right. I was trying to be concilliatory but that can backfire around here. By the way, I sent you mail but didn't get a reply. --Zerotalk 08:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Cool username
Just wanted to say I like your username, Gatoclass. Anynobody 11:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

On Zeq
I was reading through that ArbCom this evening incidentally and it doesn't appear that Zeq is going to be banned. --Abnn 05:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You read a different page than myself, I read this page Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000/Proposed_decision. The vote seems to be 1 to 2 against a ban.  --Abnn 05:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems like many non-arbitrators harped on Zero0000 throughout the whole arbcom and stood up for Zeq and that that led to the outcome that you observe. It appears that participation of partisans throughout the arbcom process determines to a large degree the outcome.  There may be a lesson to be learned here in that one can't just get an arbcom accepted and then walk away expecting it to be resolved as you expect, but rather the degree to which one is proactive and assertive throughout the process is the determinant.  --Abnn 07:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay. I'm not involved in that dispute and I don't plan on being, I am also not familiar with all the history here.  --Abnn 14:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered
Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 05:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Is running, we have our first requests for comment :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The table for war death tolls
Hello Gatoclass. It's Oidia here. I've fixed the table. Hope you like it :).

One final minor problem. Some wars are part of a larger war. e.g. the Vietnam War are divided into smaller events, and I've listed the "American Phase" and "Final Phase" and "Secret War" etc underneath the "Vietnam War". If a user sort the columns by death toll. Those minor events will be pushed down the list. So should we just let it go down the list? Oidia 03:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a very good idea. I really like the idea of having separate tables for minor wars within a big war. Oidia 07:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Casus belli
I did some research and reviewed some of my Latin notes to make sure I was right about the declension. Turns out I was wrong and "casus" is indeed correct, assuming it's in the nominative case. If it should be in genetive (which I suspect might be the case), the correct form would be "casuum". This is because, apparently, casus is a fourth declension noun and is conjugated accordingly. I'm changing it back to the way it originally was and will raise the issue on the article's talk page soon. Thanks for looking into the matter! Cromag  talk to me  01:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Belligero
I have blocked Belligero for 48 hours see User talk:Belligero -- Please let me know if he abuses copyright material on any pages you watch. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Arab Israeli conflict
Don't have time to say much; maybe more tomorrow; discussion seems to be going productively on the page. Some thoughts - your version implies there were suicide bombers in the First Intifada. No, they came after the Goldstein Hebron massacre. cf. Morris "1994-96 was the heyday of the suicide bomber." The First intifada was much more of a nonviolent or not-very violent thing, often against property rather than people of the other side, and often symbolic, and it had largely fizzled out by the time of Madrid in 1991, or even earlier, before Oslo. I feel that you should try adding your material, most of which is good, to what is already there, which tends to the opposing pov and then try to achieve consensus on what to get rid of once it gets too big. I strongly agree that "one simply cannot deal with this conflict even in the briefest manner without lengthening the existing content somewhat." So I think that what should be here should be telegraphically brief, but mentions all the major incidents, and points to relevant articles. On the other hand, since the discussion has been productive so far, this is a good place to gain consensus on what to add to the base articles.

Reorganization would also be helpful. Another thought - I don't really understand why there is a separate article on the history of the conflict. POV forking danger, and the History article has far too much on the pre 1948 stuff, where there was little international component, and Israel didn't exist so there couldn't be any conflict with it strictly speaking. IMHO, the articles should be merged, or perhaps there should be one post-48 and one pre-48 article.

Most of the problems come from problems in the subsidiary articles; e.g. the proper place for more info on Khartoum is the Khartoum article, one of the million things I've been meaning to do for a while. Of course you are right on land expropriation/ settlements/annexation etc. as a (or the) major cause of the First Intifada ( another bad article, I actually had just ordered another book on it and was planning to do something there soon.) cf. (General) Aryeh Shalev's book on it, as close to an official Israeli perspective as I know of - his primary cause is "nationalistic impulse" caused largely by "creeping annexation" (i.e. settlements, and as he explains later, "land expropriations accompanying settlements" criticizing the settlers' and others misconception that this was unimportant.)

A strange thing is that some articles seem to be superfashionable and attract scores of editors, e.g. 6 day war, while others first intifada, Suez crisis, etc. get only a few a year if that, and easily become POV and bad.or strange. The fashionable ones often become unreadable, but there's usually some info and balance.. If something is here, it should definitely be in the article referred to, and at length. A few other factual errors, Lebanon and Israel have never made peace (except for the old 83-84 abrogated treaty). You perhaps imply that terrorism was a real cause of the 82 war, (as it certainly was of the 78 war, which was probably intentionally provoked by the PLO.) when it just wasn't as there was next to no crossborder terrorism to speak of, contrary again to the impression left by the article here. Getting tired, so will end here. You might want to post your longer version, just to have more to chew on on the talk page. Everyone should always be less sharp on the talk page, but all in all, keep up the good work!John Z 08:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

BBC
Ultramarine 10:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Good Day
Hello, the whole talk about Barbarossa has been discussed several times on the discussion page please take a look at it

It starts here and goes down from there

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Operation_Barbarossa#There_was_no_stalemate

This part if you can not scroll down talks about it as well

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Operation_Barbarossa#Tactical_victory

Section 19 is the best written section

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Operation_Barbarossa#Axis_tactical_victory

Please read the discussion page any things you might wonder about is all described there, why won’t you read the discussion page?

Barbarossa ended the second the Soviets counter attacked which pushed the axis back some 150 miles, there was no standstill read the discussion page it is all there just read it

History of the Arab Israeli conflict
Well, first I'd have to see the proposed rewrite. Do you have a link? I agree that the failure of the peace talks in 67-73 is very important; I was planning on working on the articles on War of Attrition, Jarring Mission and Rogers plan, which are so incomplete that they are very misleading about this crucial and very confusing period. Whetten's Canal War, Touval's Peace Brokers, Finkelstein's Image and Reality cover this which is slighted in many histories and at Wikipedia. (IMHO this period and the Yom Kippur war was the turning point of the whole conflict.)  Overall, though, I think GHCool has been patient here, he is probably eager to see your ideas too. The POV template is meant to be more specific; I agree that it should be on practically every article on the conflict, but life is finite! I'm fine with seeing it there, but I think you should expand more on your ideas to the talk page (similar to your Arab-Israeli page ideas, no?)  Too tired to say more. Oh, good you got to the Khartoum article. I was surprised at first, but Shlaim's take seems to be pretty standard on it in serious Israeli scholarship.John Z 07:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Just saw your writeup. Understand your ideas better now. Looks OK to someone half asleep! More tomorrow.John Z 07:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

89.102.140.194
Thanks for the headsup let me know if there are any more problems. I'll go back through some of the recent edits by 89.102.140.194 and see if I can spot any similar problems. --Philip Baird Shearer 21:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Original Research
Hi Gatoclass, I came across your original research at the List of wars and disasters by death toll page. That's just unprofessional and leads to disputes of neutrality. Wikipedia is not a blog. See What Wikipedia is not. Sections Genocide and Democide & Man-made famines need a major rethink.

No original research (NOR) is one of three content policies. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. 89.102.140.194 09:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by
"When people are confronted with a supermajority, it will often be enough to resolve the issue without further debate"? I fail to parse that.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  16:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Disaster and death toll articles
WOW! Well done! You've done a great job on reorganising them!!. Oidia (talk) 23:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler
I'd appreciate it if you could provide some better reasons why you reverted my edits than crass comments like 'I don't know my history'. Well, I study history at University and large parts of my education previously were spent on the Nazis. Why do you keep using the word 'garbled', frankly I'm insulted by your use of the word considering what it actually means. As it stands, the second paragraph is very vague and generally badly written, e.g. nonsensical phrases like "Though Nazi Germany and the Axis Powers" Deus Ex 10:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I won't try and quote your post, it's too long, but obviously I'm aware that 1. the Nazis didn't attack Pearl Harbor-'Nazi invasion on the SU and attack on Pearl Harbor' were intended as discrete points, I should have explicitly said Japanese Attack on Pearl Harbor, 2. the existence of vichy france-it's a question of how much detail you include about the war itself in an intro about Hitler, 3. where the allies landed-they landed in 'western europe' before 1944 e.g. Italy-I was trying to distinguish from that. In terms of responsibility for death, that's something that needs to handled very carefully. I suppose it's acceptable to say Hitler was responsible for tens of millions of deaths from soldiers and civilians killed in the war, perhaps my edit mistakenly lost some of this meaning. When referring to the Holocaust, Hitler's responsibility needs to be handled more carefully. An earlier version of article this said 'Hitler directed the Holocaust', I was trying to distance from that kind of mistaken thinking, given recent historical research (e.g. more recent than Bullock/Trevor-Roper). Ian Kershaw's book 'The Nazi Dictatorship' deals with these kind of issues in detail. I was attempting to qualify Hitler's responsibility for the Holocaust, because it is not as simple as his responsibility for war-mongering. The current version of the article conflates the two somewhat, they're separate issues and the article should recognise that. Deus Ex 17:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Good work
Thank you for sorting that out. It's important to allow each person to examine the evidence and make their own mind up. Good work. smb 07:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I may have mishandled the RFC tag because the politics list hasn't yet picked up the page. Hm. Should I perhaps remove it? Then again, Armon is so stubborn. smb 08:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

re: Deir Yassin
Hi, no -- I still have a big heap of books by my bed that I need to read before I'll have time for new ones. I can have a quick browse, though, I see the library has it in stock. Some time next week, perhaps.--Doron 07:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

casus belli
A vote. What is your source ?. Why is "whole Palestine" confusing ? Alithien 19:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

comment
if you have a source for this edit please add it. otherwise, this is WP:OR which is not based on the given ref and i request you self-revert.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  18:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've now added two new sources to the article. Gatoclass 19:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) thank you for taking the issue seriously.
 * 2) please consider revising the text some more - i note to you two issues that require some attention.
 * 2.1) palestinian casualties, while they surely can be mentioned in the article's intro, are not among the reasons for Israel's operation defensive shield - hence, their placement in the background needs to be moved/mended to fit properly into the article (not butt in on the israeli casualties "for NPOV").
 * 2.2) while i appreciate that you note that it is uncertain if palestinian non combatants are civillian or militant, that designation question is very much at flaw when you designate israeli civilians as "non combatants".
 * thank you for your time.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  19:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

re: ODS
A useful (and fairly reliable) link would be this list. I counted about 130 casualties in March, including about 100 civilians. As far as I remember, this should be consistent with B'tselem figures.--Doron 21:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI - Barbarossa
Hi Gatoclass!

I noticed you were engaged in a discussion on the result of Operation Barabarossa. I just want to inform you that I have put up my views there as well : Talk:Operation Barbarossa. My regards, --Dna-Dennis 06:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Bangladesh Liberation War
Thank you for pointing it out. I originally put those figures in replacing the old ones which included 26,000 because it was not sourced. You are right we should put in the full range, thank you for pointing it out. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

CFD merging
Per, a merge of two categories just means take all articles in category one and recategorize them into category two. It's highly possible that most, if not all, of the articles are in both categories already. In that case, they'll just be removed from category one. Very similar to a delete, but it covers the articles that aren't in both categories. Hope that helped. --Kbdank71 13:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

merge
It is technically better to vote merge even on an empty category, in case someone adds an article before the category is deleted. Obviously one doesn´t want to leave articles stranded. Johnbod 07:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Commons request
Here is the picture you asked to be uploaded. For the record, the problem is that you were attempting to fill in the destination box: when uploading an image to the commons that does not already exist leave the destination box blank and only use the browse box (the top one). The lower one, reading the name of the image to be uploaded, will automatically fill itself in once the image is the first box has been selected for uploading. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Transfer never acceptable to the British.
Over here you said: "The "transfer" idea goes right back as far as Theodor Herzl ... Of course it wasn't just the Zionists, but also the British who proposed it at one stage. Gatoclass 11:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)" - did you appreciate that the Peel Commission's recommendation was an aberration, and wholly unacceptable to the British? (In fact, only 3 years later the British were intending to stop immigration, the 'homeland' business was proving disastrous). You probably did know this, but there are so many claims that the British intended partition that you might accidentally have believed it to be true. 14:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * PR, The British suggested this openly. Morris explains that in the Birth. And at that time transfer had not the same negative image and lacks of morality than today; except maybe for left-wing yishuv leaders, which is worth noting. Morris gives the exemples of population transfer between Greece and Turkey at that time. Others compare often with what happens between India and Pakistan. That doesn't mean it was "good". That just means it is the way it was at that time. Alithien 16:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

amin al-Husseini
Could you please take a look at that article. The current lead was the result of a long discussing between user:Ian Pitchford, user:Zero0000 and user:Zeq but this last one want to modify this once again and I am personnaly a little bit tired with that topic. Regards, Alithien 16:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no emergency but I will get rid of that article a few time. It could be funny to see what the Mufti will become :-)
 * I fully share you mind about Zero and Ian. I have had some problems in fact when I showed my disagreement with that decision. I never met people who knew the topic better than them.
 * I assume they are on citizendium now.
 * Alithien 16:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * for info, the last edit of Ian concerned... . Alithien 16:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I don't say they went to Citizendium. I think I remember Zero0000 was extremely relunctant his name is known (for professional reasons). I jsut think they both have the 'level' to go to there. Whatever, I am not sure that Citizendium will not have the same problems as we have here concerning quarrels. It is not a "gift" to ask people to write under they real name in case of problems. I am quite sure 90% of the real problems come from communication and misunderstanding due to the bad quality of a discussion through the internet (when you write only and not see other's face reaction) and not necessarely from "bad faith" or "pov-pushing" or "cabal", ... Have a nice day, Alithien 07:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Zero's talk page
Thanks for letting me know about Zero. It's a shame he's quit, but unfortunately that's totally indicative of the poisonous atmosphere in our Middle Eastern articles. -- ChrisO 12:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Date linking
Hey Gatoclass! I noticed that you created Seattle-Tacoma Shipbuilding Corporation, and you're linking to it from the articles of ships that were built there. It looks great! I also noticed that you're linking years in the articles that you work on. According to the manual of style, in order to avoid cluttering articles with unhelpful links, a year should only be linked to if "it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic."

Month + day combinations and month + day + year combinations are linked because that allows users' date preferences to work, but individual years should be left unlinked unless there's a compelling reason to link them. TomTheHand 17:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

DYK

 * Four in one! Nice job there. IvoShandor 08:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

SS Fürst Bismarck
I created a disambiguation page for SS Fürst Bismarck and did my best at separating the two ships into separate articles: SS Fürst Bismarck (1890) and SS Fürst Bismarck (1905). You might want to have a look. -- Brianhe 23:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

jayjg
Do you know where he has gone? ابو علي (Abu Ali) 18:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

No idea. AFAIK he just stopped posting without explaining why. Gatoclass 07:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Do not blank his page; it is not permitted. El_C 11:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

3RR warning
I'm not sure you understand the 3RR. If I was in violation, you would be too. I see from your Talk Page you are no stranger to edit warring. At any rate, please feel to "report" my "violation". I want as much attention as possible to be directed towards the article - which is grossly disingenuous and unethical. - Ledenierhomme 17:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:Categorization changes
I did that because Category:Barnegat class seaplane tenders is already in Category:United States Navy seaplane tenders, which is a subcat of Category:Auxiliary ships of the United States Navy. There is no need for the Barnegat category to be in both the parent and child categories. jwillbur 02:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I guess that's a reasonable explanation, but if you are going to do that there are more seaplane tender classes you need to do the same thing with.


 * Have you had much experience categorizing ships? I've done a bit of it myself, it's quite complicated and I've made a number of mistakes, so I get a little concerned when I see people making wholesale changes. Gatoclass 02:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I am intending to do the same thing to the other seaplane tender classes, it is a work in progress.
 * I've had a lot of categorization experience, but not with ships specifically. I started working on them because of this cfd, where it was noted that many U.S. ship articles were double-categorized in both the parent and sub-categories.
 * As for the removal of the troop ship cats from USS Bergen (APA-150), my thinking was that all Haskell class attack transports are troop ships, so Category:Troop ships should go on the class category and doesn't need to be on each individual Haskell-class ship article. I should have added "Cat:Troop ships" to Category:Haskell class attack transports before removing it from the articles though, that was a mistake and has been fixed now.
 * And for the changes to USS Albacore (AGSS-569), I did originally put it in Category:Submarines of the United States Navy but realized my mistake and changed it to the correct Category:United States Navy submarines. You reverted it back to the incorrect cat. I wasn't aware of WikiProject Ships/Categorization, thanks for the link. But categorizing all ships in both "Xs of the United States" and "United States Navy Xs" doesn't make much sense to me, so I've brought it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships. jwillbur 06:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

1948 global strategy
Unless you were suddenly dropped from Mars, you should know, it is not possible to edit this article ;-) Precisely. What do you refer too ? Alithien 10:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi,
 * to this...
 * Alithien 10:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes of course. Don't worry for that.
 * To what material or information do you refer in your comments ?
 * Alithien 10:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Genocides in history
I have just looked at the 3R log, until then I thought (s)he must have gone away for the weekend! Please see Talk:Genocides in history --Philip Baird Shearer 10:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Image question
Hi Stifle, in response to my "Image question" on helpdesk, you replied "Public domain + attribution is only one possibility, see WP:BRP for more options". I've taken a look through that page and I didn't actually see any more options, just a bunch of alternative boilerplate letters one can send to prospective contributors. Did you give me the wrong link, or have I missed something? And what other options are there? Gatoclass (talk) 01:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Other options include the GNU Free Documentation License, although I don't recommend this, and the Creative Commons licenses (only the Attribution and ShareAlike parameters are allowed on Wikipedia though). If you read those articles you will be able to get further information on the licenses. Stifle (talk) 10:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

re: Ferrylodge class
Actually, my motivation was almost entirely principle, not partisanship. I thought the process stank. Prior to learning about the case, I had had just a passing acquaintance with Ferrylodge. I occasionally contributed to an article that he frequently edited so I saw a lot of his edits. I saw that he followed WP guidelines and tried to keep POV (his and others) to a minimum. I had not heard about the complaints against him and was astonished to hear that he had been blocked indefinitely. That's when I looked into the case. After glancing through it I told Ferrylodge that he had made some mistakes but that the process was absurd.

The Sanction case lasted less than 24 hours. Even though Ferrylodge announced that he was leaving town and would not be able to reply in detail, they went ahead and banned him. Prior to that block, there had been practically no warnings and only a couple of short blocks. (I found out about this proceeding long after it was over. Ferrylodge didn't contact me to help with his defense because we barely knew each other.) Ferrylodge did make some mistakes and should have received more warnings (not a lot more) and might have been deserving of a couple more short-term blocks, but he did not deserve an indefinite block - and the community did not deserve to lose an editor who had made a great many constructive edits.

I am much more interested in reforming this process than I am in the particulars of the Ferrylodge case. I think that the right way to treat bad behavior is to issue mild warnings, then stronger warnings, then short blocks, then longer blocks. Only after a multitude of blocks and no reform should we do a long-term block of any editor - particularly a valuable contributor. There is a lot of bad behavior out there and much of it slides by without warning. If we issued many more warnings followed by blocks, we might see an improvement in behavior. And if people continued to misbehave, we would have lots of evidence on the record to justify long-term blocks. Sbowers3 (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

3RR
Thanks for letting me know. I really have pay better attention to it. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; (talk) 12:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Three Kingdoms War
Hello Gatoclass, haven't spoke to you for a long time! I stumbled across this essay written by the Australian National University. The 11th paragragh under Settlement of the Empire (280-290) says that just prior to the Three Kingdoms, there were about 50 million people in China. Just after the Three Kingdoms, there were 16 million. So is it safe to conclude that 34 million people died during the never-ending wars in that period? If so, I would like to add it into the Wars death toll article. Thanks. User:Oidia (talk) 11:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * OK I see :) User:Oidia (talk) 03:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Silver Centenary
Thanks for the copy edit, its one of those small town events that always struggle to get over the line on notability. I've been waiting for a solid second source for a while. Gnangarra 12:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Multiple DYKs

 * Yes, everyone got updated :) I asked User:Mrs.EasterBunny to help me out because I was working on an article when I updated the main page. She removed each "credit" individually after she had notified the user. So everyone got notified in the end, and rewarded for their work :) Regards. Woody (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries. It is always good to check, and always good to know that you are being checked. It was only the second time I had done it, so it is always good to know that regulars are at hand!! Thanks again. Woody (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Next update
Good job with the Next update. Now we just need an Admin to do the actual updating to the template. Cirt (talk) 10:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC).
 * Thanks for the kind note. Replied on my talk.  Cirt (talk) 10:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC).

DYK

 * I helped load the Next Update numerous times before I became an admin just to keep it flowing and to ensure that there was time for my DYK articles to be listed. It was a large point in my RFA, probably the turning point to why I became an admin. People look very favorable on doing things like this. My intention for helping with the update, though, was not to become an admin. I was shocked when I was asked to run. It takes a long time to do both parts together at one time. Royal broil  21:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Norman Finkelstein
... please check the WP:LEDE Ling.Nut (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Date formatting
I've started a thread concerning the date formatting dispute at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers).

Peter Isotalo 13:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

HMS Lotus and SS River Afton
No problem, someone had speedily deleted the original, which irked me enough to prove him wrong by rewriting it properly. Though the fact that there were two of the same class causes more than its fair share of confusion! As to the SS River Afton, the source I was using isn't particularly clearly written, but I suspect your interpretation is right. The fact that the last torpedo was 15 minutes after the first two I think would suggest that she was stubbornly refusing to sink and an additional one was needed, which broke her in two and left the matter beyond doubt. I might go back and make that a little clearer. Though occasionally a ship could still be salvaged even when broken in two (SS James B. Stephens springs to mind), so the idea of a coup de grace on the halves of a ship might be an explanation, but I suspect a less likely one. Benea (talk) 21:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA
I've transcluded and supported; shout at me if I should not've done. Will (talk) 21:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Joseph R. Bodwell
Hello Gatoclass. Thank you for correcting a small but important mistake in the biography of Joseph R. Bodwell. I wish you all the best. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

DANFS vs. DANFS online
I've never had a problem with accessing the Navy Historical Center site before, but in the future I'll leave the hazegray.org links in place in case others have the same connection issue as you. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Joshua Hendy Iron Works
Gatoclass -- it appears that you're working from the print references cited in the "References" section in the article, as the article is very nicely detailed by mostly uncited. Is that the case? If so, would you consider putting more references in inline form, with the  facility? It'd make it a much more valuable article, and if you've got the print resources handy, you're in a great position to do it. -- TJRC (talk) 23:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, not every sentence, of course. But regardless of how you cite, you've done a nice job.

For your own info and entertainment, you might find these interesting: http://sunnyvale.ca.gov/Departments/Library/Marion+Hendy+Rust.htm http://sunnyvale.ca.gov/Departments/Library/Wallace+Erichsen.htm I don't think they add much to the article, but you might enjoy the read. -- TJRC (talk) 01:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I see you already had them! -- TJRC (talk) 01:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate images uploaded
Thanks for uploading Image:Fairsky.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Fiarsky.jpg. The copy called Image:Fiarsky.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot (talk) 13:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:FairskyPostcard.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:FairskyPostcard.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 03:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Indo-Greeks (sources)
No problem. I was actually surprised to see it on DYK. Best regards. PHG (talk) 09:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...
For the DYK help - kinda freaky doing it the first time (as a non admin!) &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 08:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We are getting edit conflicts since we were both trying to edit the next update at the same time. I'll let you finish the next update. I have a Wi Fi internet connection. There is a major snowstorm here right now, and my internet connection could fade away at any time. I'll promote the next update in an hour if my internet connect is still working. It's falling way behind, so prompt large updates are important. Falling behind probably was a lot to do with the holiday season. Thanks for your help!


 * There's another unadvertized thing that you can do too. On the image used: You can upload it to the English Wikipedia from Commons, copying the text from Commons. Then add the template c-uploaded. If the image is already on the English Wikipedia, add the template m-protected. There's a thing called cascading protection that automatically protects the image from modification when it is copied in by the admin to the main page. Royal broil  12:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There was no way that you should or could have known about applying the protection templates to the images. I appreciate it if you would finish up this update. Hopefully my internet connection will remain. Daybreak just came. It's snowing moderately hard here, extremely windy, and there's a blowing snow advisory - it looks like a blizzard. I'll probably have to skip church. It's probably canceled anyhow. Royal broil  13:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I just uploaded it - I didn't think that you were going to try. Thanks for you help, and goodnight! Royal broil  13:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, yeah, I saw you editing the next update thing - does that have "consensus" for non admins to do it...I always thought it was one of the admin tasks...? &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 23:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK
I noticed you selected the next batch. You may want to consider replacing a hook with one that has been overlooked by oversight, AFAIK.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK for Lawman (film)
Hi Gatoclass, I know it is academic now but the references I provided i.e. IMDB and Turner classic movies cover the plot exactly as written in the article. IMDB has a table of the cast and lists Robert Ryan as Cotton Ryan. I even have a quote on the citation itself to that effect. The TCM citation covers the plot exactly as I did. I would appreciate if you explained the comment about not finding any facts from the two sources I provided. BTW Turner Classic Movies and IMDB are reliable sources routinely cited in movies. Thanks. Dr.K. (talk) 16:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gatoclass. The sources are already in the article citations. The first citation is TCM (Turner Classic Movies) and if you scroll down you'll see the whole plot with even more details than I wrote. Both IMDB and TCM have cast listings that show Robert Ryan playing Cotton Ryan. Dr.K. (talk) 16:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The link for TCM is here:Turner Classic Movies IMDB is here: IMDB. Dr.K. (talk) 16:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok. So you object only to the summary, not the main Synopsis. I can trim the summary to just the facts immediately. Dr.K. (talk) 16:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I took out the uncited segment. Dr.K. (talk) 16:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. You can have a look. It is out. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. Best of the season and take care. Dr.K. (talk) 16:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for following up. I really appreciate it. By for now and best wishes. Dr.K. (talk) 16:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK problem
The page has been under a WP:FLC review. It has been changing a bit. We have it cleaned up, but it seems not to be getting the support I had hoped. Nonetheless, it is now ready for the main page as you have noted.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In response to your query:
 * at 04:36, 24 December 2007, User:Royalbroil removed my hook
 * at 06:06, 24 December 2007, I noted I did not believe it had been used
 * at 15:14, 24 December 2007, I noted the hook still had not been included and was being overlooked again
 * at 15:23, 24 December 2007, and 15:33, 24 December 2007 you responded to my query saying at first you did not like the article but felt it was better now
 * at 16:54, 24 December 2007, Royalbroil used the hook on the main page
 * at 17:22, 24 December 2007, you acknowledge using the hook on the main page
 * at 21:26, 24 December 2007, I noticed you were not clear on why the article had been changing and explained why
 * at 03:13, 25 December 2007, you seemed confused on my last post --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

1641
Gatoclass,

I've annotated my view of the differences between Sarah's and JD's version on the talk page. Maybe you can offer your view.

With regard to you revertion, the point is not to keep the version which is "closer to NPOV", but to arrive at an article that is NPOV. This will inevitable mean keeping some of Sarah's, some of JD's, and some of others. --sony-youth pléigh 13:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. --sony-youth pléigh 13:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Croatian intelligence community
Hi - I have addressed the issue of missing reference -. I hope it is not too late,  Shiva eVolved  15:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks!  Shiva eVolved  16:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: DYK
Yeah, Gatoclass, no one likes to disappoint so many DYK contributors by blindly sticking to the rules. It's not the DYK contributors' fault that DYK is so often updated late. We'll catch up with the backlog soon, hopefully.

And thank you for posting those DYK notices last night after my last update. I was too sleepy to type. You, and Archtransit, have done a lot of good work at DYK. Thank you so much. Happy editing! :-) --PFHLai (talk) 18:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Sorry to hear about your eye problems. Hope you get well soon. May everything be great in two thousand and eight. Take care. --PFHLai (talk) 18:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK
Thanks for the notification on my talk page - it was much appreciated. the_undertow talk  01:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Question on DYK article
Hi Gatoclass - I just created Poème sur le désastre de Lisbonne, but I am a bit worried that I've just had to rewrite the paragraphs from the source, occasionally leaving a few sentences the same. Is this a violation of copyright rules? How should I correct it?  Shiva eVolved  22:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Gatoclass - you've answered my basic question - I have rewritten the content in my own words. The few sentences I didn't, I will do so now. Thanks again,  Shiva eVolved  15:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)