User talk:Travb/Archive 3

Hi Travb, I use various scripts but no bots (bots actually make an edits, while the scripts I use just go out and exctract information and prepare text for me to review and submit). I write my own in python. Haven't used the Python Wikipediabot Framework.

There are a bunch of image upload bots, but I've never used any;

Ævar wrote one in Perl, [1].
There are a bunch at Wikipedia:Bot.
You might also ask for help at [2]

Hey, what's your wiki address ? I promise i won't cause trouble :)

--Duk 10:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your Archives namespace

Could you please explain your custom namespace at Archives:List of U.S. foreign interventions since 1945? I've moved the page to Talk:List of U.S. foreign interventions since 1945/Archives/2006/01 and updated the links to it appropriately. :) // Pathoschild 06:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) // Pathoschild 06:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block-a-sock

I would have loved to block 12.74.75.184 for you, but Voice of All got there first.[3]. I did blank and lock their talkpage. Bishonen | talk 23:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 12.74.75.184 back again

Please take a look at the history of this page, and then at User talk:Fighterforfreedom. I have unblocked conditionally, since there's an apology there. Bishonen | talk 01:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Wikipedia

Yes, I've given up on Wikipedia. Henceforth I'll be editing on dKosopedia, Red Wiki, Demopedia, Anarchopedia, Sourcewatch and wikis like that. Actually, I gave up on Wikipedia months ago and have been editing in those places, but I tried to see if Khmer Rouge could be NPOV'd to make a point.

Did you put up a wiki? Mediawiki? I'll edit there to once you get going. One unanticipated problem I've had is things I write in other wikis are put back into Wikipedia! In the future that wouldn't be so bad, but at this stage it isn't. I guess I'll have to stop writing about obscure topics on them.

Good luck! I advise you to try out editing on the other wikis. I have watched enough my little flowers like the No Gun Ri article turn into ugly weeds. Remember, you're allowed to edit on more than one wiki! Ruy Lopez 03:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

wish you the best. Thanks for the message.Travb 05:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The true apologists

Travb, the true apologists are the ones who want to deny the existence of a Khmer Rouge genocide, such as Ruy Lopez (not that you care). That you take the side opposing the US in every dispute regardless of content says a lot about what the US gets from the world. The real apologists are the ones who only can see bad where there is some good, who can only see good when there is some bad. It accurately describes you. You don't really care about 2 million Cambodians being murdered. You don't really care about the facts of Pol Pot. You don't really care whether or not Ruy Lopez is right or wrong. If you did, if you looked for one second, mabey two, you would have noticed the extraordinary apologia carried out by him. Almost no sources, and against consensus opinion.

Hey CJK, thanks for your comments. If Ruy is how you describe, then I don't support him. Notice in all of my comments, I make disclaimers, again and again. If he is using sockpuppets, I don't support that action, if he is deleting large portions of text, like TDC usually does, I don't support him, if he is a leftist "POV warrior" as you and TDC are on the right, I don't support him. In all of my messages, I say again and again, I don't know enough about the situation to rule on Ruy's behavior, nor do I want to take the hours and hours that it would take to figure this out.

Then don't help him until you know if he deserves it. CJK 23:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I piss off leftists and rightist alike. I can give you numorous examples of this. I admit that in my biases, I have a tendendy to focus on the right more than the left. That troubles me (does this bias, if you have it, trouble you?). In the Winter Soilder Investigation, I initially attacked TDC's POV and unconsiously ignored the anon. But as soon as I realized this bias, I attacked the anon as vigourously as I attacked TDC.

It is not "Disney Land's" version of events to say that if the US prevailed in Indochina, millions of people would be alive today. It is not "Disney Land's" version of events to say that without the US millions of people in Europe, Korea, Taiwan, etc would not be free. It is not "Disney Land"-like to say that 25 million Iraqis can vote for their future for the first time ever. It is not "Disney Land"-like to believe that hard-lined and unfriendly actions are neccessary at times to prevent greater evil.

I will not debate what-ifs because I cannot give you certainities about alternate futures more than you can. This is a belief not based on evidence. It cannot be proven nor disproven.

What part needs evidence? Do you believe that the Communists forced great hardships on their people? Then you can come to the conclusion that other people under Stalinism would have the same reprecussions.

I can state that America killed an estimated 3 million people in Indochina, just as America killed an estimated 100,000 to 1 million in the Philippines, etc. I also find that underneath all of their arguments, many rightwing ideologues are racists, plan and simple. Sure they won't come out and call blacks "niggers" because it is not socioly acceptable, but underneath all of their arguments is the big ugly head of racism. Somehow an American life matters more than a brown skinned life. 3,000 dead in the Twin Towers is somehow worth more than 100,000 Iraqis.

You made up that last number, but ignoring that, if you can't differentiate between acts of terrorism against civilians and accidentally killing civilians in war, then there is no hope for you. CJK 23:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Am I calling you a racist? No.

I would not do that for two reasons:

I don't want to get booted again, and
I haven't talked enough with to determine underneath your extreme nationalist psychology if you are racist.

It is not "Disney Land"-like to say that 25 million Iraqis can vote for their future for the first time ever.

I think it is wonderful that Saddam Hussien was overthrown. I think it is wonderful that Iraqis can vote.

But if you were calling the shots, none of that would have happened. CJK 23:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It is not "Disney Land"-like to believe that hard-lined and unfriendly actions are neccessary at times to prevent greater evil.

Ah, and now we get to the core ideology. Underneath all of those edits is this core ideology. I lived for 2 1/2 years in the former Soviet Union and saw the remenents of ideology. I saw the denial of Stalin's purges and the victims of the Soviet Union. Your ideolgy is no different than the official line of the Soviet Union, except it is for another country. I won't go any further than that, because I don't want overzealous minorites to boot me.

Stalin killed milions of people just to preserve his authority. Your comparison is irrational. CJK 23:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The bottom line is that you beleive in all the American ideology and since after 9/11 I don't.

- - - OK. CJK 23:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

You are probably very religious which feeds this American ideology, and after serving a 2 year relgious mission, I am now atheist.

- - - I could guess. 23:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

You are a hypocrite. You have one standard for America, and another standard for everyone else, whereas I find it indefensible and disgusting that any person denies any attrocity, whether the aggressors be by Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Turks, Soviets, or even Americans. If Ruy is denying and justifying the Cambodia holocaust, he should be condemned, just as I condemned Chomsky on my web blog once for doing the same thing. Just as you should be condemned, and other American apologists should be condemned for denying the attrocities of the Philippine-American War, among other wars.

- - - I have never denied any atrocity. CJK 23:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

With that I conclude, may you find your way without "Disney Land" Eichmanns like myself, who find it morally wrong that one-sided opinions are stated in an international encyclopedia. But seriously, get your facts right before defending Ruy Lopez. CJK 22:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Dont you really mean opinons which are contrary to your own ideology? Like most ideologues, you dress up your argument in such words as "fairness", "equalness" and "non-POV" but underneath this thin vener is an agressive ideology, an ideology that want only one version, the "correct" version of history taught.

- - Please don't try to read minds. CJK 23:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It is similar to the Evolutionists, who after they lost teaching evolution in school, now want "equal time" with intellegent design. It is strikingly apparent that you don't want an "fair", "equal" and "non-POV" wikipedia. You want a wikipidea which reinforces your own biases, American myths, and ideologies. You want a wikipedia which echos America as a "beacon of freedom" to the world.

- - Again, you're trying to read my mind. CJK 23:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Your right, my apologies if I am wrong. I often make assumptions, usually I am right, sometimes I am embarrisngly wrong. Travb 23:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

"creationists don't want equal time. they want All the time there IS." - Isaac Asimov

Again, what I find so disgusting with your ideolgy, is unlike most Americans, who can be partially forgiven for not knowing much about their own history, who can be forgiven for their own ignorance, you and TDC know about the attrocites, and you actively apologize for them, and justify them. That is why I called you the two words of Churchill's that got me booted, that is why I compared you to other active apologists in other regiemes.

Where have I apologized? 23:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Underneath all you and TDC's grandstanding, symbolism, patriotism, religious nationalism, and jingoism is the same psychology as those apologist who still justify Stalin's perges or Cambodia's purges. To me this is morally reprehensible.

- - Its morally reprehensible that Cambodia's purges would not have happened if it wasn't for peopl like you costantly complaining about US actions. CJK 23:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

If Ruy is the way you describe him, he really is no different than you and TDC, except that he defends Cambodian attrocities whereas you and TDC defend American ones. In my eyes there is no difference. You should be equally condemned.

- - Then do it. CJK 23:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

"When adults first become conscious of something new, they usually either attack or try to escape from it... Attack includes such mild forms as ridicule, and escape includes merely putting out of mind." -- William I.B. Beveridge, The Art of Scientific Investigation, 1957

So go ahead and attack me, it is much less painful and disruptive than reflecting on your own ideology.

Your quotes are hollow and meaningless. CJK 23:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

And just in case your wondering, Ruy Lopez isn't really giving up, he's just preparing to come back with another sockpuppet (as it seems so time and time again). CJK 02:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I cannot emphasize this enough, if Ruy is guilty of what you state, he should be booted, regardless of you and TDC's own blatant, indefensible hypocricy.

Tens of millions of Americans, who neither know nor understand the actual arguments for or even against evolution, march in the army of the night with their Bibles held high. And they are a strong and frightening force, impervious to, and immunized against, the feeble lance of mere reason.--Isaac Asimov

Where the "Disneyland" Quote comes from:

Leftists like to explain the disaffection of working-class people with public education as a natural reaction to the patriotism, conformity, and civility pushed by what they call the “ideological state apparatus.” The object of education, according to this view, is to police class boundaries by transforming most kids into a unquestioning drones while selecting a small number of others for management positions. Kids from blue-collar homes are supposed to know intuitively that this is the case, and they respond accordingly, cutting class and getting high and listening to The Wall over and over again. A more nuanced version of this critique, the 1995 book Lies My Teacher Told Me, points out that high school American history textbooks give ”a Disney version of history”: heroic, egalitarian, jam-packed with progress, and almost entirely free of class conflict. Teaching such an “Officer Friendly” account of reality, the author concludes, is merely to “make school irrelevant to the major issues of the day.” The kids know bullshit when they see it.

The disaffection of the Kansas conservatives with public education is almost precisely the opposite. They do not have a problem with the idea that schools should be designed to churn out low-wage workers; indeed, Kay O’Connor (A conservative Kansas state senator) told me that was a worthy goal. The Cons (conservative wing of the Republican party) are pissed off because they think the schools don’t provide enough Disney, enough Officer Friendly.Travb 22:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

??? I don't know about that guy, but I've seen a website supplement of a high-school U.S. history textbook that has links to the No Gun Ri incident. CJK 23:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for your comments. I don't know how you want me to condemn Ruy, I think the arbitrations committee will determine if he should be condemed. Travb 23:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The true apologists, a response

If Ruy is the way you describe him, he really is no different than you and TDC, except that he defends Cambodian atrocities whereas you and TDC defend American ones. In my eyes there is no difference. You should be equally condemned.

Well since my name has been brought into this, I suppose I could comment. The foundation of ethics, that is what is ethical, is founded on the principle of intent. Take several different scenarios, all mentioned above and apply this principle.

Katyn
Pol Pot’s Year Zero Project
My Lai
No Gun Ri

All are well know instances of large scale killings of non combatants, and all can be analyzed with the relationship between intent and the term massacre:

The word massacre has a number of meanings, but most commonly refers to individual events of deliberate and direct mass killing, especially of noncombatant civilians or other innocents, that would often qualify as war crimes or atrocities. Massacres in this sense do not typically apply to combatants except figuratively; the deliberate mass killing of prisoners of war, however, is often considered a massacre.

Katyn

With Katyn we have a deliberate act whose intent was to kill as many members of the Polish intelligentsia as possible. The intelligentsia was seen as threat, because they were all college educated, and as such, could pose as an ideological foil to the communists. This was not only the natural outcome of Stalinist ideology but the order to kill the Polish officers came from the Stalin himself [4]. There were fewer defenders of this, but they do exist. The intent of those in the US/GB was to preserve an uneasy wartime alliance. The intent of others, mainly leftists, was to defend the Soviet system and downplay a “bad example” of socialism in action. They fell back on the fact that this was reported by Goebbels, and used that one fact, along with an official Soviet denial, to pretend it never happened.

But clearly the intent was to kill as many as possible so they no longer posed a threat to the communists, and the order came from on high to do so. Bad intent, unethical and it meets the definition of a massacre

Pol Pot’s Year Zero Project

With the Killing Fields we have a clear intent to murder people, suspected “enemies of the people” and a complete disregard for the ancillary deaths caused by the “land reforms”. Pol Pot and his plan to take Cambodia back to “Year Zero” has had more than its number of defenders. They defend it on several fronts. Some defend the intent: why shouldn’t “enemies of the people” be dealt with in a manner according a revolutionary doctrine (ala Jacques Verges)? Some defend the consequences: surely they could not have meant to kill all those people on purpose (ala Edward Herman). Some deny that it took place at all: sure there are hardships in a revolutionary society racked by years of war, but the idea that millions of people are being killed is propaganda (ala Gareth Porter and Noam Chomsky). Most, if not all the defenders are leftists, and most and fear a repeat of another “bad example” of socialism in action. So they claim that it is not happening, it has been exaggerated, or that it is not an accurate reflection of socialism at any rate. Their motives are so transparent that I am dumbfounded that these individuals still are as widely respected as they are. They still hold their positions in academia, and some even gain employment as staffers for young congressmen from Massachusetts (Porter and Kerry).

But the overwhelming consensus is that Pol Pot and the rest of the KR apparatus intended to kill large numbers of people through their policies and had no regard for the negative consequences of those policies. Bad intent, unethical and it meets the definition of a massacre.

I agree with the above two.Travb 23:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

My Lai

Although My Lai is bantered about as “typical” of US war crimes during Vietnam it was most certainly not typical. With My Lai we do have intent; Lt. Calley’s actions were clearly designed to kill as many people as possible for the reason that he decided to take his frustration for failing to find any VC out on someone else. Now, I don’t know too many people would defend what Calley and his company did, but unlike the previous two examples, there was no sanctioning from Calley’s superiors and the events were not pre planned. Naturally Calley did try to pawn it off on his CO, but this demonstrates what a coward he truly was, as his CO was acquitted. The events at My Lai were an aberration, and those involved were punished, although not to the extent that should have been. My Lai also falls into the category of a massacre, because the intent, like the two above was to kill as many people as possible. What My Lai demonstrates is that events like these happen in war. Individuals acting with their own motivations take unlawful and immoral actions. War brings out the worst in some people, and the best in others; consider that several of the villagers at My Lai were saved by other US troops present.

Although the event was seized on by the “anti-war” left, it was hardly out of any real outrage over the loss of life, because while American war crimes were isolated events, NVA and VC war crimes were policy.

""Many of us have seen the tortured and carved-up bodies of men, women and children executed by the Viet Cong in the early phases of the war. And many of us saw, in 1968, the mass graves of Hue, saw [take note, Mr. Patterson] the corpses of thousands of civilians still festively dressed for Tet, the Vietnamese New Year. Why, for Heavens sake, did we not report these expressions of deliberate North Vietnamese strategy at least as extensively as of the Mai Lai massacre and other such isolated incidents that were definitely not part of the U.S. policy in Viet Nam?

"What prompted us to make our readers believe that the Communists, once in power in all of Viet Nam, would behave benignly? What made us, first and foremost Anthony Lewis, belittle warnings by U.S. officials that a Communist victory would result in a massacre? Why did we ignore the fact that the man responsible for the executions of 50,000 peasants, Truong Chinh, was — and still is — one of the most powerful figures in Hanoi? What made us think that he and his comrades would have mercy for the vanquished South Vietnamese? What compelled, for example, Anthony Lewis shortly after the fall of Saigon to pat himself on the shoulder and write, "so much for the talk of a massacre?' True, no Cambodian-style massacre took place in Vietnam. It's just that Hanoi coolly drives its ethnic Chinese opponents into the sea. That's what Nasser threatened to do to the Israelis, no massacre intended, of course.

""Are we journalists not in part responsible for the death of the tens of thousands who drowned? And are we not in part responsible for the hostile reception accorded to those who survive? Did we not turn public opinion against them, portraying them, as one singularly ignoble cartoon did in the United States, as a bunch of pimps, whores, war profiteers, corrupt generals or, at best, outright reactionaries?

- UPI correspondent Uwe Siemon-Netto reflecting on the media’s selective coverage of atrocities in Vietnam.

No Gun Ri

As Ruy had on his user page:

Soviet troops shooting Polish army officers is a massacre. US troops shooting Korean civilians is an incident.

Or as I would say, "an attempt on a man's life by an NKVD agent is called political activism".

By all accounts of what happened at No Gun Ri the most likely scenario was that green members of the 7th Cav in a disorganized retreat either believed they were under attack by DPKR infiltrators in a refugee group or they misidentified the source of incoming fire. It was hardly a massacre in the traditional sense of the term, as there was no intent to murder non combatants, but self defense. The “defenders of No Gun Ri”, primarily Colonel Robert Bateman, of what happened at No Gun Ri had experience that the AP team who originally broke the story did not, namely they knew that many of the “facts” and “testimonials” did not add to the standard rules and procedures they had experienced in their many years in the armed forces.

Or simply put: no intent, no “massacre”. The title is simply a cheap shot, a way to vilify the United States armed forces, and as one of a very small handful of Wikipedians who has actually been in the military, it is as transparent as the defense of the Khmer Rouge. Nothing bothers me more that to see this bullshit comical characterization of the military and those in it that the left pumps out as gasoline to fuel its agenda. The military in general, and every branch is different, has its own idiosyncrasies, hypocrisies and general quirks, but on the whole it is a fine institution commanded and staffed by good people, and I am sick of hearing elitist fucktard talking heads who don’t know the difference between a BDU, a BUB, a hole in the ground and their ass holes. They portray the military as either stupid kids, bloodthirsty monsters who honed their art of death by playing video games, or the underclass of society who has no other alternatives than to “kill for empire”. These portrayals are childish and naïve at best or libelous and disgusitng at worst.

Now, in our discussion on Winter Soldier Investigation, you repeatedly defended the anon’s edits and his motivations, at least at first. The anon was just trying his best to write an “accurate” article and had a deep sense of righteousness and commitment to the truth, or so he screams at the top of his lungs. But compare what the anon is doing on the WSI article, hyping up uncorroborated stories of “war crimes” in Vietnam, and his attempt to downplay well documented war crimes in another article: Massacre at Hue. He is no better than Lopez, and for all I know might be Lopez editing as an anon.

Don’t assume for a minute that you know me or my motivations for editing. I come here to tell the “unknown story”, nothing more. There is a whole world on information that has never entered the public debate in any meaningful way: i.e. Paul Robeson is known as a courageous fighter of “racism” and “hatemongering” but took overwhelming glee in destroying the enemies of the Stalin (Trotskyites at the Bill of Rights Conference). Pablo Neruda is known for his beautiful poetry and activism, but not so much for the fact that he helped an would be assassin of Trotsky escape prosecution(David Alfaro Siqueiros) or that he was good friends with NKVD assassin Vittorio Vidali. Now replace the words NKVD with CIA, and Stalin with Hitler, and that, and that alone would be seen as their defining characteristic.

I am tired of people who talk out of their asses about everything under the sun. After the recent deaths of miners in Virginia, all of a sudden everyone is an expert in mine safety and operation. But how many of these windbags have even been in a working mine? How many have their yearly 8 hour MSHA refresher? I have. Oh that’s right, NONE OF THEM! (I know I got distracted)

America is far from perfect. But the daily denunciations I hear far exceed the bounds of reasonable criticism. Though this “movement” claims to oppose American hegemony, its true core is it opposition is liberal capitalism, whose chief representative is the United States. The barrage of attacks make it difficult for me to take any criticism from one of the “McChomsky” franchises seriously. One thing I can say about the wave of anti-Americanism that has been with us for 50 years is that the KGB’s Service A sure got some bang out of its buck.

But that’s my $.02. DTC 03:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

thanks for your exhastive comments TDC.Travb 03:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem. DTC 03:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

A true apologist. I wanted to respond to your comments. not that it will change things. You mention four events:

Katyn
Pol Pot’s Year Zero Project
My Lai
No Gun Ri

There are three differences between the four events:

The first two were sanctioned by the highest level of government
Two involved enemies of America, the later two involved America.
You predictably justify the last two involving America, using illogical apologists arguments.

I don't want to go into exhastive detail, simply because I am wasting my time arguing with you TDC. Anon was able to show, in stark detail your blatant hypocricy in regards to copyright violations. I think this goes for most of your arguments, beyond the copyright violations: You appear to have one standard for yourself, and one for anti-Americans, one standard for America, and one standard for everyone else.

I have learned it is a waste of time to argue with such ideologues, they are always right.

I could expand on my third point with strikingly sound, full proof logic, and it simply wouldn't matter.Travb 01:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe I have “justified” anything with respect to the last two. There were no apologies from me for My Lai, as I agreed it was a war crime and those involved were not adequately punished for it. With My Lai, I pointed out that although the event is used to typify the behavior of the US armed forces in Vietnam, is was anything but typical as well as the loudest voices in the issue were some of the quietest when worse offences were performed by the VC and NVA. With No Gun Ri, there is an honest and running debate as to the particular facts around the incident. As for the anon and the copyvio’s, when I was guilty of this, I corrected it immediately, and they were newbie mistakes. When asked to correct them, I did to the satisfaction of all parties involved, end of story. If you think this is a waste of time for you, then I suppose that is your loss. Ten Dead Chickens 17:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sentence in R. Pipes article

Hi Travb, i answered you about the sentence in R.Pipes article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Richard_Pipes#Sentence

Beste Regards (Virgilio 00:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Do you Agree With this?

moved discussion to WSI.Travb 22:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I am glad that anon has added back some of the info on this site. Which shows a willingness to comprimise. You two just fight it out here.Travb 22:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Winter_Soldier_Investigation"

Sure wish we could, Travb, but it appears someone has made it an Arbitration issue, so we must fight it out with the ArbComm instead. As noted in our previous discussions, I presented a statement to the Arbitors with which you disagreed. After seeing your comments on the WSI talk page, I will assume you are once again in agreement, and I will be presenting the following statement to the Arbitors:

The originator of this arbitration case, User:Travb, concludes this on the Evidence page: "Anon refuses to allow critisism of Winter Soldier Investigation, depsite repeated attempts of myself and others to add critism, Anon refuses to allow this information in, causing revert wars." Travb has since, after more serious review, recanted this conclusion and found himself in agreement with my edits.

I trust this is again an accurate representation of your position. 165.247.202.116 01:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Again !?! When have you ever accurately represented anyone's position? Certainly not the first time with Travb, or with Duk. DTC 01:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, TDC. Why are you stealthily deleting other people's edits from talk pages again? Here's a good excuse: Gee, I don't know, I edit everything in Word first and, uh, um... Travb, you might want to check the edit history for this page. 165.247.202.116 02:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

How I feel:

The originator of this arbitration case, User:Travb, concludes this on the Evidence page: "Anon refuses to allow critisism of Winter Soldier Investigation, depsite repeated attempts of myself and others to add critism, Anon refuses to allow this information in, causing revert wars." Travb has since seen progress with some issues but still sees a unwillingness to comprimise from both parties. Travb still feels that ultimatly, arbitration is the only way to resolve this issue.Travb 05:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Who has historically comprimised?

Of the two of you, I have only seen comprimise from 165.247.202.196.

What is so pathetic is no matter how much is comprimised, TDC finds another thing he dislikes about the article.

I moved several of the quotes to wikiquote.org, and that wasn't enough for TDC, we took out all of the exact quotes, which TDC wasted all of his time finding, but was too lazy to modify, and none of this was good enough for TDC.

As I argue above, TDC is trying to make this historical fact of the Winter Soldier Investigation disappear from wikipedia. I have seen no comprimise at all from TDC....

Lets finally see some comprimise from TDC, as we have from 165.247.202.196.-- Travb 04:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC) [5]

Yes, arbitration is the only way to resolve this issue. Would you care to join us there?

Courtesy note: Your name was mentioned here, and you were quoted here. 165.247.212.88 23:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Anon, why now? After the arbitration has ruled and i have lost interest in this destestible arbitration, why are you suddenly intersted in this? I don't want to go back through every post and every argument, I did this for months, and spent dozens of hours.

i am working on my own wikipage now, and I only come to wikipedia occasionally to "protect" what I wrote from apologists and occasionally comment on my chat board. I am burned out on wikipedia for now.Travb 01:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2003 invasion of Iraq

Hi there, when trying to go over the discussion at 2003 invasion of Iraq I saw it has become a big mess. If I see it correctly there was a conflict between an anon and others and now the page has been blocked. I think the anon had a point that an encyclopedia article about any military conflict should not be written exclusively by three members of one the conflicting parties, in this case Pookster11, Swatjester, and Dawgknot who according to this comment all belong to the US military. I therefore suggest to get more people into the boat, that should take the wind out of the sails of bias allegations. As I saw you also edited on that page, would you be willing to help out? Get-back-world-respect 01:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to TDC for deleting this. Get-back-world-respect 03:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

What in God's name are you talking about? Ten Dead Chickens 03:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Too recent of conflict, to mnay strong opinions on the issue. Sorry not interested.Travb 05:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

TDC please dont delete info on my page[6] Travb 05:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Must have been a mistake (considering they were 2 minutes apart was most likely an editing conflict), I apolgize. Ten Dead Chickens 17:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

No prob, figured it was a mistake. Like your name.Travb 21:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

My name is no mistake, I just think its time for a little "flava". Ten Dead Chickens 23:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier case. Raul654 21:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oops

Sorry, I think I screwed up. The bot warned of blanking and I guess I didn't look deep enough. Sorry about that. Tawker 09:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deprecated

Just FYI: The word "deprecated" is always the term used in regard to technical standards or software versions that are replaced by newer/better versions. Looking it up in a general purpose dictionary doesn't get the full nuance of this special sense. No other term is ever used for this specific meaning. Just for you to know.

As to the broader issue of the changing citation templates and all that... well, it's confusing to me as well, and a bit hard to follow. I have not opinion on which templates should or should not be deprecated, but if they are to be, the deprecation should be described using that precise word. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] merger of U.S. intervention lists

I've changed my mind about supporting this merger, and reverted my edits. See the List of alleged United States foreign interventions since 1945 talk page. Kalkin 21:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] merger

I was skeptical at first, but if we follow the formula of "government, media, and whistleblowers" I don't think there would be a problem.

I apologize that I really have no idea whatsoever on what specifically I am being apologistic about. CJK 00:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Go ahead punk

Report me. Almost none of those images are lower resolution. I'm not going to put Wikipedia at risk, no matter that you say you are a lawyer or not. Half of those images shouldn't be used to illustrate the articles anyway. My deleting will continue until a Foundation member or Jimbo tells me otherwise. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I've removed your comment on this from WP:AIV where it did not belong. This is a legitimate content dispute and not vandalism. Incidentally, Ta bu shi da yu is pretty clearly right; fair use images should only be used when a reasonable case for fair use has been made. Chick Bowen 23:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

See, for example, Talk:Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia#Time, ie you need to answer Ta's concerns, SqueakBox 00:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy for our policy. It states, "The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. Low-resolution images should be used instead of high-resolution images (especially images that are so high-resolution that they could be used for piracy). Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately." Also, "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose." It also emphasizes that fair use images should not be used unless a free image could not serve the same function. Ta bu shi da yu is not removing all Time covers; he is removing the ones that do not specifically discuss the appearance of the subject on the cover. Many of those are used in articles that have multiple fair use images, often more than is necessary. This is clearly against our policy. I'm sorry that Ta bu shi da yu has been so curt in addressing you, but there's no doubt that our use of these images has become a problem. Chick Bowen 00:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Your arguments will be addressed on Category talk:Fair use TIME magazine covers RFC on the issue.

You ignored my questions. I am familar with fair use policy.Travb 00:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

It's cool. Sorry, I was in an incredibly silly mood when I wrote that heading, never meant it to be aggressive! The thing is: we don't actually like fair use. It's not something we encourage, and it is better by far to have PD, GFDL or other compatibly licensed images. Anyway, I would like to apologise for my aggressive tone: I was out of line and it made things... difficult... for all concerned. The truth is, we have several sites that have picked us up on this issue, and they don't like us one little bit. One carefully placed phone call to TIME and we could be in a lot of bother. Also, it was good that you picked me up on the issue: I do need to explain myself more fully. We need people like you who are on the ball! So don't stress, you did the right thing, I just behaved badly when I responded. I do apologise for that! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Vandalism"

Fellas, time out!!!! I handled this whole situation apallingly! Travb was right to ping me on it, though maybe not to assume vandalism. I think we can put this down to newbieness, so let's not bite our valuable new contributors! Travb, I appreciate your concerns, but am more concerned about how we aren't using fair use rationale and limiting the use of fair use images. I am concerned that fair use is getting out of hand: we don't encourage it's use and we've been far too lax about it lately. This was probably something you weren't aware of. This is not your fault: you, unfortunately, stepped into the middle of a bigger issue.

So everyone: cool down (this includes myself). This editor is valuable to us, as he wants to make Wikipedia stronger and is not trying to weaken us. Travb, I appreciate your feedback and hope my explanation is clear! If it isn't, I will try to explain further and clear up any points you need addressed. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, the parts that you seem to have missed is the first sentence of Wikipedia:Vandalism. I was pointing you there for the definition. Vandalism is a bad faith attemt to diminsh the integrity of the encyclopedia. To suggest that's what this is is a blatant misrepresentation, and uncivil as well. You should have talked this out from the beginning, not try to win the conflict by calling the other a vandal. Dmcdevit·t 02:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Um, no, I don't care whether he's right or wrong. Mistaken edits are not vandalism. But, by the way, copyrights are not bound by consensus. We are bound by the law and that's what governs fair use. You may need to acquaint yourself with that policy. Each fair use image needs a rationale, and our current policy on TIME covers is that it must "illustrate an article or part of an article relating to the issue or cover in question" and not just the topic illustrated by it. Dmcdevit·t 02:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Wait, what? I'm not arguing copyrights and never claimed legal knowledge (though that point should apply to you too, no?), I was merely stating the current policy. That quote comes from the tag placed on all the images, the fair use declaration. It is not at all my own opinion, but simple policy. Arbcom was made aware of Ta bu shi da yu's planned deletion beforehand, and he has the approval of both us and Jimbo, so can I suggest that this is probably not worth fighting about. Dmcdevit·t 03:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

"I initially trusted your views about Vandalism in progress and realized when I investigated further, that this was a mistake." I have no idea what you are talking about. VIP is expressly not for this kind of dispute, and if you put it there again after being reverted and explained to, it will be merely disruption. As to your other question, well, in case you didn't know, I am an arbitrator, which is how I was able to say that authoritatively (and in first-person). This is being discussed on the mailing list. Dmcdevit·t 03:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Good grief. You've now plowed right through the edges of civility, and come out the other side. The reason I ask you what you are talking abou is because nothing you accuse me of follows from what I've said. I haven't manipulated a thing (or even done anything in this dispute) and your accusations are absurd. I said "This is being discussed on the mailing list" and you asked me where the conversation was; it's obvious you aren't really paying attention to what I'm saying to you. I tried to sit down and explain this to you, frankly though, I don't much care whether you are satisfied by my answer; that's simply how it is, and this is a foundation issue that is out of your control. Dmcdevit·t 04:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Travb. You were expressing some concern on Dmcdevit's page about wther TBSDY had the support of the AC and Jimbo (and I really can't give you any further proof on that, but perhaps a second voice confirming will help). Well, if you trust another one of us to speak for the group consensus, he does. If you feel he's made some bad calls and deleted some that were actually fair use (and from what I understand his intent wasn't to delete them all unthinkingly, just those he felt were being misused), why not ask him why he deleted them and present the fair use justification he missed? They're TIME covers; it's not like someone can't ever find them to reupload if they get nuked by mistake. :-)

It's not vandalism, though, whatever it was. And in the end I think most of it is better not to have: we are the free encyclopedia, and if it's at all possible not to use fair use images, even we can get away with it, we should avoid them. It won't hurt to have them gone for a few days while we make sure the ones we do have are only the ones we're sure we can properly have. I know I've seen too many magazine/DVD/book covers on WP that really aren't being used properly, though I don't recall how many of them were TIME; we do need to start getting rid of them somewhere. I think taking it to Vandalism in Progress was a bad step to take, got discussion off on the wrong foot with everyone, and I can't really blame them: wouldn't you be a little offended if your good faith action was being reported as major vandalism? (Yes, TBSDY was a little brusque with you. But still, if you think he was misguided, it's more of an admin noticeboard than a ViP matter.) Anyhow, can you calm down on this until Jimbo responds to you? Nothing awful will happen if some wrongly-removed images stay out for a little while longer. Thanks, Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Travb, I was online when ta bu shi da yu mentioned this on the sysop channel. He fully described the problem and showed sensitivity to the fact that there are many images that really should be kept because they had legitimate uses (he mentioned Man of the year, for instance, and the first cover, and Hitler's death and so on). It was I who, sensitive to recent problems and the way they were resolved, suggested that he make efforts to contact Jimbo Wales. It was I who first posted a query on the mailing list (to which as a clerk I do not have read access). Jimbo CC'd his replies to ta bu, and authorized the deletions.

I'm sorry that you got duffed up a bit in this encounter with the steamroller that deals with urgent problems, You are a nice guy and you didn't deserve that to happen. Hopefully in future we'll all get our act together and there will be a central notification of acts like this so you don't get minces to bits trying, legitimately, to take action at behavior that seems otherwise inexplicable. --Tony Sidaway 04:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emailing a user

At the bottom of their user and talk page is a link "E-mail this user" Fred Bauder 13:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Appeals may be made to User:Jimbo Wales. Be sure the subject of your e-mail is sufficient to attract his attention, as he is overwhelmed by the volume of mail. Fred Bauder 15:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time magazine covers

I'm sorry I didn't catch this sooner. We (Jimbo and other administrators) have decided that the Time magazine covers seldom met the criteria for fair use. The thinking is that, with rare exceptions, such as "Man of the Year", alternative images can be found to illustrate the articles the Time covers illustrate. That is what is going on, not vandalism. Fred Bauder 18:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American Empire article

Thanks, and kudos to you as well for your careful insistence on sourcing the article. I'm following the discussion and the page itself, don't worry. Kalkin 20:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I've made some new comments on the discussion section addressed primarily to you. Kalkin 23:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for doing this

However, I fear you miss the point entirely:

We don't want fair use images if we can avoid it!
"Fair use doctrine allows you to use a reasonable text excerpt with a link back to the entire article at time.com." most of those articles doesn't have what I'd call a "reasonable text excerpt with a link back to the entire article at time.com.
IMO, most of the images need to be resized anyway.

Kind regards, Ta bu shi da yu 21:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree - thanks for taking the time to ask Time Magazine - unfortunately, the permission they "granted" you was no different than our just using them without permission under the Fair use doctrine. Asking permission is always good though since then they probably won't challenge the use as not being fair use. as Ta bu shi da yu said, we want to avoid fair use, see more info at WikiProject Fair use Trödel•talk 22:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand my comment, because I was not explicitly explaining but summarizing. Bonnie Kroll, according to your comment on Jimbo's (and from what I gather) other Admin's pages, said two things:

"Fair use doctrine allows you to use a reasonable text excerpt with a link back to the entire article at time.com."
"You may also use a thumbnail of our cover images, as long as you link back to a page on time.com."

In comment 1) Ms Kroll was summarizing fair use for a text excerpt (as you explained on my talk page), in other words - she granted no extra permissions to use the text. Whether excerpts of the text should be included is at the discretion of the editors.

In comment 2) Ms Kroll granted you (and presumably Wikipedia) a license to use thumbnails, and required attribution as a term of the license. Unfortunately, on wikipedia, because the information that is gathered is freely disseminated to other entities under the GFDL, her grant of a license to you (and wikipedia) is not sufficient to satisfy the needs of wikipedia. Wikipedia needs aa license that also allows others to make a copy of the contributions (text/images) on wikipedia for their own use as long as they attribute the information to wikipedia. More specifically, every contribution made to wikipedia (including images that are uploaded) needs to meet this standard:

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no Back-Cover Texts.^[1] ^[2] (from the "GFDL")

In this case you don't have the right to grant the permission to use the images, but Ms Kroll does - so we need her to grant permission in away that will meet thie terms of this language above.

Since, it is clear (to most people) that Wikipedia can use lower resolution versions (not thumbnails) of images from Time Magazine, under Fair use doctrine, which is not limited to Wikipedia (i.e. those that make a copy of the wikipedia data can also rely on it for protection), Fair use provides superior justification for use on wikipedia than the limited permission granted by Ms Kroll. In other words, although Ms Kroll granted wikipedia permission only, we need to make sure that contributions can meet the standards of the GFDL and most feel that using images under the fair use doctrine provides better protection (although - as Jimbo has often said, wikipedia is better off if all the owners of the images granted a GFDL compliant permission - which I firmly agree should be wikipedia's long-term goal).

I think you are referencing me to Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation because that case holds that "Arriba’s use of Kelly’s images as thumbnails in its search engine is a fair use." There are some key distinctions between Arriba's use and Wikipedia's use, primarily under factor (1) (of the 17 US Code § 107). Use on Wikipedia is for educational benefit (and since there is no sale involved like in Basic Books, Inc. v. Kinko's Graphics Corporation) the nature and character of the work are much stronger for wikipedia. In general educational use has been granted wide latitude under the fair use doctrine.

Wikipedia's general rule that copyrighted images can be used only if the resolution is low (i.e. poor) provides that wikipedia will be ok under (3), "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole." This is inline with the holiding in Arriba.

I could be wrong, but perhaps Ms. Kroll did intend to grant you a license to use the thumbnails that would meet our needs; however, the plain language does not do so (IANYL or wikipedia's for that matter, but that is my professional opinion). If you want to persue this, ask Ms Kroll (or maybe Tony will) if she is granting wikipedia a creative commons license to use and allow others to copy and use as long as it meets certain conditions, such as attribution, non-commercial, no derivative works, etc. Probably the best way to ask would be something like, "So does your email to me mean that I am free to use and make copies for others (who could also make copies - since I can't control them) of thumbnails of time cover pages as long all of us attribute the images with a link to Time?"

Again - thanks for your efforts and keep me informed of the results. Trödel•talk 02:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

^ Wikipedia:Copyrights

^ Text of the GNU Free Documentation License

Travb, have you seen Wikipedia:Boilerplate requests for permission ? It's a useful page with examples of ways people have successfully requested permission to use copyrighted images under the terms of the GFDL. Cheers, FreplySpang (talk) 14:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This Angola edit was in error...

In this edit you changed the entry I made for Angole in the List of United States foreign interventions since 1945. I am changing it back because your edit is misinformed. I read John Stockwell's account of this war. Mobuto Sese Seko was the butal and corrupt dictator of Zaire. He was a long term CIA asset. They paid him tens of millions of dollars. Holden Roberto, the leader of the FLNA, was a relative of Mobuto. IIRC he was Seko's brother-in-law. The tribe they belonged to spanned the Zaire/Angola border. If his group had won they would have run Angola in the same kind of corrupt way Seko ran Zaire.

According to Stockwell Roberto and his senior leadership were basically unskilled thugs. Roberto's main qualification was his association with Seko. The CIA, against Stockwell's advise, hired several hundred white mercenaries. The war was a disaster for the USA. Congress pulled the plug, after spending something like $70 million, in 1970 dollars.

The CIA had to scramble to round up funds to pay the contracted death benefits for the mercenaries who died in combat. Stockwell described how they then faced the awkward problem of how to transfer these funds to the designated survivors. Some bright spark came up the idea of entrusting the task of paying the death benefits to Seko. But, he simply kept the money.

Anyhow, I thought Seko was worth mentioning in the entry. But he didn't lead the group. -- Geo Swan 05:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Explicit permission from TIME

That all depends: will TIME allow other organisations other than Wikipedia to use the images? If not, then the tag is {{copyrighted}}, and this is not acceptable, as here.

In regards to fair use: I don't think you quite understand: we don't really want fair use at all and we only use it when absolutely necessary. We prefer completely free information. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Travb, your asking them in all honor, but see Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#Time_Magazine. Lupo 13:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Belated Response

I don't care what I am called, it just pisses me off because I have no idea what I am being apologistic about. I didn't do anything. CJK 02:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I told you I wouldn't call you that anymore.Travb 04:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

apologist

The situations are vastly different. Using your theory, I'd have to blame the KR's crimes on Mao, since he sent them most of their weapons. I do not minimize the amount murdered by Suharto. You still haven't proven how giving a list or a green light constitutes intervention in Indonesia's affairs.

hypocrisy

Oh yeah, I get it. I'm being hypocritical for "apologizing" about so-called "interventions" but its not "apologizing" by defending Ward Churchill and using his quotes.

Attacking the sender

I responded to most, and ignored the unrealated quote.

Why do I keep asking

Because I want to know. CJK 01:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Now just to clarify, do you agree with excluding the Suharto thing? And also do you believe that situations where the US aids a faction without sending their personnel should count as intervention? CJK 14:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, by the way, don't trust the Lotus Eater guy if he doesn't provide evidence. He wants to live in the fantasy land that Fidel is a great hero and Cuba holds free elections. CJK 14:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Lotus Eater is a big defender of Chuchill. His views on Castro are troubling, if true. I will respond to the rest later today.Travb 16:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to inform me whenever you mention by name, but I only comment is that After Stalin's purges, which never affected my wife's family, unless you were part of the 1% of dissenters who get persecuted in every society (including America), is quite a claim indeed.

I still need your input on the list. Do instances where simple aid is given out (i.e. Greece) count as intervention? Do instances where military forces are sent to a country not at war (i.e. to Turkey) count as intervention? CJK 17:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought we agreed, before, that simple aid is not intervention, whereas military intervention is. The instances of Suharto is an intervention. If you insist, you can take the inititive and split the article into three parts:

1) military intervention causing civil upheavel,

2) military intevention during peace time, and

3) simple aid.

That is, if others agree to such changes, but you only have to convince a handfull of people.

If this is the only way you will stop badgering me, please, be my guest. These broad popular wikipages are actually becoming boring as I learn more about American foreign policy, I would rather focus on issues such as the obsucure Lodge Committee or Nicaragua v. US and let those who get their information from the pop media and biased sources such as Chomsky, who appear to have no depth or understanding on any subject (as I admitedly do on many subjects myself), fight amoungst themselves on the more popular pages.

You wrote: is quite a claim indeed. About the only constant on wikipedia, about the only thing I can count on, is your scorn. It is a great lithmus test: If your constant scorn changes to praise, I know that that I have lost my soul. :) Travb 22:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Then you would agree that items such as aid to Greece, France in Indochina, and Indonesia, which did not involve US military personnel, are not interventions? CJK 23:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

1) military intervention causing civil upheavel,

2) military intevention during peace time, and

3) simple aid. Travb 00:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

America gave aid to Suharto. Not intervention. I'll take it that you'll let me remove the former two wrote out above, though. CJK 00:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

No, that is intervention. I think it stays in the article. If you want to split up the article so you can mention all the wonderful things that the US does for the world, so be it, but please leave in the intervention of the US with East Timor and Suharto. Just because I dont want to argue with you, doesnt mean I agree with you.Travb 00:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Prove that it meets the definition of an "intervention". CJK 00:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll take your silence as a tacit approval. CJK 00:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Rjensen

Can you please give me some help? You, and some other users have been having trouble with Rjensen and now he's causing more problems. See User_talk:Markles#Rjensen.—Mark Adler (markles) 13:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ta bu shi da yu 2

You may be interested in this. Cheers, JYolkowski // talk 22:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that you would support this witch hunt after the very reasonable attempts to explain to you why the letter from Time Magazine is insufficient, including not only references to existing policies, but also a legal analysis of the letter. Fair use is a slippery slope that must be eschewed in favor of images licsensed under the GFDL. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trödel (talk • contribs). sorry 'bout forgetting my sig Trödel•talk 19:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another intervention

Would you care if I removed Operation Brother Sam because the U.S. only prepared to intervene in Brazil, but did not actually get involved. And also the Italian elections, because that involved aid. CJK 02:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your inquiry CJK. Go ahead and do what you want with the page, I don't have any feelings about it one way or another anymore. I am too busy with other projects right now to be concerned. I only ask that you stop asking. I would rather not know what you are doing on that page. I just say your latest edits and I disagree with them, but I am not going to expend massive amounts of energy fighting you. Travb 03:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hello

Are you up late or up extra early? Thanks for the good legal reference. I also agree that the people should cool off for a bit, and the legal aspects handled by a team from Time and a team from Wikipedia. I just wish there was more discussion before the deletion. I want to get back to my geography template work. Where are you located? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yes

Don't worry about mentioning my name of course: it makes me feel like a celebrity. I do wish you hadn't deleted all of what i wrote on plausible deniability's necessarily being impartially immoral, though: I can't remember all of the argument. I don't know if i want to rethink it.--Tyler Nash 06:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "McCarthyism"

What, exactly, is it about the worst excesses of what is held to be among the worst and ignoble chauvinist indulgences of mankind, namely staunch anti-communism, which precipitates the abandonment of all rational discernment among what is a necessarily wide assortment of individuals and interests?

I have little hope left for this site and have been inactive as of late but came upon the Richard Pipes talk page recently and this nugget of insight:

"Not that it matters, but the author of this misleading article, Sam Tanenhaus, wrote a book praising one of the McCarthy witchhunters[6]. This tells me that he is probably a right wing ideologue like Pipes."[7]

Whittaker Chambers, the "McCarthy witchhunter" which you apparently allude to, was at the forefront of messy political and legal disputes pertaining to the identity and activities of communists years before Tailgunner Joe had his say on such questions. This alone should justify caution in the unnecessary and unhelpful slur of interrelated events, but the point should be further emphasized. I own a copy of that biography in question (though regrettably it is not in my possession at the moment), and so I know for a fact that Tanenhaus characterizes McCarthy as a demagogue (as well an ineffective and counterproductive anti-communist) and that Chambers is portrayed as being at best wary of McCarthy, in contrast to the enthusiasm of fellow National Review honchos William Buckley, Jr. and L. Brent Bozell. There is much here that you apparently have not caught on to, or simply have not allowed yourself to. --TJive 20:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

TJive, your words are so convoluded, I still have no idea what you are trying to say. Basically my point was on the Talk:Richard Pipes page was that even though it isn't important Sam Tanenhaus wrote a book which I incorrectly characterized as praising Whittaker Chambers. I was showing that this shows his own political bias.

But Tanenhaus political bias is ultimately not important. I despise people on both the right and the left who feel that if a person on other side said something, it is simply disregarded because of the person who said it. That is why I downplayed Tanenhaus book, and instead focused on his incorrect statment in the Boston Globe.

TJive, you are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

I stand corrected. My apologies about the mischaracterizing the Tanenhaus book which I have never read.Travb 20:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I would allow that I engaged in a frustrated tirade were I not very specifically responding to a comment of your own - on its merits - rather than sufficing for polemics such as I hinted towards at the beginning of my comment; I apologize if this struck you as harsh.

Rather than allow this to be your only (and perhaps only fleeting) of either the author or subject, why not spare some time to read it? --TJive 21:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

"I am still intersted, what does this mean?"

I am referring to the inability and unwillingness of many left partisans to distinguish between various adherents of anti-communism, or often to even recognize the legitimacy or imperative of such a principle to begin with. In this case, you still seem to be under the impression that the book pertains to, or that Chambers was a participant in, "McCarthyism". That was precisely what I was speaking about.

The "Ellen woman" was likely Ellen Schrecker, whose views are colored by this tradition. --TJive 16:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Deletion of warnings

This diff shows that you are incorrect - Pathoschild removed the warnings. As this is an AOL IP, even a month-old warning is 100% irrelevant to whoever's computer has flitted through the IP at this point. I also don't appreciate the charge of vandalism; try to assume some good faith. (ESkog)^(Talk) 23:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Please note that I have responded on my talk page; see "Would like you opinion on this please". You may respond on either page as you prefer. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 23:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AUC Edits

Travb, I have noticed a couple of things about your newest (and very good, by themselves) AUC edits. Please see the article's talk page. Juancarlos2004 02:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of Somalia

Do have a better link to the article? So long as it's published, it's fine, but you simply linked to a livejournal (not the best source) that reproduces it; we have no way of knowing that the reproduction is an accurate one.

Yom 22:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism?

In the past, I have accused others of vandalism and have been chastized for calling editing, "vandalism". My edits were not vandlism. Please refrain from calling my edits such, because it is offensive to me, and does not meet the defintion of "vandalism".Travb 14:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant no harm, I saw that it was removed, and looks alot like some of the vandalism I've seen.--Dp462090 | Talk | Contrib | 14:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use This

Travb doesn't like over zealous Wikipedia Cops deleting articles prematurely.

Noles1984 16:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] blogs & spam

Wikipedia:Reliable sources isn't quite policy, but it does have the operative language regarding blogs as sources (and hence as external links in general) that most of us seem to agree with.
"people like jpgordon"? Gosh.

--jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 03:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use this (2)

No you don't know me... I found your user name in an administrators talk page where stuff you had posted was deleted or a candidate for deletion... I believe new administrators get an authoritarian power thing going and are all too willing to delete without discussion. Bastards! Noles1984

[edit] election of 1900

hopeless case. Anything you put will be challenged by one editor who will revert everything until it matches what he wants to say. Look at other articles in this predicament. Thanks Hmains 16:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United States presidential election, 1900

Hi, sorry you're having ongoing frustrations. However, I think that it's getting to you a bit and you're reacting too personally. I did say stick to the facts, but you've put a section on the talk page for the article headed with the name of the person you are having problems with. That is confrontational, and is bound to get the opposite reaction to the one you want, though I'm glad to see that you paid a compliment for Rjensen's good contributions. Let's assume he/she does have some genuine concerns. Somebody else wouldn't maybe, but the fact is that he (I'll say he) does. He says the tone is totally POV. Well, I don't think there's any smoke without fire, and the way to meet someone in those circumstances is to tone down what you say and let the facts speak. For example:

:Misleading Philippine War claims by the Republicans

OK, in the circumstances I don't think you're going to get away with the heading, unless you give a specific reference to it, with a footnote quoting the source and the text of the source as well for that specific statement. You could simply change it to "The Phillipine War", which makes it perfectly NPOV. The text should bring out all that's necessary.

:Conservatives ridiculed Bryan's eclectic platform.^{[citation needed]} In order to give the impression that the Philippine war was winding down,^{[citation needed]} the McKinley administration made misleading claims of reductions in the number of American troops in the Philippines.^{[citation needed]}

I think in the current circumstances each of these points need to be nailed down. As it is we only have the fact of one soldier's words. Well fine, you can say this soldier stated such and such and no one can contest it, but it's the interpretation preceding it that is open to challenge. If you weren't be challenged then your references are fine, but as you are, it is your interest to be scrupulous about them! The footnotes can also have extracts of relevant text included in them, as footnotes often do in books, or the passages could be quoted on the talk page.

I suggest an initial way ahead would be to to quote a passage on the talk page, with source, and then put underneath the words you intend to put in the article using that source. That gives third parties a chance to judge and maybe help out. Laborious, I know, but that is the penalty of collaborative work.

Get back to me if you want to discuss things further. I will add it to my watchlist.

Tyrenius 00:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The above has been moved from your user page, where I put it by mistake. Since then I have been through the article and done an edit on it.

Tyrenius 16:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola

oops thanks for pointing that out ive reverted my error back now. It looks like the servers are out of synch because of the earlier problems because i got served a page with "tst" on it, once again apologies Benon 02:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Your right this guys is tricky, and thanks for the back up. I hope I didn't come accross as aggressive in our first meeting, allthough I might be a tad towards this guy, I just like getting things down right. It'll be nice being on the same side this time though. :)

-JoeFixit

[edit] Mensheviks and the Soviet collapse

[Moved from Talk:Mensheviks]

Are you Russian? My wife is Kazakstan/Ukrainian. I livd in Ukraine for 2 years. I would really be interested in your article

He, you could learn all of the above (except for the Collier's bit) in any "Soviet History 101" class 30-50 years ago :)

I do know a few things about modern history, though, e.g., see "my" articles re: Arvo Tuominen or Arthur Conolly. On the Russian end of the spectrum, I have done Leon Trotsky, Russian Constituent Assembly, etc. Lately, I have been spending most of my WP time on genre authors like S.P. Meek.Ahasuerus 16:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, you didnt answer my question, but you don't sound like a Russian. I was just impressed how you shot out all those dates, probably by memory--that means you are very well versed on the subject.

I am an American, although my family roots go back to Central and Eastern Europe. The fact that I know entirely too much European history is only tangentially related, though :)

It's sad that WP has all of three lines on E. Phillips Oppenheim and nothing on Howard Wandrei or William F. Temple :-(

I will take you word on the names, that, (Except for the first one) as far as I am concerned, you got out of the phone book :)

happy editing.Travb 18:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Wandrei was a genre artist and writer in the 1930s. I wrote a short article about his older brother, Donald Wandrei, a while back, but haven't had a chance to do Howard. Temple was a major British writer of the 1950s and 1960s (mostly SF), now largely forgotten. Ahasuerus 20:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Got it! Point your browser of choice to http://www.norfacad.pvt.k12.va.us/fac_staff/~rezelman/research.htm , search for "Collier" and check out the cover of the October 27, 1951 issue :) Ahasuerus 04:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I have posted an alternative proposal, see that page :) Ahasuerus 01:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American empire clean up

I think the discussion site needs some reorganization and clean up. You have my permission to edit the headings and arguments if you want to clean it up, right now it looks a little too much like a conversation than an issue discussion. Not necessary, just a thought.Later,Mrdthree 20:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I will archive the discussion. Please don't delete anything.Travb 23:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jew

Moved from: Talk:Paul_Wolfowitz#Jew

Paul wolfowitz's religion was deleted for this reason:

"why is the fact that he's a jew or of judaism in this template? should not be here... this an anti-zionist crusade?"

I think the reason is bizarre, but i won't fight something so peity. If anyone else wants to revert it, be my guest.

signed. Travb 15:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

This argument has been going on as far back as I can remeber. My stance has always been that we should NOT mention his religion unless we have verrifiable proof that he is a practicising Jew. His ethinc background is mentioned in the body of the article. But I have yet to see any evidence relating to his active religous practices. If this evidence can be found then I think that the statement about his religion becomes valid and important with regards to his opinions and beliefs. Mutt 18:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe it should be there either, it seems an unusual precedent to set. --Zleitzen 18:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the whole argument is silly, I don't care either way. If I was actually famous and people listed me as "mormon", for example, (and I was), I would care less. Why do some of the Jewish faith care?

I agree with Mutt though, we should use verifiable sources though. clowns like the guy above seem to have a persecution complex, and see anti-semetics in their own shadow. I can only laugh at this. Travb 15:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with your sentiments on this one Travb. I really don’t understand why mentioning that someone is Jewish is anti-Semitic. Is it anti-Christian to mention Bush’s faith? Is it anti-Islamic to mention Bin Laden’s? Is it anti-Buddhist to mention the Dalai Lama’s? So why is there some sort of special sensitivity when it comes to Judaism? Our job here is to produce a complete encyclopaedic study of the subject. Surely therefore where there is verifiable evidence we should mention that someone is a Jew. And in fact not mentioning it would indicate that we thought that there was something wrong with being a Jew and would therefore be anti-Semitic. Mutt 19:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I am glad no one was offended. you were test subjects. I am going to ask User:172 his opinion. This is the guy who encouraged me to justifiably get banned for what I see as the wrong reason. Travb 21:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Getting justifiably blocked for possibly the wrong reason

I guess I am a little sore about the whole issue because of my comments which I assume another person of Jewish faith/background took as an attack on his faith, which could't be further from the truth.[8] I agree I should have been booted for those comments, of saying someone was denying their own history, which I was, but not because I used the "J" word. I could have left out the holocaust and still made the same point. In retrospect I wish I did. I still would have been justifiably booted, but at least people would have understood the point I was making better, without getting hung up on the word holocaust. This user seemed to miss the point of my comments enirely:[9]

"For those of us whose families were annihilated by the Nazi genocide, no attack can be more extreme; and when such an attack is lodged for reasons as trivial as a Wikipedia edit war, the impact of the attack only serves to trivialize the Holocaust. Although I have had some disputes with CJK myself, I will not feel comfortable editing Wikipedia today unless TravB is blocked for at least 24 hours for violating Wikipedia:No personal attacks in the most extreme way any individual can violate it."[10] (emphasize my own)

[edit] Downplaying other genocides

In addition, I have noticed that some people of Jewish background deny or downplay other genocides, such as the Armenian genocide. Take for example The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide, by Guenter Lewy.

I read a criticism somewhere, that some other authors of Jewish background do the same thing. Why? Is it taboo even to ask why? Are there more people of jewish background that do this? Are there an equal number of non-jews who do this? Or am I seeing patterns that do not exist? Is it wrong to even ask such questions?

Why don't Americans study about the Japanese slaughtering the Chinese in World War 2, or Pol Pot in Cambodia or the Armenian Genocide, or the Rwanda genocide, or the East Timor genocide?

I suspect because with the first genocide, there is not a large number of Chinese in America. In addition, Japan is a cold war ally. Pol Pot is taught in school, but not in the way that the Holocuast is taught.

I suspect with the last three, it is because we had a part in culpability in those genocides. We supported Turkey while they massacred the Kurds, and therefore did not want to bring up "sensitive" issues which would embarrass our allies.

With Rwanda and East Timor, Americans either looked the other way and actively attempted to stop efforts to stop the genocide (Rwanada and East Timor), or we actively encouraged the genocide (East Timor.)

Further to this, since we’re mentioning the unmentionable here, I am curious as to why the term Holocaust is used exclusively to refer to Hitler’s extermination of the Jews. Hitler of course began by rounding up and executing the Communists, who were followed by trade unionists, Romany, Homosexuals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Catholics and the mentally and physically handicapped, and yet these victims seem to be largely forgotten. Is there a reason that these victims so rarely warrant a mention? Mutt 21:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I think because the vast majority of those killed were Jews. The average layperson looks at history only in general terms, without much refinement, as it is taught in our American schools:

Communism bad, capatilism good.
Africa is poor with lots of wars.
America is always a beacon of freedom and democracy.
Government is bad and backwards, free enterprise is good.
European history was a lot of wars with each other.
Holocaust is the Jews.

There are movies about the Homosexuals and Jehovah’s Witnesses persecution in the Holocaust. I think most people who have a higher education would know that Romany (gypsies), Homosexuals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Catholics were killed, including a lot of people who have a highschool education.

Are you from Europe Mutt? You used the term "Romany" which my wife, who is from Ukraine uses. Travb 21:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes I am from Europe and as such am fascinated and concerned by your comment about American schools. Obviously my own knowledge of the American educational system is pretty much limited to what I’ve learned from Dead Poets Society and episodes of Buffy but your comments do seem to mirror criticisms of the American media as laid out by people such as Robert McChesney and Edward Herman. So I was wandering why you thought it was that the U.S. has developed this black/white, good/evil, dualistic view of the world?

On the Romany issue I think that that is the generally preferred term as gypsy is now days considered derogatory. Mutt 10:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting the word Jew

In addition, I have noticed on some of the pages that I watch in the past, such as the Paul Wolfowitz page, that certain people go around and edit out any mention of the word "Jew" or "Jewish" in bibliograph articles. Not being of the Jewish faith myself, I guess I see the whole endevour as silly. Why do some people do this?

If I was Mormon or Jehovah's witness, I would not "hide my light under a bushel" as it says in the bible (new or old testament I can't remember). I just don't understand what I see as a persecution complex, it seems like there is a lot of negative energy and any mention of the word "Jew" or "holocuast" make otherwise rational people of Jewish background irrational. Why? Is it taboo even to ask why?

I hope that by even talking about this, I do not get in trouble, that someone else writes: I will not feel comfortable editing Wikipedia today unless TravB is blocked for at least 24 hours for violating Wikipedia:No personal attacks in the most extreme way any individual can violate it..

It seems like talking about Blacks in America. If anyone suggests something that is out of the mainstream, they are labeled "racists", just as throughout American history those who were on the far left were labled "communist" or those on the far right were labeled "facists".

These questions bother me. I in no way want to offend, just talk.Travb 23:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Travb 23:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The template does not belong in the article. Wolfowitz is notable as a U.S. and now World Bank policymaker, not as a major figure in Jewish history. The fact that he is a Jew is only relevant in the part of the article discussing his personal background (e.g., the part of the article that mentions the fact that his father was a Polish Jew who fled from persecution in Europe). 172 | Talk 22:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Waterboarding

Re:[11] see Wikipedia:verifiable. I did not find your contributions very funny, they were actually, in my opinion, rather juvenile.

I am not watching this page, please direct comments to my talk page or the Waterboarding talk page.

Signed:Travb 00:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't find a good cite -- maybe it was something I heard on Limbaugh? Googling on waterboarding "fraternity prank" does return 130+ hits, though. Ewlyahoocom 05:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] article instead of cat

If you make an article out of the referenced material you listed at talk, I think it would be a very useful article. And since you can largely paste your work from cat's talk, not a single effort you spent on that would be wasted. Regards, --Irpen 05:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

I'm sorry Travb, but I think we have too many categories as there is. Perhaps an article would be better. I don't know much about whether Reagan did or did not predict the collapse of the USSR, so I do not feel comfortable getting involved.

As for friends--I thought you knew that I have no friends;). Except possibly TDC, and you have already asked him. CJK 19:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peacock

Here's the page I was referring to: Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms. All the best. —thames 23:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wolfowitz

It's not a matter of "hiding" his Jewish faith. The matter boils down to the central task of an encyclopedia-- circumscribing facts for relevance. Wolfowitz is not primarily notable as a Jew. He is notable as an American policymaker. In other words, institutional affiliations (like deputy Defense Secretary and World Bank chief) matter more in his article than his religious affiliation. As for your question about the Holocaust, I disagree with the claim that Jews downplay atrocities not related to the Holocaust. The Holocaust is better known because it affected a relatively modern, industrialized region of the world. In the same sense, Americans know more about (say) what happened in the former Yugoslavia than (say) the civil war in the Congo. 172 | Talk 22:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Election promise

Re: your request. Fair enough. Thanks. Ellsworth 21:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re Thanks

Thanks for work on Category:Organizations and people who predicted the collapse of the USSR. Travb 22:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure. It might not be a topic to categorize, but I hope few would argue against it being an article. It might attract some non-neutral contributors, but I guess you already know that. Best wishes, David Kernow 23:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smedley Butler infobox

Travb, I see that you removed the Medal of Honor image from the Smedley Butler infobox, with the comment — "removed medal image doesnt look good at all." I would appreciate a discussion before you make such a deletion. I have been working with Looper5920 on the Marine Corps portal and USMC-related articles, especially creating articles for Marine Corps Medal of Honor recipients. Including the Medal of Honor image in their infoboxes is the standard for these articles to immediately identify their Medal of Honor status. —ERcheck @ 23:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. The Military person infobox template has one place for an image. I'm working within the consistency bounds of this infobox. I appreciate your flexibility with respect to the Medal of Honor image. I've uploaded a different image - without the dark background. What do you think? An improvement? —ERcheck @ 01:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I deliberately want it smaller than the person's image - as the Medal of Honor is important, but isn't everything about the person. I've experimented with different sizes, and think 60px is too small; the current one is 75px; perhaps 90px. I do want it a bit smaller than the photo. —ERcheck @ 01:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- I do prefer it in the image box, as it is immediately seen; when a person is working on a small screen, such as a laptop, the Honors portion of the info box may require a scroll down. —ERcheck @ 01:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- See Hershel W. Williams - this is a 90px. —ERcheck @ 01:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  - I like Hershel's better. But it is your call. I really don't care, and I obviously care less than you do. Far be it from me to stiffle your artistic flair ;-) .Travb 01:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  - I'll go with the 90px then. I do prefer it in the image box. It is "buried" in the awards section. Also, I've used it as a placeholder in the image box for the few that I've not yet been able to get a good photo for. I appreciate the discussion. Thanks. —ERcheck @ 01:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

Glad we finally see eye to eye on the Zawahiri thing. As for legal precedent: Well, lets just say I come from one of the most respected legal families in Florida. I've interned with the academy of florida trial lawyers. I was an undergrad Political science/public policy major, with an emphasis on national defense policy. And I'm working right now as a legislative director for a national lobbyist organization. I know my way around precedent.

That being said, please remember not to personally attack other contributers per WP:NPA. thanks. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/r/a/User_talk%7ETravb_Archive_3_ebec.html"