User talk:AzureCitizen/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Battle Assembly edits
Azure, nice work on the revisions to my Battle Assembly article. Thanks for that. --Eplack 11:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- Glad they were appreciated. It's a good term article that you wrote; for most non-USAR folks, the term is probably unknown. -- AzureCitizen 03:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- You're certainly correct about that. Just about everyone that talked to me about my work in the Reserve calls everything we do Drill. From Basic Training to Annual Training. Even PT... Everything is just "Drill" to them. Well I hope they can look up battle assembly on wikipedia next time I mention it. --Eplack 09:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| Looking back, I think you deserve this for your contributions to the article. -- Eplack136.160.144.217 (talk) 13:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC) |
Custer
Good edit. Changing it to cavalry commander bypasses any future drama on the topic that might occur.⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 22:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Roger that, thanks. Real quick, what do you think of editing the John Allen Muhammad entry from "Beltway Sniper", Gulf war veteran, former NOI member to just Convicted "Beltway Sniper", or something similar? It seems the "veteran" or "Nation of Islam member" parts are just incidentals and not really things that made him a famous former soldier, i.e., everyone in that section is a veteran, ourselves included. Just a thought. -- AzureCitizen 22:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Battle assembly article getting promoted!
Azure, after we've both added a lot to the battle assembly article, I submitted it for peer review from the Military History WikiProject. So far, it's been rated "start" head over and check out the discussion page and maybe we can bump it up a notch or two. --Eplack 08:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Moved article
I have moved the discussion in reference to United States Cavalry to the discussion page of the article discussion page in order to keep the messages in one consolidated location, which can be found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_Army_Cavalry -TabooTikiGod 19:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Scope of Counterintelligence
Contents of Discussion
|
|---|
|
Yes, the US intelligence community page uses the limited definition of counterintelligence. You'll note, however, that this definition disagrees with JCS Pub 1-02 and other doctrinal guides, both US and non-US. I think that USIB definition is dangerous, and wanted to present it a broader context, specifically that it is redefining and restricting responsibility. I would very much like to see agreement on that redefinition from the Congressional intelligence committees, but, AFAIK, it hasn't been brought to them. CIA keeps reorganizing on the subject, so you had Angleton doing counterespionage under the name "CI Staff", with Osborne doing everything else in the Office of Security. Without making too much of a POV issue of it, I wanted to show the contrast side-by-side. In my reasonably professional opinion, the current Administration is trying to make everything OPSEC, and makes more and more use of assorted sensitive-but-unclassified labels outside the declassification system. While there is flux with the retirement of the director of the Information Security Oversight Office, there have been both unprecedented activities both in reclassifying declassified information, and also in putting things into categories covered neither by FOIA nor the declassification system. I'm not trying to come at this from a partisan standpoint, but I am extremely concerned with the push to make more and more material restricted, including to the confusion of state and local law enforcement and emergency service organizations. Actually, I strenuously disagree OPSEC is "everyone's job", because the safe bureaucratic thing is to restrict everything. "Everyone" is not qualified to do objective risk assessment. As an example, going back quite a number of years, the Federal Telecommunications Standards Committee, in the late seventies, issued two standards covering the then-new Data Encryption Standard. FED-STD-1026 dealt with the algorithm, some aspects of key management, and communications protocols, had NIST as proponent, and was coordinated through the entire group. FED-STD-1027, which dealt with physical security of the cryptoequipment, was left exclusively to NSA. Communications security is decidedly a specialist job, although the expertise is no longer limited to NSA alone. You may or may not have looked at the SIGINT#Defensive SIGINT material I wrote, but I discussed a range of issues with regard to COMSEC, not just cryptography, but compromising emanations, inadvertently induced radiations, side channels and covert channels. Of course, none of these is terribly useful if the crypto keys are left unprotected by physical means, or if cleartext is protected. At the intersection of COMSEC and physical security is the proper threat assessment of SCIFs. As you presumably know, TEMPEST requirements have largely been eliminated for US facilities, as long as there is a reasonable physical exclusion zone. There's a bit of that in Radiofrequency MASINT. Are we in agreement that counterespionage is a proper subset of counterintelligence, being principally a CIA responsibility when foreign and FBI domestically? Apropos of personnel security, especially in the UK when MI5 was not compromised by Philby alone, but by Wright's and others suspicion that Soviet penetration into the executive suite meant that the positive vetting system could have been nullified. It was thankfully a bit more restrictive that the Golitsyn-Nosenko-Angleton affair was more restricted to CIA proper rather than a general clearance system, but, while the molehunt was underway, almost paralyzing Soviet Russia Division in the DO. Not considering counterintelligence as a overall discipline, indeed including personnel, physical, communications, and other disciplines, all requiring specialized knowledge, means no one has responsibility for overall information and operational security. The new USIB definition, technical as it may be, could well be catastrophic for US security. Remember that Pearl Harbor was not a failure of collection or analysis, but of dissemination. If "OPSEC" restricts everything, what happens to the next warning? Howard C. Berkowitz 01:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I didn't return to Wikipedia until just after lunch today, and have carefully read what you posted in response. You began your posting with something which I think I should probably quote directly - for ease of reading I'm going to put it in italics: "Yes, the US intelligence community page uses the limited definition of counterintelligence. You'll note, however, that this definition disagrees with JCS Pub 1-02 and other doctrinal guides, both US and non-US." I'm having some trouble seeing that; could you please refer me to some specific examples where JCS 1-02 or other doctrinal guides (either US or non-US) include OPSEC and other security practices under counterintelligence?
I also noted that you later referred to the USIB definition as "new," but I'm having trouble with that as well, as it follows what I've been doctrinally taught by DoD CI schooling in resident course instruction in 1987, 1990, 1996, and 2004; that OPSEC, COMSEC, INFOSEC, personnel security, physical security, etc., do not fall under CI, and are not within the direct scope of CI activities, units, or organizations.
It is not that they aren't very important in their own right; it's just that they are not considered CI. Further, the USIB definition is clearly drawn from Executive Order 12333, which established back in 1981 that counterintelligence did not include personnel security, physical security, document (information) security, or COMSEC in paragraph 3.4(a). Can you please explain why you perceive this to be a "new" concept, or one that has not followed by all US Intelligence activities as directed by EO 12333 a quarter century ago?
Perhaps your primary concern or argument as to why OPSEC and other security practices should fall under counterintelligence is more of a philosophical one, that when considering CI, in the broadest possible definition, it should be concerned with countering all aspects of intelligence collection by foreign nations, and thus, since something like OPSEC or physical security or the other fields help prevent that collection, it must be a part of CI. Although I can appreciate that in the broadest sense, I see plenty of practical problems in application. I mentioned earlier that OPSEC was "everybody's job," and you disagreed.
I can respect that, but from a CI perspective, we can't possibly put that task or burden on our CI personnel and agencies, who already have their hands full with the high-level CI fight. OPSEC and the other SEC disciplines must be incorporated down to the lowest level, in everything that we do, for everyone, in order to be effective. From a common office office worker at their desk in a non-intelligence activity practicing proper INFOSEC by keeping SF704 coversheets in place or initialing the SF 702 everytime they open their GSA container, to a communications worker using proper procedures in handling COMSEC materials, to even a physical security officer making sure that room keys are issued and properly accounted for, every person plays a part in helping to defend against the intelligence collection methods employed by the other side.
Please take a quick look the wiki article on INFOSEC and note the poster someone put up at top right: "Security is everyone’s responsibility," ergo, OPSEC is "everybody's job." I think you mentioned that "everyone is not qualified to do objective risk assessment," and I would agree with you there, but objective risk assessments can be left to CI experts
while the functional realm of OPSEC and the other security disciplines remain a task for everybody. I think you also stated that you believe not considering counterintelligence as a overall discipline, to include the SEC disciplines, means no one has responsibility for overall information and operational security.
All I can say in response is that lumping the SEC disciplines in with CI still won't make one entity responsible for overall information and operational security - our CI agencies and personnel can't possibly do that job, it is up to every rank and file individual to employ the SEC disciplines and make them part and parcel of their jobs.
Returning directly to the issue on the Wikipedia entry on Counter-intelligence, I think the accepted consensus and doctrine in the US Intelligence Community
is that counterintelligence is specifically contemplated to refer to CI activities which detect and neutralize the intelligence operations of foreign intelligence services (when I started in the 80s, we called them HOIS, not FIS), both in "information gathered" and "activities conducted" to prevent espionage and sabotage, but is not interpreted to include OPSEC, COMSEC, INFOSEC, etc., which are separate and defensive security practices in their own right.
The former is tasked specifically to CI agencies, and the latter is a broad responsibility of all government and contractor personnel everywhere. In that regard, the Wikipedia entry on counterintelligence should really reflect the accepted consensus of the intelligence community, as opposed to what you or I might think it ought to be. After considering the issue, and only in the limited sense of what should appear under that wiki entry, are we in agreement there?
You asked if I we mutually agree that counterespionage is a proper subset of counterintelligence, being principally a CIA responsibility when foreign and FBI domestically - absolutely. CE is the crown jewel of CI, but CI activities encompass more than just CE cases.
JCS 1-02 defines counterintelligence as "counterintelligence — Information gathered and activities conducted to protect against espionage, other intelligence activities, sabotage, or assassinations conducted by or on behalf of foreign governments or elements thereof, foreign organizations, or foreign persons, or internationalterrorist activities. Also called CI. See also counterespionage; countersabotage; countersubversion; security; security intelligence. (JP 2-0)
Part of my being conflicted is that the USIB OPSEC definition is so broad, so vague, that it essentially says nothing to me. At the same time, I'm seeing growth of a "conceal everything in the name of OPSEC" culture, which flies in the face of decades of work on more open national security processes.
I am willing to agree that EO 12333 does not start by defining these, but, under paragraph 3.4(g)(3), it leaves a wide scope for essentially anything being defined as a counterintelligence activity. In other words, 3.4(g)(3) trumps 3.4(a).
Again, my major objection is to the current usage of OPSEC, and I'm willing to negotiate almost everything else.
Again, this is meant not to be US-specific.
The problem is that I see the emphasis on "OPSEC" to be largely US usage. While this would be reaching back historically, classical (as in WWII) Operations Security is actually a subset of Strategic Deception. I believe this is consistent with the London Controlling Section (UK) and Joint Security Control (US).
Let me try a variant: I read your reply last night just before turning in, and tried to think of some generic term that would meet this criteria, but couldn't. Perhaps there is a reason why it is so elusive - the concepts are often complicated, and the US Community has struggled with OSPEC for a long time. I don't envy the troubles you face trying to integrate this concepts and writing on them, and I'm sorry I can't be of much help. I am also no fan of the current administration's policy efforts in these areas, and am troubled by things like the WH-DOJ events transpiring just after 9/11 and other events which are still playing themselves out. Trying to make headway on the issue of the SEC disciplines (Information Security, Personnel Security, Physical Security, Communications Security, etc.) being added into the Counter-intelligence article in a major re-write, I think we need to figure out exactly where we agree and disagree so that we can try to make some progress there, as I must admit it's actually been confusing to me in our conversations. I'll start with suggesting two statements that you can let me know where you stand with either "agreed" or "disagreed," with "disagreed" responses including (if I might ask for) a direct explanation to help me understand why you disagree. Does that sound reasonable? Feel free to put similar questions to me if you'd like.
I'm rapidly wondering if, whether intending it or not, you are thinking of CI as primarily CE. Even so, that would touch on the definition of espionage. "counterintelligence — Information gathered and activities conducted to protect against espionage, other intelligence activities, sabotage, or assassinations conducted by or on behalf of foreign governments or elements thereof, foreign organizations, or foreign persons, or internationalterrorist activities". In the narrowest sense, how can one prevent against Boris and Natasha if one does not put the Seeekrit Plan in the safe (i.e., physical security)? Personnel security, we hope, finds the spies before they can do much damage. It's hard for me to conceptualize "countering [foreign] intelligence" and then restrict myself to not covering the defenses against means of intelligence collection. From the same source, "espionage — The act of obtaining, delivering, transmitting, communicating, or receiving information about the national defense with an intent, or reason to believe, that the information may be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation." "receiving" logically considers the threats against which INFOSEC and COMSEC protect. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Aside from any political theatrics, whether one calls the "master discipline" OPSEC or CI, does there not have to be someone with the ultimate security responsibility?
They need to be in the scope of something, or there is a guarantee there will be gaps. I see there being two critical problems:
It's one thing to talk about a small direct action or strategic recon patrol, but, against a sophisticated force, you may manage a bit of tactical surprise. In 2003, the Iraqis could have been given a nicely calligraphed map of where and when the heavy forces would arrive, and it wouldn't have made too much difference. There was a surprising amount of deception and surprise with the initial attack in 1991, especially the waves of hard and soft kill SEAD interspersed with direct attacks at centers of gravity. There isn't that much rational threat assessment, IMHO, to justify the suppression of speech, and much of things such as aviation searches. I can still think of some fairly nasty things TSA would not catch. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC) I think we are converging, and let me propose a "Gordian Knot" sort of solution. What if we create an article, under the intelligence cycle, with one of the following titles:
Before proceeding further, some questions. Who/what organization or discipline does threat assessment and prioritzation for all the SECs, in these very different environments?
If we can define a structure that indexes all the SECs, redirects CI to be HUMINT defense (with CE being active measures), and defines who is responsible for protecting the intelligence community (rather than the nation), I think we might be there. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Just as a personal note, no, I'm not retired, but consulting is a little slow at the moment. It turns out that the MASINT is quite relevant to the commercial remote sensing I'm doing for commercial fishing. My fisherman business partner bops me when I start talking about detecting an Oscar II two convergence zones out and prosecuting the contact, and reminding me that I need to be thinking about different fish, like tuna and scallops (MASINT like techniques involved with both) Howard C. Berkowitz 16:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Never, in the course of human events, has a US Army doctrine been "blurry" :-) You might find it interesting to look at the Army Counterintelligence FM 34-60 of 1995. I can't remember if that's what I had in mind at the time I wrote about all the "SEC's" being under CI, but this version is rather explicit about defensive CI in both multithreat briefings, and in countermeasures against each of the major intelligence collection disciplines.
You can look at my working draft of what is to be the CI article under User talk:Hcberkowitz/Sandbox0-SIGINT Platforms (didn't make it a wikilink, and ignore the title). It's probably fair to say that current CI doctrine has evolved to being principally counter-HUMINT, but FM 34-60, for example, clearly puts OPSEC, COMSEC monitoring, personnel security, etc., under CI. Howard C. Berkowitz 00:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Howard C. Berkowitz 17:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Howdy! I see we are both on, late in the evening... things relaxed a bit and I've been making sporadic edits over the last hour or so, including restoring the list of CI organizations, and sure enough, you caught that quick and improved it by adding several more. There was one I have to relate, about US Army Criminal Investigation Command, that often confuses many people in its prior history and current scope. Although the initials are similar, Criminal Investigation Command (CID) and the Counterintelligence Corps (CIC) were actually separate organizations and were never connected; take a look at this and this for reference..
I have read the CI article now from top to bottom, and am still amazed at what I high quality re-write you've instituted. One thing I did want to ask you about, I find that when I click on the references that are often at the end of paragraphs, the browser makes a click noise to indicate it received the command, but nothing actually happens. Might be something wrong with my copy of internet explorer, but I wanted to ask you if you'd noticed the same and if there was something going on there that isn't working right. Have you noticed this?
FYI, I think I've started on a joint cleanup of CI, HUMINT, and the existing espionage article by setting up an article "Clandestine HUMINT", which can pick up the relationships, and then make HUMINT/Espionage the practice of creating sources (with the caveat not all clandestine HUMINT is espionage), where CI is the counter-HUMINT concerned largely with counterespionage. I moved espionage by country into its own section, cutting it back, where possible, to organizations that actually do espionage. Some countries had all HUMINT-related organizations listed. For some of the non-espionage parts of HUMINT, I've published the start of an article on "Special Reconnaissance Organizations" and am working on a substantive article on SR, which, for now, is in User talk:Hcberkowitz/Sandbox0-SIGINT Platforms. It's my hope to start consolidating some really stubby articles on things like "double agent", which lack, in any case, the nuances such as redoubling, defector vs. in-place, etc. This will probably apply to assorted espionage tradecraft, such as couriers and cutouts. There's no article on cell organization, especially some theoretical variants that are coming out of computer science, cryptology, etc. I would appreciate your taking a look at the discussion page on "Intelligence Analysis", and indeed the intelligence hierarchy as time permits. Someone started a discussion on wanting to cut back intelligence analysis because it's "too wordy". Now, there are some things that might go into their own articles, and it's always possible to tighten text, but I'm a little concerned that we had gone without any serious, integrated discussion of the intelligence cycle, and the first response is of someone that wants to cut on general principles. It may indeed be too wordy, and I'd trust a reality check from you and some other people that contributed during the writing. I saw you restored the edits, but didn't see a note on the talk page. Wrong page, maybe? I misread that he had restored the deletions, and did put my own suggestions on the page. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 02:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC) I'm not sure the world needs another book on, to coin a phrase, the craft of intelligence, but if this is too wordy, maybe I should think that way, before the Men in Black come for me. You'll appreciate this -- I have a friend who is high in the Canadian parliamentary staff for military and foreign policy. At one point, I made one too many topical Canadian politial joke (I speak American as a native, fluent Canadian, reasonable English with Yorkshire when necessary, and adequate Australian. I very quickly drop to being able to order some dinner in Japanese, German, and Arabic). He threatened to send black helicopters for me, and I inquired if they would be Sea Kings, and, if so, in how many pieces and would FedEx deliver them? Howard C. Berkowitz 23:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC) As far as non-espionage HUMINT, I'm working on Special Recon, already having started an article that lists SR-capable organizations. See my user page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hcberkowitz#Military_Science_and_Intelligence. I've just started on something that might pull together some tradecraft on the HUMINT side, starting with various ways of passing messages (couriers, dead drops, radio, steganography, even covert channels), protecting messages (encipherment, idea code), assorted people roles (courier, access agent, agent of influence, etc.). I might yet bring in some material from the Studies in Intelligence article by Ivan Serov on tradecraft. So, a Clandestine HUMINT tradecraft is another article. I do have some material on financial secrecy, but I really don't know enough about clandestine funding to get to a complete article on my own. Still debating, as apparently do others, if SAR/ISAR should move from Radar MASINT to IMINT, keeping things like counterartillery, missile tracking, etc. radar in MASINT. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 20:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC) To be honest, I'm not 100% sure what you have in mind, mostly because I don't have a good comparison. HUMINT might be a better comparison than SIGINT, because HUMINT has, at least, subdisciplines (SR and clandestine HUMINT for now--never mind CI and the overlaps of clandestine HUMINT operations), where the subordinate SIGINT entries are not subdisciplines. Do I make any sense? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 01:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC) I'm not sure what is going on with the browsers. What I see in the top, indented paragraph are links for the subdisciplines -- nothing seems especially bolded. There's another effect that I wonder might be related. Look at any of the MASINT disciplines, say "Geophysical MASINT". In each of the discipline articles, I put a list of the six disciplines. Something, whether it's Wikipedia or the browser, is smart enough to avoid a loop: even though I have all six typed in as wikilinks, the one to "Geophysical MASINT" in the Geophysical MASINT article does not show as a wikilink, but as plain text. In the "Radar MASINT", there is a wikilink to Geophysical MASINT, but not to Radar MASINT. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 01:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC) What should I look at? It looks great on your talk page. I have no idea what will happen with things that aren't strictly hierarchical, such as clandestine HUMINT techniques under both CI and HUMINT. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 01:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC) The box looks better, but I am distracted by a large cat who just climbed into a trash can that won't hold his weight. Does that ever happen to James Bond? Octopussy just isn't the same as the very affectionate, very large Mr. Clark. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 01:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC) We may be making some WikiHistory here, as I don't know of a set of articles that are tied together the way we are doing it. On the one hand, it will make things more coherent, but that may be seen as bureaucratic. Mind you, we now have little groups of tradecraft scattered in odd places, often mixed with fiction, and not presenting a coherent picture. I have a sense that this is backing into an Intelligence & Special Operations project, whether that's the intention or not. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 02:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC) At MASINT,SIGINT, IMINT, HUMINT, OSINT, TECHINT having a box that goes up to intelligence collection management ? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 02:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC) The navigation boxes will still be there. I'm encouraged to have seen what I consider the first serious discussion of the model, under intelligence cycle management, over report grading errors without going back and verifying the sequence. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 02:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC) But it's not. I put up clandestine HUMINT operational techniques, as well as several updates to counterintelligence. Yesterday, I found that the Canadians, maybe not in the most elegant of language, more comprehensively covered defensive CI, intelligence preparation for offensive CI, euphemisms that seemed to refer to offensive CI, and then distinguished it all from criminal intelligence. Tonight, I updated CI with some information I picked up that complements the Project Slammer "motivation for espionage" with motivation for terror. In the HUMINT techniques, there's quite an extensive discussion, with my drawings, about clandestine cells led by case officers under diplomatic cover, led by NOC but still a national force, and then the somewhat different cell structure that may be al-Qaeda's model. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 02:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC) I have very mixed feelings about the utility of lists of organizations, at least the way they get created in broadly military areas in Wikipedia. With those feelings, however, is a strong suspicion that there is a demand for them, even if some of the lists don't make sense. On the one paw (I'm getting cat assistance with insomnia), there's a fascination with names of organizations, especially see-krit ones that remind someone of James Bond. Personally, I'd rather be reminded of Catwoman, although please do not remind the very affectionate Rhonda next to me. Eight pounds of Cattitude is great -- my sensei would love the way she can intimidate a dog ten times her size -- but I'd sort of like the two-legged variety. The realities of service/operational politics, national level politics and "security theater", and true changes in doctrine will make any list need lots of maintenance. A list title may simply not match reality in a country with a fairly rational national security establishment, much less one that deliberately plays organizations against one another. Take the Third Reich: what was the counterintelligence organization in 1940? 1944, especially after July 20? SD der SS? Abwehr? Gestapo? Geiheime Feldpolizei? If you went back a few years, you'd find the Inland SD having much more power, until Ohlendorf fell out of favor. The Kripo might have gotten there when Nebe was still in the ascendant--two tragedies as men with some core of decency decided to "redeem" themselves by commanding Einsatzgruppen. Where did Fremden Heeres West and Fremden Herres Ost fit in positive intelligence, versus SD, versus Abwehr? Could one say the same things before and after Heydrich was dead? Much the same kind of deliberate setting of bureaucracy against bureaucracy went on with the Soviets, and, for that matter, to the Czarist Okhrana, with the "civilian" security side constantly morphing from Cheka to OGPU to NKGB to NVKD to NKVD to MGB to KGB, with trying to fold national-level military organization into the political apparatus, with Party as well as State Security Organs and military, with ad hoc units like the Osoby Otdel and Smersh. In a more rational political environment, there was the dissolution of OSS after WWII, the interim organizations before CIA, and then the evolution of the Army role for what originally was a UW mission that initially existed by being called Psyop under McClure. Early Special Forces had a fairly good handle on Eurasian UW, until the early sixties, as the UW mission began to extend to FID. SR, in Vietnam, arguably wandered among the mainstream SF, LRRPs, and SOG. DA was pretty ad hoc -- was Son Tay a DA or CT mission, or was hostage rescue consciously a mission at that point? Flash forward to the Iranian hostage crisis and the lost courage of the CF of EAGLE CLAW, with the subsequent infighting between SFOD and BLUE LIGHT. CIA paramilitary staff got in there somewhere, and is probably still somewhere in SR/DA/UW, depending on deniability, as is SF, but in the JSOC and SOC framework, with whatever isn't called ISA today. GOTHIC SERPENT and the fixes afterward. At the command level, National Counterterrorism Center? Something in DHS? FBI HRT? What about DA for a counterproliferation mission? Even cleared for everything, it is a constantly boiling stew, and I'm open literature only these days. Did sending the Defense HUMINT Service into the NCS mean all clandestine military SR went away? Yeah, right. So CT versus CI organization lists, to say nothing of people that want to have lists of fictional organizations in there as well? At one point, the Brits seemed to be halfway stable, with SAS and SBS and SIS, but now assorted Northern Ireland units are SRR, with SFSG or whatever the other what-- combat support part of special forces? is called? You see my confusion about lists. With the last article on clandestine HUMINT techniques, which, while totally written from open sources gets me a little uncomfortable, the offensive CI, counterterror, etc., missions get blurry again. Also, even in the open literature, there's some very creative thinking, as with AQ, about cell systems based on modern networking and fault tolerance theory, and things that make the highest-tech network centric warfare and swarm models not be totally incompatible with what,once mentioned, indicate some very subtle operational thinking is going on in AQ. Hierarchies in Wiki? I don't know anymore, at least in the human source areas. I can call on my background in theoretical computer science to describe how a similar concept gets used in terror, counterterror, counterintelligence, and SOF, but I'm not sure if discussions of multiple class inheritance and self-repairing networks are exactly illuminating. A few weeks ago, I thought SIGINT and defensive SIGINT were voluminous but not too hard, and then I wandered into MASINT. Even as I struggle with whether SAR/ISAR really is IMINT (both radar and acoustic), I start thinking about counter-MASINT, and smoke comes out of my years. There's a cartoon I've loved for many years: two multi-starred generals are holding model rockets, and one is asking "Have I got this straight? This is the one that we send up to get the one that they sent up to get the one that we sent up to get...", but a multilayered tactical BMD system that includes a decoy and MARV threat is just that. Sorry if this is a braindump, or just stream of consciousness, but the sort of thing that happens from snapping bolt upright at 2AM. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 07:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
|
US Army Fifth Corps
Is the above redirect correct? The subject is unfamiliar to me. --Brewcrewer (talk) 06:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
M4/M16 edit in U.S. Army article
AzureCitizen, thanks for your note. I did follow the footnote at the end of your edit—it pointed to the same fact files site that I used to respond to User:Blain Toddi as evidence that the M16A2/A4 was still in service. After reading the M4 entry a little more closely, I think the confusion lies in the wording of this sentence:
| “ | It [the M4] ... will replace all .45 caliber M3 submachine guns, selected M9 pistols, and M16 series rifles. | ” |
The "...and M16 series rifles." part is kinda dangling out there on its own without a specific modifier ("all," "selected") for clarification like the M3 and M9 have. However, my interpretation of this is: "ALL M3 submachine guns, SOME M9 pistols, and SOME (maybe most?) M16 series rifles." I base this conclusion on the following:
- The flow of the text in the M4 entry leads me to believe that the word "selected" was intended to apply to both the M9 and M16.
- The M16 entry [1] in the US Army Fact Files doesn't mention anything about its imminent (total) replacement by the M4.
- A cursory Google search turned up nothing that specifically mentioned the Army's intent to replace ALL M16s with M4s.
- You mentioned your personal experience in the USAR—you still have all M16A2s, and a "check's in the mail" promise that you'll get M4s ... someday.
- My own personal experience with M16→M4 replacement: yes, most combat units are turning in their M16s and replacing them with M4s. But most support units and institutional units (e.g., Basic Training) still have M16s (A2s, not even A4s yet).
- The sheer volume of M16-series weapons in the Army inventory makes in unlikely that they ALL will be replaced with M4s anytime soon—and by that I mean before the M16 AND M4 are both replaced with something different.
So that's my take. Thanks again for the note, hopefully we can get this ironed out without too much of a headache. Mike f (talk) 21:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I have to thank you for all your edits and searches regarding the M4/M16 issue where you try to improve the article as much as possible ..thanks again--Blain Toddi (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Contact and South Park
Thank you for your great edits! --Loremaster (talk) 03:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the praise, although my edits seem ordinary to me. BTW, I noticed just now you changed Garrison's words from "Movie" to "Film" - but in the actual episode, the word he uses is "movie." At marker 7:50 he says "that movie was terrible!" and at 7:59 he says "waited through that entire movie to see the alien and it was her god damn father." Is there a different reference you were using? --AzureCitizen (talk) 04:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
James O'Keefe
I recognize I could have phrased that sentence in "2010 New Orleans Arrest" a bit better, but to remove citations which actually do show a lack of means and intent to wiretap the phone system doesn't do the article any service IMHO. MudskipperMarkII (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks...
... for reverting the nastiness on my User page. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Salutations!
- Hello Xeno, I didn't realize you'd been reading along so closely! --AzureCitizen (talk) 13:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
You sound surprised. Don't be; our paths have crossed on quite a few articles on my watchlist, and not without my taking notice. I don't frequently address you in discussions because, to be frank, there is rarely anything additional I can add or disagree with about what you've posted. However, don't confuse my silence with not paying attention; I'm definitely more engaged than I appear. I've seen and quietly noted your interjections of logic and civility into talk page discussions (and even ANI discussions) in which I've been involved. I've followed every word of your discussions with LAEC, although I must admit my eyes did start to glaze over when the nitty-gritty details of linkvios and copyright exceptions were being discussed. Admirable display of civility on both your parts, by the way; at one point it took great restraint on my part to keep from interjecting a snarky comment like, "You two need to get a room!"
I tend to swim in the deep end with the sharks, as you've probably noticed. As such, most of my discussion efforts are spent on debunking, correcting and providing context - and this automatically sets me up in the role of "adversary" from the start, at least in the eyes of some of those with whom I am conversing. Certain editors think editing Wikipedia is a competition rather than a collaboration, as evidenced by their use of phrases like, "I notice that he quickly retreated..." and "any objections have finally withered". It is refreshing to have a disagreement with someone that is looking to improve the article, rather than win a POV debate -- thanks for that, regardless of how our disagreement resolves. Best regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Good to see you're reading everything too and little escapes notice! Sometimes I do the same, while at other times I am too busy with life's events and editing Wikipedia is a huge distraction (almost akin to an addiction really). I have noticed you stay focused in the debunking/context area and like to keep things business-like in patrolling the deep end. Personally, I find that I rarely enjoy the typical contentious editing and bickering often seen in the political articles.... I usually try to push things towards civil and collaborative discourse if possible, keeping some compromise in mind because it's hard to be open minded if you keep yourself positioned at the extremes. People who fixate on winning POV debates instead of improving the article become obsessed with a competitive win-lose mentality. Tellingly, when the balance of an argument starts to turn against them, they begin to comment less on the opposing edits and more on the opposing editor. As you remarked with TE, the best response is usually not to bite. After seeing your edits on numerous articles, I really respect your work. In any event, thanks for stopping by to say hello and I sincerely look forward to collaborating with you more in the future... --AzureCitizen (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- I came to this page to gave AzureCitizen a Smiley Face for his edit saying, "It is therefore clear that LAEC (whom I respect) was ...." Now I see Xenophrenic has said, "I've followed every word of your discussions with LAEC.... Admirable display of civility on both your parts, by the way...." So I would give him a Smiley Face too. You know why? I am under severe stress right now. I have made WP:RS edits over the months, almost all of which were never reverted, until an en masse revert by a single person, complete with vicious history comments, because people are opposed to removing MMfA refs from hundreds of articles where they are improperly used due to WP:RS. In all this time only one person once discussed substantive RS issues, but an AN/I was started against me, including people voting on an indef block. One guy even said it is not worth reading what I wrote because it was long and I wouldn't change my mind anyway. Both you guys know that is not true. It is obviously easier to ban me than to discuss as required by WP:RS.
- Am I allowed to ask you guys to take a look? If your eyes "glazed over" on the ACORN page, get ready for this effort to block me. You'll get a completely different picture of me, depending on whether the person supports my ban or not. Will you still respect me in the morning? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Added two cents at ANI, hope it helps. Hadn't expected you'd see the comment about respect on the ACORN video thread, but I certainly meant it. --AzureCitizen (talk) 07:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- @LAEC: My initial inclination is to post an oppose to the proposed indefinite block; not because I condone whatever actions landed you on that page, but because a block at this stage would be counter-productive. However, my "vote" appears unnecessary at this time, as a solid majority of the responding editors have already opposed the block. Also, my chiming in on your behalf at ANI might come with its own downside -- a bit like having Jesse James speak as a character witness for you. Wouldn't want the drama-posse that follows me around this place to turn on you out of spite. (Insert that Smiley Face here.) But I'll keep an eye on the voting. As for the stress you are undergoing; I feel for you. I've been a party to an arbitration long ago as a newbie, and it was no picnic, and the trial you are undergoing at ANI doesn't look much easier. One bit of advice I can offer: In every response you post at ANI, address only the problems and solutions, and not the other editors. Even if you are 100% in the right. Especially if you are right; don't even mention their names.
- @AzureCitizen: You are being trolled. A "new editor" joined the ACORN video discussion; and added nothing to the discussion except a drive-by "Me too", under the misconception that consensus is achieved by voting instead of problem solving. Of course it is a sock of another editor, but there isn't much that can be done about it yet. I'd just ignore the editor for now; you aren't going to get them to cough up an IP or other account names, and their editing appears designed only to agitate. Don't fall for it.
- Back shortly, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Roger on not wanting to fall for agitation - I just figured it would be important to box in the sock quickly so it doesn't have much room to maneuver. But I can see the point you're trying to make, which is that drive-by me-too editors who try to toss in their "vote" as they speed by are easily dismissed anyway. --AzureCitizen (talk) 04:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- I really feel a lot better after all of you helped either here or there. Azure in particular wrote an excellent comment. Thank you so much. I even linked it here. And Xeno, if you want help on anything, let me know. And thanks for the advice, I'll follow it best as possible, starting now. P&W-wow! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Second opinion
Howdy, AC. I see I am not alone in wondering about another editor's curious assertion that "the NPOV noticeboard has spoken." You questioned what he meant by that statement back in August, but your question went unanswered. A week later, after that editor made the identical assertion, you again asked him for an explanation, and again he ignored you. I've checked that NPOV noticeboard myself, and I have verified that there have been zero substantive responses on this matter to date. Is it possible that he is referring to some other noticeboard, or is this a case of intentional hearing loss?
- Hi Xeno. I think it's a disingenuous attempt to claim the NPOV board has validated his cause and repudiated yours, hence my requests for him to clarify his comment that the NPOV board has spoken. I'm sure you noticed I posted a comment at the bottom of that NPOV board thread to show that the discussion didn't end there and as a POV content dispute it's still in progress on the TPM Talk Page. I assume he ignores the question because he can't field a credible or satisfactory answer as to why he asserts "the NPOV board has spoken."
As for the polling content in that article, I have personal reservations about incorporating any such information in articles, simply because I know how easy it is to make polling data say what you want it to say. However, the recent efforts by some editors to include what they perceive as favorable polls while they try to exclude unfavorable polls has been problematic. All polls, by their very nature, are imperfect and limited; any poll can be discredited, if one is so motivated to do so, by highlighting those limitations. I'm fairly certain this is exactly what is occurring at the TPM article. Best regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed, and that's certainly the nature of polling. I too see the efforts to delete the U of W polls as excluding unfavorable material, making appeals to "I know statistics, you don't..." and "This is an anti-TP ad hominem smear tactic," etc. Yet the sentences are reliably sourced, neutrally phrased (including source, sample size, location, etc) and report data that was widely disseminated and discussed in news cycles.
- FYI, looks like an anonymous IP who accused you earlier of being a "Coffee Party Organizer" on the TPM article is busy at work today removing material from the Coffee Party article. --AzureCitizen (talk) 19:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Anonymous like a dirty sock. ;-) That's my old buddy, known as TruthfulPerson (talk · contribs), among other IDs. His edits did bring to my attention an interesting point, however, about the use of wiki-articles to promote stuff. He removed a sentence about an upcoming scheduled conference from the lede section of the article, as well as a similar sentence from the body of the article. I didn't revert his edit to the lede, as it appears to be a reasonable edit per WP:LEDE. I'm less sure about the neutral mention of it in the body, however, and whether or not it violates WP:PROMOTION. Do you know of a more applicable policy that addresses this? As for me being an "Organizer", perhaps he arrived at that incorrect conclusion after hearing me harp on about remaining civil and sticking to the facts, much like the Coffee Party group appears to do. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- A brief glance at the user's talk page shows plenty of concern by others for disruptive edits, personal attacks, and blanking comments. Nice guy I'm sure! Saw your partial re-insertion / re-wording and it looks fine; I don't think it violates the spirit of WP:Promotion because it's reporting factual events NPOV style with no fluff, puffery, fanfare, etc. Each is just a single sentence, and one is reporting an event that already happened. I'm not aware of any other policies that would apply, and I think WP:Promotion is being stretched as the statements are not tantamount to "Facebook" promotion pages despite the edit commentaries. With regard to "complexity", adding the fact tag was the right thing to do. Might take some research and leg work to come up with a suitable lead, reliably sourced... --AzureCitizen (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Evolution of the eye
Thanks! that link was great, much better than the wikipedia page at explaining what I was looking for. --Javsav (talk) 00:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- I suspected that was what you were looking for... something that explains the how, complete with video. :) --AzureCitizen (talk) 00:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Independent research
AzureCitizen, wanted to question the re-addition of independent research for CBS. No one is suggesting CBS participated in the research process, sampling, calculations, etc. However, usually when someone commissions research, it's equivalent to employment. They contracted it since they didn't have the expertise. When someone commissions research, it's not independent. Independent research is removed from the interested party, not paid by the interested party. I understand the source says "independent" but that's CBS themselves saying it (it's a claim). We don't have to use their own words. That's a pov that need not be introduced. It doesn't improve the article, presents a pov, and adds additional words in an area we're trying to trim. Morphh (talk) 19:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Morphh! I don't think I can agree with the position that when someone commissions research, it's not independent. Yes, CBS paid for it, but Air Photos Live is in the business of routinely selling such contracted services and we've seen nothing to indicate that CBS participated in the research process or the methodologies. I think the word "independent" in this context is not pushing POV, but instead helps the reader understand that CBS was not involved in the crowd counting process, and it has still been made clear that CBS hired them so it's not like we've left that fact out. Have we seen anything to indicate that CBS was an "interested party" in receiving a particular (under represented) crowd estimate count?
- I also saw on the Talk Page your comment with regard to everyone else seeming to only get one line, but for them there isn't more than one line to say. Almost none of the other news sources and commentators supplied any further information about their guesstimates, hence there is little to add to explain how they arrived at that figure. CBS, on the other hand, embraced a scientific approach and supplied very detailed information. This particular article makes that very clear to me. As editors, we don't decide who is right and who is wrong... but since the crowd count is considered controversial, why would it be undue weight to supply the reader with information on the science and details behind the individual crowd count estimates? --AzureCitizen (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- The weight given to a particular organization is not based on how scientific it is or the details that we might be able to provide. We are to summarize points of view to fit within the weight appropriate based on their prominence in reliable sources. I'm fine with giving the reader information and details, but there is a limit to what is proper in Wikipedia. The amount of content you give a POV is part of our core NPOV policy. CBS is given more space than what is justified based on prominence in reliable sources. CBS takes up about 25% of that section, while other media organizations get about 3-4%. This greatly shifts the balance, suggesting CBS is 8x more prominent than any other media organization in reliable sources. We know this is not the case and it violates our NPOV policy. I think there is been a certain amount of agreement that we could stretch CBS to about 20% of that section (still more than what is present in RS, but a compromise). Make the CBS paragraph equal in size to the other 4 paragraphs. However you want to do that with regard to what details you feel need to be left in or out, just summarize something and knock off a sentence. Morphh (talk) 20:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that space for weight is equivalent to viewpoint. NPOV "It is important to clarify that articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views". Essentially by having a large CBS section, we're saying that it is the majority view. How scientific it is doesn't matter, unless it's more predominate in sources as most scientific things usually are. By giving CBS the weight we have, we've said that all the other views are minority views and CBS is the majority view, but the truth is that there is no majority view. That's what the weight should show and weight is equivalent to content size. Morphh (talk) 20:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- There is a problem with this analysis. We're not talking about minority and majority views that are competing for space in terms of what their inherent viewpoints are, the breath and depth of their argument, etc. Instead, there just isn't anything else to say about the other crowd size estimates because they never supplied their research background, methodology, science, etc. It is not as though we've allocated 25% of the space to CBS and made all the other news organizations fight for a sliver of the remaining 75%... instead, there is relevant information available for the CBS estimate and little to none for the others. Analyzing it in terms of simple word count in this regard doesn't make sense to me, and the details regarding how the scientific estimate was conducted are of value to any reader interested in the controversy.--AzureCitizen (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- I don't altogether disagree with you there, which is why I'm fine with CBS getting a paragraph. I'm just trying to prevent it from being excessive. Weight does factor the depth of detail and quantity of text. Question is how much depth of detail and quantity is needed to provide the value to the reader. It seems we need to weigh the balance with the amount of detail. I've trimmed some redundant information from the section, so hopefully all will find that acceptable. I still think it could be more succinct, but this is certainly getting into more effort than it's worth. Morphh (talk) 10:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, guys. While you both raise interesting points, I'd like to express a small disagreement -- rather, a clarification -- to AC's assertion: The problem isn't that the CBS content is too weighty, the problem is there is nothing else to write about all the non-scientific estimates. I'm not sure that is an entirely accurate assessment. There actually has been some reporting on those guesstimates, but it has been purged from the article. For example, there are sources that say NBS's oft-repeated 300K estimate was completely based on a "tweet" about an unnamed source; sources that say Scarborough's "estimate" of 500K was actually just repetition of the event organizer's estimate given to him; many sources that explain how several of the major media outlets chose to be intentionally vague about making estimates, and often just repeated each other with no indication of actual source; etc. Hey, here's an idea: instead of struggling to trim the CBS content, how about we stop deflating the content around the guesstimates to the point of "underdue-weight"? Methinks that proposal wouldn't go over too well with some editors. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- True enough, but each of those comments (pov opinions) has to be weighed as well. Most of them are not covered in reliable secondary sources and considered a "tiny minority" viewpoint and thus should not be included. Morphh (talk) 20:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Quite to the contrary, Morphh, I was referring to sources already cited in the article. To elaborate on an example I offered above, this source, which states:
- Without official estimates, any numbers published by reputable news organizations — like the 300,000 estimate — quickly got picked up and repeated enough to almost become fact. Domenico Montanaro, an NBC News off-air political reporter, tweeted Saturday that a Parks Service official said there were probably 300,000 to 325,000 in attendance (even though the Parks Service wasn't officially counting). The New York Times cited NBC News' estimate of 300,000, and the Drudge Report amplified the tally even more.
- Quite to the contrary, Morphh, I was referring to sources already cited in the article. To elaborate on an example I offered above, this source, which states:
- True enough, but each of those comments (pov opinions) has to be weighed as well. Most of them are not covered in reliable secondary sources and considered a "tiny minority" viewpoint and thus should not be included. Morphh (talk) 20:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, guys. While you both raise interesting points, I'd like to express a small disagreement -- rather, a clarification -- to AC's assertion: The problem isn't that the CBS content is too weighty, the problem is there is nothing else to write about all the non-scientific estimates. I'm not sure that is an entirely accurate assessment. There actually has been some reporting on those guesstimates, but it has been purged from the article. For example, there are sources that say NBS's oft-repeated 300K estimate was completely based on a "tweet" about an unnamed source; sources that say Scarborough's "estimate" of 500K was actually just repetition of the event organizer's estimate given to him; many sources that explain how several of the major media outlets chose to be intentionally vague about making estimates, and often just repeated each other with no indication of actual source; etc. Hey, here's an idea: instead of struggling to trim the CBS content, how about we stop deflating the content around the guesstimates to the point of "underdue-weight"? Methinks that proposal wouldn't go over too well with some editors. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- I don't altogether disagree with you there, which is why I'm fine with CBS getting a paragraph. I'm just trying to prevent it from being excessive. Weight does factor the depth of detail and quantity of text. Question is how much depth of detail and quantity is needed to provide the value to the reader. It seems we need to weigh the balance with the amount of detail. I've trimmed some redundant information from the section, so hopefully all will find that acceptable. I still think it could be more succinct, but this is certainly getting into more effort than it's worth. Morphh (talk) 10:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- There is a problem with this analysis. We're not talking about minority and majority views that are competing for space in terms of what their inherent viewpoints are, the breath and depth of their argument, etc. Instead, there just isn't anything else to say about the other crowd size estimates because they never supplied their research background, methodology, science, etc. It is not as though we've allocated 25% of the space to CBS and made all the other news organizations fight for a sliver of the remaining 75%... instead, there is relevant information available for the CBS estimate and little to none for the others. Analyzing it in terms of simple word count in this regard doesn't make sense to me, and the details regarding how the scientific estimate was conducted are of value to any reader interested in the controversy.--AzureCitizen (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- On Monday, MSNBC host Joe Scarborough repeated 500,000 several times during "Morning Joe." (That's the number organizers of the event gave to The Upshot on Saturday.) Beck said Monday that he didn't think there were a million people there as some have claimed.
- Somehow, that content which clearly conveys the non-factual nature of these repeated estimates, has inexplicably (and almost comically) become the cited source for these assertions of fact in our article:
- Joe Scarborough of MSNBC said 500,000 on his Morning Joe show.
- NBC News estimated 300,000.
- NBC News off-air reporter Domenico Montanaro tweeted that an unnamed official at the top of the Lincoln Memorial said 300,000–325,000 were present.
- The irony is almost painful. By the way, I'll cut you some slack since you and I haven't interacted much, but be aware that I am quite informed about the difference between "pov opinions" and reliably sourced statements of fact. If I begin to speak to you of opinions, "tiny minority views" or non-reliable sources, I will clearly state so -- that should save you the trouble of conclusion jumping. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- I don't doubt we have sources like that with commentary attached, but commentary has a weight as well. You don't give commentary about the crowd sizes as much weight as the crowd sizes themselves unless the commentary is as widely published as the crowd size. As far we know, that's just the opinion of the reporter (I'm out the door now so I don't have time to look at it). Should we give the opinion of the Yahoo reporter more weight than commentary from any other reporter from any other reliable publication? We don't pick and choose like that. The crowd estimates themselves are available in many secondary sources and thus are given weight. The one off opinions here and there are not. If we can show otherwise, then I'm open to inclusion. Morphh (talk) 22:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Somehow, that content which clearly conveys the non-factual nature of these repeated estimates, has inexplicably (and almost comically) become the cited source for these assertions of fact in our article:
Restoring Honor rally
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. BS24 (talk) 03:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Just wanted to let you know that I am not 64.89.240.226 or User:Recovering Obamunist and have zero connection to them/him. I'm just as confused as you are. My IP was blocked so I couldn't make a sock even if I wanted to. BS24 (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, I can appreciate that you stopped by to say this in cordial fashion. Whatever 64.89.240.226's intentions, I hope you know that I wasn't trying to induce you into getting into trouble with 3RR. I prefer cooperation and amicable dispute resolution, so I will give serious positive thought over the next day or so to joining the mediation process on the article... tonight and tomorrow I'm going to be very busy so I don't know how much time I'll be able to devote to Wiki, and breaks here and there are definitely a good thing. Peace, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for working with me on this. I have tried to incorporate your good suggestions into the issue description at the case and hopefully it is more fair. I strongly encourage you to post your take in the Additional issues section, where other editors in the dispute can post their view of the issues. I have encouraged Mr. Anonymous to do so as well. I completely agree that we should keep the mediation focused on content, not other editors. I really appreciate your reaching out to me since we have both cooled off, and look forward to working with you further. BS24 (talk) 03:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Request for mediation of Restoring Honor rally
A request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Restoring Honor rally was recently filed. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is entirely voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to mediation requests and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request welcome at the case talk page.
Thank you, AGK 21:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- After mediation? Back to the same, I'm afraid. We need to dialog and have BS24, the worst offender, learn to maintain civility, while other editors should learn not to prevaricate and not obfuscate. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- Mediation is a good place to develop those "understandings." Also, consensus might even develop, whatever that consensus might be, which would then guide the future editing environment of the crowd section controversy. Most feuds continue only because the participants involved don't come to an understanding. Please think it over and consider it... :) --AzureCitizen (talk) 21:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
The request for mediation concerning Restoring Honor rally, to which you were are a party, has been accepted. Please watchlist the case page (which is where the mediation will take place). For guidance on accepted cases, refer to this resource. A mediator should be assigned to this dispute within two weeks. If you have any queries, please contact a Committee member or the mediation mailing list.
For the Mediation Committee, AGK 19:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Message delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.
Notes over a cup 'o joe
Saw your notes on the Coffee Party page, and all I can say is "don't waste your time". You are responding to reincarnated "TruthfulPerson"; see this page. It looks like he's trying to recruit BS24, as well -- I hope he doesn't fall for the bait. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- I thought perhaps he was this user here, since the new account was created a few hours after the former was blocked for an inappropriate username and now both of them have posted on BS24's talk page. Any thoughts? Also, I share your sentiment on hoping he doesn't fall for the bait.--AzureCitizen (talk) 20:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, you mean The Incredible Edible Gregg (talk · contribs) ? (Note the identical edit summaries for both accounts.) I'm 100% certain TruthfulPerson = NeutralityPersonified; he's not even making an effort to hide that connection. But that doesn't mean he hasn't also used proxies and created other accounts with which to pester, like the two you suspect. At first, I was suspecting my old sock buddie MookieG (talk · contribs), because of the similarly weird edit summaries (see this diff) -- but that could very well be coincidence. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Wow, you are now being courted with full essays on the CP page now, all based on the incorrect assertion that the cited news article by Eblen is an opinion piece (wrong; it's a news article in the news section) written by an opinion columnist (wrong; he's a news columnist, as it says at the top of that article). Good luck riding that spinning merry-go-round. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ooops, didn't see this before I posted a reply. Okay, we'll see where it goes next, LOL. Oh, by the way, I had a good chuckle reading your edit summary here.--AzureCitizen (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Whoa, slow your roll there. MookieG (talk · contribs) was me, a legitimate account (IMO) never used for nefarious purposes and properly retired. Anyways,
let he who is without sin cast the first stone.notice this editor coming out of nowhere to help you from violating 3RR on Susan Roesgen, and more recently at Katie Couric. †TE†Talk 21:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)- Howdy, TE. Note that I said "at first" I suspected, but I no longer do: unless you have a phenominal ability to split your personality. As for your suspicions about me, I am still without sin -- but you are encouraged to take your personal attacks to the SPI page if you wish to persist. You should know me well enough by now to confirm that I obviously need no help avoiding 3RR; I am extremely patient, and I will still be here the next day, and the day after that. Getting in just one more revert is not only unnecessary, but makes no sense to me. I looked at the links you provided anyway ... did you stop to notice my disagreement was with Off2riorob, while your 'sinner' was in agreement with him? Great detective work there, Bogart. Hope things are well with you, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- (Grin) I must comment that it is good to see you two have become friendly and loyal opposition as opposed to how things were a number of months back! We may all disagree in our opinions, but no need to be disagreeable as editors. :) Respect is mutual... --AzureCitizen (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ever get Déjà vu? I could pull diffs of you relaying that exact message to Ceemow and I. AzureCitizen = Peace Broker :-) †TE†Talk 22:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- (Grin) I'll never forget those conversations either! --AzureCitizen (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ever get Déjà vu? I could pull diffs of you relaying that exact message to Ceemow and I. AzureCitizen = Peace Broker :-) †TE†Talk 22:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- (EC) I have no wish to report whom I consider to be a responsible editor for any reason. I have a good memory, as do you, and noticed a questionable editor I had suspicions about way back when reappear in very similar circumstances. That revert you speak of started between you and I, which was part of our nauseating talk page discussion. That's easy to see in the edit histories. I'm not looking for a fight, but you should expect me to respond to accusations, even if made while conceding your suspicions might coincidental. Here's to us working towards a better rapport. †TE†Talk 22:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Alright, I looked at it more closely and I'll concede that edit might raise a suspicion. But I had made only a single edit in the 27+ hours prior to his/her edit, so I certainly wasn't being helped "from violating 3RR". Maybe it's an Off2riorob alter-ego, since I see now he was also involved in "defending" Couric. Whatever - it wasn't me. I retract my accusation; having been wrongly accused several times myself of being various editors (Lulu of the Lotus Eaters, Reddy-something, now this...) I should be more conscientious. Thank you for the compliments above; the feeling is mutual. As for AzureCitizen... he manages to keep his composure and civility during some fairly contentious storms, in a way to which I can only aspire. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Same here, retractions all around. BTW, I forgot to thank you for the thoughtful, complementary and humorous comment you left on my talk page. I intended to match it with an equally clever reply, but you set the bar too high and laziness stifled my creativity. Now, enough of this lovefest and no more stroking Azure's ego... we don't want him to get too full of himself.
†TE†Talk 03:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- Same here, retractions all around. BTW, I forgot to thank you for the thoughtful, complementary and humorous comment you left on my talk page. I intended to match it with an equally clever reply, but you set the bar too high and laziness stifled my creativity. Now, enough of this lovefest and no more stroking Azure's ego... we don't want him to get too full of himself.
- Alright, I looked at it more closely and I'll concede that edit might raise a suspicion. But I had made only a single edit in the 27+ hours prior to his/her edit, so I certainly wasn't being helped "from violating 3RR". Maybe it's an Off2riorob alter-ego, since I see now he was also involved in "defending" Couric. Whatever - it wasn't me. I retract my accusation; having been wrongly accused several times myself of being various editors (Lulu of the Lotus Eaters, Reddy-something, now this...) I should be more conscientious. Thank you for the compliments above; the feeling is mutual. As for AzureCitizen... he manages to keep his composure and civility during some fairly contentious storms, in a way to which I can only aspire. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- (Grin) I must comment that it is good to see you two have become friendly and loyal opposition as opposed to how things were a number of months back! We may all disagree in our opinions, but no need to be disagreeable as editors. :) Respect is mutual... --AzureCitizen (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Howdy, TE. Note that I said "at first" I suspected, but I no longer do: unless you have a phenominal ability to split your personality. As for your suspicions about me, I am still without sin -- but you are encouraged to take your personal attacks to the SPI page if you wish to persist. You should know me well enough by now to confirm that I obviously need no help avoiding 3RR; I am extremely patient, and I will still be here the next day, and the day after that. Getting in just one more revert is not only unnecessary, but makes no sense to me. I looked at the links you provided anyway ... did you stop to notice my disagreement was with Off2riorob, while your 'sinner' was in agreement with him? Great detective work there, Bogart. Hope things are well with you, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Participating inside mediation
Hello Morphh! Assuming you saw what happened on the Mediation project page's Talk Page, I'd like to make the friendly suggestion that you consider discontinuing any further discussions about the Crowd Size section conflict on private talk pages and let the mediators direct what happens next. Since any tendentious participants who resort to personal attacks, twisting words, and picking fights will quickly be straightened out by the referee, it's the best environment to make progress and sort this all out. Cheers, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
AC, you already layed out the necessary basic points in your statement; stole my thunder, so to speak -- so I figured I'd have a little fun with my initial statement contribution. I had received some advice to try arguing from the opposition's position, but I'm fairly certain I didn't quite meet the spirit of that advice with my effort. ;-) Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 04:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Restoring Honor Mediation
Greetings!
I have agreed to mediate the Restoring Honor case. I'm requesting that all parties start with opening statements, instructions are at the top of the page. Thanks for agreeing to go to mediation, I'm hopeful we can get this resolved to the satisfaction of all parties. Don't hesitate to contact me with any questions or issues. --WGFinley (talk) 00:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hi AzureCitizen. I just want to inform you that after originally having finished this "honest mistake" discussion[2], I brought it up again in the sockpuppet investigation [3]. Since you strongly argued to me to put this discussion at rest, I assume you may be not happy with this. But I think that there is really a problem and other users must be protected, as described in [4]: I was ready to WP:AGF for the future; but I think if various kinds of "honest mistakes" just continue then I think this cannot be ignored. However, this said, I provided my information to the sockpuppet investigation, that's all I can and I should do. It's not mine but the administrator's job now to make a decision. And as long as there is no negative decision, the mediation should continue without being affected by this sockpuppet investigation. If you have the feeling my contributioons to the mediation are negatively affected by this, just tell me. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 14:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hello 82.135.29.209, I saw the events that are transpiring at the SPI. Obviously it could be a distraction for everyone from the mediation, which is supposed to stress cooperation, but I'm not taking a position either way on the merits of it. Like Xenophrenic, I'm neither for or against BS24; an admin will be along sooner or later and decide whether or not a fresh start was warranted. I don't wish to see BS24 being banned, but he would be smart to consider proposing some voluntary topic restrictions for himself in the face of this SPI. --AzureCitizen (talk) 14:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- Currently, as far as I know, nobody (except BS24 himself) has tried to link the SPI with the mediation. Als8o the Artist didn't. So I'm optimistic to keep these things separated. Yes, some who share crowd size opinions with BS24 also try to defend him in the SPI, while others not sharing his opinions act as plaintiff. But I think this does not necessarily mean that the mediation itself is affected. And I think anyone who would raise the SPI in the mediation would shoot into his own foot. So I'm quite confident that the mediation will refrain from personal attacks and focus on the topic. And regarding BS24, for me it is absolutely fine if BS24 continues participating every topic he wants (I don't understand this no-revisit requirement for a fresh start anyway), as long as he refrains from disruptive behavior. I don't know what the best solution is, but it isn't my call anyway, as you said, some admin will handle this in a neutral fashion. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 11:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- By the way, to jump in for the Artist, I think the Artist is not more and not less "for or against" BS24 as for example me or Xenophrenic, who all provided some kind of evidence "against" the behavior of BS24. And I think that for all of us three, the reason for this is not the positions of BS24 in discussions, but the behavior. Maybe the style is different. But I understand the frustration of the Artist - for example, if someone again and again makes a change claiming that this is a consensus which obviously is false, this abuses your patience. On the other hand, I also understand you who wants to calm down everyone for the mediation, and I also understand others who defend BS24 to not loose an alley in the mediation. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 11:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Landrieu Caper
Azure, I noticed something else about the landrieu business that you could help with:
Several months later, the charges were reduced from a felony to a single misdemeanor count of entering a federal building under false pretenses,[61][54][62] with the judge admonishing the defendants that "perceived righteousness of a cause does not justify nefarious and potentially dangerous actions."[63]
Apparently the judge who said this (Judge Duval) was not the same magistrate judge. And apparently the judge made the statement in some sort of an "order" (not sure what that means), which was called "very unuual:"
- "It's not clear, then, what prompted U.S. District Judge Stanwood Duval's order this week, which Dane Ciolino, a professor at Loyola Law School, called 'very unusual.'
- 'Usually in misdemeanors, district judges don't get involved in any respect,' Ciolino said. 'Certainly there are hundreds or maybe thousands of federal misdemeanor cases processed every year, and this almost never happens. Usually the magistrate handles the case, from arraignment to trial to sentencing.'"
http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2010/05/handling_of_mary_landrieu_offi.html
Can you shed some light on what all this means? The magistrate judge seemed to have a completely different opinion of the matter: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/27/us/politics/27landrieu.html?_r=1&ref=james_okeefe. Should we quote him too if we quote the other guy? SpecialKCL66 (talk) 01:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Another tidbit:
"Judge Duval is best known for having issued an injunction in 2000 which barred the State of Louisiana from issuing "Choose Life" vanity automobile license plates, as the legislature had approved in 1999. Duval ruled in favor of Planned Parenthood of America, which took the view that the choice of displaying the plates violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution because there was no alternative display available for supporters of abortion." SpecialKCL66 (talk) 01:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- My take on why they called it "very unusual" wasn't because of the order that was issued, but simply because a U.S. District judge was involved in the process when normally a Magistrate could handle a misdemeanor charge. However, two factors that distinguish this case: 1) the case wasn't typical, i.e., it had a higher profile and made the national news, so a more senior judicial officer getting involved when the case comes to his section first can happen, and 2) O'Keefe's case started out as a felony.
- With regard to quotes from the Judge and the Magistrate, the quote from the Judge is an excerpt from a larger statement, words to the effect that "Federal buildings and federal officers have been and are the target of threats, and on occasion the victims of acts of violence," that "Deception is alleged to have been used by the defendants to achieve their purposes, which in and of itself is unconscionable.", and "Perceived righteousness of a cause does not justify nefarious and potentially dangerous actions." If you think we should include a quote from the Magistrate, I'm okay with that, feel free to make some proposals on the Talk Page. --AzureCitizen (talk) 04:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
ACORN Undercover Videos
I was just checking out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy. It says that the neutrality of that page is in dispute, as of July 2010. I also see that nobody has made a comment on the talk page since July (but I noticed you were involved in that). What's going on over there? How long do these things take to resolve? SpecialKCL66 (talk) 01:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Neutrality Tag: A huge battle erupted in July when one editor wanted to introduce material asserting that the California AG investigation of ACORN was a sham and a politically motivated smear of O'Keefe's work; a slew of other editors joined in and there were many posts back and forth. There was never a formal consensus reached (i.e., all or nearly all editors coming to an agreement one way or another), but the defacto consensus ended up being that the contested material should be excluded, mostly for reasons having to do with concerns over reliable sourcing (the proponents mostly wanted to used partisan opinion pieces that made assertions but didn't back them with verifiable facts, or were speculative interpretations of events) and weight (that minority or fringe views should not be given equal billing). If you want to take the time to do so, you can carefully read through all the conversations post-by-post, plus read the conversations in the archives too, to get the full picture of everything that transpired. In any event, near the end of the arguments, the one editor who pressed the hardest for wanting to insert material critical of the California AG wanted to call for a global RfC, which is a process where uninvolved editors are invited to the page to view the pro- and anti- arguments enumerated by the two sides battling over the issue, and express their take on which side is right (RfC = Request for Comment). So everyone got ready for the RfC. Then, on the eve of requesting the RfC, that editor literally just walked away, never to bring up the issue again. Everyone waited for weeks to see if we were going forward with the RfC, but it all just faded away. That's where it has been sitting ever since...
- Now that it's been two and a half months, I am going to remove that tag, and post something on the Talk Page accordingly. In theory, anyone can tag an article (and there are lots of different types of tags, from tags about article neutrality to tags that just assert the article needs to be cleaned up to meet Wikipedia's quality standards, etc), and other editors shouldn't arbitrarily remove that tag as long as there are parties on the Talk Page debating the merits of the tag; but it's been 10 weeks and the editor who posted the tag has made no effort to return to the debate.
- If you decide to get interested in it yourself, feel free to dive in; the most important piece of advice I can give you is that it would be best to work your way back through the Talk Page, and the Talk Page archives, to bring yourself up to speed on everything that happened previously, so that if the issue heats up again, you are up to speed on what happened before and ready to debate the issues. --AzureCitizen (talk) 03:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Interesting. So that tag doesn't actually mean there was some sort of separate process taking place. Thanks for the explanation. I'm just surprised something that was apparently that controversial hasn't been edited in two weeks, and not much in two months. I don't know if I woul have taken the approach these guys did or not, but there does seam to be some bias on that page. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 03:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Roger that. Articles like that are always hotbeds for controversy to erupt over perceived bias in one direction or the other. All we can do as editors is strive for what seems to be the most neutral version possible. Also, some of the debates that erupt are damn near exhausting, with arguments going back and forth for weeks. AzureCitizen (talk) 03:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
...who was the originator of that Neutrality Tag business?
- Phoenix and Winslow, he's still active on Wikipedia, you can find his contributions page here.
Do these things generally reach an equilibrium point over time? When there are pages you've spent considerable time on regarding an important issue, do you generally have to perpetually monitor it and vigorously defend it repeatedly?SpecialKCL66 (talk) 04:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- They do generally reach an equilibrium point where they become somewhat calm and stabilized, but there is no guarantee that someone won't come along in the future and radically reorganize the article. It's also give-and-take. In theory, editors shouldn't be "camping" articles, vigorously resisting any attempts to change them; instead, each proposed change, at the time and place of it's making, by whomever making it, should be considered and weighed separately, and should stand or fall based on it's individual merits. However, patterns emerge where someone new comes along but makes a change which is really old news, and there are places veteran editors can point to in the archives which show this was fought over previously and a clear consensus emerged that the article should be this way or that way, etc. The longer you've been monitoring an article, the more you see the patterns. That being said, the best approach is always remember that we (as individual editors) don't actually "own" an article, and always be open to compromise in the spirit of a collective.
- Saw your comment on the article talk page about being new - don't worry, everyone is "new" at some point in learning how the collaboration and dispute resolution process works. For your part, you've demonstrated that you can learn quickly - trust me, there are plenty of editors around here who've been editing far longer, but still clash constantly over point of view, resort to personal attacks, get themselves embroiled in disputes at WP:ANI or worse, engage in things like sock puppetry, etc. Eventually, they get themselves blocked for longer and longer periods, or outright banned.
- Are you an English major? AzureCitizen (talk) 05:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
lol, no. Why do you ask? SpecialKCL66 (talk) 06:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Just noted some of your edits involved correcting the finer points of punctuation, quotes, etc., and a lot of new users don't bother to properly format their reference citations... things an English major would catch quickly, LOL. AzureCitizen (talk) 06:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well it's partly just an OCD thing, but also wth the citations, it's partly that I was playing around with it to learn how the citation coding works. I actually always despised bibliographies, works cited lists, and anything having to do with MLA with burning fury. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 06:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
AC, I think we were just trying to simultaneously make the same edit. I noticed that there are several more duplicate references, both for the press release, and the actual report. There are about 8 total. I'll defer to you on this. SpecialKCL66 (talk 01:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Roger that, I'll make a point of cleaning them up soon... :) AzureCitizen (talk) 01:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Restore honor
Sorry for my my harsh comment at [5], it wasn't appropriate. I thought this change was another attempt to add controversial higher numbers bypassing the moderation, so I was angry. But obviously you really just tried to settle down this mini-edit-war. 82.135.29.209 (talk) 13:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Confusion and misunderstandings happen very quickly in this online environment. I take it you made the revert, then went back to look at what I'd done and realized I was trying to settle the issue by finding a post-rally article that had the crowd size quote in the article itself. The learning lesson here is that sometimes it's better for us to just look for a better source article than to stay focused on the article we have which was fraught with problems.
- It is readily apparent to me that like several other news organizations, ABC was just pulling numbers out of the air based on little to no scientific evidence, but a reliably sourced simple exact quote ("more than 100,000") is uniform and keeps proper pace with all the other guesstimates from the media in the subsection, and should be more than acceptable to both factions embroiled in the mediation. Also, this situation appears to have started not because BS24 made a change to the crowd size subsection, but because a third party editor changed the section and BS24 reverted thinking that others were now tinkering with contested section. That third party editor wasn't wrong to do so, but it's important to note that's how this little "mini-edit-war" got started. :)
- I see now that BS24 appears to have been blocked, so that might significantly change the mediation dynamic. I also see that you've asked AGK to lock down the entire page while we're having the mediation - honestly, I think that would be a mistake, because the mediation is only about the crowd controversy subsection which is buried deep in the article. Other editors working on other parts of the main article shouldn't have to sit idly for weeks on end waiting for the eleven of us to settle our dispute over the crowd estimates subsection, and this was a very minor blow-up. :) Wouldn't you agree? Peace, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Basically - if I understand this chaos correctly - we got into a circular loop: Some editor pointed out that the number in one article was only a pre-rally estimation. BS24 changed this back because he didn't see that. The other user changed it back. Then BS24 found the other post-rally article but only saw the title. Then I added the other (contradicting) numbers of the article body itself. And then you wanted to resolve this chaos, and changed back to the original article and it's pre-rally estimate. Then I changed that back to the post-rally number... 82.135.29.209 (talk) 19:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- 99% correct, with the exception of my final edit - I didn't change it back to the original article and it's pre-rally estimate, I actually changed the citation to a new and different ABC News article that was never cited previously, dated August 28th, which had a post-rally report that had been overlooked... and I think that subtle nuance was also overlooked... but it's all good now. :) AzureCitizen (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Are you really sure? Which edit are you referring to? Because [6] went back to the pre-crowd estimate [7], as far I don't oversee something... 82.135.29.209 (talk) 12:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, the edits I'm referring to are here and here. In the first edit, date/time 19:05 on Oct 31, BS24 reverts back to the original citation to an ABC online news article by Human Khan dated August 27th (Citation). Clearly that's a pre-Rally prediction because it's the day before the Rally. Other edits and tinkering occurred before and after that first edit (edit warring?), but now look at the second and final edit, date/time 12:00 on Nov 1. It cites to a very similar looking Human Khan article dated August 28th (Citation). It's extremely similar... it's written by the same reporter... including much of the same text... but it's also different in a key aspect. An additional by-line reporter is added (reporter Kevin Dolak) and it's dated the day of the Rally, exact time unknown, whereas the Aug. 27th has to have been the day before. Where the August 27th article says "The rally at the National Mall, has attracted more than 100,000 people gathering to see speeches", the August 28th article says "Today at the National Mall, the rally has attracted more than 100,000 people gathered to see speeches." Present tense "gathering" has been changed to past-tense "gathered." At the very end of the article, at the bottom of page 2, we see the same two sentences about NPS and HSEMA estimating 100k and 100k-200k respectively - Khan and Dolak haven't bothered to change much from the story as it carried the day before - so it isn't hard to guess where they are really getting their 100k guestimate - but we now have a situation where they've put out a report sometime during the day of the Rally itself, with a past-tense statement "has attracted" and "gathered." I figured this was the simplest way to get the crowd size controversy section settled to quiet down the edit warring and go back to equilibrium. I was also trying to solve another problem you may not have been consciously aware of, when you were re-inserting material like this edit here. Click on that edit, then click on the blue highlighted "Revision as of 08:04, 2 November 2010 (edit) (undo)" just above your edit summary, then slide down to the crowd controversy section and look what's happened to the text and the crowd size estimates box. On your browser, do you see how the text is all squeezed into a narrow column and the text box is enormously oversized? I don't know if you caught that during your edits but I was trying to put that problem to rest too. In any event, what do I really think of this "estimate" by ABC? Of course I think it's pure crap, just like all the other ridiculous estimates by the media (except the scientific analysis done by APL). Just curious, have you been following all the talk on the Restoring Honor Talk Page the last few days? Did you see the article I referenced here? Check out this quote: "From a 1967 Time article on the Berkeley Vietnam War protest crowds: 'Estimating the size of a crowd may be the last area of fantasy in the newspaper business,' observed Herbert A. Jacobs, 63, a longtime Wisconsin newspaperman who now lectures at the University of California" I think that says it all right there. :) AzureCitizen (talk) 15:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I didn't saw that your article was slightly different. And I agree that also the 28th "estimate" is obviously the pre-rally expectation; so it would be wrong to pretend in the Wikipedia article that it is a post-rally estimate. I added this issue as 9. to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Restoring_Honor_rally#Statement_by_82.135.29.209. The text box looks fine on my browser, but if it does not work under all circumstances, then it definitely was important to fix. Nice quote :) 82.135.29.209 (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, the edits I'm referring to are here and here. In the first edit, date/time 19:05 on Oct 31, BS24 reverts back to the original citation to an ABC online news article by Human Khan dated August 27th (Citation). Clearly that's a pre-Rally prediction because it's the day before the Rally. Other edits and tinkering occurred before and after that first edit (edit warring?), but now look at the second and final edit, date/time 12:00 on Nov 1. It cites to a very similar looking Human Khan article dated August 28th (Citation). It's extremely similar... it's written by the same reporter... including much of the same text... but it's also different in a key aspect. An additional by-line reporter is added (reporter Kevin Dolak) and it's dated the day of the Rally, exact time unknown, whereas the Aug. 27th has to have been the day before. Where the August 27th article says "The rally at the National Mall, has attracted more than 100,000 people gathering to see speeches", the August 28th article says "Today at the National Mall, the rally has attracted more than 100,000 people gathered to see speeches." Present tense "gathering" has been changed to past-tense "gathered." At the very end of the article, at the bottom of page 2, we see the same two sentences about NPS and HSEMA estimating 100k and 100k-200k respectively - Khan and Dolak haven't bothered to change much from the story as it carried the day before - so it isn't hard to guess where they are really getting their 100k guestimate - but we now have a situation where they've put out a report sometime during the day of the Rally itself, with a past-tense statement "has attracted" and "gathered." I figured this was the simplest way to get the crowd size controversy section settled to quiet down the edit warring and go back to equilibrium. I was also trying to solve another problem you may not have been consciously aware of, when you were re-inserting material like this edit here. Click on that edit, then click on the blue highlighted "Revision as of 08:04, 2 November 2010 (edit) (undo)" just above your edit summary, then slide down to the crowd controversy section and look what's happened to the text and the crowd size estimates box. On your browser, do you see how the text is all squeezed into a narrow column and the text box is enormously oversized? I don't know if you caught that during your edits but I was trying to put that problem to rest too. In any event, what do I really think of this "estimate" by ABC? Of course I think it's pure crap, just like all the other ridiculous estimates by the media (except the scientific analysis done by APL). Just curious, have you been following all the talk on the Restoring Honor Talk Page the last few days? Did you see the article I referenced here? Check out this quote: "From a 1967 Time article on the Berkeley Vietnam War protest crowds: 'Estimating the size of a crowd may be the last area of fantasy in the newspaper business,' observed Herbert A. Jacobs, 63, a longtime Wisconsin newspaperman who now lectures at the University of California" I think that says it all right there. :) AzureCitizen (talk) 15:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Are you really sure? Which edit are you referring to? Because [6] went back to the pre-crowd estimate [7], as far I don't oversee something... 82.135.29.209 (talk) 12:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- 99% correct, with the exception of my final edit - I didn't change it back to the original article and it's pre-rally estimate, I actually changed the citation to a new and different ABC News article that was never cited previously, dated August 28th, which had a post-rally report that had been overlooked... and I think that subtle nuance was also overlooked... but it's all good now. :) AzureCitizen (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that the reason for all the chaos is the sloppiness of ABC. And yes, this "mini-edit-war" was stared by a third editor...
- About blocking: I'm not absolutely sure about it, some hours ago I thought it is a good idea. While I still think it has advantages, I also see the negative side effects. And maybe after BS24 has gone the risk of such a mini-edit-war is smaller. So I'm also fine also with not blocking it. Maybe a semi-block, then as IP I'm the only one blocked ;) 82.135.29.209 (talk) 19:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- I can appreciate the humor, but I'd rather not see you being shut out either just because your an IP. By the way, I saw your mature comments concerning TNXMan and applaud your statements there. It is right to stand up for civil behavior. AzureCitizen (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Basically - if I understand this chaos correctly - we got into a circular loop: Some editor pointed out that the number in one article was only a pre-rally estimation. BS24 changed this back because he didn't see that. The other user changed it back. Then BS24 found the other post-rally article but only saw the title. Then I added the other (contradicting) numbers of the article body itself. And then you wanted to resolve this chaos, and changed back to the original article and it's pre-rally estimate. Then I changed that back to the post-rally number... 82.135.29.209 (talk) 19:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Your efforts as an SPI clerk
Hi Tnxman, I just want to express my support and concur with Frank and 82.135.29.209 that you do not deserve being excoriated for what happened in the NYyankees51 SPI case. It appears that it was an intolerably long wait for some that a case filed on October 15th didn't result in the desired block until November 2nd. Instead of being satisfied with the result, they seem unable to drop the stick; I am sorry to see that you have become a target of that residual anger. Please know that your efforts on Wikipedia are appreciated, and that most of us assume good faith. Sincerely, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Missing Persons
Hi, AzureCitizen. It seems odd that Phoenix and Winslow (64.208.230.145), SpecialKCL66, DoctorFuManchu (ProfessorLoesch) has/have stopped editing since the midterm elections. There were a couple more edits I had planned for the ACORN video article, perhaps he'll add some input when I get to those. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- It is weird how they all just disappeared, kind of unexpected. Maybe they all lost interest? I also noticed "Top1Percent" and "MinusJason" vanished too. In any event, if you have some more improvements for the videos article, please do add them! AzureCitizen (talk) 00:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Also, have you noticed that our mediator (Wgfinley) hasn't been seen in over two weeks? We were all managing to keep away from the Restoring Honor article during the mediation, but now that it has stalled, the "crowd size" related edit skirmishes are beginning anew. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- He appears to be AWOL, with very little progress now on the mediation. Perhaps he got very busy with events in real life, or maybe his first mediation assignment turned out to be a rather unpleasant way to "cut his teeth" as you put it. I don't know what to do about that situation... I suppose we could ask AGK to appoint a new mediator, or just continue to let it sit as long as the skirmishes don't descend into all out war again. AzureCitizen (talk) 00:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Speaking of that article... I'm not sure how much longer I can keep defending the Bachmann/Park Police estimate of 1.6 million with a straight face. It is a wonderful tool, however, for helping editors to realize their double-standard application of reasons for getting rid of it. If they call it absurd, they must then recognize the absurdity of the 650K, 500K and 300K guesstimates, and remove them also. If they call it unsubstantiated, they must also acknowledge the same for all those guesstimates, leaving only the scientifically substantiated estimates. If they defend the 300K, 500K and 650K figures, saying it doesn't matter if they are accurate as long as they appear in reliable sources — then they have just defended the inclusion of the 1.6mil number as well. We can't pick and choose our preferred absurdities, and I had hoped my pregnant-Beck analogy would drive that common sense home for some editors. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- It certainly is a quandary for those who favor the 300-650k range... more like quicksand really. I'm sure you heard about Ms. Bachmann's recent news interview where she asserted the President's trip to Asia was incurring costs of $200 million per day, which is more than the war in Afghanistan. At least her "methodologies" are consistent, eh? By the way, did you notice how the editors over at the Restoring Sanity rally handled the crowd size issue? It got sorted out very quickly that the scientific estimates were the only thing credible and any nonsense was promptly dismissed. AzureCitizen (talk) 00:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Anyway, I hope all is well with you (and I hope nothing catastrophic has befallen our missing co-editors), Xenophrenic (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Same to you! Things are well here, looking forward to travelling and being with family around Thanksgiving (but I'll probably still be logging in here and there to follow along, LOL)... AzureCitizen (talk) 00:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
James O'Keefe
I object to your removing a call for visitors to attend to the balance of the page and discuss their observations. It seems reasonable and called for even if for no other reason than the history of concerns that have been voiced on the discussion page over a few months and the furious deletions of well sourced edits over the last few days. The page has some substantial, dramatic and critical problems that I am discussing. Most urgent tonight was my discovery that amongst a string of out of context and strangely hagiographic quotes, there was a quote sourced by Mr. OKeefe's own website! This article may indeed be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints. I'm very angry about what is seeming like a ver quietly and subtly hijacked page. I hope you agree that it's worth opening the discussion as wide as possible. Of course, I hope as an experienced editor that you too can join in the reconsideration of the whole page. Thanks. Gcherrits (talk) 05:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Gcherrits. It would be best to have these discussions on the article's Talk Page, rather than on private user pages, so that any interested editors can join in the discussion there. With regard to "removing a call for visitors to attend to the balance of the page," I removed the COI tag you placed there with the edit summary "Absent specific accusations on the Talk Page, a COI tag is nebulous in this regard and can never be properly adjudicated. Feel free to re-add if there is a specific editor singled out." If there is a specific editor who you think is making COI edits in the article, please feel free to point this out on the Talk Page. In absence of something specific, however, a COI tag like that is very vague and can never be resolved. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 05:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Azure, nice work trimming the OKeefe Bio. I admit I was really angry at the stream of heinous hagiographic honorific out of context quotes in that section and I probably went overboard and sloppy with replaceing the context. It's better now, nicely done. 76.15.29.125 (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC) glenn
- All good - no problem. Finding the right balance is always tricky anyways. :) Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Since when is Wikipedia an op-ed? The point is that randomly plopping in an opinion from Michael Gerson - a heavy public broadcasting contributor - is giving page space and weight to an opinion writer arbitrarily because he happens to present a view point that certain WP editors want. How is that acceptable? DoctorFuManchu (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Howdy DoctorFuManchu! These kinds of debates and questions are usually best resolved by having discussions on the article's Talk Page. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to jump in here, but I did not want to start a new thread with a similar name. I think the O'Keefe intro is a hairy monster. Could you come to its discussion page and look at a snippet of a proposed replacement? Ogo (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC) Bump. Ogo (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Ogo, I am sorry your reply and request got totally overlooked somehow, probably during a period that I was on break from Wiki. Are you still working on those issues? AzureCitizen (talk) 14:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Caylee's Law
If you are interested, there is a stub here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caylee%27s_Law. I'm going back to medieval articles but I am sure that you and others could do a good job on it. Nice working with you. Mugginsx (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, I wasn't aware someone had already started an article on that! It will probably grow in size as more legislatures join. I myself am about to take a forced break for the next six days - am going out of town and probably won't Wiki much from the road on the laptop. Nice working with you too and finding common ground. Peace, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Regarding Fifth Amendment rights self-incrimination, I answered you on my talk page since that is where you left your message. Perhaps that is why we agree more often than not. P.S. I am a retired. I am a little rusty in some of the discussion. Plus, I really do prefer medieval articles, although the medieval research requires my complete attention as opposed to this article. The main reason I now watch this article is because a user decided she was going to take it over and "completely re-structure" what you and all of the other editors worked so hard to accomplish! Her re-structuring idea looked like a high school composiion outline. She does not have the least idea about legal matters, if you look at some of her quotes. She actually thinks that Casey is going to go out and talk about this crime - like it would not incriminate her in a cover-up and she could not go to jail for that. I am sure Casey will try to write a book but it won't be about her baby drowing and her father covering it up. Oh, and I don't know about you, but if I hear about the Lindburg case one more time I think I will be sick. As you know, it has absolutely no parallels to this case. Sorry to get off topic. Good luck with the article. I will look in from time to time but it sounds like it is in good hands with you and others. Mugginsx (talk) 23:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- I can understand and appreciate that you'd like to see some sort of definitive resolution on whether or not there is going to be a major restructuring of the article. Candidly, it's a frequent misunderstanding on Wikipedia that when there is disagreement, a vote can be called for to settle the issue and "majority rules." If you've never read it before, you might want to read up on WP:VOTE to get a better understanding of how that works. Flyer22 is probably on the right track when he says lets just wait to see how the sandbox shakes out... AzureCitizen (talk) 21:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar |
| This is for you! Thanks again. Mugginsx (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC) |
Thanks for this edit. It should satisfy everybody. Sometimes a new perspective is needed to provide an obvious solution. –CWenger (^ • @) 20:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks! Hope it helps... I know political articles tend to have polarized perspectives. AzureCitizen (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- I rarely take issue with edits made by AzureCitizen, as they are not only well considered, but they often have the additional valuable quality of being bulletproof when made during an ongoing "edit war" firefight. I must take exception with this edit, however. Please read the source to which that sentence is cited here, and pay particular attention to the first two sentences. AzureCitizen's choice of words is an improvement over using "alleged", but still falls short of 100% accuracy, as congressman Frank never "said" he was called slurs. They were witnessed by reporters, one was even caught on video, and the slurs then "were reported". Even the WaPo article takes care not to say "Frank said..." when it runs down the list of different incidents. Also note that the WaPo article states that the incidents were "reported", and goes on to explain that some accuse the Washington Post of "reporting" those incidents without proper proof. So I have returned the "were reported" text to the article. (I hope this also answers the question you asked of me on your talk page, CWenger.) Best regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- Barney Frank didn't say it but Heath Schuler, another congressman, did, as is mentioned later on in the paragraph. So it is true but could be more informative. I suggest we just cut out the last half of the lead sentence in the paragraph:
On March 20, 2010, before the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Bill was voted on, several black lawmakers said that demonstrators shouted "nigger" at them. Congressman Emanuel Cleaver said he heard the slurs and was spat upon. Congressman Barney Frank, who is gay, was called a "faggot".
- –CWenger (^ • @) 21:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- It's "Shuler" - and no, Shuler didn't say it. He did, however, later, not on March 20, confirm hearing slurs. So it is not true. That prompts me to ask why you now suggest cutting out the true last half of the lead sentence?
- Looking beyond that single sentence, I've been of the opinion that the whole section is in dire need of some serious rework. Rework that will probably make this discussion moot. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- I rarely take issue with edits made by AzureCitizen, as they are not only well considered, but they often have the additional valuable quality of being bulletproof when made during an ongoing "edit war" firefight. I must take exception with this edit, however. Please read the source to which that sentence is cited here, and pay particular attention to the first two sentences. AzureCitizen's choice of words is an improvement over using "alleged", but still falls short of 100% accuracy, as congressman Frank never "said" he was called slurs. They were witnessed by reporters, one was even caught on video, and the slurs then "were reported". Even the WaPo article takes care not to say "Frank said..." when it runs down the list of different incidents. Also note that the WaPo article states that the incidents were "reported", and goes on to explain that some accuse the Washington Post of "reporting" those incidents without proper proof. So I have returned the "were reported" text to the article. (I hope this also answers the question you asked of me on your talk page, CWenger.) Best regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for bolding the changes. I actually intended to do that but then forgot. –CWenger (^ • @) 02:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- No problem! :) AzureCitizen (talk) 02:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Racist Personal Attacks
Just FYI. I hope I haven't overreacted since it means the image requires an admin now to link to new (and appropriate) content pages, but I didn't want the offender to be able to conveniently swing by and revert that nastiness back onto your talk page again; at least now they'll be denied the use of the image. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
changing an article title (slightly)
There is a stub article entitled In limine. Can you believe it? Of course it should be Motion In Limine but I do not know how to change an article title. I have read the regulations but I don't understand enough about editing to grasp how to do it. Do you think, only if you want to, you would either tell me how in plain English how to do it, or do it yourself? Only if you want to. Incidentally, that show about the innocent men was on again today on Tavis Smiley show on PBS for U (special PBS station I get). I couldn't watch it again though, too too sad. Enjoy our conversations and thank you for your educated advice. Mugginsx (talk) 22:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- Hi! It's actually fairly easy to do, let me try explaining it another way for you: Do you see how at the top of every article, you have the usual tabs like "edit", "view history", etc? And to the right of that is a little star, which indicates whether or not you are watching the page on your list? And then to the right of that, is a tiny triangle that points down? Put your cursor on that triangle (or click on it), and a little box opens up beneath with a single option ("move"). Click move, then enter the new title on the next page you see (along with your reasoning) and click "move page" below that. Done! :) AzureCitizen (talk) 00:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Why delete anti-Whites racism (and the calling to kill white babies)
Why [already] delete it from the NBPP page while discussion is still on? Saverol (talk) 17:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia's guidance on resolving conflicts when one editor inserts something that another editor objects to here: WP:BRD.
- BRD stands for Bold, Revert, Discuss. You were bold and inserted new material (no problem there), he reverted based on his objections (equally valid), and now you are both discussing it on the Talk Page to work it out and reach consensus. Hope that helps... AzureCitizen (talk) 17:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Maybe you would like to look at this?
We have been discussing possible BLP issues on article talk page. I have concerns over the Jury Foreman' remarks and to be fair, Flyer has made many concessions. She is a good faith editor. Maybe I spent too long in Criminal Law and have the appropriate paranonia one gets when that see and speak to sociapaths everyday in their work. I don't really like legal articles. In the discussions with the editors I have used these references. The websites that I quoted were the following: http://www.dba-oracle.com/internet_linking_libel_lawsuit.htm Linking to a defamatory web page is republishing the web page. The legal precident, though a very old case, is still being used today. It is also found here: http://www.swarb.co.uk/lisc/Defam18491899.php. and here: http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/tag/dog-the-bounty-hunter/ and here: http://www.cjr.org/regret_the_error/to_repeat_or_not_to_repeat_1.php I went to an administrator (with the approval of Flyer) and was told what I knew to take it to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. I hate noticeboards because they have a way of gettng ugly. There are many good faith editors on this article but I am fearful of BLP issues. I think I will back away for now because discussion of criminal law brings back bad memories working for a Bronx DA and a criminal defense lawyer and of the kind of people I had to be associated with in my work, i.e., dealing with socialpaths, killers, rich perverts, white collar theives (lawyers), men who robbed decent people of their life savings through scams which, in one case, resulted in a suicide of a decent person and a short, very cozy prison for the rich defendant. This old man sent me a card at work from his cozy prison and I feel the need for a bath whenever I remember him. Anyway, I am off to another article (medieval) Not too many BLP issues there (smile) and I wanted to thank you for all your help. If you are interested in the discussion it is on the talk page under "Some possible BLP issues". Mugginsx (talk) 09:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- Now it is also at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard Mugginsx (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- There is currently a discussion initiated by CarolMooredc at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Death_of_Caylee_Anthony:_Alleged_defamation_by_WP:RS if you would like to comment. Mugginsx (talk) 20:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Mugginsx! I have been gone from Wikipedia for a couple weeks now and haven't even been looking at articles in the intervening period due to lack of internet access. Truth be told, it was nice to take a break, as Wikipedia can become an addiction and eat up a lot of your time. I will take a look at the noticeboard discussion shortly and post a comment if it looks like I can be of some assistance. AzureCitizen (talk) 21:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Special Barnstar |
| Helping to delineate complex and complicated issue with patience, grace and a tremendous amount of knowledge! Mugginsx (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC) |
- You're too kind, but thank you. Glad it got resolved and everyone came to consensus... :) AzureCitizen (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
As to your question on the article talk page
AzureCitizen: He states he was in error over that particular statement. It is here on MY talk page. Should have been on yours. Maybe he thought we were the same person. Do not know. Anyway, it is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mugginsx&diff=446799143&oldid=446798282 He states there: ::Nevermind - It was "truncated for performance reasons", which is why I didn't see it in the preview window. Silly me for not checking the full diff page! Duh... Shirtwaist 10:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)Mugginsx (talk) 17:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Really sorry about all the mess. If you want to you can access me through e-mail Mugginsx (talk) 00:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- (no problem, will respond on your talk page) AzureCitizen (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Sagan / Contact
Thanks for fixing my dumb typo 1985-1995 on the date of the novel CONTACT. And for leaving in the info on the film treatment. This is one of my favorite novels and I can't understand why a first edition isn't worth more money.--GroveGuy (talk) 21:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- No problem! It's also one of my favorites as well (but truth be told, I saw the film first, THEN I read the book, etc)... AzureCitizen (talk) 22:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Want to comment?
Hi Azure. directing your attention here if you care to comment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_October_3#Template:Facepalm Mugginsx (talk) 17:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Looks like a lot of people have weighed in on that topic, with the majority in favor of keeping it. AzureCitizen (talk) 02:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
James O'Keefe
The word "deceptive" is used once in the body, used by someone named Gerson who writes opinions for the Washington Post. That's not good enough sourcing for a contentious comment or phrase in the lead, I think. Can you point me to something I'm missing? Thanks, AC. --Kenatipo speak! 04:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
(Oh, and I think that in a BLP, contentious unsourced statements are not allowed anywhere, body, lead or elsewhere.) --Kenatipo speak! 05:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- As you know, the issue is being discussed at length now on the article talk page, so I may decide to chime in there. AzureCitizen (talk) 06:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
George Wallace
It is completely acceptable format identify a politicians party in the first sentence. Wallace's political affiliation is particularly important in the context of his career because he served on the edge of the political realignment. Ordinarily a politicians political affiliation would not be so important, but in his case his allegiance to one party over the other has particular historical significance and in order to reduce ambiguities belongs in the first sentence. RoteMemorization (talk) 16:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Feel free however to discuss, I haven't reverted and wont until we agree on something. RoteMemorization (talk) 16:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- The second sentence at the front of the lede says "three as a Democrat and one on the American Independent Party ticket", so I think forcing in "Democrat Politician" in the first sentence is redundant and unnecessary (and the other Alabama Governor articles do not do that either). What is the historical significance issue here that would justify making it so redundant? AzureCitizen (talk) 18:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Army CI
Nothing in that article is classified, and the badge is the old version. I do however have a lot of past experience with Army Counterintelligence — Preceding unsigned comment added by MI Guy 35E (talk • contribs) 22:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Israeli (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
ACORN
Please do not revert without discussion. I made a chance that was not effectivly challenged.Basil rock (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you're mistaken. Please join in on the Discussion Page and make a more compelling case in light of opposition from multiple editors. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Edit Warring
Enough is enough, I have reported you for edit warring according to the WP:3RR on the WP:AN/EW Truthtellers78 (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- ...and here we see the result for anyone who is interested. It is usually better to assume good faith when working with other editors you disagree with, and to strive for objectivity in your point of view. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Occupy Marines
Hi Azure! You know about things military, perhaps you could help by friend over there? Mugginsx (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hello, Mugginsx! Been awhile. I do know some things about the military, although a quick look at Talk:Occupy Marines and it quickly becomes apparent a bunch of editors are embroiled in somewhat of a mess there. At first glance, there doesn't appear to be much I can contribute to the article, as the conflict seems to be over the issue of what is and isn't reliable sourcing, and what should and shouldn't be in the article. I noted WCM made an ANI posting about it just a little awhile ago. If there something very specific and military related involved, let me know and I might take a stab at it.
- On an unrelated note, just wanted to tell you that a few weeks ago I happened by chance to check my registered email address (it's not the one I normally use; I was in the process of changing most of my passwords), and saw that you'd sent some emails many months ago on some things (now moot). Unfortunately, I almost never check that email address and normally just stick to sending and receiving messages here on the talk pages - just wanted to explain what happened and apologize for why you never heard back! :) AzureCitizen (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
AFRM operations
Rather than go back and forth with edits, I figured I would bring it here. When I originally researched this, I was under the impression that no matter how many Operations a servicemember has been in, they would still only receive one AFRM. After I personally served in both OEF and OIF, I questioned it, since now I had two different contingency operations. My question went all the way to HRC since no one at my unit level could answer it. HRC informed me that each operation was a separate contingency. Each operation is for a totally different area of the world and has totally different operational orders. Although they may be grouped as GWOT, they are still separate contingency operations.
Example- a man serves in OEF in Afghanistan in 2004. He redeploys. He goes to Iraq for OIF in 2006. He redeploys. He deploys again in 2010 for OND. He is awarded a total of 3 AFRM w/ M device. One for each operation. He would wear a numeral 3 with the M device (and any hourglass if awarded).
Cahilj (talk) 02:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hello Cahilj! If HRC told you that each is separate and you qualify for two awards of the "M" Device (thus a numeral "2"), how come the reference link from HRC points to an article on the HRC website that contains the following "example" (you'll need to scroll down a ways to see it, well past the chart that groups Noble Eagle, Enduring Freedom, Iraqi Freedom and New Dawn under the umbrella of the GWOT - see below for the text which I've cut and pasted from the HRC article's "Questions and Answers" section). AzureCitizen (talk) 02:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Is a Soldier eligible for two awards of the AFRM with "M" device after being deployed to Operations Enduring Freedom (OEF) and Operations Iraqi Freedom (OIF)? No. Operations Noble Eagle (ONE), OEF and OIF fall under one involuntary callup action, Executive Order 13223, September 14, 2001, better known as the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) contingency/conflict. Therefore, no matter how many times a Soldier mobilizes in support of the GWOT, only one "M" device is authorized. Additional information may be obtained from DODM 1348-33, Volume 2, dated 23 November 2010.
- Sure enough, the answer is spelled out in DODM 1348-33, Volume 2. You can download a copy at this link. Take a look at paragraph 6c(1)(a)3 and you'll find that ONE, OEF, and OIF are grouped together as a single contingency operation under paragraph 6c(1)(a)3. Next, take a look at paragraph 6c(1)(a)2 , which says that multiple periods of service during one designated contingency under paragraph 6c(1)(a)3 count as one “M” device award. Thus, the HRC website is correct in saying that even if someone mobilizes multiple times and has separate call-up orders under ONE, OEF, and OIF, they all still fall under the GWOT contigency and hence only a single "M" device is awarded. Make sense now?
- I will go ahead and correct the article back to it's original form accordingly, but I'll also add in DODM 1348-33 Vol 2 as an additional reference for future readers. It looks like someone at HRC gave you bad information; if you kept their POC information, you can call them back and point them in the right direction. I can certainly empathize with your desire to wear a numeral on the AFRM ribbon after having had multiple deployments, but it's actually unauthorized. I too have been called up under separate OEF and OIF orders and deployed to theater more than once, but I only wear the "M" with no numerals (besides the hourglass). Let me know if you have any other questions. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 06:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- Interesting. I will be trying to get in touch with the individual at HRC who gave me the incorrect information. Although, this was back in 2006, so I doubt that he is even there anymore. I'm curious to know what the previous DODM 1348 stated, since the one referenced is from 2010. It may very well have been totally separate operations, and they were grouped in 2010 with the onset of New Dawn, in which case he would have been correct until it changed. I will look into that. Cahilj (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Please let me know what you find out - the subject is of personal interest to me as well. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- It has been several months, and I've finally gotten settled down again. I was able to find the version of DoDM 1348 preceding the 2010 version. It is dated September 1996. It's much less detailed than the current 2010 version, with no mention of specific contingencies or operations for any time frame, let alone GWOT. Here is the link- link
- As far as I can tell, until the actual combining of the contingencies, they were all separate as defined in AP4.1.2.56.2 (and referenced back to AP4.1.2.56.1.2 and AP4.1.2.56.1.3), since each activation was under a different set of title 10 orders, with a different contingency name, and therefore a different period of service.
- Using the 1996 version, one could make the argument that any contingency in Iraq would fall under OIF, and any contingency in Afghanistan would fall under OEF, therefore eliminating multiple contingencies for one operation, but why then would each phase of both be given a different contingency name and subsequently published by DoD? (And also- what about all the non-AFG locations for OEF?) Granted, that's what actually is described in the 2010 version, but from 1996 to 2010, what was the actual breakdown?
- I have been unable to find a specific date as to when all the contingencies were lumped into the GWOT umbrella (prior to the publication of the 2010 version). I feel that would be the best answer for this. Otherwise, I'm inclined to believe that since each contingency had it's own name, and wasn't lumped until 2010, that any award of the "M" device between 1996 and 2010 would count as a separate award for individual contingencies, based on my second paragraph in this statement. And although they are now lumped, any award made during that time period would be still be valid, since the regulation changed after the award, with no mention of retro-activity. Thoughts? Cahilj (talk) 19:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- Also- EO 13223 makes no mention of "GWOT" or any specific contingency, which further confuses the situation, since again, none of the operations were actually lumped on paper until 2010. This is higher than HRC as far as explanations go, but I doubt that anyone in the DoD awards section would be able to make any sense of it anyways. Cahilj (talk) 19:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Welcome back! I read what you wrote above and thought it over for awhile. If I understand correctly, you've wondering if perhaps because DODM 1348.33 V2 didn't list ("lump together") these contingency operations until the significant update of the manual in 2010, that perhaps a different policy was in effect up until then, and perhaps these were separate contingency operations until they were put together on paper in 2010. However, I think it's speculative to say they were separate (each counting for a separate "M" numeral) prior to 2010 and that the 2010 manual suddenly changed the scheme, and all the problems that would cause for sorting out awards with personnel who mobilized during the 14 year period between 1996 and 2010, with a different set of rules for personnel mobilizing after 2010, etc. I think that the primary contingency groups designated by 1348.33 are actually based on the executive orders which created them, and if you note, there is only one executive order for each major group, which draws on the cited authorities. There are not separate executive orders for ONE, OEF, and OIF; nor separate executive orders for Desert Shield and Desert Storm, or for Joint Endeavor, Joint Guard, Joint Forge, etc. There is only one executive order for each, hence they are parsed out in 1348.33 accordingly. Compare these three for example:
- http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13120 (Bosnia)
- http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_12727 (Gulf War I)
- http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13223 (GWOT)
Let me ask you a different question before I proceed further. Are you able to view the following HRC web page, and have you had a chance to read it all the way through from top to bottom previously? --AzureCitizen (talk) 03:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Notification
Hi, AzureCitizen. I relocated an inappropriate section of text from an article talk page to an editor's talk page, here. You had commented, so this is just a notification that the discussion has been moved. Article talk pages are an inappropriate venue for holding an inquisition of editors anyway. I hope all is well with you, Xenophrenic (talk) 07:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
PS~ Are the similarities between this edit by an IP user, and this edit by Warmtoast just coincidental? It seems these folks always gravitate to me :-/ Xenophrenic (talk) 07:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hello X! Life is good and all is well. I commented at the K.S. BLP because I didn't think his or her claims of skewing the article had merit and thought the quickest way to resolve the matter would be to prompt that request accordingly; with regard to the similarities to him or her and the IP, I'm sure you've nailed that one (you always have a knack for sniffing them out). I think your latest posting on the Talk Page has probably put things to rest now, unless the other editor has a bad case of WP:STICK, etc... :) AzureCitizen (talk) 13:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Ferrets
Yeah I saw that. Should be good now. I'm not a good <ref>er.
kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 00:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Award Star clarity
I left a message on the Award star talk page in regards to the discussion of the JMUA. I couldn't provide any clarity, but my interpretation is that the Oak Leaf Cluster is the authorized device for the JMUA across all services. Though the US Navy authorizes the Award Star for their ribbons, because the JMUA is a DoD award, I stand with the Oak Leaf Cluster being the only authorized device. Bullmoosebell (talk) 08:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks - I've responded on the Talk Page and I think we have a resolution now. :) Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Splendid. Now it's an accurate reflection of the device, though it pains me to replace the term Award Star with 5/16 inch star. However, what about the smaller award star for miniature ribbons (3/16 inch star, I believe)? It seems there should some text regarding that device on the 5/16 Inch Star page.
- I agree, the term "5/16 inch star" is downright painful compared to "award star", isn't it! Leave it to the DoD to give it such an awkward name. Maybe they'll change it someday? On the miniature version, good point, I've gone ahead and added that in... AzureCitizen (talk) 03:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Additionally, I've proposed a change to the infobox images on the Oak leaf cluster page (discussion is on the talk page). Lemme know what you think. Bullmoosebell (talk) 02:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Looks much better that way - I left a brief comment there agreeing we should implement your change. AzureCitizen (talk) 03:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 23
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- 5/16 inch star (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Department of Defense
- Oak leaf cluster (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Department of Defense
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks 1,000,000
Thanks for all your help with so many pages recently. 75.79.31.20 is a sockpuppet for YahwehSaves. Though he may think he has good intentions, his methods and abilities have proven sophomoric, narrow-minded, and often-times disruptive (I, along with other users & administrators, have been battling this guy for months). Be it known; that user (both log-ins) has been auto-signed to eliminate their comments from going un-signed. Again, thanks for your hard work & I look forward to working with you on other pages. Bullmoosebell (talk) 00:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks; I try to cooperate with people but some folks make it very difficult! I'm going to post a message on the Talk Page of the "V" article right now asking him to break his edits up so that changes and disagreements are easier to handle... AzureCitizen (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
|
The Teamwork Barnstar |
| Thanks for all your recent hard work correcting United States military award devices and keeping Wikipedia honest. Bullmoosebell (talk) 00:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC) |
Volksfront
The link that is being applied under Violence by alleged Volksfront Members is not Volksfront related. I have removed it. I have checked with the Chapter and they have had no members involved in the incident. The referenced article also makes no mention of Volksfront or any Volksfront members.
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vfusa (talk • contribs) 00:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
RE: captain discussion
Hello. You have a new message about the page splitting discussion at Talk:Captain (United States)'s talk page. daintalk 01:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you
... for the advice. Insomesia (talk) 08:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Selectively edited videos - Redux
Hi, AzureCitizen! Regarding this edit of yours, while you correctly identified the contested "McRaven" text in the most recent edit war on that article, did you overlook the fact that those same warriors were also contesting any mention of that group's associations with the Republican Party and Tea Party? They were purging both sets of content with the same revert. IMO, their associations are relevant information in any article that mentions that group, their videos, their attack ads, or their targets.
It's the Swifties all over again: create political attack ads and videos; spam them as much as possible, while innocently denying any political motivation, before fact checkers, investigative journalists, etc., eventually dissect, expose and discredit the group and their attacks. Then they will slither back under their rock after election season, smug about the shitstorm they kicked up, and uncaring about the tarnished reputation they leave stuck to their unfortunate apolitical bretheren that share a military unit or service branch with these asshats. Blech. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
- Howdy! Apparently I missed that fact and was primarily just keying on the text of the edit summaries from the two editors who resorted to multiple reverts to remove the text that had been agreed-upon by others... the only information of relevance communicated in those edit summaries was that it had to do with McRaven's comments (with very little contribution on the article's Talk Page). Turning to the swift boating, it really is a shame. Did you also see the comment here about how McRaven put out an email to all SEALS and SF personnel recently? He said "By attaching a special operations moniker or a unit or service name to a political agenda, those individuals have now violated the most basic of our military principles." I couldn't agree more... AzureCitizen (talk) 03:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, I saw that article link when you raised it on a Talk page as a matter of relevant interest. He sounds rather upset, and rightly so.
- Heh. You beat me to the revert with that edit, but mine would have rolled back to Sept. 1, just prior to MissMatching's insertion of the extremely problematic text. As you noted, the McGlowan stuff is nowhere in the cited source; Webb's NAACP "selective racism" wasn't "against the Tea Party" (it wasn't against Santelli either, but darn it, it made just as much sense!); spelling issues (is "practising" British, perhaps?). Your edit will no doubt get knee-jerked, and I'll roll it back until some sort of substantive content can be obtained. The 1RR probation has its benefits, but I think it also encourages folks to daily drive-by disruption. Addendum: If editors push to have content on the whole Webb & NAACP "selective racism" thing, at least there are sources that explain the context. However, I was still hoping to continue to shrink that section rather than expand it. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- Ooops, I didn't look that closely and only verified the bone through the nose part... wish I'd looked closer at it! I'll keep my eye on it too and be more careful next time... AzureCitizen (talk) 09:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Re: Your response on the Talk: Faithful Word Baptist Church
Thanks for saying it so well and so thoroughly. -- Revanneosl (talk)
- Happy to try and help clear things up, thanks. AzureCitizen (talk) 09:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United States military award devices, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Distinguished Flying Cross (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 21:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
11th Expeditionary Combat Aviation Brigade moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, 11th Expeditionary Combat Aviation Brigade, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)