User talk:Travb/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

1 * 2 * 3 * 4 * 5 * 6 * 7 * 8

I frequently archive my messages after I respond to a user. (See Talk page etiquette)


Contents

[edit] Your edit to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/They Came Back

Your recent edit to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/They Came Back (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 17:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] e-mail

thanks. -- Geo Swan 12:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vladimir Gusinsky

Honestly, I did nothing with the article, just removed the ==Categories== heading. I have not noticed anything extraordinary with the formatting of the article, but the thing you described looks like a glitch with the WMF software.

BTW the article Vladimir Gusinsky is a shame. He is quite a colorful personality and deserves an interesting article. abakharev 09:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My guidelines for being admin

My guidelines for being an admin really work. Travb (talk) 19:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation requested

Could you explain what the point of the message on my talk page was? Also, please explain why you think that the Resysop article will be deleted soon (other than its own WP:POINTish element and the fact that it is a neologism with only 43 hits?). JoshuaZ 14:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Er, yes by hits I meant google hits. To summarize Carnildo was desysopped after the pedophile wheel-box war wherein he blocked indefinitely a number of users for what he termed "hate speech." He then repeatedly reapplied for adminship with the most recent request only garnering 61% support. Despite this, the crats decided to resysop him which led to some of the users who had been blocked by Carnildo earlier (such as Giano) getting very upset. Things quickly took a turn for the worst after Tony blocked Giano for what he termed disruption and then related to all this Kelly left the project. The situation is sufficiently complicated such that I'm not sure how to explain it in any more detail without just suggesting you look at the Giano arbitration in more detail. JoshuaZ 20:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I doubt it will "change Wikipedia as we know it" in my view admins overestimate the level of influence that they have on the overall tenor of the encyclopedia. Who is in or out of the ArbCom really doesn't alter the vast majority of the day to day operations on Wiki. The vast majority of editors will edit the same way to the same articles as if nothing had happened. JoshuaZ 23:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Machiavellian comments

From your comments here: [1], I couldn't judge your sincerity (vs. facetiousness) because I'm not entirely certain what you mean. The implications of invoking Machiavelli, however, have me quite worried. I'm thinking you're misunderstanding my intentions much like I'm failing to understand yours. However it may be, I would ask you to please not edit my statements like this:[2]. The user templates are well and good, but you removed a large chunk of my statement (thus breaking the link on your own user page you seem to cherish right now). Thank you, --InkSplotch 15:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It does indeed.

Sad days, these are. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hmmm

At first I thought I rembered Rex saying that, which is what alarmed me. Then I thought it was on Wikipedia Review. Then I figured it was on an ArbCom page. Then I thought it was a discussion I had with Xed. Guess it was deja vu, or the fact that it's 2am here. Derex 15:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] We have mutual friends

(From: User:RyanFreisling)

...

Your email is not active. Please send me an email address at:

(1) Special:Emailuser/Travb with an email address that I can reach you at, or

(2) alternatively, activate your email address on wikipedia.

I can explain my cryptic message in full when you e-mail me. I haven't watched your page, so any response here I wont see.Travb (talk) 23:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

To make sure no one is phishing, mascarading as you, does your email have a pow@ in it? I watched your page, awaiting response...Travb (talk) 03:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it does. Sure is a lot of intrigue! And if the 'danger' is real, that's quite worrisome. I look forward to your email. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I hope I didn't disappoint you, or I didn't raise your expectations any with all of the "cloak and dagger" talk. Your "secret" (?) which I found out realized in my last e-mail to you is safe with me, Ryan. Travb (talk) 11:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Can't you just give the rest of us a little hint? We're all dying to know. Make it a riddle; I like riddles. ... string, or nothing. Derex 12:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't know what Travb is talking about - but I'd prefer to keep all of this 'on-wiki', as I find the idea of emailing about a wiki to be a sort of blasphemy... :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 12:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Ryan, the eagle flies at night, but the owl sits alone.  ;-) TheronJ 12:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
My hovercraft is full of eels... -- User:RyanFreisling @ 12:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Paging Rick James .... Derex 13:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can I play too?

Soviet soldiers posing in front of a McDonald's restaurant in the movie Red dawn
Enlarge
Soviet soldiers posing in front of a McDonald's restaurant in the movie Red dawn

Molly has a red dress and black stockings. Over? I repeat: Molly has a red dress and black stockings.

"It's 11:59 on Radio Free America; this is Uncle Sam, with music, and the truth until dawn. Right now I've got a few words for some of our brothers and sisters in the occupied zone: "the chair is against the wall, the chair is against the wall", "john has a long mustache, john has a long mustache". It's twelve o'clock, American, another day closer to victory. And for all of you out there, on, or behind the line, this is your song."--Red Dawn

Fred Ryan wrote: prefer to keep all of this 'on-wiki', as I find the idea of emailing about a wiki to be a sort of blasphemy...

If the top admins do it, can't we? You may find it blasphemious, but there are several very powerful people on wikipedia who don't.

I wrote in an unrelated issue, which message is related to what Ryan is saying:

...every social organization becomes more conservative and regimented as it grows older--this is true of everything from businesses, religions, and yes wikipedia. More and more "undesirables" who clash with Wikipedias "company culture" will continue to be pushed out, gently but sometimes forcefully.

Response:

There seems to be some common denominators with the main group of powerful admins. They have given up creating content in favor of fulfilling their social lives on Wikipedia. They congregate in a social manner at irc and other private places where the friendships are more important than creating an encyclopedia -- groupthink sets in. They lose sight of the fundamental goals of the project, blinded by personal interaction and politics. As you say - predictable. It's just human nature.

"Can't you just give the rest of us a little hint? We're all dying to know. Make it a riddle; I like riddles. ... string, or nothing." LOL--ask Ryan. I have already said to much, and other wikipedians have already started to (predictably) misconstrue my meaning.

Derex, I wanted Ryan to email me and give his attention, but it worked so well that yourself and others are now interested too. :)

I hope I never am "blinded by personal interaction and politics", our end goal, together is to create an encyclopedia isn't it?

"Finally, we should never forget as a community that we are the vanguard of a knowledge revolution that will transform the world. We are the leading edge innovators and leaders of what is becoming a global movement to free knowledge from proprietary constraints. 100 years from now, the idea of a proprietary textbook or encyclopedia will sound as quaint and remote as we now think of the use of leeches in medical science." Jimbo Wales, User:Travb/Fair_use#Quotes_from_Jimbo_Wales, Benevolent dictator.

signed Travb (talk) 13:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I should re-phrase that. Travb, your "unrelated issue" comment looks extremely familiar, as does the response. Where did you write that? I can't find it on Google. Yet, I'd swear I read it recently. And I've been poking around some strange corners of the net, so it makes me wonder. Derex 13:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Travb, your "unrelated issue" comment looks extremely familiar, as does the response.
In an email. Nice detective work sherlock, but this time, unlike in all of the books, the bad guy gets away. :)
I will give you a clue, since you asked so nicely:
It wasn't Professor Plum with the Candle Stick.
Please don't start plumbing the depths of all of my edits, last time this happened, I was booted indefinately. [02:35, 26 May 2006 Cyde blocked "Travb (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (Continual and large-scale posting of copyrighted material)][3]
Wikipedia:Don't stuff beans up your nose or Do NOT click any links! , probably shouldn't have said that huh?
If you would like to continue this conversation, you can email me. But I promised people not to reveal certain things, and I won't, because then they won't trust me again.
I hope you liked my Red Dawn joke, I used to love that movie, but it is so god damn cheezy now, especially since I have lived in the FSU for 2 and a half years, and my wife is Ukrainian. Travb (talk) 14:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NOR

Talk:Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America/archive2#Comments_from_below

[edit] Re: TV6 Russia

Further information: abakharev

Privet Alex Bakharev

You wrote: I share the authors's sentiments but the article should be written in a neutral tone

Every word of the article is from western newspapers. They are very anti-Russian, I know. I don't know what your setiments are, but I think, based on the English articles I have read, despite the American propoganda, I think TV6 Russia should have been closed.

I don't read Russian very well. Please take the time to add verifiable sources to this artile, preferably russian sources, to "even out" the bias.

I am guessing about what portions you think are not neutral, becuase you really didn't explain.

Also, in the future, please comment on the talk page why you want the NPOV tag to be added, many people remove this tag if you don't comment on the talk page.

I will keep the tag for a week, and if no one has come forward to explain why it is not neutral, after a week I will remove it. Udachi Travb (talk) 07:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How did you do that?

Re: [4] I have never added ==categories== but I was desperate. The old article was all scruntched up, so you couldn't read the last two sentences. Look at the current version, which you can change back here how did you do that? Travb (talk) 09:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

No I am not smoking crack, I guess it is a bug in wikipedia that makes the categories go up: look at this http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/travbailey/buginwikipedia.jpg Whenever someone hits edit, the categories bar is all messed up. once I hit the article button, the article is fine. Weird. Travb (talk) 09:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, I did nothing with the article, just removed the ==Categories== heading. I have not noticed anything extraordinary with the formatting of the article, but the thing you described looks like a glitch with the WMF software.
BTW the article Vladimir Gusinsky is a shame. He is quite a colorful personality and deserves an interesting article. abakharev 09:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I emailed you just now, check your in box.
I remember the old Russian joke, that one of my dear friends told me, tell me if you heard it (keep in mind I am paraphrasing):
Russians are swimming in shit up to their necks, they are just about to drown. Suddenly a knight on a white horse comes in and says, "Fear not, I am here to save you". And all the Russians with shit up to their necks say: "No, no, you will create waves."
I am surprised that their have been so many revolutions in the FSU. I never thought it could happen in my dear Ukraine. I really despise so much about Americans, but their ideologies and their beliefs really work. What I saw in Ukraine, I don't have very much hope for those in the FSU. There is not the Protestant work ethic or value system like Americans. The corruption and the alcholism is so complete in Ukraine. Ukrainians are too timid, to patient, to willing to follow others. I feel so bad for my dear Ukrainian friends and their bleak futures. I predict there will be many, many more Vladimir Gusinskys. The Orange revolution gave me hope, but it quickly faded, as I predicted all of Ukrainaian's hope would fade.
Actually no one should be surprised, historically, disillusionment always happens after almost every revolution. Even in America, we had our bloody Shay's Rebellion, the poor realized that the revolution would not bring all the promises they had hoped and died for. I remember reading about the disillusion on communist Emma Goldman after the Russian revolution, who heard (or did she see first hand?) Lenin ruthlessly have their own Shay's Rebellion...Travb (talk) 09:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV warriors

Comments on: Lenin

I don't have the patience to argue with POV warriors. I notice that since my edits,[5] large sections critical of Lenin have been removed, along with some sections which were positive toward Lenin.

Colin4C's comments are particularly troubling, but he is being egged on by White Guard, whose behavior is similiar. Hopefully there will be a Arbitration or mediation soon on this page, and if necessary, the POV warriors will be forced aside to allow less biased editors to edit this page unmolested.

It is clear from reading one paragaph of Colin4C's comments on this talk page that he has a clear bias and clear agenda. I am troubled by Colin4C recentlying erasing the above referenced critical information about Lenin. I have no patience with any editor who want only one POV in the article: their own. I am sure there are right wing POV warriors here, like maybe White Guard, but I just got so tired of this POV war on this talk page, I gave up reading it.

Both Colin4C and White Guard talk a lot about sources, but to my knowledge they have added none since I removed the unsourced statments. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Every word is supposed to be referenced. One of these two said their were upteen sources, yet didn't add a single one. This behavior is sloppy and lazy editing.

I am no expert of Lenin and neither are most people who come here to read this article. Please don't tell me about the sources on the talk page, I am not here to get in a long debate with right and left ideologues on the talk page. I just joined this long POV war, and I don't have the interest or the patience to go back through years of archived arguments. Despite what some editors think, deluded about their own self importance and wit, the only people who are interested in their arguments back and forth are those who are doing arguing. For many of us, we don't care. We just want a decent wikiarticle which doesn't make us cringe when we read it.

Instead of talking about sources on the talk page: ADD THE SOURCES IN THE ARTICLE.

Anyway, I am not going to waste my time here getting in peity revert wars with ideologues of all political spectrums. Life is too short.

It is a real shame that there is so much collective knowledge of Lenin among all of the wikipedians here, including the knowledge of Colin4C, White Guard and others, but two or three ideologies are blocking this article from going from a:

mediocre, biased article, prone to major revert wars, with certain sections completely unreferenced, and the constant loss of a lot of solid referenced material,

...into a really good article.

I strongly suggest an arbitration or mediator in the near future. I think this is the only way this article will ever progress.

Have fun bickering. Please keep comments about this on this talk page, since I am washing my hands of this article, I won't read any comments directed to my talk page about this subject.Travb (talk) 23:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction to Anti-Americanism

I am a joint law (JD) and international relations master degree (MD) student, in my 3rd year. I am taking a class called Scopes and Methods in International Relations. I am writing a research paper on Anti-Americanism. The majority of the paper will be from peer reviewed social science articles. I am very familar with WP:NOR.

I hope to add signifigant amounts of information to this article from the sources that I find, and work together with all of the wikieditors here to make this article the best article on wikipedia. I have worked jointly with other editors together on several articles on wikipedia using another handle, including Plan Colombia and American Empire. I also wrote theLodge Committee.

I want to now state what I fear will immediatly gain me allies and enemies:

I am a far left liberal. No apologies.

That said, I have actively attempted and advocated both sides of politcal debates. If you can source your statment, generally, with few exceptions, it can stay on the wikipage. I have no patience for weasel words, and I believe that nearly every word on wikipedia should have sourced, and if it doesnt have a source, wikieditors ideally should find the source themsevles.

Looking forward to working with you all. RWV 09:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Message to wikiuser:

If you want to see a very, very rough draft of my research paper, I can send you a copy.

Be warned: it is incredibly biased and partisan.

Why?

I wrote it in a 5 hours straight, against the clock, going on about 6 hours of sleep in 48 hours.

I know my teacher, who I turned this into on Friday after getting an extension, when it was due on Tuesday, is going to criticize every word of it, and what you see is not even close to the final product.

Now that the disclaimers are out of the way, I would love your brutal honest opinion, if you would like. RWV 16:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AA

Hey. Sorry if my replies on Anti-Americanism were terse two days ago. It's just we've been through the wringer so many times on the first sentence. "Prejudice" was chosen as a kind of hard threshold. If someone is truly prejudiced it's hard to argue that the term doesn't fit; "hostility" or "opposition" might be considered legitimate, however. Marskell 10:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chomsky Talk Page

I've addressed your question on the Chomsky talk page. I would suggest looking for the transcript yourself and figuring out what you think. I think it was quite clear.

70.56.179.97 01:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conversation: Train wreck

User_talk:Fairness_And_Accuracy_For_All#You_will_be_indefinetly_banned [6]

[edit] Conversation: Rjensen:I am disappointed

Older version: [7]

Re: [8]

I still sing your praises, in fact I mentioned you today again.

But I am sad to see that you still delete referenced material that doesn't match your own POV.

I was just ready to go on a wikivacation. You can revert my revert and remove the quote, but I really don't want to have another edit war with you--the last time was tramatic and taxing for both of us.

Why not just delete the quote, and then not delete any other referenced material on the page? Is that okay?

I welcome your addition to this article, I wrote the entire Foreign_relations_of_the_United_States#History_of_exporting_democracy section, but I don't think I wrote anything else.

I think the rest of the page needs to be cleaned up and referenced, but I worry about you doing it, how much will you delete in the process? Will this article go from one political ideology (leftist) to another (rightist) after you get done? Can both views coexist equally? I think they can, by your edit history before, and your edit today, I dont think you do.

I welcome your contributions to the section I originally wrote too. This section has a tramatic history, like most of the controversial sections I write.

I am well aware of WP:OWN but I am understandably protective of well researched material being deleted. I really hope you can understand.

I hope all is well. I haven't heard from you since our USSR work together.

I really wish you would have changed and grown from our edit wars before, but oh well. I see this heading:

...and am disappointed. As I have argued with a user several times without avail, the article is stronger and your POV is more forcefully, with both viewpoints on a wikipage. Recently I chastized Talk:Vladimir_Lenin#POV_warriors wikiusers for the same POV warrior behavior...

I just wrote today that behavioral changes happen glacially. Travb (talk) 10:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a serious reference work, not a plaything for oddball quotes that are given no context at all. We need to use solid secondary sources--that is the Wiki policy. Rjensen 10:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh Rjensen, I am getting nostalgic. Who decides what is "oddball", who decides what is "solid secondary sources"? If it doesn't meet your standards, (because that is what we are really talking about, isn't it) you delete it. But as the user wrote above, you "are infamous for erasing edits that disagree with his beliefs without explanation yet he charges any who oppose his beliefs of promoting their religious beliefs!" Your deletions are "mainstream", and your sources are solid, but other wikiusers (who happen to have opposite viewpoints then you), are "oddball". How can you be so incredibly intellegent yet so ideologically inflexible? It just blows my mind. You are obviously making a lot of users pissed off, and your edits are less effective because you have to spend so much time defending your deletions, when you could be pushing your POV much more effectively, by allowing other peoples views to stand next to your own. So keep edit warring Rjesen. As I mentioned, I just wrote today that behavioral changes happen glacially. It appears like you are going to push it to far and get into a Afd with some of these users, then you will be forced to comprimise and allow opposing views on the pages you edit.
Please don't use wikipolicy as a weapon to push you POV, or as a shield to mask your POV, I have spent the last two months arguing with the best wikipolicy POV warrior on wikipedia. I know all of the tricks now. He was not as intellegent as you are, but he was much more tenacious and stubborn. For example: Please remember in your edits these policy pages: WP:V WP:OWN WP:OR Wikipedia:Tendentious editing Wikipedia:Disruptive editing or I will have to report you to ANI, and eventually Arbcom. Disclaimer and Caveat: I am only joking about all of these wikipolicy pages, I am not threating you, I am simply using it as an example of the complete and utter nonsense I have had to endure with another POV warrior, who simply uses a different tactic to push his POV. So your "wikipolicy" argument sounds rather weak in comparison. Travb (talk) 10:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I recommend you read some serious books. Rjensen 10:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Again Rjensen, what is "serious". What matches your own viewpoint? Please don't talk down to me sir. I deeply respect your intellegence, please respect mine, even though we share radically different views.
Go ahead and delete portions of the page that you don't personally agree with. I am going on wikivacation for a bit, and I won't be there to stop you. But other wikiusers probably will, and you will have to get in another edit war, wasting valuable time and energy when you could be working on other articles to match your views.
It is a losing strategy. Deleting referenced material is damaging to wikipedia, and it makes your finished product look like a propaganda page, which doesn't convince most neutral users of anything, because I would like to believe that the average person can easily pick up propogranda. Again, it is a losing strategy to push you POV. Instead, why not comprimise and allow everyones views on the page, thats what I do, and I am much more effective pushing my POV....and my partisan message is actually stronger....sigh....behavioral changes happen glacially.
You are obviously dismissing every word I say, which is unfortunatly, very typical. Most recently the wikiusers on the Talk:Vladimir_Lenin#POV_warriors talk page did the same thing.
Anyway, when you get into an AfD, and have your editing priveleges curtailed, don't shoot the messenger when I smuggly say "I told you so". Travb (talk) 10:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
you can find reviews of serious books in each issue of the Journal of American History. see [9] I'm no longer on the editorial board so it does not necessarily reflect my views. Rjensen 10:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Nice to see I am not the only smug person on wikipedia. I get accused of this a lot when I throw around I am a law student, etc....I am not questioning your intellegence or knowledge, so why do you continue to belittle me Rjensen, is this your diplomatic way of saying "I don't care what you think" If so nice job. You were always a better diplomat and more civil than me, I appreciate it, but at times it was maddening, because I never seemed to make you the least bit angry. Nice. I learned a lot from you, and I still need to learn much more.
If you could learn wikipolicy like the other user I have edit warred with for the past two months, you would be unstoppable. Within 5 years the Republican National Convention would endorse wikipedia as the single best source of information in the entire universe. I am only being facious about the RNC encorsement, by the way....
My problem is that I give those who are ideologically my opposites wonderful ammunition to later use against me.
Its like playing Starcraft. Ever played Starcraft? When I was in college I played with this Chinese guy all the time. I kicked his ass every single day, but I taught him how to play. By the end of the year, i could not beat him.
What is wonderful is most wikieditors are too damn stubborn and arrogant (usually in a juvenile sort of way) to learn anything new, so they rarely listen to me.
I am rambling again, sorry. Another weakness of mine I need to work on to become a better editor here on wikipedia.Travb (talk) 11:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Vladimir_Lenin#POV_warriors

[edit] Talk:Philip_Agee#Paragraph_moved_to_talk

[edit] Re:Thanks

No problem. Keep up the good work reporting vandals to AIV. =) Nishkid64 23:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RyanF

I got you mixed up with user:RyanFreisling, another of Zer0's antagonists. At about the same time your were arguing with N/Z over state terrorism, Ryan was harrassing N/Z on his talk page about whether he was Rex or not. Thatcher131 18:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your thoughts. I responded to them on my page Very nice pic too, I just don't want pics on my talk page. Fairness And Accuracy For All 02:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Response on your user page. Travb (talk) 03:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template other than vandal

Saw a note on your user page. Try using {{user}} instead of {{vandal}}. Result is Bobblehead (talk • contribs). If you want the full on list similar to vandal {{user5}} works great. Bobblehead (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). --Bobblehead 05:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It is nice to know that some people who only want good for me are watching my page, not just those who want ill. :) Hope all is well with you Bobblehead, you may find this interesting:
I am looking for serious policy change suggestions here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Politically_motivated_AfD.27s:_the_elephant_in_the_room Have any suggestions? Travb (talk) 05:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about the update to your userpage. I saw you having problems with the template change so I went ahead and did it. I'll take a look at the villiage pump discussion. --Bobblehead 05:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey WP:BB right? Thanks for taking the initive. Travb (talk) 05:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Philip Agee page

Hi Trav, re:your comments on the Philip Agee page. For the record, I'm not a liberal. I'm just from a different continent and political culture where even the term liberal means something else. What concerns me on wikipedia is not right wing or left wing biases - it is a US centric view of international issues dominating what is actually an encyclopedia read by English readers across the globe. This problem becomes obvious to almost all editors from outside the US on the articles I edit. On two disputes that I am presently monitoring concerning Cuba, all the editors objecting to certain portrayals are from the UK, including myself. This isn't a coincidence, nor is is due to political biases. I beleive it's because the controversial portrayals are framed entirely in the language of one corner of the world - which is quite simply unrecognisable and of no use to anybody from outside the US. Sometimes I get the feeling that US editors forget we use this resource too - and hence if we want to read up on Latin American subjects - we don't want to wade through a whole load of material written by US polemicists which says more about America than it does about the international subject. --Zleitzen 18:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You are "preaching to the choir", there are some wikipolicy articles about this. Best wishes and happy editing. We have a lot of the same biases, and a lot of the same interests, so it will be nice to see you on wikipedia again in the future.
Please see: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Politically_motivated_AfD.27s:_the_elephant_in_the_room which does not actually address this specific issue you mention, but a similar one. Both of our concerns deal with bias...
If you find that wikipolicy page about US bias, please let me know. Travb (talk) 12:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crud3w4re

As you know, this user has been blanking her/his own talk page thereby removing various warnings, etc., and providing Allowed to blank outdated news as an edit summary. I don't recall anyone being allowed to blank warnings from their talk page, especially warnings that date back just over a month. I received this message on my own talk page when I reverted one of these blanking incidents. I reckon it's important to have a readily apparent record of a user's history of argumentative and time-wasting comments, so I'm a bit confused because you seem to be cutting this user more than the usual slack by archiving her/his warning and block tags. Is it just a question of trying to prevent worse attacks and encourage good behaviour? If I'm in error, please let me know. Thanks. Pinkville 15:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks. I mostly just do copyedits, but sometimes see other things that look amiss and try to fix them. I see your good work in various places also. Hmains 02:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Odessa

Hi, I was wondering why you reverted/canceled my edits on the Odessa page (I had replaced the infobox with another one, one that seemed more flexible (eg. allowed for the inclusion of a flag) and more consistent with articles on other Ukrainian cities). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.100.144.76 (talk • contribs).


Thanks for replying.
I don't particularly insist on the other infobox (or on placing a photo of the Opera at the top of the page,
for that matter); actually, my main concern was to add the flag. ... so -- anyways -- now I ended up modifying
the "Infobox Ukrainian City" template code (to add an optional flag field), and that seems to work.
74.100.144.76 06:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations of state terrorism by US

Thanks for clarifying, I spent a long while reading through the archives and stone put to sky's statement didn't make sense in places. I'm sure User:Wikizach acted in good faith, but don't believe he fully understood or implemented the role of mediator. The aim of mediating is to reconcile , clarify arguments and help bring about consensus with both sides; it is not to state definitively what should be in an article based on straw polls (see WP:VOTE), especially in close cases. While a tally is useful to show which sections are and aren't contentious, a 3-2 majority does not mean something should be deleted. I am not yet an advocate for stone put to sky, and so cannot comment on compromises. Thanks. Trebor 17:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving?

Why did you blank this[10] page? Did you archive it somewhere? Morton DevonshireYo 21:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of acts labelled as state terrorism sorted by state

Hi Trav, can you become a "poacher turned gamekeeper" and help me explain to User:RaveenS that simply writing up material without sources, and without attribution breaks WP:NOR. I intially spotted the page on my Cuba rounds some time ago, but noticed that 95% of the page was entirely original research. Given the hoo-hah on the American state terrorism page, this page seems to have gone unwatched by users other than me. Perhaps you have sources that refer to state terrorism which could be added to sections, otherwise I'm only inclined to continue deleting material in line with WP:NOR and WP:V policy. The user in question has had months to find citations.--Zleitzen 23:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I have no idea what this means, and am intrigued: "poacher turned gamekeeper" I have stated again, that it is better to be a POV diplomat than a stupid POV warrior, if this is what you mean.
I will comment on his page, and make it clear to him, that you win edit wars by adding referenced material. If more people realized this, wikipedia would run smoother. Travb (talk) 23:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Trav, must be a local expression. I mean that you've been "under the kosh" before from people demanding sources, and I was asking you to turn table on this topic and help me demand sources for the other article. (I hope "under the kosh" is not another Zleitzen only expression!). Thanks.--Zleitzen 00:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
"under the kosh" is a "Zleitzen only expression". I just advised RaveenS, he probably wont take my advice, but if he does, "we" have a formitable foe. Travb (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of acts labelled as state terrorism sorted by state

Hi Trav, can you become a "poacher turned gamekeeper" and help me explain to User:RaveenS that simply writing up material without sources, and without attribution breaks WP:NOR. I intially spotted the page on my Cuba rounds some time ago, but noticed that 95% of the page was entirely original research. Given the hoo-hah on the American state terrorism page, this page seems to have gone unwatched by users other than me. Perhaps you have sources that refer to state terrorism which could be added to sections, otherwise I'm only inclined to continue deleting material in line with WP:NOR and WP:V policy. The user in question has had months to find citations.--Zleitzen 23:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Message to RaveenS

Hi, you need help I see.

Wikipedia, I have learned, is all about four things: comprimise, sources, being tenacious, and using wikipolicy as a weapon. The person who:


1) is willing to comprimise with other users, (be a wiki POV diplomat, not a stupid POV warrior)

2) sources an article the most, and

3) Who is more tenancious than others,

4) Who knows wikipolicy better than other editors,

...usually wins the edit war.

It is in that order that you will win any edit war. Let me repeat that: IT IS IN THAT ORDER THAT YOU WIN AN EDIT WAR. These tactics build on one another too. In otherwords, if comprimise failed, don't throw away comprimise and go onto step 2, even when you get to step 4, you still must follow steps 1 to 3.

My first question, therefore, is have you been civil to User:Zleitzen. If not, then go and apologize right now on his user page. Remember, be a POV diplomat, not a stupid POV warrior. Words are free to distrbute, and cost you nothing but your pride.

My second question, is have you used sources? You win edit wars with sources. I have won edit wars with the smartest conservatives on wikipedia by outsourcing them. My edits stand for months at a time, when someone argues my edits, I simply outsource them again, making the article even stronger.

But remememer, #2 builds on #1, comprimise' see my argument with a conservative editor about the importance of comprimise, and how bass akwards he is in pushing his POV by deleting arguments which don't meet his own POV. Believe it or not, you can have two viewpoints in an article. Most POV warriors are too stupid to realize this, and so they spend days in stupid edit wars.

How do you use sources? Lets take the biased leftist Naom Chomsky. You can use Chomsky, as a "research" author, to find research which supports your POV, but NEVER use Chomsky as a source in your articles, instead try to use the "mainstream sources" that Chomsky refers too in his work (footnotes are your friend). Only use Chomsky or other non-mainstream sources when only Chomsky says something, and no one else does.

This requires work on your part, use Google Print and Amazon. Use Lexis Nexis research if you have access to it.

I won't touch on number 3 and 4 because you are not there yet.

Except to say in #4, since you obviously don't know wikipolicy as well as User:Zleitzen, you can do what I advised User:stone put to sky to do Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/November 2006/stone put to sky and get an advocate (a kind of lawyer who helps you).

Or, do what I did, and get a mediator for the page: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-17 Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America Travb (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I am touched by the time you have taken to talk to me. Buddy I even voted for the Canadian conservative party :-))) Anyway I am glad that the above mentioned article is got the attention it needs. It is a huge article and it is the handwork of hundreds of editors over a long period of time. As it was clogging up the main article about State terrorism. I merely removed it from the mian article and done my best to keep it as it is before someone with better knowledge and time to edit it finds the time to do it. It is a thankless and a huge job. Some editors who have no knowledge of the subject matter but can quote Wiki policies left and right will and can only take a hatchet to it. As I have written in my User page, I am a creationist (Bushism I suppose) and an inclusionist (another Bushism). It just occured to me yesterday that all what I need to do to protect the valuable information in that page from a hatchet job is simply to create a Sandbox and save it till I find the time to find the citations. The only problem is that I will not have the support of others taht Wiki process allows. I know in my heart and every inch of my body that Argentina suffered what is considered to be the classic case of State terrorism. Reading it does not bother me, but I understand now that what I take for granted might be revelation for others who do not follw such things as civilian massacres let alone seen one. If we take the Wiki policy hatchet job, close to 90% of the articles in Wikipedia and 90% of their content will be gone. It is only by assuming good faith and trying to create content that we have what we have, not simply cutting and burying. Nevertheless now that the information is secure in a sandbox I will try to work on that article one country at a time. Thanks again and good talking to youRaveenS 04:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
See: God's Assassins: State Terrorism in Argentina in the 1970s, first book listed at google print [11] It isn't rocket science, you just need to spend the time on the article.
One solution is to trim this article down to a simple list, with each section only having one sentence. See Talk:List_of_United_States_military_history_events#Hundreds_of_incidents for how this solution worked on another very controversial page. This will move the edit wars too other pages. Travb (talk) 05:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Your advice

Hey Trav,

I do appreciate your attempts to advise and consul me, and although you have not noticed it, I have moderated my tone and behavior substantially. I will give you some advice. IMHO, your admission that you're a partisan POV pusher is foolish and self-defeating. In case you haven't noticed, YOU are the only one admitting to that, and long after the POV pushers have won their battles with you by pointing out to Admins and Mediators your repeated admissions of partisanship, they'll be happily pushing POV, while you will end up banned from articles you hoped to keep free of coordinated conservative bias. "permentently banned?" Me? No way, bud. I do like your advice on the sock puppet thing. I thought that wasn't allowed?! Can you show me where in WP it says that's OK? Thanks - F.A.A.F.A. 21:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, your admission that you're a partisan POV pusher is foolish and self-defeating. Maybe. So far it has worked, but please let me know if it starts to fall apart. It tends to neutralize other POV warriors banter about "POV". Thus far no one has used it in a Arbcom ruling or anything like that. I may be wrong, and you may indeed be 100% correct. Maybe I should tone it down.
I also admit that I am an "Anti-American", which other editors have advised against.
Best wishes on the RfC. I am heartened by your change of behavior, and more moderate tone. It really sucks to be watched by other admins, I argued against this myself to no avail. In my experience, after a few months, admins and editors you have pissed off, find other wikipedians to hassle/monitor/watch over. I could probably post a 1 foot by 1 foot copyrighted image on my user page now, (I was in an argument about this, which got me banned for a bit) and no one would probably notice. I swallowed my pride, kept my head down, learned to apologize to others, and changed my most egregious (flagrant) behavior, and the storm eventually rolled right over me.
Please read the sockpuppet page in detail. Sockpuppets are discouraged, and should not be abused. My sockpuppet, User:RWV I was very open about it. I am tired and don't want to go into detail, please read the sockpuppet policy pages. The bottom line is: You need to follow the rules. Travb (talk) 05:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'll just redirect here

re: User_talk:Seabhcan#Lumberjack.3F

Since you have decided to up the ante on User talk:Seabhcan, I figure we can now simply dicuss this here between you and me. I suggest you go forth and look over my edits. I see looking at yours that you have been blocked by 6 different admins. I also am quick to remember when you saw User:Rootology got blocked for harassment, you went and then basically attacked me and Fred Bauder on my arbcom case (brought forth by permanbanned Rootology), then ranted and raved at AN/I which resulted in your last block...yet I am the problem?...how interesting. Yes, I oppose the conspiracy theories about 9/11 because many of those folks are trying to make a buck from a disaster. If you find my edits so problematic, then let's just go straight to arbcom...just you and me...we can dance there all you like. Otherwise, your comments here are simply your opinions and unlike Seabhcan, I don't go around insulting people from a different country. You can just respond here as I'll watchlist your page. I'm tiring of the falsehoods you are coming up with...so if you want to go straight to arbitration, then let's go.--MONGO 07:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh MONGO, how I am going to miss you on my wikivacation.
I am not "upping the ante", I am trying to edit an encyclopedia, and work out a amecible comprimise that all users can agree with. I am simply expressing my opinion about how I see the situation. I respect your opinion. If my edit history with you is any guide, you are writing an Wikipedia:ANI about me right now, its to bad that we can't talk about our differences without involving third parties.
Derex recently quoted Khaosworks User_talk:Fairness_And_Accuracy_For_All_Archive2#RfC:
I find that nothing fazes a provacateur more than refusing to be baited. It not only doesn't give them a reason to strike back, but that inability drives them crazy since I'm not giving them what they really want - the satisfaction of biting back. I take my shots carefully, and in as subtle a manner as I can.
Wise advice, goodnight MONGO. Travb (talk) 07:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
There is no compromise when editors support harassment...and harassment includes what Rootology did and the comments made by Seabhcan labelling Americans. Don't force yourself to be put into a situation that will require you to make more apologies or worse.--MONGO 07:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Great advice MONGO, thanks. Because of my boot log and problems in the past, I try to be careful not to be put in bad situations. if you feel like I am getting in a bad situation, please let me know. We are all here to build an encyclopedia, after all, and I look forward to your work. We have worked together since WSI, over a year ago, and off and on since then. If all the alegations you state about Rootology was true, which 7 or so admins decided was true, then he deserved to be booted. He obviously would not listen to your sound reasoning and stop his disruptive beahvior.
As I mentioned before, I told those editors on the drama page to not be so nasty to you, and stop baiting you, otherwise they would be banned from wikipedia, they were idiots, they wouldn't listen, and sure enough, all links to that site are now gone.
I respect and am intrigued by your tenacity and ability to win again and again. I am sincere when I say this. I may not agree with your views and edit style, but that doesn't mean that I can respect your intellegence. I have learned a lot from some people on wikipedia--life lesson that I carry with me everyday, I look forward to learning from you.
I am not trying to bait you when I bring up your past administrative history on wikipedia. I am actually well aware of my boot history, and bring it up to wikieditors often. I was rather surprised you got so angry when I wondered outloud how you have survived so many administrative arguments. Maybe it is a sore point for you, if it is, I am sorry I brought it up. The easy way to find out a question is to actually ask, the harder way is to study your edit history and learn from your edit history.
I guess it is better for both of us for me to take the hard way.
I am supposed to be on wikivacation, so bye :) Travb (talk) 02:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Really, you know better

Re: User_talk:Seabhcan#RFA_Morton_devonshire

As someone who has been around here for awhile, you should know better than to make retaliatory attacks. You and I have gotten along well in the past. Let's keep it that way. Thanks. Morton DevonshireYo 02:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Morton. I want to continue to get along with you too. I enjoyed our recent conversation on your talk page. I have learned to get along with a lot of editors who have different viewpoints, maybe we can continue to work towards this too. I am inspired by Zer0's recent change, and see it is a positive omen for all of us. Have a great evening. Travb (talk) 02:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I see you [12] [13] helped out here. Do you think you are helping the situation at the RfC by this? JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 02:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't know, what would you suggest to defuse the tension and controvesy? By the way JungleCat, nice to meet you, I have never talked with you before. Travb (talk) 02:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I have seen you around. But I don't think we have ever spoke to each other. I wish the circumstances were different. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 02:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not a Wiki Vacation

Re: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Seabhcan#Irony_.28cont.29

If you make remarks like this one: "For your own sake Seabhcan, I would stongly suggest toning down the rhetoric. For your own sake. There are some "elephants in the room" which wikipedians should not talk about. I am sure there are "hired goons, fanatics, propagandists, anti-Semites, or fascists" who edit wikipedia, but calling other editors this, even when it is obvious they are, only poisons the air and makes wikipedia a really unfriendly place for everyone to visit."[14] You should expect that there might be a reaction. I'm not interested in bringing any sort of Wiki-action against you for this. Instead, let me ask you, would you like to be called these kinds of names? Please stop adding fuel to this fire. The purpose of the Seabhcan Rfc is to encourage the editor in question to adhere to Wikipedia civility rules and tone down what I'm sure you would agree are rude and incivil edit summaries and remarks, not to add to the contentiousness. Your remarks do not help, and I hope that you would just consider not getting involved. I encourage you to enjoy your Wiki vacation, take a rest from all of this, and maybe focus on important things outside of Wikipedia. I wish you a happy and peaceful Thanksgiving. Morton DevonshireYo 18:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Morton, first of all thanks for your comments. I am not calling anyone "hired goons, fanatics, propagandists, anti-Semites, or fascists" , as my edit clearly shows. In fact it is clear that I am criticizing Seabachan strongly, and "encourag(ing) the editor in question to adhere to Wikipedia civility rules and tone down...rude and incivil edit summaries and remarks" I would suggest you reread the section with this in mind. Best wishes with Thanksgiving. As you know this is an interesting topic, hard not to stop talking about. I am attempting to take a wikivaction, but it is rather hard, because this topic is very interesting to me. I am sure you would understand. When I get home I am going to have my wife hide the internet box so I can focus on my real life. I am already late for class. Travb (talk) 19:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, the fallback..."even when it is obvious they are"...hardly seems to be anything more than an agreement with his comments, though of course you disagree he should state them. Both of you best cease this type of rhetoric if you expect your efforts on this pedia to continued.--MONGO 19:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks you MONGO, I am glad that we all are in agreement here. I STRONGLY agree that wikiusers should not call each other "hired goons, fanatics, propagandists, anti-Semites,fascists...", "...imbecile(s)...", "...lazy...", "leftist" nor should we call other editors edits "garbage" "lefty ramble" "mumbo jumbo" "Ridiculous" "nonsense" "leftist bias" "slander" "left wing propaganda" I am sure that I could add some of my own past violations of WP:NPA. Labels simply cause other people to get angry at each other. I hope Seabhcan realizes that he is only harming himself when he violates WP:NPA.
Sigh, I really need a vacation. Travb (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration

I have opened a case of arbitration at Requests for arbitration:Seabhcan--MONGO 08:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/r/a/User_talk%7ETravb_Archive_8_4a5a.html"