Misplaced Pages

User talk:Commodore Sloat: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:45, 15 November 2006 editArmon (talk | contribs)4,546 edits Personal Attack← Previous edit Latest revision as of 09:11, 17 November 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,013,364 editsm Fixing Lint errors from Misplaced Pages:Linter/Signature submissions (Task 31)Tags: Fixed lint errors paws [2.2] 
(623 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 6: Line 6:
| |
# ] # ]
# <!--]--> # ]
# ]
#
# ]
|}<!--Template:Archivebox--> |}<!--Template:Archivebox-->
it was a pleasure to make your acquaitance commodore. you keep a cool head under fire. as a practicing attorney, i know better but often fail to do so. there's a latin quote somewhere "that those are more culpable that knowing the better course, and indeed preferring it, continue to stray." Take Care!--Will314159 14:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
:Thanks! And thanks for the great info on Cole; I am heading over to check out that video now.--] 04:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


== Collect ==
Visit http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:The_Israel_Lobby_and_U.S._Foreign_Policy
See any familiar names and/or tactics? Take Care!


Please see my comments at ]. ] (]) 17:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
==Re Cole==
Commodore, responding to your question about Cole:
# I think the question of whether Cole is antisemitic is probably not helpful. It's like the question of whether ] or ] is racist - it ultimately depends on Cole's inner thoughts, which we will never know. And like the question of whether somebody is racist, it makes everybody defensive and never really helps the debate.
# That said, like asking whether somebody is racist, we all generally come to a conclusion, which could easily be wrong, about the various things that make you go "hmmm." I wanted to own my own POV about Cole, but I certainly don't have enough info to actually make the accusation, which is a serious one.
# In Cole's case, I respect that he distinguishes between Jews based on their individual beliefs. Still, for what it's worth, I suspect that he's disproportionately biased against Jews, because (1) opinions to the effect that Likud is morally indistinguishable from the Iraqi or Syrian Ba'ath are sufficiently contrary to what I understand as reality as to make me suspect bias, and (2) there is a strain of conspiracy theory in Cole's writing, such as his theory that ]'s criticism of him was a result of (Click the link - it's hilarious). Again, I don't ''know'' whether Cole is anti-semitic or not, but his leaping to the conclusion that academic criticism is a result of Israeli intelligency or "the shadowy world of far-right Zionist think tanks and dummy organizations" is one of those things that make me go "hmmm," as I say. From what I know of academics, I would expect that angry criticism and exchanges are the norm, not the suspicious exception.
Thanks, ] 20:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


== For your perserverence ==
:Heh, you're right about academics, in my experience :) I think the claim of antisemitism is strange and while I appreciate your contextualizing it clearly in points 1&2 (and I definitely agree w/point #1), but I hope you don't mind me pressing a bit further. Cole may be right or wrong about Likud but it seems bizarre to leap from criticism of Likud to antisemitism. Cole is extremely critical of the Syrian Ba'ath party and of Salafi jihadist ideologies, yet nobody has ever suggested this as evidence of Islamophobia, or even of "things that make you go hmmmm." Again, and I write this as an American Sephardic Jew who has been trained from an early age to be very concerned about antisemitism, I don't see a claim for antisemitism simply from an author criticizing particular Jews. Unless we can show that what Cole says about Feith equally applies to, say, Chaim Perelman, the claim seems both ludicrous and incendiary. I agree with you that the conspiracy theorizing can be a little paranoid, but I would suggest that Cole's paranoia is a fear of what secret and unaccountable intelligence agencies do rather than of what Jews do. If Cole were criticizing writers with close ties to the Iraqi Mukhabarat you might see the same suspicions raise their heads. I think the claim of antisemitism in Cole's case is particularly troubling since he has been outspoken against antisemitism (see, for example, his long-standing campaign against censorship of Israeli academics) and because the only support for the claim comes in a form that your point #1 above seems to invalidate -- i.e. it's not in anything Cole actually says but rather an assumption on the part of the people making the charge that they know what is going on in Cole's head.
:I am getting sick of defending Cole on that page. I don't think he is right about everything; I actually disagree with a lot of what he says, and I agree with those who are sometimes put off by the conspiratorial claims. But the charge of antisemitism seems to trivialize ''real'' antisemitism. Even today there are still far too many people in the world who express antisemitism and other forms of racism openly; using that label to dismiss the claims of people who don't express such views simply because we are suspicious of what might be going on in their heads seems dangerous and insulting to people who have suffered from the real thing.--] 22:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
I agree with the Commodore. Cole is too much of a polemicist. You can make the point more effectively by being a little gentler. He is often a bit too forceful. But, I went to Law School, and I have the same failing. But calling Cole anti-semitic b/c he disagrees with Israeli landgrab politics and criticized the NeoKon cabal is crazy. the NeoKons are as conspicous as the nose on anybody's face! Did they cause the Irag war? I like Uri Avnery's take on it. They wagged the Oil Lobby (Cheney) and Oil Lobby wagged them. And what have we got? And it's not academic. What's coming? Iraq2=Iran. that's why I'm involved in this Cole page. i'm doing my part to keep the record straight and fair so the readers don't get a slanted read on somebody out there giving a valuable level headed perspective. Is being for basic human rights for the Palestinians and for a Comprehensive MidEast Peace based on the Taba Accord or Geneva Peace Plan and the Beirut Arab League King Faisal proposal and anti-WAr an anti-Semite? Take Care! --] 00:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC) EDIT suspect according to Karsh, it would be a "new anti-semite." 01:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Original Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For your persistence in holding your group at ] and elsewhere, Misplaced Pages owes you thanks. ] (]) 23:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
|}


==Thanks==
== Clarification that it isn't personal ==
Here's an answer to that question we've been wondering about. http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Fritzpoll#What_is_consensus_on_Wikipedia.3F
] (]) 20:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


== The Spitting Image ==
Hi. I should have written this sooner because you said something a while back about me not liking you. I just want to make it absolutely clear that isn't the case. For all I know, we could be best buddies in real life despite the inevitable debates. Disagreeing with me is not a problem, my issues are with the specific problems I have with your argumentation. Obviously I've come off as nasty, I've asked you to lift your game, I need to lift mine. Sorry. --] 17:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I've been watching your editing discussion (via edit summaries) with ]. You may have to carry on the discussion by yourself for a while, until he reappears: ]. ] (]) 00:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
:Heh; why am I not surprised. If I recall correctly, TDC was edit warring on that very page (among many many others) 2 or 3 years ago. I had hoped he'd moved on by now. ] (]) 04:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


== Suggestion ==
:Actually, let's take a break from fighting, hold hands, and vote to whack a sloppy article on a ]. ;) ] 16:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
::hehe... definitely something we can agree on there :)--] 19:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


If the personal attacks don't stop I suggest you take the editor to ] or AN/I. I'll comment there as well if that is what has to happen. Regards.] (]) 22:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
:Please do. ] (]) 03:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


== fyi ==


{{talkback|KillerChihuahua}} ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 20:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
== Correcting your correction ==


== ] nomination of ] ==
Mr. Sloat! -- I am not a regular nor am I likely to become one, so I may not be following proper protocol here in replying to your reverting my edit on the Ray McGovern article. I went to high school with McGovern and worked in the Clandestine Service for more years that he was in the Agency as an analyst. He never served as a CS officer (possible brief rotational assignments to combined Centers such as CTC after the fall of the Soviet Union notwithstanding). He cannot, and certainly does not, speak authoritatively for anything having to do with operations, his highly opinionated public commentary on operational decisions at the Agency since his retirement should therefore have no more credibility than the average layman's. Please do not edit my comment based on sloppy journalism at the Boston Globe or any other unofficial publication regarding McGovern's service within CIA. ] 15:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)henrymj
]An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for ]. The nominated article is ]. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "]").
::Hi Henry. If you have outside knowledge that the Boston Globe was incorrect, it is considered ] unless you can back it up with a published source. I actually don't have a problem with your point that he never worked clandestinely, but the rest of what you wrote - that he can't speak authoritatively about the CIA or that he has no credibility - is an opinion that really isn't encyclopedic. If you have published this opinion anywhere, or if a journalist has printed it in an article, we can quote you here, but Misplaced Pages isn't the appropriate place for such quotes to appear for the first time in print. --] 19:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
:Mr. Sloat, Since I have direct knowledge of McGovern's never having been a CS officer (he entered the Agency in 1963 to the DI; I entered in 1965 to the DO and spent a career there that went past McGovern's by at least 4 years, and I also know him personally as we attended Fordham Prep at the same time (he was a class behind), and we have met from time to time since. Consequently, I think I can state with great confidence that he was NEVER an operations officer, and was unlikely to have ever become one since he expresses disapprobation for his colleagues on that side of the house. Notwithstanding some brief rotational assignment to a common DI-DO (now NSC) Center such as the CounterTerrorist Center where he would have served as an analyst, not an operations officer and would not have been involved directly in operations beyond possibly as a targetting officer (making him more hypocritical in his current criticisms than I had previously regarded him), it is false to state that he was an operations officer. The Boston Globe is just plain wrong, and published or not, if Misplaced Pages wants to maintain any sort of reliable reputation, it ought to take its information from more reliable sources. If you want to check my correction, ask McGovern; his email address must be available on one of his publicity seeking sites. Or ask the Globe where it got such erroneous information. There are many of us who served honorably and long with the CS who do not wish to have our reputations sullied by attributing expertise to McGovern based on false credentials. So, at least, honor my corrections by deleting the paragraph claiming him to be an operations officer until you have a reliable published source, if you need one, not a sloppy bit of reporting from the Boston Globe. At best, you should state that "According to the Boston Globe, McGovern was a ... which has been questioned by other CIA retirees."
:If all this is academic because I am not properly attributing my comments on the McGovern page, let me know how to do that or where to find out how, and I'll happily conform.] 20:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
::Henry, I have no reason to disbelieve you; I'm not questioning what you say at all. As I said above, what I object to is the insertion of opinion about who has the authority to speak on a particular matter. I think your proposed solution is a good one - delete the paragraph altogether - but you should make the case for that on the talk page for that article, not to me. (Go to the article and click "discussion").--] 20:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to ]. Please be sure to ] with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>).
:OK, I wasn't insisting on the opinion. I'll see what happens if I try your suggestion. ] 11:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the ] template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
== Deletion tag on article you worked on ==


'''Please note:''' This is an automatic notification by a ]. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --] (]) 01:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. Since you have worked on the article, thought I would give you heads up. Someone has tagged ] for deletion. (Same players that deleted the Whatreallyhappened article before that.) ] 10:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


== Stalking by TDC == == "Communist genocide" cat ==
]
Do not feed him. Report his antics to the . Relax. TDC has been under various degrees of bans before. You are not the first to enjoy his shenanigans. ] 21:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
:Thanks. You're right, I already know he is a troll; he seems to be very good at figuring out what button to push to set me off, however...--] 21:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


Agree with your "wtf?" about the category "", but as long as it exists (someone created it as a sub-category minutes ago) it'll have to stay there in compliance with wiki's child-category conventions. I '''strongly urge you''' to nominate the category for deletion. If you do so, let me know, I'll support it :) ] (]) 07:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Sloat, your repeated claims that you have never stalked anyone does not hold up under scrutiny. I have (as well as Ron and a number of other users to be sure) on far to many occasions that after an edit war or content dispute with you on an article, you immediately show up editing another completely unrelated article that we have been working on. I can only suspect that after you “won” a particular debate you feel emboldened enough and dig though our contributions for another victory lap. This has to stop sloat; it completely flies in the face of civility, and harassment.
:Can you nominate it then? I am not sure how to nominate categories as opposed to articles. It seems clear it was just created in order to score points in the ongoing debate on that talk page. ] (]) 07:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
::Im not sure how to do that either... I'll ask ], maybe that'll get it moving... ] (]) 07:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
:::It has been . ] (]) 08:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
::::Good. gave my vote. ] (]) 08:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


== Weekly Stan ==
Consider this your last warning.


What are you talking about? Where is your ref? I can't see it. ] (]) 00:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
The sad thing is that you see this as some kind of battle of wills and wits with other users instead of what it should be: a collaboration to write well informed article that abide by Misplaced Pages’s guidelines.
:At the end of the sentence is a footnote and you click it and it takes you to by the magazine's editor explaining "the neoconservative persuasion." If that's not enough for you I added another footnote with a direct quote from Max Boot to the footnotes. For heaven's sake, '''everybody''' calls the Weekly Standard neoconservative, the magazine is practically a synonym for the term. I don't understand why people insist on removing statements of the obvious from the lede in articles, or piling on footnotes in the first sentence of an article to demonstrate a claim that is assumed by every single source cited in the article. ] (]) 00:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
::Hi, I responded on the talk page about . As I said there; that is what confused me, it (the article) is not by the editor and founder (Bill Kristol) but by the founder's father (Irving Kristol), a scholar and writer in his own right. His statements are not policy or guidelines for the magazine. That said, you have made a cogent argument on the broader issue and a convincing one. I have therefore added a second citation related to the characterization and structured the lede in the same fashion that other opinion magazines are handled at Misplaced Pages. I hope that it meets with your approval. ] (]) 13:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


== Help! Autoblock?? ==
And before you begin pointing fingers at me, you brought my name into this.] 14:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
:TDC please read ], and stop harassing me, and stop accusing me absurdly of harassing you. Thanks!--] 14:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


unblock|When I try to edit a page I am told I have been "autoblocked" due to a "3RR violation." I see no such discussion on my talk page, or, indeed, anywhere, and I am at a loss in going through my history to find any 3RR violation at all. There was no warning, no commentary, and indeed no 3RR violation. Can someone tell me what's going on? Thanks. ] (]) 23:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
: If you refuse to have a civil conversation on this matter, that too bad. My "warning" to you is that action can and will be taken if you do not modify your behavior and stop your harrasment of other users. This will be my last comment on this subject. ] 14:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


Well I figured out what happened; the admin tried to block another user and accidentally blocked me. It shows as unblocked on my block log, but I am still blocked :( Can someone help or do I have to wait for the block to expire? ] (]) 23:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
::TDC please read ], and stop harassing me, and stop accusing me absurdly of harassing you. Thanks!--] 14:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


{| width="75%" align="center" class="notice noprint" style="background: none; border: 1px solid #aaa; padding: 0.5em; margin: 0.5em auto;"
Not to mention any one in particular - since that would be a personal attack - I'll simply observe that some people are fascist, torture-cheerleading, sock-puppeting, article-gerrymandering, User Talk-stalking, threat-making assholes. The less time we spend thinking about them, the better. Keep the faith. ] 16:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
|-
| valign="top" style="padding: 0.5em" | ]
| style="padding: 0.1em" |


'''Your request to be unblocked''' has been '''granted''' for the following reason(s):
==Orwellian==
<br><br>] #1552880, remnant of accidental User Block
It's kind of amazing to see myself being accused of stalking by someone who has repeatedly stalked me, and to be vilified for butting into a discussion that I was a part of by someone who was never a part of the discussion. Then when RonCram jumps on the bandwagon to repeat the same claims rather mindlessly, I showed him the specific Misplaced Pages policy on harassment, and explained why his interpretation of my actions was incorrect. In response, he ended the debate and then censored any further discussion by me. Ron, of course, is someone who has called me a censor on repeated occasions. Even worse, TDC jumps on Ron's page to personally attack me again, knowing that Ron will do his bidding for him by deleting my responses. I have deleted material from my own talk page that is annoying or personally attacking, but I have never deleted only one side of the debate in order to bias the debate the way Ron is doing. I find it all quite fascinating. I'm just talking to myself here. Hopefully nobody will "butt in."--] 15:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


''Request handled by:'' ] (]) 23:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
==RfC==
I have filed an RfC on your behavior. ] ] 17:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


<small> '''Unblocking administrator''': Please check for <span class="plainlinks"></span> on this user after accepting the unblock request.</small>
== Re RfC ==
<!-- Request accepted (after-block request) -->
|}


== Merge ==
Commodore Sloat and I have been involved in several disputes, and we rarely see eye to eye. He is betimes overzealous in his struggle against unfairness, and is not shy about speaking his mind, especially under provocation. He has apologized for some WP transgressions. In my experience, he listens to what people say, and responds in a forthright manner.
Those willing to listen to what he has to say will inevitably learn something.
He has strong opinions, but has been willing to compromise. I have no doubt that his primary motivation is to improve WP articles, even when I question whether he is accomplishing that goal. I unhesitantly take his side in this RfC.


Csloat,
If you think the paragraph above would be helpful, please let me know where to paste it.
] 09:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


I left a message at the talk page about the merge. I do believe there is consensus, but I apologize for not explicitly showing everyone where it can be found. I also did "merge" the material. The issue is that most of the criticism entry is excessive detail (bloat) or redundant with material that was already in the main entry. If you disagree on specific pieces of information that did not make the crossover please mention them on the talk page. You can see the merge . Thanks.] (]) 16:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
== saddam/al qaeda talk page ==
:I reviewed the situation some more and found yet another discussion where two additional editors support a merge (with no others commenting). I went ahead and undid your revert for now. I have outlined it all on the talk page of the criticism entry and apologize once again for not making this clear before my merge. Thanks.] (]) 16:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
hey csloat. i just wanted to respond to what you wrote on the talk page. i don't know if you were implying a conspiracy, but that's what it sounded like. all my edits have been my own. when i posted the fox news translations, i was surprised by the reaction and thus took an active interest in the page. i feel i'm always defending myself against accusations from you, but this one is more personal. there is no conspiracy, i know you don't like my edits but i stand by them, and i enjoy debating you when things don't get personal. accusations stifle healthy debate and we should not engage in it. i do appreciate you helping me with my redundancy problems in the page. ] 17:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
::Thanks for that explanation. Part of it is my fault; once a page is moved it's harder to find , so I was looking at the wrong talk page, where the discussion of merge was over a year old. ] (]) 02:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


== ] == == Mass Killings etc. ==


Commodore,
::I updated the ] talk page and hope this clears things up a bit regarding myself.
:::::::Sincerest Regards, -- <i>]</i> 03:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
==1984==
Hi, I just read your comment here ]
and had to tell you, I know the feeling well. I get the definite impression here at the wiki, and in the 'real world' as well, that 1984 is here. It is beginning. Anytime you want to drop me a note, please do. I would love to hear from you. <font color="003366" face="Verdana">]</font><font color="006666" face="Veranda">]</font><sup><font color="3906A2">]</font></sup> 08:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


We're in the middle of a re-write - what I added will be sourced in more detail down the page, but I'm still going through sourcing. The sources are there - please look at the references added recently, and the ones mentioned today on the talkpage. The problem before was that the "genocide" issue was messing everything up (because the word was defined - on wiki and in real-life too - more or less to have a go at anything wrong communist governments ever did).
==Hello==


I have no idea, given that I keep listing sources that identify the three examples as a group to be studied together (with debate on the extent of the true similarities and the role of ideology in each), why there are people insisting the article is irretrievable SYTNH. I think everyone has a hangover from the last AFD. The ''main'' authors you should check are Valentino, Rummel, and Harff and Gurr, but I keep finding more works about each country individually that also use the others as a point of reference. In other words, there's no synth, just a matter of summarising the sources in a well-organised manner. And that takes time. You've been on wikipedia a long while - surely you appreciate that. I believe I am an editor of good standing, who can be trusted not to be messing around with things like POV SYNTH.] (]) 10:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Re: ]
:It still looks like synth to me. I explained my problem with each of the sources on the AfD page. Do the sources talk about "communist mass killings" as a concept and discuss the ideological coherence of this group in a dialogue with each other? It doesn't look like it to me. ] (]) 16:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
:: Thank you for actually engaging in the issue. I feel that we can establish practical criteria for whether or not this article is ultimately a case of synthesis or not. I take your criticisms seriously, and I recognise the dangers in cherry-picking from sources in a way that misrepresents the academic work. I happen to believe (at the moment) that there is a case to be made for representing in wikipedia academic (and legal) debate on putative connections between communism and mass killings - and you don't believe a coherent debate exists. Fine - that's a clear disagreement based on wikipedia principles. My problem with the AfD is that it is thoroughly premature, and that there is a prima facie case for letting people work on it. Fifelfoo and Andersll have both said that if after all the work, it's still basically synth, they would vote for deletion. I would too. My position is that if we can show that the question has been treated as a legitimate question in academic debate, that the three cases in particular are compared and studied, then there is a case for keeping. I will do my best to be honest about that. The pleas for more time are not delaying tactics.] (]) 02:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
:::Well, it looks like the AfD will fail anyway, so I think you will have your wish. If you think it is salvageable, please help salvage :) I have my doubts but I will see what happens. ] (]) 05:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
:::: It'll fail, but only as a stalemate. It's much better have a clear decision and community support one way or the other, which is why I'm interested in engaging with you and others. Anyway, we'll try our best over the next few weeks.] (]) 06:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
:There is a problem, in my mind, with Termer's conduct in attempting to source on the article, and I've said so there. ] (]) 03:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


== Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Amwestover/Swiftboating ==
I casually looked at the edit, found it bad, and decided to revert it. I did not know that there had been an extensive conversation about this very subject on the talk page. I know little about ]. I had read the entry before but that was about it. I decided to let others with more knowledge and interest debate it. I would suggest never using the word "lie", even if it is true. Instead use more diplomatic terms such as "completely fallacious" as you do.


Hi. I moved the MFD to: ] because the old page was archived and should not be edited further. ] <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 23:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I was in a big war with TDC and an anon last year, over ] which went to arbitration. I think they maybe breaking the rules of the arbitration, but I am not sure. What concerned me so much is how I was so down on TDC originally, and I was blind to the exact same tactics of the anon until later. So I hesitate to get involved in these recent edit wars when my imparitalitly and bias is obviously on the liberal side. I readily see TDC's behavior, but maybe I am blind to your behavior being the same. Maybe you delete information just as actively as he does. I dont know. You probably wouldn't want me to get involved in these arguments because, like ], I actively offended everyone.
:Thanks; I kind of figured I was doing it wrong. ] (]) 03:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
::Any time. Take care. ] <sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 03:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


== A friendly request ==
''"hopefully he will eventually come to see that adding information is better than deleting it and that more points of view make wikipedia stronger"'' This is my biggest concern. In fact, it is my only concern. In about a half hour of looking over his edits, I noticed there are several pages he deleted large portions of text. I find it troubling, but I don't know how to stop it, and after ] I question my own impartiality in the process. I got interested in TDC's edits again, when I had unwatched ] and TDC came along and deleted almost the entire quotes section, citing POV. Often, instead of adding material which counters what he sees as POV, he deletes large sections.


Could you do me a favor and avoid using words such as contempt, as you did . Legal terms generally carry negative connotations, as such they are best left off arbitration case pages. As I said above, just a friendly request. Thanks. ] (]) 20:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
He is a real smart guy and he could push his POV much more effictively if he just used more diplomacy. Anyway, best wishes. Can I ask why the RfC was dropped against you? I protested against the RfC on CJK's talk page. Out of courteousy, I will let TDC know about this coversation we are having, although he probably already watches your page. ] (]) 15:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
:It's not a "legal term." ] (]) 02:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


== ] ==
===Suggestion to stop edit wars===
] and


I collapsed the discussion because (a) it's literally the same arguments as ] which was just closed; and (b) the argument had gone way beyond usefulness. If you think there should be another article, create it. If you think this should be deleted, AFD or DRV it. If you think the title should be changed, suggest ''that''. Otherwise, is not a way to start a serious discussion (and is not a serious editor). The article as it is barely coherent and nobody seems to even be bothering with the actual sources used. If you want to reopen it, go ahead but if the thing goes off-topic again, we better not be back at ] with more complaining. -- ] (]) 11:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Contact this third party wikipedian, who helped me with the most sophisticated conservative on wikipedia: ]
:I'm sure the AfD will be reopened eventually if needed. The arguments have actually progressed because the issue now is not deleting the article but removing SYN and renaming if necessary. Censoring that discussion is unproductive. And if an abusive editor is reported to AN/I, the solution is to discuss it with and/or sanction the editor, not to censor the discussion on talk. I don't think I've ever seen an active discussion closed down because of an editor before. ] (]) 18:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
:By the way, the two links you give are certainly illustrative of your point - those are not serious edits - but you censored the entire discussion, not just the anon ip's drive-bys. There's a lot more there. Again, the big problem here is the synthesis violation, but if you believe Misplaced Pages policies in this regard are a "lie," I'm not sure what I can do about that. ] (]) 18:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


==]==
Signed: ] (]) 15:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I wanted to let you know that I'm not pursuing the Nuclear 9/11 thing any further. I'm spending my limited WP time on several other interesting articles that have come my way. However, feel free to cut material from the ] to expand the ] article if you wish. ] (]) 03:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
==]==
This article, which you participated in, is currently up for deletion, editors are welcome to share their opinion there. thank you. ] <small>''(formerly ])''</small> 13:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


== Post-structuralism to poststructuralism ==
==Pillar==


Hello, do you think it would be acceptable to change the article from the former to the latter? I have left a note about it on that talk page: No one responded. I have asked you and Coffeepusher for ideas. Check Google for how often the terms are used: it seems clear that "poststructuralism" has greater currency. --] (]) 01:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Don't argue with him. He is convinced that Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks and nothing you say will change that. Just focus on stopping his pro-"Saddam/9-11" conspiracy theory POV pushing in articles. Responding to politically charged comments will only turn talk pages into discussion forums, something that nobody wants.--] 02:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


==On Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity Committed in Albania during the Communist Regime for Political, Ideological and Religious Motives==
:I have removed the section before it fills the talk page like the other commentary has.--] 02:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
An editor has proposed renaming this article. His original choice was "Albanian genocide law". However I oppose any change of name because no reliable sources provide a short form for the law and there is another law on "Genocide" under the Albanian criminal code, while this law has been repealed. Please comment at . ] (]) 00:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


== ] exists ==
==Vandal==


neutral notification ] (]) 13:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
RE: ] and the revert you had today....
:thanks! Missed it, but it's probably for the best... ] (]) 23:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


==AfD of article you worked on==
Thought you might want to know: ]. ] (]) 13:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Please see: ]. ] (]) 04:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


== ANI ==
Also thanks for your contributions to ] You doubled the size of the article. Now we just need a non-deleting conservative to edit the page to make it more balanced... ] (]) 13:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
:Yeah I've been noticing that guy's nonsense on the CIA pages for a while now; it seems like Mr Reza is a friend of his he's trying to play a joke on. As for non-deleting conservatives, I'm sure a deleting one will show up soon enough since he stalks my edits with regularity ;) I don't think I've given him much to do, however, since everything I added is pretty verifiable, and has been acknowledged by both sides. There's still a lot to do on that page however.--] 17:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
::I keep thinking he and another user are the same person, but I already did a user check and they are not. I said before they share the same brain, but not the same body. This other user likes to debate with me more, which I like, and doesn't seem as prone to delete items as TDC.] (]) 23:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. (I did not start the discussion; the original poster failed to notify you himself.) --] (]) 13:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
==Need vote in AfD==


This involves the website you have linked to on your userpage. If you don't own that website anymore, you might want to change/remove that info. ] (]) 20:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
]


Signed: ] (]) 03:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC) :You surely know that it isn't Commodore Sloat's website anymore, because it's yours.] (]) 08:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
::Whatever you say, SuaveArt. Looks like you denied your other accounts, too. ] (]) 20:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


Thanks for the heads up. I don't come around that much anymore so it seems I missed the discussion before I could contribute (though I thought I felt my ears burning the other day...). It's too bad because I could have filled in the following details which would have saved everyone aggravation: I let the website lapse a couple years ago (or longer? I don't remember) and it got snapped up by a right wing fundamentalist who apparently had been waiting for the opportunity (he had a blog at shockandblog.blogspot.com I think, and when he pounced on the domain he posted a note about how he had swiped it from an irresponsible leftist or some such). I had no idea he was a wikipedia editor too, and I don't recall having any wikipedia arguments with him (though who knows; there were a lot back in the day). I doubt he took the website to retaliate for any Wiki-related nonsense; I think he just really wanted the domain name. And as I compare the archive to what's there now, I really should have made more of an effort to hold on to it; but, oh well ;)
==fact tag on cole page==
I read the relevant Talk page, and your are not alleging that the article is not factual. You are alleging that it is missing some context (Cole's claim that he was not interested in the job) - go ahead and add that context. But the article as it is does not contain any disputed facts. ] 00:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


A question of curiosity; was it my name that was posted to the ANI discussion and then deleted, or Jinxmchue? ] (]) 19:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
== Inivitation to essay ==
:Thank you for clarifying, Sloat, and sorry for the misunderstanding. The real name posted to the noticeboard was that of "Jinxmchue", which was obtained from the Whois results of that domain. By the way, I am not nor do I know in real life SuaveArt, and only now did I get the "not a Republican" comment (made by the Minnesota IP on the incidents' noticeboard). ] goes by the handle "NotARepublican" at the ], but that just popped into my head at this moment. ] (]) 11:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


== Source for CIA doubts/Niger uranium forgeries ==
Hi Commodore Sloat, I have noticed your very sensisible comments on several academic biographies of late. I'm sure you saw it on the bell hooks talk page, but I would particularly invite your comments or contributions at ], if you are so inclined. It's "meta", and you may prefer to work on content than administravia. But I've tried to point it in a general direction that addresses a large swatch of concerns I repeatedly run into on academic bios. <font color="darkgreen">]</font>×<font color="darkred" size="-2">]</font> 16:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


I didn't pull the section right off as I'm not trying to be a deek here, but could you come up with a better source than Slate "Chatterbox" which is self described as "Gossip, speculation, and scuttlebutt about politics"? (look at the top of the page, it really says that!) There's been lengthy Senate Intelligence Committee Reports on this matter, as well as other official inquiries, if it is a fact that Condi Rice received a to-the-point memorandum from George Tenet to not include ANY reference to yellowcake in white house speeches, surely there is better sourcing available than a political op-ed/hit piece on Cheney at a page which distances itself from its own material with such a description?
==Query about RfC==
This is not dissimilar to problems I had with NPGuy's edit. A lot of accusations were being thrown around in June/July 2003, talking heads and pundits were printing anything and everything that sounded good. That's why the official inquiries and reports were done, to get to the bottom of it and just because we can find a source for a claim doesn't mean it is fit for inclusion, particularly if official inquiries held at a later time debunk it. I'm going to see if the Senate Report specifically addresses the charge, I won't remove it until I do or if you can't find a better source within say a week or two. ] (]) 08:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Greetings, I was wondering how one goes about getting a conduct RfC going. If you've seen ], you'll know that (1) editors have tried to work with ], but (2) he doesn't know how to play well with others. Evidence for (1): I took one of his paragraphs and revised part of it in a NPOV and kept it in the article, rather than simply blanket removing his changes. I did the same thing with his criticism section at ]. All well and good. But meanwhile, (2), he continues to insert the same criticism paragraph day after day, despite the fact that he has gotten no consensus for it, various editors delete it on sight, and the first third of it is completely redundant, since the version I edited is in the article. So, we have someone who repeatedly ignores ]. My question is whether an RfC is appropriate in such a case, or whether there is another avenue. I've been editing for about six months, but I haven't run into much of this before. Thanks for any pointers.--] 13:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
:Better sources are always a good idea :) I added a couple, though I left the Slate "chatterbox" link in since it is the earliest mention I found of the memos, but there is probably more out there. ] (]) 19:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
:P.S. I wonder if you would care to comment at the admins' noticeboard, ]. Thanks,--] 15:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
::An article RfC is usually a more appropriate first step. But the ignoring of consensus makes it clear that this is a conduct problem, not a content problem. Anyway, the instructions are ]; at the very minimum, at least two users have to contact this person on his talk page first and ask him to stop. If you are not trying to find other ways to solve the problem before turning to RfC, it will be rejected. So let's try that first; since both of us have tried to get this guy to stop on the talk page, let's post to his user talk page and see if that helps. (I may have already done that, I can't recall, but will do right now).--] 18:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I've started ]; if you're familiar with this, please join in. (A second five-tilde signature is necessary as well.) Thanks,--] 19:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


== You and I both know, Sloat. == == 'cool story bro', Freud ==


Hi. on After I made an edit you made a comment about my edit which I took to be sarcastic (but really I can't be certain), then my edit was removed (reverted) by someone else (a science fiction fan whose knowledge on Psychology/Freud/Hypnosis history is unknown). What is your take on this? I was honestly trying to make the section more informative, but went a little overboard. Still, I think there is an important distinction to be made here. What do you think? ] (]) 04:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
That an article forcing the combination of a living person's views with their criticisms doesn't float. Your objections thus far focus on my being "new" to an article, and baseless accusations of trolling. Just stop the rhetoric, really. What are your objections to the format used for countless other often-criticized pundits? ] 00:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
:Oh wow... that comment was indeed sarcastic but it wasn't directed at you at all -- someone must have reorganized the messages so it looks that way. I was poking fun at the anon ip who was arguing that Freud is no longer relevant and therefore the page should be deleted. Looking over the edit history I don't see the changes that you made, but I certainly agree with what you wrote on the talk page, that more information about Freud's relationship to hypnosis would be helpful. But I don't see any edits by you on the Freud page? ] (]) 20:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
:My objections have nothing to do with other articles. My objection is to an unexplained change made to an article that took weeks of discussion to acheive consensus on a name and focus for. There may be other articles about "criticism." That's lovely. The Juan Cole article is about his views and the controversies surrounding those views. You would have noticed this had you read the article -- section 1 is "Views" and section 2 is "controversies." If you would like to see that changed, please enter the discussion page and make a reasonable argument rather than complaining about Ann Coulter. Thanks.--] 00:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
:I just changed the talk page so that the comments are in the proper order. Somehow my comment and the response to it got stuck in the middle of your comments about hypnosis. ] (]) 20:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi again. Thanks for the clarification. Yeah, I thought that was a little weird and I suspected that your comment was in the wrong section. Looking at the history here: you can see my edit. Maybe I'll make it more concise and try again. ] (]) 19:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
::Which is your edit, neither has your userid on it? In the link you gave I prefer the one on the left as it's more precise. Being concise isn't an issue I think; the difference is maybe 8 words? ] (]) 21:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the one on the left was mine. And you're right about what you wrote on the Freud talk page; the subject of Freud's relationship, or ''anyone'''s relationship to hypnosis was especially complicated then, but can be awfully tricky in the 20th century, too. ] (]) 10:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


== A cup of coffee for you! ==
== AfD ==


{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
If you would like to throw your two cents in on what I consider to be an obvious delete, you can find the AfD discussion here: ]. <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 15:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ]
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | one needs a lot of energy on wikipedia ] (]) 17:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
|}


== Nayirah ==
== ] 2nd AfD ==


I see you don't edit much anymore, but I thought you'd like to know that ] was reworked.] (]) 02:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I've reverted your change to the old Afd discussion. If what I think you're doing is what you're doing, you want to open a 2nd Afd because someone recreated it, right? Hang on, and I'll do that for you in just a jiff. ]] 06:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


== Archiving material on CSUN ==
: You can't just blank the old discussion - hang on and I'll have it finished in a few minutes. ]] 06:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


Hi, Sloat!
::Okay - you can find it at ]. Those 2nd and 3rd noms can be really confusing, but it's all good now. In a minute, I'm going to list the original on the 2nd nom page (just a link to the debate), but in the meantime go ahead and give your 1st deletion reason. Happy editing - ]] 06:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


I stumbled upon your link to an archive on Gary Webb stuff: ]. I am in the process of archiving materials from the website "Cocaine Importing Agency"
== Invite to the Thunderdome ==


] (]) 18:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I left this message on both ] and User talk:Commodore Sloat.


== ] ==
If the two of you are interested in having it out internet smackdown style, I invite you both to sign up at and start a thread in the Thunderdome forum. CU doesn't have anything near the strict civility rules of WP, and in the Thuderdome, even those rules are suspended for the most part. If you both declare it "mano a mano", the moderators will keep everyone else out of it, and you guys can settle your dispute (or at least make your feelings known) in a ] atmosphere. Who knows, one or both of you might decide to stick around. Liberals aren't banned out of hand, and there are even a few lib mods. We do expect them to back up their talking points with facts though. Stop by the Welcome Wagon forum to introduce yourselves after the blood sweat and tears are cleaned up. ] 22:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
:Uh, no thanks. It's bad enough having to deal with TDC here. If you want to talk us into a debate, I'm down for a live public debate -- the kind our leader -- anytime. But I see no point in wasting even more of my time on yet another aggravating internet smackdown forum. Let's concentrate on improving an encyclopedia here instead of trying to insult each other based on presumption of what our politics are, ok?--] 18:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
:: No problem. I just thought it would be a way to let you guys vent outside of WP, preventing incidents like on Friday in the AfD. I have to admit, it would also provide some entertainment for my ] buddies at CU.] 18:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
:::Advertising for forums I believe is considered spam. Even on talk pages. Please refrain from doing it in Misplaced Pages. --] 19:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


Hi,<br>
== ] ==
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current ]. The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages ]. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to ] and submit your choices on ]. For the Election committee, ] (]) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
IS the equivalent neologism to BDS. No one but a small percentage thinks they are real "syndromes" or "conspiracies." I responded on the talk page. I don't really appreciate the personal attacks. I have never questioned your motivations as far as I recall.--] 16:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=693174033 -->
:I meant to criticize your words, not your motivations; I hope my comments were tied to what you actually said. I disagree that "conspiracy" is the same as "syndrome." If you don't believe BDS is a real "syndrome," why did you say it was? Sorry for anything I said you took offense at; if there's anything else you'd like me to respond to, let me know here, because I took that page off my list.--] 18:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
::Please re-read what I wrote. Look at the AfD page. I think there is a political aspect to it, just like "conspiracy" is not an accurate word to refer to opposition to Clinton, "syndrome" is not accurate as a medical term. But both "conspiracy" and "syndrome" are used to describe a core of people that are opposed to everything that Clinton and Bush stood for respectively. If Clinton/Bush said the sky was blue, there are people that would immediately claim they are lying and wrong. That's the "conspiracy" and "syndrome" in a nutshell. ] is a notable neologism and describes a group of people even if there isn't a "conspiracy." Similarly, BDS is a notable neologism and describes a group of people even if there isn't a "syndrome." And besides, I thought describing it as a "real syndrome cybersexually transmitted through the Democratic Underground circle jerk" was pretty funny but perhaps crude. I hope you didn't think it was serious. --] 19:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
:::Fair enough - I suppose I let some of this stuff get to me too much, which is why I felt it best to just take that contentious page off my watchlist. Again, my apologies.--] 02:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


== ArbCom 2018 election voter message ==
== Re : AfD/Post Election Selection Trauma ==


{{Ivmbox|Hello, Commodore Sloat. Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
Per ] this is a clear case of no consensus present, given that even a simple majority of opinon is not present. A merge vote is not counted as a delete, and usually consensus stands at 70% treshold or more. I must admit that some AfDs does receive really poor responses, but in this case I believe it does gather sufficient attention as I handle cases where decisions have to be made with as little as 2 'votes'! - ''Best regards'', ]''']'''] 10:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
== ] - ] ==


If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. ] (]) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi: I think you're right that the link to ] was not correct on the ] page, thanks for the change. I'm trying to flesh-out the "See also" section there. ] 16:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2018/Coordination/MMS/03&oldid=866998024 -->


== ArbCom 2018 election voter message ==
== Calm Down ==
I am not a troll, and there is no need for that kind of language. ] 17:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
:If you leave a message on someone's page accusing them of stalking and telling them in essence to 'shut up and get to work', you might be violating ], and shouldn't be surprised at an emotional reaction. You may want to consider whether in fact '''you''' are the one out of line, and perhaps ought to leave sloat's page alone for a while until you've something of value to discuss beyond making accusations and being disrespectful. -- ] ] 19:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
::Ryan - my apologies that this discussion has migrated to your own talk page; thanks for providing your relevant and level-headed input.
::TDC, I left you a message on your talk page after you used the on one of your deletions on another page to attack me unjustifiably. You attacked me there for something I never did, to make matters worse. I asked you to stop bothering me, and made the entirely appropriate suggestion that if you had a problem with one of my edits, you first make sure it actually was my edit you had a problem with, and then that you take that problem to the talk page. Instead of responding to my message you accuse me of stalking without any justification whatsoever -- we have been through your groundless assertions about stalking again and again, including through a phony RfC that you started, and you have been proven wrong about it again and again. So please drop the silliness. I was responding directly to a comment you had made naming me as an offender of some sort -- to claim that is stalking just shows that you don't take this encyclopedia seriously at all. That is why I believe you are a troll TDC -- you have been caught lying over and over again, and you don't even care -- you continue to make false statements and baseless accusations. For you this appears to be a lot more about trying to piss off individual wikipedia editors you don't like rather than about improving any of the articles. Now I'm going to ask you again to please leave me alone. I really don't have time to engage people who cannot be honest in discussions here.--] 20:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
::: First, considering how abusive you have been in edit summaries, you should anticipate that your criticisms fall on deaf ears. And for someone who has little time to engage “people who cannot be honest in discussions”, you sure seem to be making that time. But perhaps it would be better to drop this, for now. ] 20:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
:::: TDC, antagonist in a nasty dispute with another editor? It's not the first time, or even the 10th. ] 21:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


{{Ivmbox|Hello, Commodore Sloat. Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
== ] on ] ==


The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Please don't revert again, or you will be blocked for violation 3RR. Also, is not appropriate. Please don't let it happen again. ] 17:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. ] (]) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
==''how's that wikivacation coming, Anthony? ;)''==
|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}
hey csloat. i see you read my post on my user page. i've enjoyed debating you and have learned a lot from our back and forths. i learned facts from you i wouldn't have found on my own and i never took our spats personally. but i really don't have time to be a wikipedia contributor anymore, at least in the way i want to be. take care!] 20:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2018/Coordination/MMS/03&oldid=866998024 -->

==And one for the Commode-or==
] ] 01:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

== How about this for a suggestion... ==

See ] 01:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

== PEST AfD ==

Hi. Thanks for your message about ] and your comments on ]. As someone who reads some conservative blogs, I remember the coverage of this from November 2004 and I've noticed continuing references to it in those blogs. It's not a hoax (as you've discovered since writing your message to me). On the other hand, the "syndrome", the psychologist who coined it and the 2 or 3 newspaper stories about it are, IMO, way below Misplaced Pages's standards for notability. Getting mentioned by the '']'' is more significant, but still not enough for ]otability. The only way in which it is notable is as an ] used by conservative bloggers and ]s. I'd say it just scrapes in as notable enough for a wikipedia article.

Incidentally, Commodore, I've started paying special attention to your comments on AfD discussions, because you make lots of good points. I don't always agree with them, but I take them seriously. Cheers, ]<small>]</small> 12:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on the PEST AFD. ] <sub><small>( <font color="Red">]</font> <font color="Green">]</font> <font color="Blue">]</font> )</small></sub> 19:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

== Apologies ==

I apologize for what may have seemed like a put down.--] 07:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
:No worries; you're right, I need a break. I can't believe I put that much energy into one word. Eventually the page should reflect that Kramer has a particular axe to grind and that his organization Campus Watch has as its raison d'etre to attack the credibility of professors perceived as insufficiently supportive of Israeli policies in its occupied territories; but for now I'm content to find other things to do :) --] 22:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


==3RR violation ==
Your latest edit to ] is your 4th revert in 24 hours. Please self-revert it, or I will report you. ] 19:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
:Ha - nice one. Looks like you just violated the same rule, but I can't report you because I am now blocked. A wonderful display of good faith; have a nice day.--] 17:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

== Cole Quicktime ==
Thanks Commodore Cheers Will314159 19:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
FYI Commodore interesting reading http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/ezekiel.htm http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/csa-mem.htm best wishes Will314159 19:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

another b.s. block initiated by Isarig. Once he violated 3RR. I let him go. he turned me in. I got blocked for 24 hours. then I turned him in for his violation prior to mine that i had let go in a forginving nature, and it was ignored. he's a real prince. Sorry it happened Commodore. Call for help next time. take care! Will314159 18:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
:Anyone can report him; just go and post a note with links to each of his four reverts. I believe his fourth revert was 24 hours and 5 minutes, so perhaps technically he has not hit the ceiling, but he is clearly gaming the rule in bad faith -- particularly since he turned me in for violating it. For him to do so and then go ahead and revert the same material a fourth time himself, especially when there is a discussion ongoing about those particular changes, shows astounding bad faith. Especially now that his actions have effectively locked me out of that discussion. CSTAR is correct; Isarig is very good at manipulation. Of course, I have no one to blame but myself for violating the 3RR, but it is quite obvious that he played me like a fiddle there. A conduct RfC may eventually be in order if he keeps this up.--] 20:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

]haven't figured out how to do the legend Will314159 00:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

:: It's speculation on your it was made it in bad faith; maybe he did, maybe he didn't. Attempting to infer motives in a way that you can actually logically support is very difficult, and is also draining. --] 02:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

== User notice: temporary 3RR block ==

<div style="background-color: #f9f9f9; border: 1px solid red; padding: 3px;">
==Regarding reversions made on ] ] to ]==
<div class="user-block"> ]
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the ]. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.</div>
<!-- Template:3RR5 --> The duration of the is 24 hours. ] 08:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)</div>

== Fukuyama's "Misprison" ==

The reason I am not willing to let this idea that Fukuyama somehow is guilty of an intentional distortion of Hegel's Dialectic is because I don't understand how Marx can turn Hegel's writing (that our conscious ideas influence and shape reality) upside down into Dialectical Materialism (that our cultural ideas are shaped by the facts of reality) and be called an absolute genius, and yet if Fukuyama tries to make a more conservative interpretation of his dialectic and say that liberal democracy, not communism, is the end-point of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, then it's a misprison. ] 04:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
:The problem seems more fundamental than that -- and this is why most Hegelian philosophers, who are far from Marxist, reject the notion that Fukuyama is Hegelian or even a serious philosopher. Hegel did not argue for a neat "synthesis" -- his notion of Aufhebung (much better translated by the word "sublation," invented from the Latin specifically for the purpose of translating this term) was not a simple "synthesis." In addition, Fukuyama's entire understanding of Hegel comes from Kojève, whose focus is entirely on the chapter of the Phenomenology on Lordship and Bondage. Kojève has been rightfully criticized on this point, and as influential as his reading has no doubt been, it is entirely accurate to say it is a misprision of Hegel. Fukuyama then misinterprets and oversimplifies Kojève, which is why I called his reading a misprision of a misprision (though Fukuyama's misreading is arguably less intentional and more simplistic than Kojève's). To compare Fukuyama to Marx, finally, is kind of silly if you've actually read any Marx beyond the ''Communist Manifesto'', though it certainly makes sense if that is all you've read of Marx.--] 05:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

::: I don't like the patronizing tone of your last comment. Granted, since you seem to have more experience and you made an appropriate cite, I've ceased editing the Fukuyama article because you were right, but that doesn't mean I will simply allow you to flippantly dismiss me as some sort of armchair political scientist. I have The Early Writings of Karl Marx sitting on my coffee table right here in front of me. If you took into consideration the historical context Fukuyama was writing in, and WHY he wrote The End of History, then the comparison is quite frankly, gee whiz, golly, not so silly. If you're going to plug your ears and say that Marx had nothing to do with the Soviet Union, then fine, but that's ignoring the Hegelian, and later Marxist assumption (That History was on THEIR side) that influenced every aspect of Soviet foreign policy (as explained by ] in his famous 1947 ]). This assumption was what Fukuyama's essay was about. He did not just suddenly sit up one day in an ivory tower and say "Aces! I just had the most astounding reflection upon Hegel's concept of history! I think I'll write an essay about it!" He wrote it in the '''wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union as a superpower'''. ] 02:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
::::Where did I write that he didn't?--] 06:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

== Thanks for generating a new site for me ==

Hi Sloaty, honey, I am missing a comment over on the Patrick Lang discussion board. You left this wonderful contribution were you generated a new site layout especially for me. Here is your contribution again, in case you forgot:

:The Cartoons thing appears at the top of every page on that site. Click on "Mesopotamia" and it's still there. It's an ad for their pdf about the cartoon. Maybe a mistake; maybe they are just spamming links to the cartoon. I don't think Lang is singled out here. has the same ad on it.--] 20:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much dear.

http://www.baghdadmuseum.org/ref/index.php?title=Commodore_Sloat_csloat

But you still did not answer my question why a search "Patrick Lang" + Misplaced Pages did bring up the link while "Commodore Sloat csloat" + Misplaced Pages brings up zero?

http://www.baghdadmuseum.org/ref/index.php?title=LeaNder_de_Cologne ] 21:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
:I have no idea. I think it's just broken wiki software and you're reading too much into it.--] 21:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

== Deletion tag on article you worked on ==

Hi there. Since you have worked on the article, thought I would give you heads up. Someone has tagged ] for deletion. (Same players that deleted the Whatreallyhappened article before that.) ] 10:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

== 3RR question ==

Sorry, didn't notice your comment before. That's certainly a lot closer to 3RR than 6 reverts in 6 days, or even 4 reverts in 25 hours. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 14:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
:I can certainly suggest to Isarig that 3RR is not an entitlement, and that dicussion is often the better approach. Would you like me to try to mediate the Karsh page? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 15:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
::Yes, it would help to suggest the reasoning for the 3RR because he seems to think it is as you said, an "entitlement." I don't know if mediation on Karsh would help - I'm not involved in editing that page; I wound up there because of Isarig's antics on the Cole pages. But it can't hurt.--] 15:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

==Will314159's block==
I have reviewed the reasons given for Will314159's block and I find the length of the block to be consistent with his actions. If a consensus of other users disagrees with me, I will gladly overturn it, but at present I feel the severity of his comments justifies the length of the given block. However, I appreciate and thank you for the time taken in leaving a reasoned, conscientious request on my talk page. Best regards, ]]]<small>]</small> 05:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
:Alas, an RfC is what's needed, but it's not in my court to file it. Also, it's 1:50 AM where I am right now and I desperately need to go to bed. Good night, ]]]<small>]</small> 05:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

== OBL worldwide perception article AFD ==

You might be interested in this ]
::::::::Regards, -- <i>]</i> 07:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

==Following Policy==
Hi again. I have removed your attacks from my User Talk page. I have apologized to you for incivility in our interaction; it is unnecessary to stalk my other edits and use them to attack me. If you do not accept my apology, I don't know what to say. But there is no reason to torment me on my talk page. If you feel my conduct is a violation of Misplaced Pages policies, there are procedures in place to enforce those policies. Feel free to use them. I personally disagree with you. Have a nice day!--csloat 22:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

:In providing my responses on your talk page I was answering and also expressly following policy as well. So, to do those things I had to use your talk page. That is what your talk page is for. It is not a matter of attack as you suppose. If you did not notice, I did not warn you about incivility JUST to me. The complaint was wider and more general than that. And so, in answer to your question, I presented the pattern of behaviors and responses that are the subject of the complaint. It is a problem that you have in the way you interact. You need to tame it. That is the message. I appreciate the apology but it is meaningless if it does not result in changed behavior. If you feel tormented, then change your manners so that such things do not have to appear on your talk page. But, once again, that is what a talk page is for.... to bring these things to your attention. I am following policy, even if you do not like it. Have a nice day. --] 22:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

:Thank you for your comment on my talk page. I would prefer to engage in a dialogue than to have you throw accusations on my page and then announce that you don't want me to respond. I felt it was an attack. I removed your comments because (1) I was not allowed an opportunity to respond to them, and (2) I felt you were incorrect. You cited items as personal attacks that were simply accurate statements of my perception of what was going on. User ss108 had posted a quote that Salon is a "tabloid" claimed that quote meant it was not good investigative journalism. I showed that the quote was taken totally out of context, and that it specifically went on to defend Salon's investigative journalism. This is a fact. He continued to assert the claim, ignoring my comment and the rest of the quote. At that point, yes, I felt that the action was mendacious. And, yes, I did think your arguments in defense of his position bordered on the absurd (please check and see that I changed the wording of that sentence so it was clear that I was attacking the argument and not you). I participate on Misplaced Pages out of a desire to improve these articles and offer my contribution on issues I have expertise or knowledge about. When someone says something that I think is incorrect, I will state that fact. That is not incivility. And as you should know, ] does not mean an editor should have to ignore reality:
::This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying. Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice. Accusing the other side in a conflict of not assuming good faith, without showing reasonable supporting evidence, is another form of failing to assume good faith.
:I feel that ss108s actions were evidence not of malice per se but of the intentional distortion of a quotation in order to make a point that the quotation did not make. That is, to me, the definition of mendacity. I did not accuse you of such, but I did say that I thought your position bordered on the absurd. I still do. Salon, as I have shown, is a widely respected outlet for responsible journalism, and in the entire discussion we had, you did not once post a single piece of evidence to the contrary. Once again, I apologize for expressing my frustration in a manner you found uncomfortable, but I do not believe I have violated Misplaced Pages policies.--] 22:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


You are welcome regarding the comments. I understand about the problem of not dialoging but you have been aggressive and impolite and after a while, I prefer to just walk away from that sort of thing rather than continue it. I would not have posted again to your talk page except that 1). you asked a question and 2). I reviewed the procedures on the matter and that was the right thing to do. I do not mind if you remove my comments, although I do not agree with your reasons. Even if you perceive things in a particular way, you should be civil and you were not. As far as ss108 goes (I do not know him and never interacted with him), even if you disagree with him, and even if he is in the wrong, you should not "give as good as you got". I do believe you were in violation of policy but I do not mind if that is all in the past. My only real interest is that things are better in the future. I do not hold grudges nor do I consider the past a perfect indicator of the future. If the future is better than the past, then I am an easy person to get along with. That is.. as soon as people learn the proper way to worship me :-). --] 01:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

== 3RR specialists get away with their behaviour. ==

I've noticed similar behaviour from this person. I'm not sure of the best way to progress. I'm currently collecting evidence (adding to a text file on my m/c) against a contributor who carries on in an even more POV fashion. ] 20:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

Regarding , are these not somewhat noteworthy (if not reliable) sources? If not, this is at least a vein of criticism which, at least in somewhat less hysterical form, looks like it may warrant mention in the article. It would be far better to find a secondary source ''describing'' the "controversy", but something on the matter should probably be included. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 02:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
:Noteworthy in what way? They are at the radical right wing fringe of Middle East Studies, at least on this issue, and some of them (not necessarily Karsh) are known for an organized assault on the discipline through the MEQ and an organization called Campus Watch. I would definitely be fine with a secondary source describing the controversy if one existed, but one doesn't exist (to my knowledge) because this is not a notable strain of critique. Karsh has an article in a nonacademic magazine attacking Cole's blog; when Cole responded he said the claims were "beneath contempt." They are. The only reason Armon and others are so vehement about keeping these claims on here appears to be to give them more visibility. If a third party source can be found discussing this dispute that would be fine. The problem is that the claims themselves are ludicrous; they are not about reality, but they are about what Karsh thinks Cole must be secretly thinking, even though when Cole talks about it explicitly he says the exact opposite. It is poor reasoning by Karsh that is being elevated to encyclopedic status. Such a thing would never appear in a print encyclopedia. The fact that Karsh published the claim does not make it noteworthy or encyclopedic. I also believe it explicitly violates BLP to include it, and you have unfortunately protected a version of the page which is in violation of these policies.--] 07:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

== Isarig and 3RR ==


I have been having a problem with Isarig. Can you tell me about you experinces with this user? ] 05:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

== Can of Worms ==
I have no illusion of changing his mind, and I only try to engage his points as they pertain to wikipedia content and references. I really have no idea what the wikipolicy or best practice is on this kinda stuff, but isn't there some sort of mechanism, watchlist (how ironic, given his political beliefs!), or anything regarding editors who consistantly push POV over long periods of time? We can remove a lot of what he says based on ], but in the end I'm worried my (IMHO otherwise little-tarnished) reputation will be damaged by simply "fighting the good fight." Have you taken any official courses of action (admins' involvement, mediation, community ban, etc.)? If so, what was the experience like? Thanks so much for the reply, btw. I tend to remove this sort of communique after it's received. /] 09:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

== Personal Attack ==

{{NPA}}

, is a blatant personal attack. I'm frankly sick of this behavior, and will report it if it continues. ] 23:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 09:11, 17 November 2024

Archive
Archives
  1. June 2004 – May 2006
  2. May 2006 – December 2006
  3. December 2006 – December 2007
  4. December 2007 – May 2009

Collect

Please see my comments at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Collect. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

For your perserverence

The Original Barnstar
For your persistence in holding your group at Juan Cole and elsewhere, Misplaced Pages owes you thanks. The Squicks (talk) 23:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Here's an answer to that question we've been wondering about. http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Fritzpoll#What_is_consensus_on_Wikipedia.3F Skywriter (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The Spitting Image

I've been watching your editing discussion (via edit summaries) with McGuiness. You may have to carry on the discussion by yourself for a while, until he reappears: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/TDC. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh; why am I not surprised. If I recall correctly, TDC was edit warring on that very page (among many many others) 2 or 3 years ago. I had hoped he'd moved on by now. csloat (talk) 04:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

If the personal attacks don't stop I suggest you take the editor to Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts or AN/I. I'll comment there as well if that is what has to happen. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Please do. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

fyi

Hello, Commodore Sloat. You have new messages at KillerChihuahua's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

KillerChihuahuaAdvice 20:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

"Communist genocide" cat

Agree with your "wtf?" about the category "Category:Communist genocide", but as long as it exists (someone created it as a sub-category minutes ago) it'll have to stay there in compliance with wiki's child-category conventions. I strongly urge you to nominate the category for deletion. If you do so, let me know, I'll support it :) Seb az86556 (talk) 07:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you nominate it then? I am not sure how to nominate categories as opposed to articles. It seems clear it was just created in order to score points in the ongoing debate on that talk page. csloat (talk) 07:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Im not sure how to do that either... I'll ask User:Simonm223, maybe that'll get it moving... Seb az86556 (talk) 07:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
It has been done. csloat (talk) 08:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Good. gave my vote. Seb az86556 (talk) 08:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Weekly Stan

What are you talking about? Where is your ref? I can't see it. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

At the end of the sentence is a footnote and you click it and it takes you to this article by the magazine's editor explaining "the neoconservative persuasion." If that's not enough for you I added another footnote with a direct quote from Max Boot to the footnotes. For heaven's sake, everybody calls the Weekly Standard neoconservative, the magazine is practically a synonym for the term. I don't understand why people insist on removing statements of the obvious from the lede in articles, or piling on footnotes in the first sentence of an article to demonstrate a claim that is assumed by every single source cited in the article. csloat (talk) 00:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I responded on the talk page about this article. As I said there; that is what confused me, it (the article) is not by the editor and founder (Bill Kristol) but by the founder's father (Irving Kristol), a scholar and writer in his own right. His statements are not policy or guidelines for the magazine. That said, you have made a cogent argument on the broader issue and a convincing one. I have therefore added a second citation related to the characterization and structured the lede in the same fashion that other opinion magazines are handled at Misplaced Pages. I hope that it meets with your approval. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Help! Autoblock??

unblock|When I try to edit a page I am told I have been "autoblocked" due to a "3RR violation." I see no such discussion on my talk page, or, indeed, anywhere, and I am at a loss in going through my history to find any 3RR violation at all. There was no warning, no commentary, and indeed no 3RR violation. Can someone tell me what's going on? Thanks. csloat (talk) 23:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I figured out what happened; the admin tried to block another user and accidentally blocked me. It shows as unblocked on my block log, but I am still blocked :( Can someone help or do I have to wait for the block to expire? csloat (talk) 23:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock #1552880, remnant of accidental User Block

Request handled by: Fribbler (talk) 23:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Merge

Csloat,

I left a message at the talk page about the merge. I do believe there is consensus, but I apologize for not explicitly showing everyone where it can be found. I also did "merge" the material. The issue is that most of the criticism entry is excessive detail (bloat) or redundant with material that was already in the main entry. If you disagree on specific pieces of information that did not make the crossover please mention them on the talk page. You can see the merge here. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I reviewed the situation some more and found yet another discussion where two additional editors support a merge (with no others commenting). I went ahead and undid your revert for now. I have outlined it all on the talk page of the criticism entry and apologize once again for not making this clear before my merge. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that explanation. Part of it is my fault; once a page is moved it's harder to find the previous talk page, so I was looking at the wrong talk page, where the discussion of merge was over a year old. csloat (talk) 02:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Mass Killings etc.

Commodore,

We're in the middle of a re-write - what I added will be sourced in more detail down the page, but I'm still going through sourcing. The sources are there - please look at the references added recently, and the ones mentioned today on the talkpage. The problem before was that the "genocide" issue was messing everything up (because the word was defined - on wiki and in real-life too - more or less to have a go at anything wrong communist governments ever did).

I have no idea, given that I keep listing sources that identify the three examples as a group to be studied together (with debate on the extent of the true similarities and the role of ideology in each), why there are people insisting the article is irretrievable SYTNH. I think everyone has a hangover from the last AFD. The main authors you should check are Valentino, Rummel, and Harff and Gurr, but I keep finding more works about each country individually that also use the others as a point of reference. In other words, there's no synth, just a matter of summarising the sources in a well-organised manner. And that takes time. You've been on wikipedia a long while - surely you appreciate that. I believe I am an editor of good standing, who can be trusted not to be messing around with things like POV SYNTH.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It still looks like synth to me. I explained my problem with each of the sources on the AfD page. Do the sources talk about "communist mass killings" as a concept and discuss the ideological coherence of this group in a dialogue with each other? It doesn't look like it to me. csloat (talk) 16:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for actually engaging in the issue. I feel that we can establish practical criteria for whether or not this article is ultimately a case of synthesis or not. I take your criticisms seriously, and I recognise the dangers in cherry-picking from sources in a way that misrepresents the academic work. I happen to believe (at the moment) that there is a case to be made for representing in wikipedia academic (and legal) debate on putative connections between communism and mass killings - and you don't believe a coherent debate exists. Fine - that's a clear disagreement based on wikipedia principles. My problem with the AfD is that it is thoroughly premature, and that there is a prima facie case for letting people work on it. Fifelfoo and Andersll have both said that if after all the work, it's still basically synth, they would vote for deletion. I would too. My position is that if we can show that the question has been treated as a legitimate question in academic debate, that the three cases in particular are compared and studied, then there is a case for keeping. I will do my best to be honest about that. The pleas for more time are not delaying tactics.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, it looks like the AfD will fail anyway, so I think you will have your wish. If you think it is salvageable, please help salvage :) I have my doubts but I will see what happens. csloat (talk) 05:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
It'll fail, but only as a stalemate. It's much better have a clear decision and community support one way or the other, which is why I'm interested in engaging with you and others. Anyway, we'll try our best over the next few weeks.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
There is a problem, in my mind, with Termer's conduct in attempting to source on the article, and I've said so there. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Amwestover/Swiftboating

Hi. I moved the MFD to: Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Amwestover/Swiftboating (second nomination) because the old page was archived and should not be edited further. Dr.K. logos 23:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I kind of figured I was doing it wrong. csloat (talk) 03:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Any time. Take care. Dr.K. logos 03:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

A friendly request

Could you do me a favor and avoid using words such as contempt, as you did here. Legal terms generally carry negative connotations, as such they are best left off arbitration case pages. As I said above, just a friendly request. Thanks. KnightLago (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not a "legal term." csloat (talk) 02:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes

I collapsed the discussion because (a) it's literally the same arguments as the AFD which was just closed; and (b) the argument had gone way beyond usefulness. If you think there should be another article, create it. If you think this should be deleted, AFD or DRV it. If you think the title should be changed, suggest that. Otherwise, this is not a way to start a serious discussion (and this is not a serious editor). The article as it is barely coherent and nobody seems to even be bothering with the actual sources used. If you want to reopen it, go ahead but if the thing goes off-topic again, we better not be back at ANI with more complaining. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure the AfD will be reopened eventually if needed. The arguments have actually progressed because the issue now is not deleting the article but removing SYN and renaming if necessary. Censoring that discussion is unproductive. And if an abusive editor is reported to AN/I, the solution is to discuss it with and/or sanction the editor, not to censor the discussion on talk. I don't think I've ever seen an active discussion closed down because of an editor before. csloat (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
By the way, the two links you give are certainly illustrative of your point - those are not serious edits - but you censored the entire discussion, not just the anon ip's drive-bys. There's a lot more there. Again, the big problem here is the synthesis violation, but if you believe Misplaced Pages policies in this regard are a "lie," I'm not sure what I can do about that. csloat (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Nuclear 9/11

I wanted to let you know that I'm not pursuing the Nuclear 9/11 thing any further. I'm spending my limited WP time on several other interesting articles that have come my way. However, feel free to cut material from the userspace version of Nuclear 9/11 to expand the nuclear terrorism article if you wish. Johnfos (talk) 03:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Anti-communist mass killings

This article, which you participated in, is currently up for deletion, editors are welcome to share their opinion there. thank you. Okip (formerly Ikip) 13:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Post-structuralism to poststructuralism

Hello, do you think it would be acceptable to change the article from the former to the latter? I have left a note about it on that talk page: No one responded. I have asked you and Coffeepusher for ideas. Check Google for how often the terms are used: it seems clear that "poststructuralism" has greater currency. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 01:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

On Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity Committed in Albania during the Communist Regime for Political, Ideological and Religious Motives

An editor has proposed renaming this article. His original choice was "Albanian genocide law". However I oppose any change of name because no reliable sources provide a short form for the law and there is another law on "Genocide" under the Albanian criminal code, while this law has been repealed. Please comment at the article's talk page. TFD (talk) 00:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:Articles_for_deletion/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes_(3rd_nomination)#Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes exists

neutral notification Collect (talk) 13:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

thanks! Missed it, but it's probably for the best... csloat (talk) 23:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

AfD of article you worked on

Please see: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Justus Weiner (2nd nomination). Jaque Hammer (talk) 04:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (I did not start the discussion; the original poster failed to notify you himself.) --64.85.220.196 (talk) 13:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

This involves the website you have linked to on your userpage. If you don't own that website anymore, you might want to change/remove that info. 67.233.243.145 (talk) 20:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

You surely know that it isn't Commodore Sloat's website anymore, because it's yours.96.26.213.146 (talk) 08:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Whatever you say, SuaveArt. Looks like you denied your other accounts, too. 67.233.244.224 (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I don't come around that much anymore so it seems I missed the discussion before I could contribute (though I thought I felt my ears burning the other day...). It's too bad because I could have filled in the following details which would have saved everyone aggravation: I let the website lapse a couple years ago (or longer? I don't remember) and it got snapped up by a right wing fundamentalist who apparently had been waiting for the opportunity (he had a blog at shockandblog.blogspot.com I think, and when he pounced on the domain he posted a note about how he had swiped it from an irresponsible leftist or some such). I had no idea he was a wikipedia editor too, and I don't recall having any wikipedia arguments with him (though who knows; there were a lot back in the day). I doubt he took the website to retaliate for any Wiki-related nonsense; I think he just really wanted the domain name. And as I compare the archive to what's there now, I really should have made more of an effort to hold on to it; but, oh well ;)

A question of curiosity; was it my name that was posted to the ANI discussion and then deleted, or Jinxmchue? csloat (talk) 19:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying, Sloat, and sorry for the misunderstanding. The real name posted to the noticeboard was that of "Jinxmchue", which was obtained from the Whois results of that domain. By the way, I am not nor do I know in real life SuaveArt, and only now did I get the "not a Republican" comment (made by the Minnesota IP on the incidents' noticeboard). user:SuaveArt goes by the handle "NotARepublican" at the Misplaced Pages Review, but that just popped into my head at this moment. 96.26.213.146 (talk) 11:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Source for CIA doubts/Niger uranium forgeries

I didn't pull the section right off as I'm not trying to be a deek here, but could you come up with a better source than Slate "Chatterbox" which is self described as "Gossip, speculation, and scuttlebutt about politics"? (look at the top of the page, it really says that!) There's been lengthy Senate Intelligence Committee Reports on this matter, as well as other official inquiries, if it is a fact that Condi Rice received a to-the-point memorandum from George Tenet to not include ANY reference to yellowcake in white house speeches, surely there is better sourcing available than a political op-ed/hit piece on Cheney at a page which distances itself from its own material with such a description? This is not dissimilar to problems I had with NPGuy's edit. A lot of accusations were being thrown around in June/July 2003, talking heads and pundits were printing anything and everything that sounded good. That's why the official inquiries and reports were done, to get to the bottom of it and just because we can find a source for a claim doesn't mean it is fit for inclusion, particularly if official inquiries held at a later time debunk it. I'm going to see if the Senate Report specifically addresses the charge, I won't remove it until I do or if you can't find a better source within say a week or two. Batvette (talk) 08:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Better sources are always a good idea :) I added a couple, though I left the Slate "chatterbox" link in since it is the earliest mention I found of the memos, but there is probably more out there. csloat (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

'cool story bro', Freud

Hi. on After I made an edit you made a comment about my edit which I took to be sarcastic (but really I can't be certain), then my edit was removed (reverted) by someone else (a science fiction fan whose knowledge on Psychology/Freud/Hypnosis history is unknown). What is your take on this? I was honestly trying to make the section more informative, but went a little overboard. Still, I think there is an important distinction to be made here. What do you think? Mrzold (talk) 04:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh wow... that comment was indeed sarcastic but it wasn't directed at you at all -- someone must have reorganized the messages so it looks that way. I was poking fun at the anon ip who was arguing that Freud is no longer relevant and therefore the page should be deleted. Looking over the edit history I don't see the changes that you made, but I certainly agree with what you wrote on the talk page, that more information about Freud's relationship to hypnosis would be helpful. But I don't see any edits by you on the Freud page? csloat (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I just changed the talk page so that the comments are in the proper order. Somehow my comment and the response to it got stuck in the middle of your comments about hypnosis. csloat (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi again. Thanks for the clarification. Yeah, I thought that was a little weird and I suspected that your comment was in the wrong section. Looking at the history here: you can see my edit. Maybe I'll make it more concise and try again. Mrzold (talk) 19:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Which is your edit, neither has your userid on it? In the link you gave I prefer the one on the left as it's more precise. Being concise isn't an issue I think; the difference is maybe 8 words? csloat (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the one on the left was mine. And you're right about what you wrote on the Freud talk page; the subject of Freud's relationship, or anyone's relationship to hypnosis was especially complicated then, but can be awfully tricky in the 20th century, too. Mrzold (talk) 10:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

one needs a lot of energy on wikipedia Severino (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Nayirah

I see you don't edit much anymore, but I thought you'd like to know that Nayirah was reworked.Smallman12q (talk) 02:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Archiving material on CSUN

Hi, Sloat!

I stumbled upon your link to an archive on Gary Webb stuff: Talk:Gary_Webb#This_Page_Violates_Wikipedia.27s_POV_Standard. I am in the process of archiving materials from the website "Cocaine Importing Agency"

WhisperToMe (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Commodore Sloat. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Commodore Sloat. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)