User talk:Cla68: Difference between revisions

26 September 2024
In the media: Courts order Wikipedia to give up names of editors, legal strain anticipated from "online safety laws" Community view: Indian courts order Wikipedia to take down name of crime victim, editors strive towards consensus Serendipity: A Wikipedian at the 2024 Paralympics Opinion: asilvering's RfA debriefing News and notes: Are you ready for admin elections? Gallery: Are Luddaites defending the English Wikipedia? Recent research: Article-writing AI is less "prone to reasoning errors (or hallucinations)" than human Wikipedia editors Traffic report: Jump in the line, rock your body in time
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Archives

/Military history project dialogues /Non-military history project dialogues

User:Cla68/Article draft work page

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

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

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

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

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

 Your userpage User:Cla68/Evidence/Sandbox has a category, and so appears in Category:Wikipedia dispute resolution.
As the guideline on userpages describes, this is undesired. It is suggested that you edit the userpage to prevent this showing. It can be done by adding a colon (:) before the word Category, like this: [[:Category:Wikipedia dispute resolution]]. Other categories might be involved too. -DePiep (talk) 01:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I blanked it. Cla68 (talk) 01:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious. I have not waded into these articles really before now but have walked into one right now --> this page Watts Up With That? - we have Virginia Heffernan who first recommended the blog and then recanted or placed a caveat or whatever. Now we have the page where people want to use the first one and not the second. You'd agree that was a distortion or not? My preference is for both, and given all the blog post is an opinion I see no problem with that in our guidelines, but someone disagrees. So, how do you feel about that one? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the RS Noticeboard thread on it? I looked and can't find it. Cla68 (talk) 20:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

there. I can't believe the amount of text on this one point. I am also unaware if this is a 0RR on 1RR on article probation pages or what. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The two uninvolved editors at the noticeboard appear to be saying that her opinion can't be used at all, neither her original blog post or her follow-up comment. Cla68 (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a bit of a reductionist/nuclear option to me. I do think that none is better than one, but would like to see warts'n'all two. What do you think? Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I usually try to follow what the regulars at the noticeboards say, so in this case I would vote for the "none" option, which I believe SA just did by removing all mention of it. Cla68 (talk) 23:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cla -- FYI -- I noticed you were very involved in editing this article when it was GA nominated. I would like to get this article to GAR, and I have requested peer review. Since you are back to editing, your help would be appreciated in getting this article up to GA standards. By the way, I don't think that is what the uninvolved editors on the noticeboard were saying -- seems to me they were only commenting on the SPS caveat, but I could be wrong. Minor4th 00:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I think I checked Infotrac and ProQuest NewsStand and couldn't find any more information for the article. I'll check again and will also try to check Lexis/Nexis. Cla68 (talk) 00:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rereading your comment, Cla, her original comment was not a blog post, it was a New York Times review. I don't think there's any question that review is reliably sourced. The RSN entry was not phrased well and its unclear what is being asked or in what context. Minor4th 00:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If a writer later corrects or caveats a statement they made, then it has to be noted. The problem is that her follow up was as a comment. So, in my opinion, it's either all or none for that information. Cla68 (talk) 00:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've watched this debate, but I haven't gotten involved because I've withdrawing from editing in this topic area. But my opinion is that the retraction should probably nullify the original statement, and none of it should be used. ATren (talk) 01:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was my original thought too -- remove the whole thing, and that is the state of the article last I checked. However, looking at the issue more closely, her follow up Twitter post was not a retraction. She had apparently been receiving a deluge of angry mail, and she expressed regret generally -- I took it as regret that she had been swarmed by advocates, and perhaps regret that readers took her recommendation as an endorsement of the science content of the blog, a subject she said she was unfamiliar with. She did not retract her recommendation of the blog though and continue to remark about its positive features. She has some editorial control over that column at the NYT, and can retract or clarify the comment but hasn't. I don't want to come off sounding like an activist here, which is why I did not restore the content after SA removed it -- but this is the most notable review of the blog, and it's quite something to get a mention in the NYT. The article just doesn't seem complete without that in there -- on the other hand, it does seem incomplete to include the NYT bit without any sort of qualification. The thought of sourcing an opinion about the blog to a Twitter feed just makes my skin crawl. Further comments? Minor4th 01:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Now that I think about it, if I'm "writing for the enemy" -- I have to admit that a similar issue came up on Monckton whereby there were reliable sources taking Monckton to task about his "claim" to be part of the House of Lords, and he answered in rebuttal, but various editors (namely ChrisO) would not allow the explanation in the article because it was self published. That really irritated me and seemed unfair to Monckton to portray him as a lunatic liar when he gave a reasonable explanation that was excluded from the article. It's a bit different because that was a very clear BLP issue that ended up making the article subject look stupid --- more egregious than the NYT review of a blog, but the point remains, including the NYT bit by itself does not present the entire picture. Y'all are right. Minor4th 01:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please show a little basic courtesy and respect my request to stay off my user page, unless you have something really important to say. Guettarda (talk) 13:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about allowing a merge discussion to proceed without trying to disappear the article so quickly? Cla68 (talk) 13:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop being silly. I've fixed up your spelling for you [2]. If you can't cope with that, don't comment there. Thanks William M. Connolley (talk) 11:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should I take that as a "no" that you won't be helping me expand the Climate Audit article? Cla68 (talk) 12:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thought certain editors were not meant to edit other peoples comments mark nutley (talk) 12:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know what the current status of that sanction is. Anyway, that edit doesn't really bother me. Cla68 (talk) 12:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah good. Meanwhile, certain other editors are supposed to at least pretend to withdrawn from Cl Ch William M. Connolley (talk) 12:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you plan on having Climate Audit go through the WP:GA process, I would like to help. Please let me know if there's any way that I can be of assistance. In particular, I've created a Wikipedia Reliable Sources Search engine which allows me to filter through web sites which don't meet Wikipedia's standards for secondary reliable sources. Also, your talk page is on my watch list so there's no need to inform me of any replies. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because of its central involvement in Climategate, there is actually quite a bit out there on Climate Audit. I've started listing sources here. I'm listing sources there not only for the Climate Audit article, but also for Hockey stick controversy, RealClimate, Soon and Baliunas controversy, etc because those articles are all directly related to each other. Cla68 (talk) 04:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could also help a bit, although my WP volunteer time right now is very limited. I do know CA and the controversy well, and have contributed to most of the articles you (Cla) mentioned. I've +/- stopped doing hot-controvery CC stuff -- too stressful. Best wishes, Pete Tillman (talk) 05:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any help you wish to give with the article would be greatly appreciated. I find the "blog battles" aspect of the CC topic (RealClimate, CA, WUWT, DeSmogBlog) and how some of it has been carried over into Wikipedia, with followers (or participants/contributors) of the different blogs trying to claim their use as reliable sources in CC articles, very interesting. DeSmogBlog and WUWT I think are about as good as we get them with the sources available right now. After CA I'd really like to get a complete article done on RealClimate. Cla68 (talk) 05:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um. I'd forgotten that CA & McI had been split into two articles again. I'm more of a "lumper" but agnostic in this case. This does cool my enthusiasm to spend time on this -- I may do bit, and will follow you fellows' work, but I'm way over-committed right now, sigh. And up too late again.... Pete Tillman (talk) 06:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know of another article about a blog or a web site that we can use as an example for improving our Climate Audit. Maybe a FA or GA? Or just something well written? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4chan and The Million Dollar Homepage are featured articles. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DeSmogBlog, Operation Clambake, Slashdot and Whedonesque.com are good articles. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed your latest, per the notice at the top of my talk page about repetition. If you have anything new to say, you're welcome to say it. But please don't interrupt conersations with other people William M. Connolley (talk) 07:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WMC, in contrast to your attitude about your talk page, you are free and welcome to post on my page whenever you desire. I have never "banned" anyone from my talk page. I archive all the threads on an archive page where others can peruse them if they desire. I don't delete comments that I don't like. I believe the only edits I've ever removed were bot notices. Cla68 (talk) 07:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you didn't see it: [3]. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Cla68, Thanks for all of your help so far with finding photographs of the Kongo battlecruisers for use in the articles; it's been a massive help. I'm rewriting Kongo as we speak, and I'm in need of high-quality photos of her from all periods of her career. Would you happen to have any? I promise you this will be the last time I ask for photos of the Kongos (seeing as this is the last of the five articles to be rewritten). Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 15:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also,

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies ^talk 21:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cla68, a heads-up: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision#Proposed_FoF:_NuclearWarfare_has_failed_to_uphold_BLP_policy_in_the_manner_expected_of_an_administrator, which relates to an enforcement request that you originally brought back in July. --JN466 23:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cla68 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Cla68's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Cla68! Peace, Rlevse 00:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Time to archive a bunch of your talk page ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 00:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion of your use of sources in the climate change topic area at User talk:Newyorkbrad. --TS 00:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know that you've been busy of late, but I'd just like to remind you that Kaga and Hosho are ready for you to work on whenever you are to do so.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just did some major surgery on the design section of Hosho. See how it reads for you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! Cla68 (talk) 12:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cla: I've seen the documents and seen GregJackP's statements, Risker was definitely in the right in both the spirit and letter of the NLT policy. SirFozzie (talk) 04:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

• A specially-tailored version of discretionary sanctions is authorized for the entire topic area of climate change. Enforcement requests are to be submitted to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, which is to replace Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement.
• Experienced administrators, and especially checkusers, are requested to closely monitor new accounts that edit inappropriately in the topic area.
• Within seven days of this remedy passing, all parties must either delete evidence sub-pages or request deletion of them.
• The following editors are banned from the topic area of climate change, and may not appeal this ban until at least six months after the closure of this case (and no more often than every three months thereafter);

• The following users have accepted binding voluntary topic bans;
  • Scjessey [4]
  • KimDabelsteinPetersen [5]
• The following administrators are explicitly restricted from applying discretionary sanctions as authorized in this case, as is any other administrator fitting the description of an involved administrator;
  • Stephan Schulz
  • Lar

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,
Dougweller (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was very sorry to see your name on this list. My interactions with you have always been pleasant, and I saw no behavior that would justify such an action.

Oh, well. It looks like your interests are broad enough that you can still contribute to Wikipedia, and I hope you do. We'll miss your constructive editing in climate change.

Best wishes, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The primary reason for me getting involved with the topic was to try to stop the abuses that were going on within it. As the arbcom decision shows, the experience was very bruising. Time will tell whether I accomplished what I set out to do. Nevertheless, I enjoyed working with you on those articles and wish you the best in your continued efforts to improve and expand the topic's information.

By the way, due to real life issues with the demands that Wikipedia editing was placing on my time, I've had to stop editing. I have some images that I need to get uploaded as requested by some editors in some threads above. I hope to get those uploaded slowly but surely, but I think my time editing Wikipedia will be dramatically less for the indefinite future. Cla68 (talk) 08:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cla68, I second Pete's note here. I have never seen you put a word out of place ever. I'd like to hope that this great 'ArbCom climate change resolution' makes a difference but it's pretty hard to think it will seeing some of the good names on this list. Anyhow, do what I've been doing for the last six months. Have a life! Alex Harvey (talk) 12:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Alex. Cla68 (talk) 01:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LV (September 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

This is formal notification because you are one of the affected parties. --TS 00:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In a comment at the clarification request, you wrote:[6]

• TenofAllTrades, me and the others you mention were invited here by the filing party, Tony Sidaway.

I do acknowledge that you were notified of the request, as the guidance of the arbitrators on the topic affects expectations of your future conduct and, should you ever choose to return to the topic, the kind of error you need to avoid. I did not intend that you should break your topic ban, as you did in making an edit there attacking other topic-banned editors:[7]

• It seems that much, if not all of WMC's entire Internet presence is centered on being an advocate battling to influence the content of Wikipedia's CC articles (also check the comments to that post and WMC's responses to them). It's up to you guys on how to proceed from here, I offer no suggestions.

You also made comments at the Marknutley enforcement request, to which you cannot claim to have been "invited", and again you used the opportunity to exacerbate interpersonal disputes related to climate change. [8] [9] [10].

In recent days you have also continued to edit your essay Wikipedia:Activist [11] [12] [13] which is worrying because it appears to me at least to be closely related to the tenor of your editing in the climate change topic, and your description of activist psychology seems to be a sly dig at William Connolley. But perhaps others less involved in the climate change topic would judge that essay more kindly.

I'm asking you not to respond to this. I'm asking you please, because the topic ban is there for a purpose and I know you value Wikipedia as highly as I do, to take the Arbitration Committee's directions to heart and go and find something else to do. --TS 09:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, I resent your bad faith efforts to try to draw me back into the CC dispute so you can use it to criticize me. It's very transparent what you're doing, and it reflects very poorly on you. No one has caused more unnecessary drama since the CC case closed than you. I really hope that you'll go try and expand an article and at least get one passed by Good Article, which I don't believe you've ever done, and leave the CC article policing to administrators. If you need any copyediting help or any other assistance with a non-CC article, feel free to ask me. I'll crosspost this to your user talk page to make sure you get it. Cla68 (talk) 10:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken this to WP:AE. This is your formal notification. [14]. --TS 11:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, I think it will be helpful for all if you'll accept that you have, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, no authority over me, any other editor, or over any topic area. Again, if you'll make an effort to expand and enlarge an article outside of the CC topic area, I'll be glad to help you out. Just let me know which article you choose. Cla68 (talk) 22:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cla68, First off, I am sorry to hear about everything that's gone on with the recent CC case at ArbCom. In my experience, your conduct as an editor of the 'Pedia has been phenomenal, and your advice and assistance on Japanese Navy articles of an incalculable value. Secondly, I've started rewriting the article for Fuso class battleship and find myself in dire need of images of the class (I think there's a grand total of two or three on all of Commons). Would you happen to have any from your books that you could upload to commons? Thanks again! Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 19:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll try to get whatever images I have uploaded this weekend. There's a typhoon approaching Tokyo, so it should be keeping me indoors most of Saturday and perhaps Sunday. Cla68 (talk) 22:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, do you have Anthony Tully's book, The Battle of Surigao Strait? If not, I'll help out with that part of the article. Cla68 (talk) 14:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have that particular book. I've managed to order Breyer (battleships & battlecruisers 1905-1970), Garzke (axis & neutral bbs in wwii), and Skulski (the battleship fuso) via interlibrary loan, but I think The Battle of Surigao Strait would probably come very much in handy. Thanks in advance! Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 16:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And best of luck dealing w/ the typhoon. that can't be fun. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 16:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Garzke won't be much help, he only deals with the Yamatos on. :/ Breyer is pretty brief, but he always seems to have nuggets of information no one else has. Not exactly sure why that is. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The typhoon didn't end up being very severe. I have a ton of photos of both battleships. The usual delay is getting my wife to translate the photo captions for me before I can scan and upload them. I'm working on it. Cla68 (talk) 00:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Fusō is done. Yamashiro next. Cla68 (talk) 10:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cla, use commons:Template:PD-Japan-oldphoto for the images -- "50 years after the creator's death" doesn't work when you don't know the creator :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Actually, the creator of those photos is implicitely known. The photographs were owned by the Imperial Japanese Navy which is why they're public domain. But, I understand us knowing that and convincing the FA reviewers of that are two different things. Cla68 (talk) 22:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, but what's awesome is that oldphoto works for any photo taken before '46, regardless of creator. :) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yamashiro is done. Cla68 (talk) 10:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cla68,

While your comment may apply to certain editors, in case of me, the situaton is actually the opposite. There haven't been any issues with me editing any articles here. In 2008, when I had more time for Wikipedia than I have now, I spend some time rewriting thermodynamics articles. When some months ago another editor made some changes, bringing in a bit more the perspective from chemical engineering (I wrote it more from the theoretical physics perspective), I thought that was a good thing for Wikipedia, despite some objections to some issues. These articles should be authored by the Wikipedia community, not by "Count Iblis" or any other single editor.

The reason I got in trouble a bit, is due to the factionalist mentality that exists here in some areas to some extent. I defended Brews Ohare despite arguing against him on the speed of light issue and in the ArbCom case about this. Wrong on one issue and having some issues with working together with others, shouldn't automaticaly imply "hopeless case, let's boot him out of Wikipedia". But with this stance I took after the ArbCom case, I broke with the faction and as a result, I got branded as being part of the "wrong faction".

What also plays a role here is that the editing issues regarding Brews are not as well visible to outsiders compared to e.g the Climate Change case. What then happens is that I when I got labeled to be "Brews' advocate", that label then stuck, despite being nonsense based on actually editing articles. ArbCom even acted on this by passing an advocacy resstriction (which has now expired).

To see just how ridiculous this is, just imagine that in 6 months from now, William would actually defend you and argue that you should be allowed back to edit CC articles (despite disagreements related to the topic). But then William gets attacked for breaking with his faction, disputes start within his faction, and then ArbCom decides to sanction William for provoking a battlefield atmosphere in his faction.

This is difficult to imagine, but if you were one of just a few sceptical editors here, you can perhaps see how something like this could happen. Count Iblis (talk) 16:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comments, but I'm afraid it would be difficult for me to respond without being accused of betraying the spirit of my topic ban. I invite you to join the off-wiki forum and give your thoughts in that thread on how the science topics and the editors who edit them are treated in Wikipedia. Cla68 (talk) 06:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Following a request for amendment to the Climate change case, three motions have been posted regarding the scope of topic bans, the appeal of topic bans, and a proposal to unblock two editors.

For and on behalf of the Arbitration Committee --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Activist, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Activist and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Activist during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By motion, the Arbitration Committee has ammended remedies 3.1 and 3.2.1 of the Climate change case to read as follows:

• 3.1) Editors topic-banned by the Committee under this remedy are prohibited from (i) editing articles about Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (ii) editing biographies of living people associated with Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (iii) participating in any process broadly construed on Wikipedia particularly affecting these articles; and (iv) initiating or participating in any discussion substantially relating to these articles anywhere on Wikipedia, even if the discussion also involves another issue or issues.
• 3.2.1) Editors topic banned under this decision may apply to the Committee to have the topic ban lifted or modified after demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and their ability to work constructively with other editors. Applications will be considered no earlier than six months after the close of this case, and additional reviews will be done, unless the Committee directs otherwise in individual instances, no more frequently than every three months thereafter.

— Coren ^(talk), for the Committee, 21:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you. Here's the request for clarification. Your ability to discuss the case would be affected. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 05:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

I was considering getting a shakujō - have you ever seen any for sale and would you have a rough idea how much one would cost? TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most Buddhist temples and sects in Japan sell stuff like that, sometimes over the Internet, but it appears the shakujō isn't a common religious item. Because of its size, it may be very expensive to get shipped. I'll look into it. Cla68 (talk) 23:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking, don't kill yourself over it though, as you say, the shipping might make the price rather unreasonable. I may have to resort to more American methods of smiting the minor devils that plague me. I saw an extremely nice looking one on ebay, but they were asking for 50 grand, which is slightly more than what I'd want to spend on a nice walking stick/conversation starter. Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fifty grand? I could probably ask some local craftsmen monks to make one from scratch for a fifth of that price. Looks like I'm in the wrong line of work. Cla68 (talk) 01:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I'm going to get one made from scratch then I'll get one with 12 rings and hope that in impersonating the Buddha I'll be able to recoup my investment. I found another nice looking one here, but neither the price nor the website are to my liking. If you are curious then here is a link to the 50k one. And on a lighter note, a one-armed Buddhist monk performing a kata with a shakujo. I'm beginning to think that it may be too expensive to purchase a shakujo and I may have to wait until I fulfill my dream of owning a mall that has an on-site Buddhist monastery with imported Shaolin monks for grounds-keeping and security duties. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That shakujo in the first link doesn't appear to have a full-length staff, which may be why that one only costs $1,000. I'm still trying to get a native Japanese speaker to search some other Buddhist merchandise sites to see what's out there. Cla68 (talk) 13:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found some more links which I will post on your userpage. Cla68 (talk) 22:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 16 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article World War II Allied names for Japanese aircraft, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that during World War II, when a new model of the Mitsubishi 'Zero' received its American code name, the prominent general it was named after wasn't very amused? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem! - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 00:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: Editors for the newsletter, GAN backlog reduction drive Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene sums up our "Five years of military history"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel

This wording did not have consensus.Cptnono (talk) 00:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfC Senkaku Islands

The RfC provides an opportunity for additional comment by other interested editors. Can you frame a constructive response to Bobthefish2 pivotal question: Even if the policy does not recommend the use of Senkaku/Diaoyu-style dual names, is our situation exceptional enough to make it a good solution?

In this RfC context, please consider an overview here? --Tenmei (talk) 19:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article repair

It's a shame that Attack on Pearl Harbor still needs repair. What do you think? Jehochman ^Talk 18:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. It's next on my list after me and Sturmvogel finish Akagi. I just ordered some books on it yesterday, and they may take a few weeks to arrive. I'll let you know when I get started on it. Cla68 (talk) 22:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors, "Military Historian of the Year", New Incubator, Black Project Report Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: bahamut guides us through "Nominating military biographies for deletion"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

		The Military history A-Class medal
		For prolific work on Fred Moosally, Battle of the Coral Sea and Japanese aircraft carrier Hōshō, promoted to A-Class between January 2009 and December 2010, by order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject you are hereby awarded the A-Class medal. Congratulations! AustralianRupert (talk) 11:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]