User talk:Commodore Sloat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives
June 2004 – May 2006 May 2006 – December 2006 December 2006 – December 2007

Contents 1 Emory Douglas 2 RfM on New antisemitism 3 Feith Article 4 911 reading room / Chicago Tribune article 5 Category:Nuclear terrorism 6 New antisemitism mediation 7 Philo-semitism 8 Mediation Update 9 Communist terrorism 10 New AS mediation 11 New Antisemitism Mediation 12 Blocked 13 Niger uranium forgeries 14 O'Reilly/Homophobia 15 Re: clarification 16 Ztime NAS image 17 Email

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)