TALK PAGE OF とある白い猫

{{{ovr|

To post a new topic please use this link or the 'new section' between "edit this page" and "history".

Posts

List of ships attacked by Somali pirates

Firs of all I'd like to thank you for your help in improving this article. It seems like you also update List of ships attacked by Somali pirates that are still captive which has in turn prompted me to award you a barnstar which I will in the next section.

I was wondering if you'd like to help me move information from the IMO pdfs to the article. They have a database of ships attacked by pirates.

-- Cat 00:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

WC, thank you very much for the barnstar. Also, dittos for your work in table-izing the list of attacks from Piracy in Somalia to a separate page. Where is the International Maritime Organization's database? I've browsed the site several times but I'm unfamiliar with it. I would definitely be willing to help. Switzpaw (talk) 00:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

This was posted on the article talk page by someone else ;) You may want to start with September as it is almost finished.

This is September 2008: http://www.imo.org/includes/blastDataOnly.asp/data_id%3D23951/126.pdf

Other PDFs are listed here: http://www.imo.org/Circulars/mainframe.asp?topic_id=334

I have added a coordinate box on the template. It seems with IMO we have a very large database for coordinates making this a standard info. Existing use of coord template needs updating on both the articles.

-- Cat 00:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflict

Hi, I seem to have edit conflicted you and may have reverted things without wanting to do so. Take a look: . I was merely trying to remove {{coord}} uses and adding lname parameters. Feel free to revert as you see fit. -- Cat 19:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Re edit conflict: Just noticed that. I don't have time to go through and fix it now -- I will later tonight when I re-do the seconds portion of the coordinates. While I'm at it, I'll check the existing ones because I think the template may be transposing minutes and seconds with the lat_m and lat_s parameters. Switzpaw (talk) 19:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yea. BTW you forgot to add the lname parameter last time. Don't forget it. :P -- Cat 19:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised that the lname parameter is not being derived from the name parameter... Switzpaw (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

That can be done but there are complex exceptions (such as when multiple ships get involved). -- Cat 20:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Other usernames to include

Hey, while you're at it with your timeline, you may want to include User:Terryeo and User:JustaHulk as well. Terryeo was part of one of the earlier arbitration cases. ←Spidern→ 21:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh boy! :o It will get very complicated it seems... -- Cat 21:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

That is a good idea. Please also consider adding the usernames from here as well:

Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS#COFS

Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS#COFS_2 (see also table combining checkuser info here)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Justanother

Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Highfructosecornsyrup#Highfructosecornsyrup

Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Highfructosecornsyrup#Highfructosecornsyrup_2

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/AI

Some of these may be relevant, some not, will leave that up to you. These are also good pages to look for some other historical and relevant information/findings. Cirt (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll review this after toolserver decides to work again. It seems broken. -- Cat 00:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah okay thank you, no worries. Cirt (talk) 01:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to follow up a bit more: The current "Scientology" Arbitration case which is currently open is the fourth such case (relating to Scientology). For previous cases, see this prudent info provided by Durova:

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/COFS

Hello Jossi, thanks for your quick response.

I noticed your username is actually mentioned on the past arbcom case. User:Anynobody accused you of past involvement on a now ancient discussion. Was that related to Scientology? DO you recall what that was about?

I am merely trying to have a general idea on how everyone fits in the picture.

-- Cat 00:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

White Cat: if you want to do this unsolicited job of gathering evidence for that case, go do it. But please spare me in getting me involved in your investigation. And please do not cross-post. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I am merely conducting a Q and A before going through the contribs of all involved. I'll of course get to the "truth" anyways as the evidence will support it. But I'd rather not go through all your contribution if you can establish the above encounter to be a mere coincidence.

Your replies to my questions may help point me in the right direction. For example it may point me at the underlying breaking point of the dispute even if you weren't involved with it. I am more curious of the interaction between involved parties from the first case and everyone else.

-- Cat 07:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

CSI WP:RFAR/Scientology

Hi, I am going to collect evidence for the Scientology RFAR as an independent third party. I want to point out that I am not the wiki-police nor do I have any kind of official role.

On your statement you said you'll "openly admit that Scientology may have originally drawn me to Misplaced Pages as a motivation to edit". Care to elaborate on that?

You mention a dispute on Wikinews. While that has no official bearing on wikipedia, I'd like to hear more about that. It seems the blocks were temporary or at least are no longer in effect.

Bravehartbear suggests "Scientology slanted editors came out because drastic changes were done" in the Scientology article by you. How would you like to respond to that? Do you think you should be added as an involved party?

To what extent are you involved with the Scientology dispute? Have you made any significant contribution to Scientology related topics?

-- Cat 17:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello, White Cat. I will gladly answer all of your questions, but am not sure of the best place to respond. Seeing as you are an independent investigator here, would you mind if I respond directly on your own user talk? ←Spidern→ 11:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

That would be fine. -- Cat 13:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you've done a great job on your "CSI" subpage, until you made each of the commentaries collapsible. In my opinion, doing so made the entire thing less readable, and a bit tedious to click "show" on every single section. ←Spidern→ 21:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

That does bother me too but the threads are getting too long. -- Cat 22:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Something small

I inadvertantly removed your comment regarding the Moreschi case on the RfArb page - I would like to state here it was unintentional. There's no beef on my behalf. Kind regards, Caulde 17:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

No hard feelings :P.

Seriously though, I wouldn't have noticed had you not inform me. :)

-- Cat 21:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

CSI WP:RFAR/Scientology

Hi Cat, sorry, I wasn't around to see your question. Here is an answer:

"On your statement you talk about your use of public internet hubs and not proxies. To what extend do you move around?"

I am working from two locations, one on the East Coast, one on the West Coast. In between I am logging in from airports or internet cafes. When using wireless I am going through a VPN/SSL connection (or something like that, hub, proxy, maybe there are different names for this). The idea is that the wireless line can be hijacked and using a SSL connection helps preventing that.

"I am not asking for any private info but I want to have a general idea on the distances you travel giving me an idea of how many different IPs you would be using. This may help resolve weather or not the ips are public ones or not."

During a normal week I am using 4-5 different internet lines. I guess that makes 4-5 IPs.

"Another thing you state is that you use "computers in the Church of Scientology" yet on the next paragraph you state that you have never been to the "church of scientology san francisco". TO my untrained eye it seems the two statements are contradicting each other. Care to elaborate?"

There are thousands of scientology groups in existence (7,500, per the latest publications). I assume most of them have internet. Some of them have wifi and I used it there. Others have computers for use, e.g. to watch the scientology video channel or to log in on other scientology sites. I used those too. Or I plugged in my notebook in a network outlet and used this line for internet, like in a hotel. This whole discussion is ridiculous, trying to tie editors to IP addresses will never work. And I haven't even tried (yet) editing on Misplaced Pages through my phone. As for the above statement: I have never been to the "Church of Scientology San Franscisco". That's what I meant. I know most Churches in Southern California, New Jersey, Florida and New York as well as Canada. But somehow I missed SF in my trips.

"To what extent are you involved with the Scientology dispute? Have you made any significant contribution to Scientology related topics?"

I think I am the cause for the Scientology dispute or at least created enough contrast so the "two sides" (pro/con) could be seen better. I am active as a Misplaced Pages editor since 2007 and before I showed up the motto was "happy adding of trash material" to the scientology-related articles and "happy ignoring of anything neutral or anything perceived positive". I registered for the purpose of improving the Misplaced Pages articles on Scientology. My point of critic was and is that primary sources are used instead of reliable sources and that "reliable sources" of the lowest possible quality are used and promoted (I dare say BECAUSE they contain negative material about scientology or related subjects), instead of looking for better material (which would be neutral and defensible). The mass removal of primary sources that happens in the articles right now is what I wanted in 2007. But then, as in Scientology, it again is done in a one-sided way. Dozens of primary sources (to scientology websites) were removed and the trash links to private hate sites kept, including to porn mags (example "Penthouse", which seems to be "ok" as long as the "content" is "anti-scientology").

You could say I am guilty of polarizing. My contributions were not worthless or a violation of Misplaced Pages policy. They were just unpopular because the majority of those who are hanging out in the article (or "watching over it", such as Cirt and AndroidCat) are anti-scientology editors. Their POV/COI problem has never been addressed and I cannot detect any willingness to look at at. Which - if not addressed - would make this Arbcom another farce and a guarantee for the next edit war. Shutterbug (talk) 05:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)