User talk:Cla68

This user demands flagged revisions NOW.

User:Cla68/Article draft work page

Word for the week of 4 Dec 09: Aphotic Points: Use the word in an article- 5 points, in an article talk page- 2 points, in a discussion in admin space like ANI or a user talk page- 1 point.

Tally: Cla68- 1 [1]

Looking for sources

I was thinking of expanding the article on the US Navy fleet oiler USS Neosho (AO-23), perhaps bringing it up to FA-standard if I can find enough information. I haven't worked on an article involving an auxiliary ship of the US Navy before. Would you know of any book titles or other sources of information that I might look for which might have information on this ship's history? Cla68 (talk) 06:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

No Big Book of Navy Auxiliaries that I know of, but here are some suggestions for research angles:

• Obviously from the article, the DANFS entry has been used, but often I've found that other ships' DANFS entries can sometimes have other useful information, too. The USN Historical Center (I can't ever remember what their new name is) will sometimes have extra things beyond DANFS, too. (Google search.)
• the HyperWar site at ibiblio.org often has an assortment of primary and secondary sources for WWII topics. A google search turns up Neosho's action report from her sinking, and from the Pearl Harbor attack
• I'd also suggest books on the Pearl Harbor attack and the Battle of Coral Sea, too. A Google Books search for Coral Sea turns up several that look promising.
• Newspaper searches for the building, launching, commissioning timeframe might be helpful, too. Also, according the GlobalSecurity.org, Neosho was the world's largest oil tanker at the time of her launch.

Good luck on the research and writing. I'll be happy to answer any other questions. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Making difficult edits

I recently stumbled upon your guide to writing history articles and found it helpful, so kudos there. But one thing stuck out - choosing a non-controversial subject, where you say if you can find an article that has been left alone for some time. I would argue that it benefits the project more if users do take on highly visible topics and thoroughly research them to find the "truth" (quotes because it's a relative term on Wikipedia as we all know). Not in the bang-your-head-against-the-wall Israeli-Palestinian sense maybe, but if there's going to be a debate, I'd much rather have someone citing five different book sources than relying on "I've always heard..." and similar arguments. You're tagged as willing and able to make difficult edits, so I figured it was food for thought. Again, very informative guide. :) Recognizance (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The reason I say that is if you want to take the article to FA. You're right that if we're serious about building Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, that we should tackle important, controversial subjects and fix them. If you want to, however, take an article to FA within a reasonable amount of time, it's easier, in my opinion, to avoid articles that are under the protection of POV-pushing editors with an agenda. I guess you could call it the "low-hanging fruit" analogy. Sure, a controversial article might require better sourcing to resolve the associated editing controversies, but the fairly rigorous FA review process should ensure that most, if not all, of FA articles are adequately sourced. Thank you for the kind words on the guide. Cla68 (talk) 22:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Very good point about time. And on second thought, it probably is better to steer new users away from wiki drama that could scare them off. By the way, you might mention library exchanges and similar programs in addition to overseas booksellers. That's how I plan to get ahold of this book, which I have no intention of paying for. Recognizance (talk) 17:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Ton That Dinh

About the NYT article that you mentioned, can you email the contents to me, I can only see the start of it. Thanks YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it appears that that article has since been moved behind the pay wall of the NYTimes. One way to obtain it would be to ask someone with LexisNexus access to email a copy of the text to you. I don't have that access, but most of the participants at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law have access because they use that tool for legal research. Cla68 (talk) 06:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Leave my pages alone

Leave my pages alone [2]. You are not welcome William M. Connolley (talk) 07:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Japanese ship names

Cla, I don't know if your interests extend this far, but a question involving naming conventions for IJN ships has arisen at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Amagi class battlecruiser/archive1. If you can shed any light on the area please take a look. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 17:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I was just coming to ask you the same thing. Appreciate if you could poke your nose in there; even if all you have to offer is OR, it has to be better than my OR :) Maralia (talk) 17:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you guys caught me on the weekend when it's hard for me to get on the computer for more than a few minutes at a time. I'll address this as soon as I'm confident of enough time to give it adequate attention. Cla68 (talk) 23:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've answered. It appears that the battlecruiser was named after a town and the heavy cruiser after a mountain, but I'm still trying to confirm which was which. Cla68 (talk) 05:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this. Kablammo (talk) 03:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Heya again Cla, what page does Lacroix say that on? Thanks :) —Ed (talk • contribs) 03:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)

The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Advice

Here is some advice on preparing advice on preparing a history article for Featured Article: make sure you work in the correct namespace. — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 13:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

What did I do wrong? Cla68 (talk) 21:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Cla68. You have new messages at Urashimataro's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: Using newspapers

Newspapers are notoriously unreliable when they report on science. Even the best quality newspapers make big errors regularly. Then, if we have a wiki article that focusses on some scientific topic, it would be difficult to use a newspaper story as a source, even if for that particular case the story seems to be ok. Because you could not do that as a rule. Rather, you would have to make a judgement on a case by case basis. But then that judgement would be Original Research.

At the discussion on the RS board, I linked to an old discusssion on the Special Relativity talk page where I also noted the tension between letting not so reliable sources in and the policy against OR. Therefore it is better to only allow high quality peer reviewed journals to be used as sources. Now, if a statement can be sourced from a peer reviewed source and there also exists a well written newspaper article that makes the same statement, you could decide to also give a citation to the newspaper article. Count Iblis (talk) 00:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

That might actually be true about newspapers. The fact is, however, that WP's current RS policy is very clear, even mentioning the NYTimes by name, that major newspapers are reliable sources and are allowed, even encouraged. The policy does not prohibit the use of newspapers in science or any other article, except maybe BLPs. Cla68 (talk) 00:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Wiki policy making is driven mainly by what goes on in the politics pages. Editors on science pages have to use slightly different rules, otherwise they could find themselves in deep trouble. This is another dispute I was involved in. Clearly, simply sticking to the existing wiki rules would not always work for certain science articles (although most of the time there would be no problems). So, in the cases where there would be problems one would be justified to invoke WP:IAR. Count Iblis (talk) 01:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Scientific standards is generally what we follow on scientific articles. Even major newspapers often make mistakes about science. I see no problem with this NYT article, but it's a slippery slope to the less accurate and/or more POV-ey articles. If you Google Scholar around for a paper written by the people that they mention about the temperature plateau, I'd happily send it to you and reinsert the same material with that as a RS. This current discussion has actually motivated me to try to make more formal standards for scientific articles, so I might be following up on that in ... oh, a month, after things cool down at work ;). Awickert (talk) 04:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi again

Heya Cla, you're my go-to guy on anything Japan-related now I think. ;-) Would you be able to/know anything that could help resolve the image issues (see here) raised at 's FAC? Thanks so much, —Ed (talk • contribs) 21:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I left a comment at Elcobbola's talk page and added more info to the image files. Cla68 (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Jeremiah Duggan (2nd nomination)‎

Just a note to say I appreciated your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremiah Duggan (2nd nomination)‎. The irony is that I am quite ambivalent about LaRouche, but I strongly oppose what I see as the abuse of process that has frequently been employed as a tactic by the team that controls the LaRouche articles. So, I open my mouth (figuratively speaking) and for my troubles I get branded a LaRouchie. --Leatherstocking (talk) 05:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

LaRouche isn't, unfortunately, the only topic in that situation. Cla68 (talk) 06:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Beeb

Re Isn't the BBC considered reliable? Quarstion (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC) I would think it would be, but you might be surprised with the "regulars" with this article. Cla68 (talk) 16:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC) - no, the Beeb isn't a WP:RS for science. [3] is an obvious counter-example William M. Connolley (talk) 17:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't. The BBC, NYTimes, and any other major media outlets reporting that climate change is not following the IPCC's predictions is significant. Those outlets synthesize the various reports from "scientific" organizations. Cla68 (talk) 17:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes they do but in general they don't: they do whatever they think their readers will want to hear, which results in the sensationalization of everything. For controversial articles scientific papers must be the standard. Otherwise, I predict that the GW article will become a feces-flinging-fiasco between Greenpeace and Rush Limbaugh (as pretty much any public discussion on the topic is). I imagine that with your POV, you wouldn't want a million greenies shoving the "global warming = end of the world" newspaper articles down your throat (and neither do William or I or most of the other regulars). With the scientific paper restriction, we can make the article much more accurate and avoid such issues. As I mentioned above, I will gladly send you scientific articles that you find if you want to look them over. Oftentimes, newspapers will reference press releases, which will in turn will reference the actual articles (and there is often quite a bit of change in the translation), so this could be a way to track down the original science of what you're looking for. Though not a climate scientist myself, I'm willing to lend a hand in the deciphering of said articles. Awickert (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

[copied/pasted from Awickert's talk by Awickert] I appreciate your offer to help. It's just that a blanket ban on newspapers is not only against Wikipedia policy, but also counerproductive. Mass media often sythesizes scientific opinion. This is important for us becuase we're, supposedly, not allowed to to synthesize sources ourselves. Cla68 (talk) 18:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that it is not against Wikipedia policy, especially when there are better sources available and newspapers actually do a poor job on GW IMO (anything that says "warming" tends to mean distaster; anything that says "global warming is complicated" tends to mean that it's a lie). I don't know if there is official policy or has been an RfC on this, but this is standard practice in scientific articles and written down in not-quite-official policy in a few places. If there isn't anything, I would welcome your opening of an RfC to create some policy. In any case, what the scientific article limitation does is hold the GW article to the standard that scientific papers are held to. There are indeed good and bad newspaper articles, but selectively choosing them is difficult and may be WP:SYN in itself! There are things called "review papers" which are syntheses of the scientific literature and may be helpful. Also, scientific sources can be used in tandem (e.g., "A et al. say Y but B and C say X and Z") without being WP:SYN. I will see what I can find about warming in the 2000's. Awickert (talk) 18:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Hm, I've given it a good look and can't find much of anything. Maybe you have another talk page stalker who can explain why this is the case. At the very least, newspaper articles would be appropriate for the global warming controversy page (indicating that public opinion is swaying due to recent temperature variability). Awickert (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Kongo Class

Hey, Cla68, I'm in the middle of a rewrite of Kongo class battlecruiser, with my sandbox located here. I've found resources for just about everything (design, each ship, armament, propulsion) but I've found next to nothing on the armour specifications of the class. All I have is thicknesses. Would you happen to have any information on the composition of the armour of the Kongo class? Cam ^(Chat) 20:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Cam, I placed some more information on User talk:Climie.ca/Sandbox/Kongo-class. Kablammo (talk) 03:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Australian forces

Uhm, yeah, I agree. Thanks for the correction. --Sageo (talk) 21:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Opine for Fg2

You notified the Signpost tiproom of Fg2's death. Several editors have decided to collaborate to get one of his favorite articles to FA status. Would you care to opine on which article we should select here? Thanks. - Draeco (talk) 04:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Cactus Air Force

There has been a series of edits to this article by an IP editor. Most seem simply matters of preferences; I doubt there was any improvement, and some changes were made to cited text, which always raises red flags. I have done some cleanup but it may have been simpler to revert, as was done with respect to the same editor's wholesale changes on two other articles (once by me, and one by another editor). When you have time, please take a look to see if the changes should be kept or reverted. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikibreak

I'm not sure when I'll be back. If you need any information on something, please email me. Cla68 (talk) 03:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Good luck until whenever you get back! I'm sure I'll be emailing you soon. ;-) —Ed (talk • contribs) 04:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think I'm more or less back now, although my participation may be more limited than before. Cla68 (talk) 10:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Japanese carrier images redux

Heya again Cla. I know that you said "[t]he publishing date of the pictures in the book by the Kure Maritime Museum, (edited by Kazushige Todaka), Japanese Naval Warship Photo Album: Aircraft carrier and Seaplane carrier, is April 23, 1949"[4], but it appears that the book was published in 2005, not 1949. Did the book state that the images were first published then? —Ed (talk • contribs) 20:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I've provided further comment on Commons and will check the FAC discussion again to see if progress is being made. Cla68 (talk) 23:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your help Cla! :-) —Ed (talk • contribs) 15:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Morotai‎

Hi Cla, if you have time, would you be able to have a look at the Battle of Morotai‎ article and let me know if you have any suggestions on how it could be further improved (or just add them yourself, of course!). I'm thinking of nominating this for FA status this weekend. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It's been awhile since I nominated an article for FAC, but from what I've observed lately many of the reviewers have really been focusing on minutiae, especially concerning images. I went through the images and tried to make the sourcing more clear on each image's Commons pages. I see that you already have the alt text done, so that should take care of that. I checked the footnotes and refs to make sure they were properly formatted and didn't see anything out of place. So, I think as far as the MoS is concerned, it's good to go. Prose-wise, I think it's excellent but I'm often surprised by what the reviewers come up with. Good luck! Cla68 (talk) 09:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy (late) birthday!

[5] :-) —Ed (talk • contribs) 20:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh my, same here! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy Belated Returns of the Day! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV

• ...parties are admonished and instructed to avoid ... Unnecessary interaction between Cla68 and SlimVirgin....

Cla68, I've notice that you've been appearing on pages related to topics in which Slimvirgin is known to have longstanding interests, and where she has already posted. It appears that these are unnecessary interactions. I suggest that you avoid doing so in the future in order to comply with the ArbCom remedy.   Will Beback  talk  06:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern Will. SV has helped me out with an article I'm working on which is on my "to do" list on my userpage, which I thanked her for and she responded graciously. If you feel that me and her aren't getting along, please take it up with ArbCom. In the meantime, DKing has admitted that he is not neutral about LaRouche. You say that he hasn't violated NPOV with article edits, which I'm sure is debatable. Anyway, I believe NPOV also applies to talk page comments. Although we traditionally give a little more leeway on article talk pages, if you read Mr. King's comments on the LaRouche talk pages, I believe that it is clear that Mr. King is following an anti-LaRouche agenda. Therefore, if Mr. King continues the same behavior, I'm going to ask for a formal topic ban at ArbCom enforcement. As an admin, I assume you're concerned about violations of our core policies and will help out with the request? Cla68 (talk) 06:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you see anything wrong with the changes that Dking has made to the article in the past year? You haven't said so. As for the ArbCom remedy, you can ask for it to be repealed if you think it's no longer necessary. While it's active it'd be best if you followed it.   Will Beback  talk  06:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, it, and BLP applies to talk page discussion also. Remember, Chip Berlet was blocked for anti-LaRouche talk page comments. Cla68 (talk) 06:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

And you're interested in this topic because?   Will Beback  talk  07:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Didn't I tell you by email just a few months ago? Well, if you want to pretend like that conversation didn't happen, I'm involved for the same reason I become interested in Global warming, Intelligent design, Gary Weiss, and Prem Rawat, because Wikipedia policies are or were being violated, in this case by DKing. Please assist SV in resolving the problem. Cla68 (talk) 08:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your first point - there are so many topics where policies are being violated that picking one or another usually involves more than just the presence of a dispute. If you're looking for problems to fix I can make some suggestions. Regarding your second point - believe me, I'm working on it!   Will Beback  talk  08:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Are there really any topics in which one editor's involvement is so obviously a problem? I mean, DKing actually links to his anti-LaRouche website right at the top of his userpage! Frankly, I'm surprised that he hasn't been told like, three years ago, to step off of the LaRouche articles. If you're working on it, then I hope that means that this particular problem is coming to an end. Cla68 (talk) 12:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

There have even been members of the movement who've been editing the topic, believe it or not. It's amazing who they let in here. The great Yogi Berra once said of a restaurant - "Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded."   Will Beback  talk  18:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Invitation

WT:Sock_puppetry#Interview_for_Signpost. - Dank (push to talk) 18:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I know it's been a while.

I know it no longer matters and that it has been such a "long" time since this happened. But I just wanted to add that I agree to an extent. I do believe that some admins don't care about the words that they use, but the fact is that a lot of editors "look up" to them as people who should know what to do on this project. Using the wrong words may discourage editors from editing. And last time I checked this was a project where ANYONE can come and gather with other editors to build this project. But I think that desysoping would only depend on the case. I know that is why you say "may" be desysoped, but in most cases it wouldn't be fit. Cases where it would be fit would be situations/cases where admin x has repeatedly done this and doesn't intend to change their ways or even be careful about how they approach things. But anyways, I'm positive this doesn't matter a whole lot; just wanted to say that I agree. ⊥m93 ^talk. 02:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your thoughts on the matter. I think that sometimes there are cases of admin edit summaries or other commments that are so completely uncalled for that immediate suspension of admin privileges may be appropriate. We need to make sure that our admins understand that they are, as you say, examples for the rest of us. Cla68 (talk) 06:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Kintetsubuffalo's talk page

I have a quick question for you. How did you happen to find Kintetsubuffalo's talk page and have your attention drawn towards my edits? I was a little confused seeing that he is in Japan, and I have had two other editors who are located in Japan revert me. From checking the edit history, it seems as if that is the only time you have edited that talk page. Is there some messaging system that Japanese editors are using to contact eachother? I know that one of the editors involved (who I will not mention) is quite keen on contacting other editors in Japan in order to gain support for certain edits - is that the case with my edits? 119.173.81.176 (talk) 04:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Arrow (missile) A-class review

Care to reconsider? Flayer (talk) 20:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Sock puppets

I looked at recent postings on Wikipedia Review made by you and HK. I categorically deny that I am using any sock puppet on Wikipedia; I post under my own name. "LaRouche planet" is almost certainly just that--a person from the LaRouche Planet website. I am not one of the people responsible for that site and would not presume to use its name, although I certainly support their efforts to expose LaRouche's anti-Semitism and cultism.--Dking (talk) 02:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I believe you. Cla68 (talk) 05:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion for K-ASROC

An article that you have been involved in editing, K-ASROC, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. 4wajzkd02 (talk) 07:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC) --4wajzkd02 (talk) 07:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)

The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Land bridge

Thanks for taking this on. I don't have any sources for this, but I think the term "land bridge" referring to intermodal transport originates from the use of North American railroads as an alternate to the Panama Canal for Asia-Europe freight. Essentially it was a "bridge" between the oceans over land. The Eurasian Land Bridge appears to be a corruption of the term; it would more properly be called a Eurasian transcontinental railway. --NE2 18:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense. I'll try to get the article started this week sometime. Cla68 (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I've started working on the article here in userspace. Cla68 (talk) 06:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The article is done and posted. Please see here for a list of items the article is lacking. Cla68 (talk) 13:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Your response to GQ 2

Hi Cla

I was disappointed at the ... non-response, as it were, to the question:

(2) Please provide evidence of your ability to write concise, clear English. You may wish to refer to your ability to detect ambiguities and unintended consequences in text such as principles, remedies and injunctions. (Tony1)

   A: I hope that my answers to the questions on this page will provide sufficient evidence of this ability. 

With your track-record in FAs and MilHist, not to mention other forums, you are ideally placed to link or diff to a few examples of what you consider your best writing and/or editing of pre-existing prose. An additional advantage (over some of the other candidates) would be diffs of posts that show you to write well in heated exchages, trouble-shoot on talk pages, playing a cooling-down/mediating role with the appropriate use of language; or of editing policy text and/or proposal text. Tony (talk) 07:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Will do. Cla68 (talk) 08:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

uContribs - request for scrutiny

Hi Cla, I'm running my uContribs program for all ACE candidates, you're first in alpha order so I thought I'd invite your scrutiny of User:Franamax/Ucontribs-2009/Cla68 to see if I'm getting anything wrong. When I checked the output, my first thought was that if Battle of the Coral Sea order of battle can have 119 references and 23 sources and still be rated Stub-class, you must have pretty rigorous standards for article quality. :) If you re-rate anything, feel free to update my page too. Regards! Franamax (talk) 14:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I upgraded a few of the stubs to start, including Battle of the Coral Sea order of battle, Maccabiah bridge collapse, Operation RY, Invasion of Lae-Salamaua, and Air Raid on Bari. Cla68 (talk) 23:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I, er, might have been, *cough*, a little, um, overzealous in respect of your candidacy. Sorry!

I have been reviewing various editors ACE2009 opinion pages and have been rather indelicate in my commentary regarding a couple of people's criteria of not supporting anyone who is not an admin. I specifically noted your unfortunate experience in RfA, and was unequivocal in stating my opinion why you might be an exception to the rule/rationale provided in those opinions. This was done entirely on my own initiative, and I am writing here to in an effort to recognise that only I should bear any untoward consequences for these actions and have this on record so that you or any reader should be aware that you are an innocent party to my partisan editing.
Sorry for any potential difficulty I may have caused, and I hope you have some better endorsements of your candidacy than that which I have provided. Mark. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't read what you said to Z-Man because he admin deleted it, and as has been pointed out, I'm not an admin. I don't have any problem with what you said to the other editor. I appreciate the support. Cla68 (talk) 23:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Notification

You may wish to note the following comment: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Vote/Cla68#False statements by candidate. Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I've commented there. I really think that you could have brought your grievances here prior to going site-wide... it looks to me like Cla just made a mistake with his facts... —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Sam took it up with me by email first, so he didn't do anything wrong, at least as far as trying to clear it up privately first. Cla68 (talk) 01:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, gotcha. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I've responded. Cla68 (talk) 05:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Eurasian Land Bridge

Hello! Your submission of Eurasian Land Bridge at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Nick Ottery (talk) 10:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

All cleared up now - see your nomination's entry on the DYK page. I was, it turns out, looking at completely the wrong section for the hook! Your reply though cleared up the matter and I've approved it for DYK. Thanks! Nick Ottery (talk) 12:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Link Check

I was looking at the red link in the Eurasian Land Bridge article for the Beijiang Railway. Google wasn't being very helpful so I went to some of the article sources. In particular figure 1 on page 47 of this indicates that the Beijiang Line is simply the northern branch of the Lanxin railway. That article contains a section on the northern branch so I've piped the link to Lanxin railway#The northern branch in the Eurasian LB article. Could you give this a quick sense check please? Nick Ottery (talk) 12:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikivoices interview

Hi... since you're running for the ArbCom, I'd like to interview you for the Wikivoices podcast series. If you have Skype, it will be easy to do; otherwise, something might be arranged (like my actually paying to connect Skype to non-Internet phones). Let me know if you're interested. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I know the time difference can be a problem, but if you e-mail me a phone number and what times are good to call, I might manage to do an interview anyway. *Dan T.* (talk) 04:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Voting has started... are you going to be able to do the interview? *Dan T.* (talk) 01:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I replied to your latest message on my talk page... I hate conversations split between two pages because everybody replies to the other's page... almost as silly as top-posted e-mail. *Dan T.* (talk) 05:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I can try the interview now if you're up to it... I'm just barely waking up and it's late at night for you, but maybe it can manage to work out if I grab a cup of coffee first... *Dan T.* (talk) 12:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the interview... it's up now. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Thanksgiving!

I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

MILHIST

Great idea! I'm a WWII buff. How did you know I have several shelves of WWII books? Thanks very much. MajorStovall (talk) 21:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll start digging into my pile of books. Thanks. MajorStovall (talk) 14:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Question

Still remains - my #5. No hurry, though. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice that you had added another question. I've responded. Cla68 (talk) 04:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Register article on [Mike Godwin] and David Gerard

Still think you did the right thing? Cla68 (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

"Please communicate to all involved my strong personal and professional preference that they reconsider this decision." Sounds to me like you were implying that you were acting in your formal capacity as the Foundation's attorney. Cla68 (talk) 00:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely think I did the right thing. What makes you think I should believe otherwise? Cade deliberately omits the messages in which I said later that I was expressly speaking for myself rather than as a function of my position. The reason he does this is that he is inherently dishonest. MikeGodwin (talk) 04:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You know how important appearances are. Why didn't David Gerard simply communicate his opinion and demand directly to the ArbCom? Why did he get a lawyer to do it for him? You don't think that choosing you over anyone else sends some kind of message? Imagine how it feels to be ArbCom and to get an email from the Foundation's attorney telling them, using legal terminology, that they screwed-up, in spite of the fact that you tried to make it look like it was just a personal request? Furthermore, if you weren't willing to be involved in your official capacity, then if it comes out in public about what was going on, as happened here, it looks like back-room dealing using an unofficial "heavy", videlicet, you, doesn't it? Cla68 (talk) 05:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

David Gerard did not get a lawyer to do anything for him. You need to get your facts straight. I spoke out about the issue on my own behalf, based on my own perceptions. The very fact that you think David got me to represent him shows you don't know what you're talking about.MikeGodwin (talk) 05:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's a quote from the ArbCom Noticeboard: "The Arbitration Committee has...suppressed the motion in an accord between the subject and the Arbitration Committee (brokered by Mike Godwin)." On your own, you contacted both David Gerard and the ArbCom and offered to broker an accord? Cla68 (talk) 05:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

That is in fact what happened. I raised my concerns on the Functionaries list, and after I voiced them, it was suggested that I mediate the dispute and try to come up with a resolution of it. MikeGodwin (talk) 05:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Which, based upon your leaked comments in regard to DG hardly make you the best choice as an honest and independent broker. Minkythecat (talk) 08:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Does he really?

On the private mailing list, Godwin repeatedly says that the views he expressed about the Gerard situation are personal - that they are not delivered in his capacity as Wikimedia general counsel:

WMF isn't talking to you here...For future reference, when I speak as an official of the Foundation to represent Foundation policy, I sign my full name and include my position on Foundation staff. When I speak as my own self - as a lawyer with a couple of decades of experience at free-speech law and the law of online communities, I sign as

--Mike

Minkythecat (talk) 08:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

And indeed, isn't there a delicious irony that a WMF lawyer, posting here, having given his view on the nature of the comments Arbcom made re: the DG case, then makes this bold claim against Cade Metz. Physician, heal thyself? I mean, given the nature of your advice to Arbcom re: being able to defend comments in court, just seems a bit odd you'd make such a bold statemnet on this user talk page. Minkythecat (talk) 08:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, he may have been right to let the ArbCom know that they had not used proper wording for the announcement. The problem is, that based on past experience, any involvement by WMF staff in En.Wikipedia affairs looks like back-room meddling. But, he did come across as acting in a semi-official capacity. I agree that it would have been better for him to have acted either in a completely official role, or else made more effort to show that he was giving advice as just another interested party. Cla68 (talk) 10:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

If it's a wording issue, change the wording, oversight the offending version. Fine. Is that what really happened? Minkythecat (talk) 10:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

RFA

Per your WR post, do you want me to nom you for adminship? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Thank you for offering. I'm not sure if it should be done this month, however. Perhaps after the elections are over? Cla68 (talk) 00:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I do think after the elections would be better, but I'm happy to nom. If I forget in the holiday rush, would you please ping me? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Formatting at RFC for Eurasian Land Bridge

Hi Cla68, I hope you are doing well. I acknowledge that you are indeed making some very good points at the RFC for Eurasian Land Bridge. But can you please keep this formatting during the RFC? I think it will really help to segment out the various comments. I think if we can keep discussion based on a dialogue of determining "what the sources say", we can all work to make sure the RFC does not degenerate. Thus the reasoning for avoiding threaded discussions (except for that bottom section). Sound good? :) Cirt (talk) 07:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I've never seen a content RfC done this way but so far it seems ok. Cla68 (talk) 07:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay great! I started a new section at the bottom of the talk page to analyze the sources. I personally have not researched the topic (yet) which is why my RFC comment asked that question. Could you perhaps help by posting a source analysis with relevant quoted text in that subsection? That way, we can try to discuss and determine proportional weighting. Cirt (talk) 07:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

How did you know about this RfC, by the way? Cla68 (talk) 07:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Responded at my talk page. Btw, I happen to highly respect both you and SlimVirgin (talk · contribs). And I especially appreciate your WP:FA contributions to the project. That's why I hope the RFC can stay amicable. :) Cirt (talk) 09:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Yea I will try to do my best to keep things congenial, if possible. :( Cirt (talk) 09:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification

Notifying you of this request. SlimVirgin 09:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Eurasian Land Bridge

I was rather tempted to just add a reference to some world atlas, but I know full well that that would be too flippant: there are plenty of railways that every atlas shows, but which have in reality been torn down decades ago. (E.g., Newfoundland Railway). So I actually looked up sources for each link that affirm its existence and say something positive about it. Which, of course, made the text rather longer...

Also, Tsuji's paper I have added as a reference has a fair amount of statistics (e.g., on the historical use of the Trans-Siberian for the shipment of containers from Japan to Europe). Feel free to mine that!

I wish I had time to draw a decent SVG map.... Vmenkov (talk) 09:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Xiangtan vs. LaRouche: I think that's exactly what's wrong with Wikipedia: a dozen people spent hours discussing whether a particular pundit/celebrity's opinion should be mentioned in the article. No one apparently took the trouble to read the PDF report at the http://www.transeurasialogistics.de/ - the site of the company that actually has run China-to-Germany services lately that would answer quite a few questions, viz:

• how much service is run (apparently, not too much: they mention "company trains", but only mentioned one customer, Fujitsu/Siemens, who shipped something in Sep 2008 from Xiangtan, Hunan, to Hamburg; "public trains" introduction has been delayed)
• cost/timing issues (5 times as expensive as sea freight, but twice as fast, on their route)
• maps
• gauge breaks (pictures show that they move containers from Chinese trains to Russian ones with cranes)
• and a few other tidbits

Similarly, Helseth's thesis in its "Literature" section has a link to Hisako Tsuji's paper with a wealth of data about container shipping from Russia's Pacific ports to Western Europe; and another Tsuji's paper with more data is now linked into our article directly.

Thinking more about the history of "land-bridge-ish" services, I seem to recall reading that Soviets sent shipments to North Vietnam by train via China, during the Civil War in that country in the 1960s, and I remember reading them complaining about the Chinese side - busy with their Cultural Revolution at the time, and being not too friendly to the Soviet Revisionists - being not too efficient with handling this kind of transit freight. The Vietnamese supposedly even make a line from Hanoi to Chinese border dual-gauge, to receive supplies from (and via) China easier. It would be interesting to look that stuff up, but it's not really all that germane to the current article; would be more suitable for the "logistic" section in the Vietnamese Civil War article, or for Transport in Vietnam, I reckon. Vmenkov (talk) 12:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

B-class article

Attack on Pearl Harbor. I don't have the history books in hand, but I can do some copy editing. Are you game? Jehochman ^Talk 15:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Cla, I will help with this as well if you decide to do it. :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. This really is an important article, so perhaps I should put it high on the "to do" list. Cla68 (talk) 12:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

BAMbenek sources

Please paste the list of all 60 reliable sources here. I will do the rest.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 13:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Mentorship?

Please see this discussion. I've recommended you as a mentor. Viriditas (talk) 05:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but you are too kind. I would like to see you more involved in the discussion. Our views on the subject may differ greatly, but I think you understand how this place works, and it would be good to see you on the talk page, either playing devil's advocate or helping both sides reach an agreement. Viriditas (talk) 07:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)