Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:57, 26 October 2010

24 December 2024
News and notes: Responsibilities and liabilities as a "Very Large Online Platform" Op-ed: Beeblebrox on Wikipediocracy, the Committee, and everything Opinion: Graham87 on being the first-ever administrator recall subject In the media: Delhi High Court considers Caravan and Ken for evaluating the ANI vs. WMF case From the archives: Where to draw the line in reporting? Recent research: "Misplaced Pages editors are quite prosocial", but those motivated by "social image" may put quantity over quality Humour: Backlash over Santa Claus' Misplaced Pages article intensifies Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols Traffic report: Was a long and dark December
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Archives

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

User:Cla68/Article draft work page

Looking for sources

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

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

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

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

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

Your userpage is in a category

 Your userpage User:Cla68/Evidence/Sandbox has a category, and so appears in Category:Misplaced Pages 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: ]. Other categories might be involved too. -DePiep (talk) 01:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Okay then....

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

Basic courtesy

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)

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

Spelling

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

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)

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

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)

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)

Climate Audit

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 Misplaced Pages Reliable Sources Search engine which allows me to filter through web sites which don't meet Misplaced Pages'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)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

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)

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)

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

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

Trolling

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)

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)

In case you didn't see it

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

more photos

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 15:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Also,

The Milhist election has started!

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 21:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

CC

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)

Happy Cla68's Day!

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) 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)

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

Use of sources

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)

Japanese carriers

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)

If it helps any..

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)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change

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 Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, which is to replace Misplaced Pages: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);

• William M. Connolley
• Polargeo
• Thegoodlocust
• Marknutley
• ChrisO
• Minor4th
• ATren
• Hipocrite
• Cla68
• GregJackP
• A Quest For Knowledge
• Verbal
• ZuluPapa5
• JohnWBarber
• FellGleaming

• The following users have accepted binding voluntary topic bans;
  • Scjessey
  • KimDabelsteinPetersen
• 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)

Topic ban and wikibreak

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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages will be dramatically less for the indefinite future. Cla68 (talk) 08:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

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

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LV (September 2010)

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

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FClimate_change

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

Continued involvement

In a comment at the clarification request, you wrote:

• 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:

• 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 Misplaced Pages'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. .

In recent days you have also continued to edit your essay Misplaced Pages:Activist 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 Misplaced Pages 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)