User talk:Commodore Sloat/Archive 4

Emory Douglas

Thank you for starting the article. It has been on my list for quite some time.--Rockero (talk) 04:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

RfM on New antisemitism

Note that you have been added as a party to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/New antisemitism. At your earliest convenience, please state on the mediation page whether you assent to mediation. -- tariqabjotu 05:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Feith Article

I'm not trying to vandalize. I have three problems with this article that I'm trying to correct. 1) The Guardian article is opinion, not fact, and its inclusion implies that wikipedia is endorsing a highly controversial, leftist conspiracy theory. 2) Read the Washington Post article-it says nothing about Feith resisting cooperation with the inquiry. The editor who claims this incorrectly paraphrases the article. 3) Rawstory is a source which openly admits to having adding a leftist tilt to its article. It's hardly an appropriate source for an allegedly objective Wikipedia article.

The Internet provides several forums for expressing one's individual political beliefs. Wikipedia is not one of them. This section endorses leftist conspiracy theories, misinterprets sources, and cites to sources that have openly admitted to being biased.

I'm open to your suggestions as to how we may fix this section, and I'm fully willing to strike a compromise here instead of back and forth reverting, but the section as it stands is biased and inappropriate as an addendum to a wikipedia article.

First, sign your comments please. Second, the only one of your three points that is valid is #2 -- #1 and 3 are not valid reasons to remove sourced material. (And #3 is bogus completely; where does rawstory say this article has a "leftist bias"?) As long as the sources are cited and it is clear it is not Wikipedia saying something but these other sources, there is no problem. I will look into #2 and if you are correct I will help you rewrite that section. csloat (talk) 05:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

See the talk page of the article if you have any questions; you are wrong about the WaPo article. I went ahead and quoted the article on the talk page. csloat (talk) 05:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

911 reading room / Chicago Tribune article

The 911readingroom site does not have any evidence of permission or release from the Chicago Tribune for the article reproduced there. The article is plainly stated to be copyright of the Chicago Tribune, and Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works, which is policy, sets out why we may not link to copyright violations. Please do not restore the link again, it has nothing to do with whether I like the site or not, it is simply a matter of policy and copyright. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 20:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

There is also clearly fair use information presented at the bottom of the article. Your objection is specious. csloat (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Nuclear terrorism

Could you please take another look at the deletion discussion located here? Additional members have been added to the category. Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

New antisemitism mediation

Heya Commodore Sloat.

I would first like to apologise on behalf of the Mediation Committee for the delay in this case being dealt with, which is due to a shortage of available mediators. I have expressed interest in taking this case to help with the backlog and to assess my nomination to join the committee. As i am not currently a member it is common practice to for the involved parties to consent to mediation of an RfM from a non-committee member. To give your consent for me to act as mediator for this case please sign as you have for the acceptance of the case on the case page. I look forward to working with you and finding a solution to the dispute.

Seddon69 (talk) 17:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Philo-semitism

Re your comment it also uses the word "philosemitism"; should we create that article too?, be aware that the article already exists. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Update

Just to let you all know, the case has been started. I have created a little navbox for you to navigate between pages and will be expanded as the case goes on so that its easier for you to navigate. The first page you need to visit in this case is here so you can give youre opening statement. There i have left a few questions for you all to answer. For those that have been busy and unable to confirm their participation in the mediation, they are welcome to join the mediation at any stage.

I can be contacted in several ways in the event you need to. I am normally present on the wikipedia-en, wikipedia-medcab and wiki-hurricanes IRC channels at some point between 15:00 UTC and as late 02:00 UTC depending on college and real life commitments. To find these channels and instructions on how to access IRC go to WP:IRC. Throughout the day, even when i am in college, feel free to email me using the email tool or by emailing the email address on my user page or both to make sure. You can also leave a message on my talk page which again ill do my upmost to reply to as soon as i can. Seddon69 (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Heya. I noticed that you hadn't left your statement here regarding the New Antisemitism case. Its important for the success of this mediation that you stay involved in this otherwise i cannot guarantee that your views will be taken into consensus agreed upon by the parties. I hope that you will be able to participate soon. Seddon69 (talk) 23:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Communist terrorism

Sorry if this kindles bad memories, but I thought it strange - you do not seem to have been informed about this one. Any idea how we could take it from there? After all, it looks to me a lot of decent editors were in favour of deletion, and most others preferred a re-name. There is a faux impression of no consensus there, caused by you know what. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 08:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

(copied from my talk page, in case you do not follow it)

Well, I now know why the first people who contested the WP:OWN on that page, ran away. I agree with a lot of things you both say, of course, sometimes on other grounds. If Biophys believes communism is a monolythic entity, and you should not make any distinction between Maoists, Trotskists and organisations which combine nationalism and communism (interestingly, the Natioanl Bolshevik party of the RF actually has an electoral pact with Biophys's hero, Kasparov) then we should try to take him at his word: organisations which call or called themselves Marxist, Naxalite, populist should not be in the article. And since the word "communist" was only used before 1917 by the French anarchists and followers of Jules Guesde (who actually condemned terrorism like Lenin), it follows that everything before 1917 must be deleted. Well, he or we could try to include the Bonnot Gang, of course, though that may be ahistorical as well, since between 1902 and 1917 the term "communist" was no longer used in France.

The bias in the article against non-communists should also be addressed. I mean, this thing has a link to something called "List of communist and socialist terrorist organisations" . Yes, socialist terrorism, when socialism is one the the three main political currents in most of Europe. Surprise, surprise, the link is dead.

Apart from the many cynical lies (have a look at the Nepal entry: it says communist terrorism started there in 1994 when the communist party lost the election, when in fact they won that election and their leader took over as Prime Minister, the trouble really started in 1996 after political machinations of the Congress party nullified that election victory) the main problem is of ourse the structural WP:COATRACK, the combination of both terrorist insurgency and state terrorism. That is the major problem. I would be in favour of doing away with the state terrorism part as it obviously not sourced, only passingly mentioned in books.

--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 07:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

New AS mediation

The mediation im getting rolling as its been a long time waiting so i think its best to get moving. Most of the mediation will be on the talk (discussion) page. so make sure its in your watchlist. Seddon69 (talk)

New Antisemitism Mediation

I think thats its time we got moving. A couple of the points have been raised before and felt they were the foundations to the dispute:

• Firstly whether the picture can be confirmed to have been taken in the rally in San Fransisco.
• Secondly to come to an agreement on what new antisemitism is and then to decide what the image is depicting and whether it purely illustrates New Antisemitism or whether it also addresses other issues which could be confused with new antisemitism by new readers.
• If we cant confirm the those then we need to find a viable alternative.

A point i would like to raise is that at some point a lead image might need to be found if this article got to FA. The image in question is not free and couldn't be put on the main page with this article as todays FA. Although not an immediate point a long term solution might wish to be found so that this article could feature on the main page with a viable alternative.

Does anyone have access to Lexis Nexis? It might help as a search on the network could uncover something not readily available on the internet. Reliable sources that use the image would be helpful. Do you reckon that there would anyway of finding third party images that might possibly contain the poster/placard? Also i would be grateful if images of other placards at that rally could be found to find whether this was a small minority at this rally or perhaps a larger group.

Whilst that is being done i wanted to find out on what the consensus view is on what New Antisemitism is? I have read the article and the previous discussion and attempted to get a proper understanding but i wanted to ensure that this was current.

PS any sources you find can you please post in the section at the top of the mediation talk page. Seddon69 (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Following discussion at the mediation talk page, i would like to bring up a suggestion that until the end of the mediation to remove both images from the article. There is currently no real consensus on the images so in the interests of fairness it seems best to simply have no images. If you have any suggestions or comments then please come to the mediation talk page to be discussed. The discussion will be open for around 5 days if there are no problems. But the discussion will go on if there is ongoing discussion. ŠξÞÞøΛ ^talk 00:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

I've blocked you for 24 hours for edit warring on Criticism of Bill O'Reilly. Whilst not by the book a WP:3RR violation, you clearly were gaming it by reverting 5 times in 25 hours. The reverts you have been blocked for are; [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Please refrain from edit warring when your block has expired. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Will you also be blocking the other participants in the edit warring, specifically Croctotheface (talk · contribs) and Kelly (talk · contribs), who reported me? They are clearly gaming the system as well, and their approach is very frustrating (rather than arguing the merits of the issue they simply insist that their way should go as they outnumber me). I stayed away from violating the 3RR as you admit, and my reverts were not all the same -- I made specific attempts to change the paragraph these guys want censored in response to their objections. So it is inaccurate to see me as an "edit warrior" here, and it is somewhat disconcerting that Kelly's deceptive report to the 3RR noticeboard (notice how the edit time/date information is missing from the report so that it seems as if he was reporting on one 24 hour period) would result in a block without me getting a chance to respond, yet the other editors who were edit warring on the page are not sanctioned at all. Most frustrating about this is I found I was blocked just as I tried to start an RfC on the page; I was in the midst of posting a note to the talk page to that effect. Your block prevented me from trying to contribute towards a solution to this problem without edit warring. csloat (talk) 20:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It prevented further edit warring, but I'm still looking into the reverts of the other participants. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I've decided not to block or warn any of the other participants. You reverted more times than any of them and they both believed they were reverting a BLP violation - no real comment on whether or not is was, but it could possibly be a violation. Reverting BLP violations is specifically exempt from the 3RR rule. When you were reverted the first time on BLP grounds, you should have started the RfC before reinserting it - not after 5 reverts. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

So all someone has to do who wants to revert war is make the claim, no matter how tenuous, that there's a BLP violation at stake? I'm not sure that's the position you would want to support. I did not "reinsert" the same text - I made specific changes to it in response to the alleged BLP concerns raised and tried to engage these users in talk. At the time I had no way of knowing that they preferred edit warring and bullying to rational argument. You have legitimized their bullying tactics (as well as the deceptive use of the 3RR noticeboard). csloat (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course not, if there was no weight to the BLP concerns, I'd have probably issued a couple of warnings out, but I think there could be weight to it - not saying there definitely is, but certainly enough to require some careful thought and discussion before adding the texts back in. Even partial reverts are still reverts. Whether or not you were making changes to the text you readded, you were still reverting other users. Finally, the 3RR noticeboard is an ideal place to report almost all blockable edit warring incidents, not just the strict 3RR rule. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

When I reported a user for edit warring -- 6 reverts in 25 hours as I recall -- I was specifically told that the 3RR noticeboard was only for reporting violations of the 3RR and that my report had no merit.[6] I think there's an inconsistency there that should be addressed more clearly. I especially think it is troubling when the report is deceptive; in the case of Kelly's report, he should have stated that he was not actually reporting a violation of the 3RR but 3RR "gaming," and he should have included the dates and times of the reverts as asked for on the template. (And he should have placed some kind of note about his report on my talk page, giving me at least some opportunity to state my case; the lack of due process here is especially troubling since no actual violation of the rules had occurred). csloat (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Quite possibly he should have reported it as 3RR gaming, but I looked into the issue as a neutral party. Whilst it's helpful to have dated diffs, it still expected that the admin looks at the whole context of the dispute before making conclusions. This I did myself and decided the course of action to take should be to issue a block to you. I don't think this is constructive us two arguing over the block, because I don't think there's anything you could futher say that hasn't been said already. I therefore invite you to ask a neutral administrator to review the block by posting; {{unblock|reason you believe the block was wrong}} ~~~~ and you will quickly get a response from that. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Commodore Sloat (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I'd like another admin to review this situation. I don't expect to be unblocked, and I don't think Ryan P was doing anything wrong per se -- he didn't know when he blocked me that I was starting an rfc. But I do think the other users who have been edit warring on the page should be admonished as well since I was not edit-warring alone. I also think the report against me was deceptive and I was not given a chance to explain myself at all; I was in the middle of trying an RfC to avoid further edit warring and I suddenly found I could no longer edit the talk page. I'm hoping an admin can help clarify whether the bullying behavior of my interlocutors on that page can be addressed. Thanks.

Decline reason:

Unblock requests are not for requesting sanctions against other users. —  Sandstein  21:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I didn't ask for sanctions on other users; I asked for a review of the process. It appears the process is fundamentally broken and allows for abuse by users who wish to enlist admins in their edit wars. csloat (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Niger uranium forgeries

I'm mystified why you would claim I was soapboxing in trying to add a section which was not in any way represented on the page. Hitchens has done a great deal of research into the yellowcake scandal, and saying that his views are "well represented" by one sentence in the responsibility section is a little ridiculous. I am respectfully reverting the page to my original edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.65.208 (talk) 22:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hitchens is a minor part of the story at best; if you include that much information from hitchens we will also need to include the responses to his arguments, which presents a significant problem in terms of WP:UNDUE. I don't see a problem with adding a sentence or two explaining his views, but your edit added two entire sections. csloat (talk) 22:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

i didn't add two sections, i just moved the extant section on hitchens (line 131) to a subsection under the "who forged the documents?" section, where it was more relevant (since the single line hardly warranted its own section, and dealt explicitly with the nature of the forgeries). apparently this has now been rolled into the "aftermath" section, paring the total of hitchens' extensive work on the subject to one representative sentence, with no heading. seeing as how there is now absolutely no individual section dealing with his perspective, i'll re-add my original section dealing with his investigation of wissam al-zahawie (which is all i ever intended to do), and hopefully you can stomach one section devoted to hitchens.

also, at the moment i'm a bit too lazy to add a response, but there is an article in slate by david corn (of hubris fame) arguing against hitchens, and a concurrent rebuttal by hitchens. the corn article is here: http://www.slate.com/id/2150345/ , and i can't find the hitchens rebuttal at the moment, but i will eventually make an effort to track it down. if you could add corn's argument to the section, it would go a long way toward presenting an opposing view. 71.58.65.208 (talk) 22:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure we can add hitchens, then corn, then hitchens' response to corn, then corn's response to hitchens... where does it end? This is the WP:UNDUE and WP:SOAP problem. The page is about Niger uranium forgeries, not about hitchens or Corn. Hitchens is simply not an important part of the story, nor is Corn. Best thing is to keep the soapboxing out of the article. Anyway please take further discussion to the article talk page; this is not the right place for it. csloat (talk) 10:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

O'Reilly/Homophobia

I appreciate your supportive comments and edits on this piece I added to the Criticism of Bill O'Reilly. I have been dealing for a couple of months with a trio of editors who policy shop, revert w/o bothering to read the sources(and admit doing so...) or raise patently false objections. I have given in on some of my proposed edits (either b/c I accepted contrary arguments or grew weary of the BS), but in this case I think the facts support inclusion and I am in for the duration. Thanks again; see you on the Talk page...Jimintheatl (talk) 01:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I just responded to one of the latest obfuscations/objections (that the media did not cover the story) by linking to a NY Times article. I'm waiting for someone to respond that the Times is not a RS....and I wish I could be entirely joking about that....Jimintheatl (talk) 18:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm a glutton for punishment, apparently....I have begun anew an attempt to specify Media Matters' criticisms of O'Reilly.Jimintheatl (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: clarification

I'd prefer that you guys go forward without interacting at all. If Biophys has future problems holding to that arrangement voluntarily—and yes, that would include, say, coming in and reverting you—then we can proceed with actual restrictions; but I'm still hopeful that we can avoid that step. Kirill ^(prof) 04:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Ztime NAS image

As far as i am aware, the person who opposed the removal for the duration of the mediation didn't confirm he accepted the suggestion. In the event of disputed content in mediation all parties must agree before its removed, even if it is only temporary. I hope you understand why i need to have clear 100% consensus with this particular issue. ŠeDDøΛ ^talk 20:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Email

I was wondering if it would be possible to contact you via email. If it is could you email me to the address provided on my user page. If you do email me, could you please notify me on my talk page. Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review} 16:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Conduct

I'm concerned by the lack of good faith and ongoing personal attacks between you and Jayjg. We are closer to a solution than there has ever been before and it would be a pity to spoil it at the last hurdle. I ask you just to think about your responses and to not react so defensively. I understand this is a delicate topic so lets just take some extra care in what we say. Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review} 22:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to be civil here but you can see what I'm dealing with -- that particular comment came after your note posted to our talk pages. Anyway I am being civil and will try to lay off the sarcasm. But I disagree that we are close to a solution -- all that we have is a proposed compromise that is objectively far worse than the present system in terms of aesthetics as well as content. Cluttering the lede with four objectionable images rather than one is hardly an improvement. And I think each of the four images will require an explanatory caption explaining who uses it as an example of "new antisemitism." In any case, I think it is a mistake to presume that the mediation should come down to satisfying Jayjg and myself; there are a number of other participants in this dispute (some who have been commenting on the talk page of the article rather than here throughout this mediation), who have yet to make their views known. Of course, we could just put it up to a vote of some sort now (AfD-style) so that Jayjg and I can just state our arguments in a brief paragraph and shut up rather than arguing in circles endlessly, which is where it looks like this may be going. csloat (talk) 02:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Disputes on Foucault article

Commodore Sloat, I would like to ask you why you consider it appropriate to remove all mention of Emile Durkheim from the article on Michel Foucault. It seems to me a highly unusual situation that someone can be listed as an influence on Foucault, even without a single source being used in the article to document this, while two sources are not enough for a mention of the fact that Durkheim might have influenced Foucault. I'd like to stress that the issue is not so much Durkheim as the proper sourcing of articles. Also, supposing that Durkheim might have been what you call an "anti-influence" on Foucault, why was there no mention of this in the article? It seems like the sort of thing the article should mention. Skoojal (talk) 04:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I've explained my answer on the talk page of the article, where this discussion is more appropriate. What is more, the consensus seems to agree with me, so it's probably best if you drop this and move on. Either way, let's keep the discussion on the talk page rather than here. csloat (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

If you are attempting to prevent me from placing a request for comment, don't. It's a perfectly normal way of trying to resolve disputes. Skoojal (talk) 06:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not - I am happy for an RfC if you will go along with the consensus. I am just trying to prevent the duplication of polls that ask the same question. You seem to be trying to create confusion rather than to resolve conflict. csloat (talk) 07:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Requests for comment are designed to attract outside attention to disputes. It thus does not matter if it repeats the same question as what is already on the talk page. Regardless of your intentions, it looks as though you are attempting to prevent the wider Wikipedia community from being informed about or taking interest in this question, and I wonder why you would do that? Skoojal (talk) 07:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If you are submitting a request for comment use WP:RfC; I am more than pleased to see more voices on the talk page. However, posting a new section asking a question in a leading manner that does not accurately represent the dispute is not a good way to go about it; it appears deceptive. Why not use the voting section I created? You did post to it so I assume you are willing to discuss there. Why make up a phony question that is not really what the dispute is about? csloat (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The only appropriate step at this stage is remove the RFC and ask a neutral third party to draft a new one. I don't think I represented anything inaccurately, and, by the way, I don't accept your phrasing as neutral. Also, there's no need for you to respond to the RFC yourself, anymore than there is a need for me to do so; the point is to get outside involvement. Skoojal (talk) 07:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have now removed the RFC; please wait for a third party to draft something genuinely neutral, which your wording was not. Skoojal (talk) 07:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read up on how the RfC works, I am allowed to comment as much as anyone else. The dispute is not whether Durkheim may be mentioned in the context of criticism; the dispute is only about whether he may be named as a direct influence alongside Nietzsche et al. There is no dispute about whether he may be mentioned at all. Anyway please just stay off my talk page; I don't find your comments and innuendo helpful. Thanks. csloat (talk) 08:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It has been necessary for me to communicate with you here because the Foucault talk page is so long and takes a long time to load (most of it should be archived, I think). Anyway, meta-disputes about what sort of disputes may be mentioned on the Foucault talk page are better had somewhere else. Skoojal (talk) 08:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have proof of what I'am talking "writting" about if you are not happy consult the references I can give you the references if you like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardlord50 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Where is your proof that I am "copying" an original essay I can prove to you with references that IT IS NOT A COPYIED ESSAY FROM WHERE IS THIS ESSAY COPYIED.Richardlord50 (talk) 00:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you PROVE TO ME WITHOUT DOUBT THAT THE ESSAY I AM WRITTING HAS BEEN COPIED I HAVE A HOST OF NEW MATERIAL WHICH CAN BE VERIFIED I AM NOT LYING I DO READ MY MATERIAL WHERE IS IT THAT IT IS NOT ORIGINAL MATERIAL SHOW ME WHERE IT IS NOT ORIGINAL MATERIAL IN OTHER WORDS WHERE DID I COPY THIS MATERIAL IT IS MY OWN RESEARCH CAN YOU BE ADULT ENOUGH TO SHOW ME LET THE READERS OF WIKIPEDIA DECIDERichardlord50 (talk) 00:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

AGAIN YOU HAVE NOT UNDERSTOOD WHAT I AM WRITTING/TALKING ABOUT I DO NOT MEAN MY OWN OPINION I DID NOT MAKE UP THE IDEA OF GEOSURVEILLANCE I DID NOT MAKE UP THE IDEA OF RISK ANALYSIS JOURNAL I DID NOT MAKE UP THE IDEA OF A PHYSHO-CIVILISED SOCIETY ALL OF THIS CAN BE VERIFIED ARE YOU SAYING THAT WIKIPEDIA "SUPPRESSES ANY ORIGINAL THOUGHT IF SO WHY NOT.THAT SOUNDS TO BE LIKE THE NAZI REGIME AGAIN YOU HAVE AVOIDED THE QUESTION CONCERNING ORIGINAL RESEARCH I CAN VERIFY MY IDEAS WITH REFERENCES KINDLY LET THE WIKIPEDIA READERSHIP DECIDE THEY ARE ADULT ENOUGH.Richardlord50 (talk) 00:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Csloat, I recently saw the edit that Artemidorus made to Talk: Sigmund Freud. Yuck! Thank you for undoing it! Skoojal (talk) 07:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't pay too close attention to what it said but it looked like a 10,000 word essay copied from a journal or something; it certainly didn't look like it was something to be engaged on the talk page. csloat (talk) 18:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

3RR

Be careful not to violate 3RR. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I've protected New antisemitism again, though honestly, I think a good case could have been made for blocking you instead given that you were reverted by multiple people. The article really won't implode regardless of what state its in, so please, give some effort to talking things out without reverting. Its better for the blood pressure too ;) Shell ^babelfish 04:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I assume you were directing these comments to Malcolm, who was reverted by multiple people (and who blatantly violated the 3RR, as pointed out on his talk page). Correct? csloat (talk) 07:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

FROM Duggan6592

okay you sent me a msg and I'm not joking or being cheeky but I realy dont know what I did but sorry anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duggan6592 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC) --Duggan6592 (talk) 00:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No I didn't do it on purpose and I'll change now--Duggan6592 (talk) 00:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

New Great Game

Aloha,

Your closing comments on the AfD for New Great Game were inspiring. It was the kind of stance I was hoping for on New/Neo Cold War, but that we didn't get. Anyhow, no hard feelings, and see you in the next AfD eh?

Best Regards,

Whiskey in the Jar (talk) 07:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; no hard feelings here. And if one could have shown without reference to original research that "new cold war" had the kind of stable, documented, and accepted status in an academic field (or in reliable sources more generally) that "new great game" has been shown to have, I would likely have reacted the same way. It's true that someone's comment during the new cold war afd debate brought me to that page; what I saw there was a terrible WP:SYN violation, but if the article can be rewritten with sources and not violate SYN it should certainly stay. csloat (talk) 08:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I was just very against the (IMHO) premature deletion of the NWC article, it was poorly written, poorly sourced but still realy only a stub, with some interesting info, and could have been improved with time. Still, I guess we'll have to wait and see! Apologies for one or two of my more uncivil comments, and I'm sure I'll see you around!

Mahalo,

Whiskey in the Jar (talk) 12:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Michel Foucault FAR

Michel Foucault has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Thanks! Lesgles (talk) 20:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

BLP privacy policy for limited public figures

I think that the current deadlock on Joe the plumber is due to unclear BLP policy on limited public figures. I've made a proposal to clarify the policy here. Since you are one of the parties involved in the dispute, this is a notification for your input on the proposed policy clarification. VG ☎ 10:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Edit warring across numerous articles

Here's the deal: Stop reverting people. Other contributors disagree with your editions. That means you take it to talk and have the patience to wait for a consensus. You make your case. If swarms of people still disagree with you, then it's a bad idea to keep reverting. I haven't checked in depth, but, from your contributions I'm going to assume you're close to breaking 3RR. As you already have a 3RR warning up above, an admin won't hesitate to block as you're already aware of the policy. Please just stop. Talk it out. There's no hurry. There's no deadline for Wikipedia... unless, of course, you have a November 4th deadline to make...? Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 00:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I have not violated 3RR. I haven't even restored the censored material to the page that you first protected in this dispute; I've added it to a page where there should be even less disagreement about its relevance. I don't understand the resistance to this material (which is factual, well-sourced, and in no way "defamatory"). I've tried to talk it out but nobody (including you) is actually responding to the arguments. Simply stating without evidence that the Huffington Post is not a reliable source is not an argument. And I have proven the claim to be false. Have you warned the other people who have been reverting me the same thing, or are you only concerned with me for some reason? csloat (talk) 00:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I'm striking your personal attack from your words above as I'm sure you did not intend to question my good faith in this conversation. Hope you don't mind; this is my talk page and I'd prefer to keep it free of personal attacks, even from administrators. Anyway I'd be silly to believe that anybody is going to change their vote in the US election based on a paragraph in an article on Wikipedia, would I not? csloat (talk) 00:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

In the interests of fairness I shall look at other editors involved. I didn't intend it to be a personal attack and I do apologise if you perceived it that way. But please do bare in mind that edit warring is a bad thing, I don't like to see anyone blocked (And as I am technically involved in the dispute I can't block you, and I wouldn't anyway, so don't worry about that). I'll look into the anon's who were edit warring too now. Cheerio! Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 01:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Three-revert rule at William Timmons‎

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Pete Tillman (talk) 01:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Advise on your recent edit at John McCain presidential campaign, 2008

You might not want to "take over" by your own interpretation of the RFC, considering that you not even took part in it. Even so I assume you acted in good faith, it was a bold move at a sensitive issue and therefore not very helpful. You can assist by commenting on the talk page there as I mentioned in my edit summary but please resist on making another bold edit and claiming consensus that just doesn't exist.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I did too take part in the RfC, and I even was the one who started it, if I recall correctly. Are you claiming I miscounted the consensus? I saw 7-5 votes, but, more importantly, the weight of the arguments disproportionately favored inclusion. And my move was no bolder or unhelpful than the actions of those who kept deleting this paragraph during the rfc rather than helping to rewrite it. Anyway, do what you like, I won't revert again today. csloat (talk) 00:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

First a quick response regarding your involvement. Yes, you started the RFC. I was confused about your username since your sig doesn't show it. My mistake but I guess understandable.

You're right that previous edits weren't helpful either and that is my point I tried to make at my last proposal, at least a temporary one as I stated. My guess is, that rewriting this section (which now that the election is over should be easier to include) would be possible and (depending on the rewrite) getting my support. Still, we need/should wait what others have to say. Would you mind if I post this edit from your talk page either in whole or as a link at the McCain page or would you mind doing it yourself?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You can link to this but I already posted the relevant points there I think. csloat (talk) 02:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. Take a look at my last post and edit at the main page. But thanks anyway.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

William Timmons page

Can you take your contribution to the BLP noticeboard for review?

I've semi-protected in the "wrong" version at the moment and blocked the IPs and user used over the last couple of days. But I'd prefer to get more eyeballs on whether the info you and they were fighting over is BLP-safe.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I posted an RfC on the page and some people came from BLP to comment. I don't see any BLP problem so I'm not sure what I would even say on the BLP page about it - the material is not in any way defamatory, and we are reporting who said what, not claiming that Wikipedia agrees with the charges. If you can clarify this perhaps you can post your concerns to BLP, or to the RfC on the talk page, or explain it to me and I will post to BLP? Thanks. And, I'm not worried about semi-protecting the "wrong" version, since established users can still edit - I will restore the paragraph but if another established user elects to delete it we can continue to discussing it in talk. But the only person deleting it in the last few days has been the sockpuppet's anon ips, and the discussion in talk had ended with what looks like to me a preponderance of arguments clearly favoring including the paragraph in some form. Even those who originally sought to exclude it helped modify it to address their concerns. csloat (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, Commodore Sloat. 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. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 18:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

MfD

1. My talk page says, twice, not to post there.
2. That MfD was going nowhere good. He'll post the material to ANI and you two can slug it out there. The discussion page of an MfD is not the place to work out your interpersonal disputes, especially since the page is well within what is accepted in userspace, as long as it does get posted to ANI in a reasonable amount of time.

Bye. //roux   02:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that it already did get posted to ANI a week or two ago, and the complaint was rejected as a content dispute. Now he's rewriting it to submit it again? What nonsense. And yes I saw your "don't post here" notes but the discussion page is for sending notes to people, where the hell am I supposed to post to get your attention if not there? If you're an admin it is really pretty ridiculous to warn people off your talk page, unless you believe in leadership without accountability. Anyway, you're right about the MfD; I just didn't know what else to do -- this guy has been harassing me ever since I tried to include relevant and well-publicized information on the McCain campaign page. csloat (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Hello, Commodore Sloat. 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. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

John McCain deletion

Hi. You made this edit, claiming the material isn't supported by the cite. Yet it clearly is supported by the cite. What gives? Can you please explain yourself? You must be aware that you are deleting a paragraph that was added after weeks of discussion and compromise, and you are entering into a new dispute. Yet the claim that the material is not supported by the cite has not yet been raised in talk. If you believe that to be the case can you explain that in talk? Thank you. csloat (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi csloat, I reread the citation and I don't see where it says extremists believe that McCain could be provoked into a prolonged battle against them...maybe I am missing it or is this a synthesis of the citation? --Tom 21:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Civility

See [7] Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see proposed settlement at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#user:Commodore_Sloat. It's not my intention to make any statement regarding the suitability of the edits, just the civility question. Thanks! Gerardw (talk) 22:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI#Edit war at John McCain presidential campaign, 2008

It's about you. Best,  Sandstein  20:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Restrictions

Per ANI discussion, you are hereby topic-banned for a minimum of three months from:

• any articles related to the 2008 US Presidential election, broadly construed for a mininum of three months
• Talk page of Amwestover (talk · contribs) with the sole exception of any procedurally-required postings, including but not limited to RFC/mediation/RFAR/XfD notices as well as AN/ANI threads. Where applicable, you are required to keep such notices brief, formal, and polite.
• You may use the talk pages of articles to discuss proposed changes.
• This topic-ban may be lifted, if in the consensus opinion of uninvolved administrators, that you and Amwestover (talk · contribs) can edit collaboratively within Wikipedia policies.

- Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 10:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey there's this mosquito bothering me, do you have a sledgehammer I can use to kill it with? csloat (talk) 18:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand what you mean, for that matter... - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 18:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

What I mean is, I had a content dispute over a single paragraph on a single page with another user. While he was occasionally abusive, I was always quite polite during the discussion, but the dispute did last several weeks. This may be troubling, but WP:DR outlines several steps prior to a topic ban for resolving content disputes. There were no specific claims made that my behavior broke a single Wikipedia rule. No examples of incivility raised - only a general sense that the discussion had gone on too long. So now we're topic banned for three months, not only on the article in question, but on a host of other articles that might be related? It's quite absurd, really, and when I look through the discussion I don't even see a single example of any rule being broken. There was also no attempt at all to suggest alternative solutions (e.g. voluntary measures like I had suggested on the ANI page). I thought blocks were meant to protect Wikipedia, not meant to be punitive? I also don't see any provision for appeal of this decision. csloat (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, it seems that the "ignoring" each other would be the best way to go, but it is very hard when the warring editors have intersections of articles they edit. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 19:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It would have been nice if someone asked us to ignore each other for starters. This is an extreme solution to a very minor problem. csloat (talk) 19:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Csloat, see Wikipedia:BAN#Administrator_ban: "Administrator-imposed bans should be appealed at the administrators' noticeboard, or the arbitration enforcement noticeboard." I guess asking you both to "get over it" a couple of times was apparantly too subtle? I hope the new year brings you joy. And peace. --Evb-wiki (talk) 17:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not that it was too subtle; it's that it was entirely non-specific and non-constructive; and if you think there is no alternatives between suggesting that people "get over it" and a three-month punitive block, then subtlety is probably not your strong suit anyway. I was actively seeking constructive input from other members of the community, and the ban was imposed on both of us without any attempt to actually resolve the dispute. It was a sad example of groupthink, and it's a sad statement on the Wikipedia community. Happy new year to you too. csloat (talk) 23:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Just one advise that I can give to you [and Amwestover]: "It takes two to tangle" and it doesn't matter who might be right or wrong.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit-warring

Commodore Sloat, I'm concerned by the recent edit-warring at New antisemitism, combined with borderline edit summaries. I realize that you haven't technically violated 3RR, but the continual reverting is a concern, especially considering your history, and that you are not engaging in active discussion at the related talkpage. Can I please ask you to ease off the "revert" button, and try harder to participate in discussion? Thanks, --Elonka 21:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Phatnug sativa.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Phatnug sativa.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 10:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

RfC Collect

Could you give your impressions of Collect at his RfC based on your interaction with him at William Timmins (include other if there is any thnx). The RfC is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Collect Soxwon (talk) 14:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)