User talk:Travb/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page 2 Re:Request for help 3 From Mobile 01 4 No problem 5 An afd you'll like 6 Been around a while 7 AfD note 8 911ct 9 US-Colombia relations 10 Question 11 Afd Comment 12 FYI 13 BTW 14 systematic US-centric attempts to remove Iraq/Iran related articles? 15 Thanks for the welcome 16 Request for Mediation 17 Heads up Image:Adel panorama.jpg will be deleted 18 Are you getting any weird problems looking at article histories? 19 FYI 20 Mediation 21 RE: RFM Listing 22 Newsbuster article 23 Per Grue 24 Request for Mediation 25 Similar tracks 26 Ludlow Amendment‎ 27 Mediation for Firestone 28 DYK 29 Be careful of 3RR 30 Dispute 31 I'm back now 32 Facts 33 Comments about Fair use to Mobile 01

[edit] Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page

RE: The archiving of Talk:Firestone_Tire_and_Rubber_Company

As per: Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page, the first sentence states: "It is customary on Wikipedia to periodically archive old discussions on a talk page when it becomes too large." Like the Firestone Liberian controversy, I feel this is an issue of size. Removing comments I made yesterday, and then cutting and pasting only the comments you wish on the new talk page is not standard practice, especially in such a heated discussion.

I know you are a new user, and I realize there is a learning curve to all of this. I am happy to help you. Travb (talk) 02:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I neither want nor need your help with anything thank you all the same, I have sufficient experienced editors who gladly offer their advice when solicited. I archived the discussion page and  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · was not involved with that. Your message on the page is therefore incorrect and misleading to new readers and implies once again conspiracy where none exists.

The discussion page is for discussing the article, it is not a BLOG space for you to repeat unfounded accusations or attempt to pervert the views of future editors.

What was removed and archived was the irrelevant posts including my own, what you added yesterday was just more of the same rhetoric and did not assist the discussion of the article. I did not just leave my own bits but selectively left those comments that aided the discussion, lots of my own messages were also archived out. Do not attempt to second guess my motives, you have no idea what my true motives are.

Mobile 01^Talk 11:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Mobile 01, thanks for your comments. Travb (talk) 14:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't quote wiki policy to me when you diliberately break the same policy. If you read the policy that you mentioned it specifically states "Non-committee members may not remove anything from this page or accept/reject cases; this may only be done by members of the Mediation Committee.", I did not delete anything from this page and therefor broke no rules. You on the otherhand did delete from the page and broke the rules. I have spoken to you before about your hypocrisy, here is yet another example of someone who breaks the same rules he tries to enforce on others.

Mobile 01^Talk 23:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Request for help

OK, Travb, I'm going to be honest with you. This is what I think and its why I've generally been reluctant to help you. When Mobile01 came to Wikipedia, he was clearly disruptive and almost definately used sockpuppets. He has made personal attacks on you and his refusal to accept your comments on his talk page borders on incivility. I agree that writing things such as "to prevent the bombardment of hate mail from Travb" is wrong.

But.

It also seems to me that Mobile01 is now genuniely interested in helping Wikipedia. He is misguided at times - he shouldn't remove your comments just because he feels they are attacking, even if they're not intended to be - and I'll happily tell him that. The rule of thumb if somone disagrees with your archiving is to willfully restore the text and bring up a question as to what can be archived on the talk. Again, I'll tell him this.

Mobile's edits are coming as a reaction to a complete loss of faith from yourself. You have hounded him and made report after complaint after report... its just not how we do things here. If you engage with users - even disruptive ones - then either a. They'll change; b. They'll go away or c. The dispute resolution process will come out in your favour. I've tried telling you something along this line before, Travb, but if you posted on Mobile01's wall that you'd be willing to let bygones be bygones and work with him - well then I'd entirely support you if he refused or if he continued to remove your posts etc. But at the moment - I hate to tell you this - but to me you seem just as much to blame for this as Mobile. That's just my interpretation and others may disagree with me (and that's fine). But there's no action that I'm gonna take other than making a similar note to Mobile. Robdurbar 10:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] From Mobile 01

Well I guess we have both been TOLD!

• So in response to Robdurbar's message to both of us, I will be the first to offer my apologies to you. If I have offended you personally in any of my comments then I apologize for that too. I am an Aussie, and while that may not make sense to anyone but another Aussie, we do tend to get fired up when people hound us. I have once before offered you an olive branch right here on your talk page and asked you to end your vendetta against me and come back to the Firestone discussion to talk about making the article better. Last time I did this, you threw it back in my face and just continued with your agenda.
• So once again I am asking you to stop your hounding of me, to stop posting derogatory comments about me, to stop placing messages on discussion pages that do not relate to improving the article, to stop trolling my Contribs and Wikistalking me around the place, to delete your User:Travb/c page and any other diaries you are keeping about me, to let me get on with editing Wikipedia instead of spending all my time defending myself against your continued harassment.
• I will for the record state that I have never deliberately used SockPuppetry on any article I have edited, whether you believe that or not is purely your choice.
• I suggest we agree to totally archive the discussion page on Firestone and start with a totally clean slate where all future text will be about improving the article and nothing else. We should keep the current stuff from FAAFA about the racing and any other messages that are about improvement and just archive/delete the rest. I will also have RebelAt delete the sandbox article and we can all edit the real thing. I suggest we also create a /ideas page where we can place our new edits for approval or collaboration before moving them to the main article. This will prevent further edit wars and allow us both to create a truly great article. I promise to no longer fire up as long as you promise to do the same.
• I have received an email from FAAFA and he speaks very highly of you as an editor and he has also explained the Zer0faults email thingy you talked about. While I have not read it all, I have a better understanding of where you are coming from. As you have stated on numerous occasions, I am a relative novice to Wiki editing and while I may (as stated by Robdurbar) be a little misguided and obnoxious at times, that’s just the Aussie in me. I can't promise I will hold my tongue(fingers) if I don't agree with something, but I do promise that I will discuss the situation and try and find a compromise if it exists.

Olive branch extended, apology given. Bygones it is and hopefully I will see you next on a clean and clear discussion page.

Mobile 01^Talk 13:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No problem

Anytime, it was no trouble at all. :) ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An afd you'll like

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common Dreams NewsCenter. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Been around a while

But I prefer not to have a consistent account. But thanks for the welcome. --70.48.71.53 18:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

All off-topic comments removed. Thx for advice. --70.48.71.53 20:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD note

I've reverted Morton. I wanted a page to keep track of MY AfDs. He should NOT have added his own. GabrielF 21:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 911ct

There is a discussion about terminology, would you like to share your opinion? Lovelight 21:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Use to take care, but I'll go a bit berserk tonight (full moon here), a word of advice: "Whoever is unjust, let him be unjust still. Whoever is righteous, let him be righteous still. Whoever is filthy, let him be filthy still. Listen to the words long written down," Lovelight 02:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Alrighty then, I have not clue what you are saying, but thats okay. :) Travb (talk) 10:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] US-Colombia relations

Hi! Since you have worked on this subject, I was worndering if you could expand the scope of the US-Colombia relations, which needs a separate article and is not merely military but also involves subjects like Diplomacy, trade exports/imports, financial aid and developement, cultural exchange, regional planning, immigration, environment, health, education, and so on. thank for your contributions. --((F3rn4nd0 ))^{(BLA BLA BLA)} 01:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

I have noticed a lot of editors have a reference to a java script monobook.js on their user pages. Can you explain what that is all about and what it is for? Thanks. Mobile 01^Talk

Not really, although I have a monobook on my page, it is a copy of Nuclear's monobook I think. Travb (talk) 10:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Afd Comment

Travb, just so there is no misunderstanding between us, my comment on the AfD [1] is not an NPA against you. My comment is directed towards the person who left the message on your talk page. I can see from the edit history of the article up for deletion that you made some minor edits prior to the user placing the notification on your page. My comment is in regards to him leaving that message in the first place. Maybe you would have commented on the AfD or maybe not, but perhaps you could have indicated on the AfD that you had already edited the article before being recruited and then stated how you came to comment. A full disclosure would have covered you against any issues that might arrise later concerning vote stacking, something I know you would never intentionally do, especially as you have covered it so well in User:Travb/canvas. Cheers, Mobile 01^Talk

User:Travb/canvas basically shows that some form of vote stacking is acceptable by wikipedia. I don't agree with it on certain levels, but that is the way the rule is. Check out Morton's block history on User:Travb/canvas, his only block was for "vote stacking" which was quickly reversed by another admin. User_talk:Travb#An_afd_you.27ll_like is acceptable, from reading the wikirules, the only unacceptable thing is to say that there is a "vote" (which is kind of a legal fiction--an AfD is a vote) and to message other wikipedians how to "vote". Please read Wikipedia:Canvassing and all of User:Travb/canvas.

"A full disclosure would have covered you against any issues that might arrise later concerning vote stacking" By saying that by me not disclosing the entire edit history of Commondreams and AfDs I am not fully "disclosing", is basically saying that I am hiding something. i.e. If you don't disclose something, that means you are hiding something. I am not. There is a fine line between long AfD messages explaning everything, and succinct messages. On AfDs the point is to briefly get your point across, something I am still learning. My edit history, like yours, is there for the entire world to see.

Like Morton, it looks like you will be following my edits in the near future. That is too bad. If you started to edit another page, I would not follow you onto another page. I have watched your past edits with extreme scrutiny, because it was required for the sockpuppet case, but as long as you start to be civil, as we both agreed yesterday, I see no reason why we should enlarge this edit war to other pages, like the AfD.

I asked Morton to not follow me onto Firestone, and asked two admins who often support Morton to ask him to stop following me, but they refused to help. Their approval of Morton's behavior seemed to give me a green light to edit three of Morton's most recent pages, were he characteristically deleted information that he doesn't support (you two are a lot alike). One of those three pages was Commondreams.

I think this is another case were you are new to wikipedia and you don't know the various wikirules again. Before very subtly and diplomatically accusing me of vote stacking:

A full disclosure would have covered you against any issues that might arrise later concerning vote stacking, something I know you would never intentionally do, especially as you have covered it so well in User:Travb/canvas.

I would suggest that you make sure you are very aquainted with the rules. Otherwise you maybe find yourself with pie on your face, looking embarrassed.

Further, to show that you are not biased toward Morton, who supported you so eagerly on Firestone, you may want to examine and comment on Morton's rich history of what some people would characterize as "vote stacking".

Mobile 01, I would ask you to keep our dispute at the Firestone talk page, in the past 23 days when you expand our argument to other pages (as you did on January 11 and 12th), it simply causes more drama, and the involvment of third parties to stop our fighting, which I really want to avoid.

In otherwords, to be blunt: Please mind your own business. Travb (talk) 10:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I wrote that message to ensure you that I was not attacking you or accusing you of anything, and my comment was offering you some advice about protecting yourself from external criticism, something that I am sure both of us could do without. No offence was meant. You have certainly offered me a lot of advice lately, I thought it a nice gesture of good faith to offer some back.

keep our dispute at the Firestone talk page - As far as I am aware, we no longer have a dispute on the firestone page, Do We?

as long as you start to be civil - I've always been civil Travb, Obnoxious maybe, Sarcastic most probably, Infuriating even more so, but always civil. I basically give what I get, and my words usually reflect the way I am being spoken too.

(you two are a lot alike) - Bit NPA and uncalled for Travb.

Please mind your own business - I will take my lead from you Travb.

Mobile 01^Talk 11:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Once you delete the AfD comments about that other user's intention in contacting me, I will gladly remove mine about our shared edit history.

RE: I will take my lead from you Travb.

Mobile 01, I simply ask that our debate stay on Firestone, and not spill over into other pages. I have asked Morton not to follow me with no luck, and I think I have asked Fair not to follow me with no luck, so I have little hope that you would be nice enough not to follow me too. I am a little skeptical why you would vote in tandem with Morton, especially after he supported you so eagerly on the Firestone case. I have already explained Morton and my bitter history in detail. Travb (talk) 12:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not following you around at all, and to be honest I didn't even see your comments on the RfD when I placed my original comments there, I saw the RfD on mortons contribs page, I tend to follow his and FAAFA around as I find their humor ammusing. It was only when I went to look at the article that I saw your name in the history. I checked what you had edited and it looked pretty benign. When I went back to the RfD I started reading from the top and saw your edits there, so I had a look on your talk page and found the message from the user. Didn't give it much though until I read the RfD ettiquette and thought that it was a bit fishy. So I added the comment to the RfD. I then wrote the piece above for you, so as to explain that my comments were not directed at you.

I did note vote in Tandom with Morton, I made up my own mind based on what I saw of the article. I looked at it and found that it really doesnt say anything. The web site may be great and widely used, but the article is crap. I looked at the policy for WP:WEB and it says there should be some notoriety, awards, history or something to warrant it being there. I could find nothing. Hence I voted delete. No conspiracy, no tandem voting, no morton support, just me making a judgement call on the facts as I saw them. I would just as easily change my vote if someone added some more information to the article, but as it currently stands it just doesnt meet wiki standards. I believe anyone can comment on these things and this was the first I had ever seen, so thought I would have a go. Taking your advice, learning about wiki. Mobile 01^Talk 13:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough.

I would just as easily change my vote if someone added some more information to the article

The great thing about wikipedia is that anyone is welcome to edit the article. As you may find out or already know, it is very easy to delete an article or section, harder to contribute to an article to make it better. Travb (talk) 13:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

User_talk:Essjay#Hello_Essjay Essjay is the cordinator for the mediation. The person you are supposed to ask question too.

Should Terrorific (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) less than 13 edits on wikipedia, Ekun (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) 3 edits on wiipedia, Leaders100 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) who never edited the Firestone or Bridgestone page and hasn't edited wikipedia since 12 September 2006, be a part of this mediation?

Can you remove those three inactive and new users from the mediation? I am still confused (baffled) why you added them in the first place. Everyone else has agreed to the mediation.

Where is Japan Project anyway? Why did you choose these three editors?

Thanks Travb (talk) 11:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't ask that question, you did.[2]

I explained why I chose those specific editors on the mediation page. They have been invited to provide opinion because the Bridgestone page is part of Project Japan. As your issue relates to merging an American Companies 100 year history with a Japanese Companies 80 year History it is important that should you procede and actually merge the two, that Japanese readers understand why the history of the American Firestone Company is now being shown as Japanese History. These 3 editors are experts in their field of Japanese History relating to Industry and as such are in the best position to provide an objective view on the merge you recommend. Mobile 01^Talk 12:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

How do you know that Ekun (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) is an expert "in their field of Japanese History" when he only has 3 edits? Terrorific (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)?

There are 146 wikipedians listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Participants why out of those 146 wikipedians, did you choose two users with a total of 16 edits between them (Terrorific and Ekun), and another editor (Leaders100) who hasn't edited since 12 September 2006?

I think it is clear that the mediation is going to go forward despite you adding these 3 names.

Come on Mobile 01 :) Once again I have to WP:AGF but your explanation makes it really, really, really hard. Travb (talk) 12:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF is correct Travb, I didn't check out their number of edits, I just looked through the list to find editors whose stated their speciality. I found three who seemed to specialise in Japanese Industry, Culture and Companies.

• Leaders100 - Post-war rebuilding of Japanese industry
• Ekun - Japanese companies
• Terrorific - Technology, trends, culture

It doesn't look like they are going to get involved anyway, and the Project Japan group can not complain later about any resolution that the mediation makes. They were invited to attend. Mobile 01^Talk 13:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't see how anyone can gather that a person is an expert on Japan based on three edits. In my opinion there is little or no connection to Bridgestone, and I find your explanation lacking. Travb (talk) 14:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BTW

The anon is back and edits under User:Xenophrenic‎. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Gorgeous. If you need any assistance if he deletes something, let me know. Travb (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] systematic US-centric attempts to remove Iraq/Iran related articles?

hi Travb, Thanks for your comment about what you suspect may be a systematic group of deletionists. In the recent articles deleted by the alleged group, there seems to be a pattern of citing wikipedia guidelines but mis-citing their content to the point of absurdity. For example: deletion discussion of killed etc. Iraqi academics.

While i can understand that there was room for improving the article, deleting it was quite ridiculous IMHO.

First, wikipedia is not a memorial. There is a lot of precedent for deleting lists of otherwise non-notable people who died in a particular event.

The WP:NOT link goes to:

Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered.

If 3000 US academics (3000 to be proportional by population) had been killed in 4 years in what looked like a campaign of targetted assassinations, can anyone seriously claim that there would not be an article in the wikipedia listing that information? Would the article be called "a place to honor fondly remembered friends and relatives"? As the person who started the article in the first place and did a lot of work digging about what seemed to be as close as possible to primary sources, i can state quite bluntly that none of those killed were my friends or relatives.

Would it have been possible to delete such an article?

If the answer is "No", then i would speculate that this is a problem of US-centrism.

i also think that people whose job involves deletion of people may have a conflict of interest if they support deleting articles which are about groups opposed to deleting people. Especially when their alleged employer is the one specifically suspected of intending to delete people. Of course, since wikipedia editors can de facto be close to anonymous, it's true that criticising those "people-deletionists" who state that fact on their user pages is not necessarily going to be constructive. However, that does suggest a wikipedia research project: Are people-deleters on wikipedia more likely than other wikipedians to delete pages?

Part of the absurdity of the deletion of the Iraqi academics assassination list page is that some of the people most involved in finding and documenting knowledge are... university academics. Given that they are being systematically eliminated as a group and that their country is under occupation and that the occupier has failed to restore electricity to pre-invasion levels etc etc etc, it's rather unsurprising that they are physically distracted from documenting their colleagues' deaths in a way making it sufficiently "notable" in a google sense. This is related to the obvious and huge factual lie which is still stated on the front page of the en.wikipedia despite my own comments and i'm sure those of many others. It is false to state that wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that "anyone can edit". i don't have iraq internet statistics, but i would guess that many Iraqi academics and students - those most likely to publish "reliable sources" on this particular topic - literally cannot edit the wikipedia, because they don't have good enough internet connections and they (probably) lack the information on what the wikipedia is and how to use it. This means that the debate on finding reliable sources and on the validity of the article etc etc is very far from neutral. 85% of us do not have internet access. Most people do not have internet access. Look at any internet demographics estimates and you'll find that that's still true. 00:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC) So the statement "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is a false statement.

In other words, the wikipedia concepts of notability and reliable sources regarding topics where the most likely sources (people) of those topics are being systematically killed and their country remains under a brutal occupation (half a million killed in 4 years) need to take those factors into account if our aim is in any way related to neutrality. This is plain common sense.

Anyway, this is all stuff that is already known. i don't have the time to chase up what allegedly may be US-centric groups who allegedly may systematically aim to delete articles, nor do i have the time or desire to create a counter-group. If i spoke/read/wrote arabic i could have written an equivalent version on the arabic language wikipedia, where i imagine the article would have been treated very differently...

In any case, sorry for the rant and thanks for the note, though i don't expect i'll have the time to do anything meta- about it. Especially since meta- follows through to metaⁿ with n>>1 which can be very time consuming. In the long term, wikipedians will not be able to avoid the realities i've mentioned above.

Boud 00:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the welcome

...on my talk page. The information and links you provided should prove helpful. Xenophrenic 08:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, I just noticed you referred to me in the familiar tense on my page. Do I know you from some other Wiki, or under another name?

Xenophrenic 08:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Rob, the gig is up. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 12:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Firestone Tire and Rubber Company. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Decision of the Mediation Committee

• Reject: All the parties are not demonstrating good-faith interest in mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, Shyam ^(T/C) 08:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Travb, What the hell happened? Mobile 01^Talk

Travb, one of the involved parties, Cls14, was not demonstrating the good-faith in mediation. There is no use of mediation if all the involved parties do not demonstrate good-faith and are not interested. If all the involved parties are interested and ready to assume good faith then you may consider making a fresh request again. Regards, Shyam ^(T/C) 19:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heads up Image:Adel panorama.jpg will be deleted

Image:Adel panorama.jpg will be deleted from your talk page because it is a copyrighted image. I don't agree with this new draconian policy, and this policy is what led up to one of my booted before. (RE: User:Travb#Collage and User_talk:Travb/Archive_5#The_images) In addition, the way your talk page is set up after you archive all the comments, it is difficult for users to know where they should write messages to you.

I found that image on the Adelaide article, according to the image tags, it is copyrighted, but the owner has given permission for use on Wikipedia.

They just click where it says to.

Mobile 01^Talk 05:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The image can still be deleted. Look at User_talk:Travb/Archive_5#The_images.  :(

Maybe you can change the color, you have a lot of orange. Kinda hard to see. :) Travb (talk) 05:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Is that any better? Mobile 01^Talk

Kewl, I will use the "button" from now on, best wishes. Travb (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Are you getting any weird problems looking at article histories?

I noticed this when following your comment to my talk page. When I went into the history of the Front Page Mag article, it wasn't working right. Wherever I clicked inside the main area (i.e. not the sidebar) it would send me to the article's external links. Jinxmchue 06:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

Talk:FrontPageMag.com#I_strongly_object_to_this_deletion up for deletion. Travb (talk) 03:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This is very similar to the Commondreams deletion issue, I think two things set it apart though.

• This article actually has content and referenced sources.
• The Web site actually produces it's own articles instead of just being a copy repository of others work.

My decision would be - Keep.

Mobile 01^Talk 06:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

Travb, you may want to consider removing these lines, as they are not really steps to resolution, I think the rest is sufficient to show a mediator where we are at. These other lines may indicate bias or bad faith to the mediator. If we want to get this through this time, then we should try and keep to the article and it's content issues. You can delete this from your talk once you have read it, not required here.

• WP:Third opinion [3]
  • Response: User_talk:Travb#Wikipedia:Third_opinion -
  • User_talk:Travb#User:Athaenara_Wikipedia:Third_opinion
• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mobile 01

Cheers, Mobile 01^Talk

I will comprimise and remove 3 of the 4. Good lord is this process a bureaucratic nightmare, it is almost funny how bad it is. Travb (talk) 06:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

That's perfect now, thanks. You know we work much better as a team that as opponents. Mobile 01^Talk 06:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Travb, I appericiate your efforts to make a fresh request again. I apologize for the trouble caused by me. Regards, Shyam ^(T/C) 08:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Shyam Bihari, Since I relisted the article, I made some changes to make the system easier for future users, so rejecting the old request actually turned out to be a good event, not a bad one :) Have a great week. Travb (talk) 13:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: RFM Listing

Your case does list, the case management bot automatically goes through it every so often (I'm not sure what the actual rate is, but it checks several times a day) and lists the cases on the main page automatically. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks :) ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Newsbuster article

Check this out:

http://newsbusters.org/node/10615

Does this look like something you'd be interested in fixing? Jinxmchue 22:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

(Oops! Sorry. Accidentally clicked "minor edit" when heading for the "save page" button. Jinxmchue 22:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC))

Check out my edits, I am incredibly liberal. But thanks for the link. Travb (talk) 03:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Per Grue

I am confused. Do you think it is appropriate to make judgments based upon exclusion of votes in an AFD? The Behnam 14:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Firestone Tire and Rubber Company2.0. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

[edit] Similar tracks

Hey, there! Our paths have crossed once again. We seem to be working on similar tracks, getting those Vietnam War-related articles all linked up to one another. No doubt current events is our mutual motivation -- history seems to be repeating itself.

I've been checking around of late, as things come to mind (not systematically), and there really seems to be a good deal of stuff missing vis-a-vis the Vietnam War & opposition (Congressional, etc). I've added passages of text here and there, but there's tons left to do. Even those articles we linked up are mostly bare-bones pieces that need filling out. Maybe some sort of very informal Vietnam (anti-)War Wikiproject? (Dunno if that makes any sense at all, just an idea that popped into my head as I'm sitting here typing this note.) Any thoughts? Cgingold 14:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

A template would be the best start. I was thinking of making one yesterday. See Template:AmericanEmpire as an example. Travb (talk) 14:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on that a little? How would it be utilized, and what objective might it (help) accomplish? Cgingold 15:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Basically a template brings all articles together into one place. That way if someone finds the Cooper amendment, they can easily access other articles in the group. This template would be made in the hopes of getting other people interested in the porject and helping out. Travb (talk) 23:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, I guess I see where you're going with this. As a matter of fact, I recently put a lot of work into expanding a somewhat related template, Vietnam War correspondents, that another editor had just started. (Among the names I added were half a dozen without existing articles, all of whom are notable and deserving of articles.)

In terms of these Vietnam (anti-)War articles that we've been working on recently, they all fall under the heading "Congressional Opposition to the Vietnam War". Does that strike you as an appropriate template? It would include all of the amendments, etc. that we linked up, along with all of the notable Congressional opponents of the war (I've worked on a few of those recently, too). And some other items, as well -- e.g. the 1971 Fulbright hearings where Kerry testified (amazingly, there's no mention anywhere in Wikipedia of Fulbright's earlier hearings!).

So, what do you think -- is this roughly what you had in mind? Cgingold 14:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

How about "Congressional Opposition to US war" or "Congressional War Powers Clause" in this way we can include the Clark amendment, Boland Amendment, and yesterday's House Concurrent resolution 63 (Iraq_War_troop_surge_of_2007#February_2007) which do not invlove the Vietnam war. Let me know what you think, and I will create it today. Travb (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, very interesting. I hadn't thought of broadening it in that way. But that certainly has a lot going for it. You know what, maybe we should go "all the way" with this, and have it include sections on "Congressional opposition to [ALL] U.S. wars and interventions" (leaving out the word ALL of course). Then it could also include the Spanish-American War & Anti-Imperialist movement (very big!), World War I, and whatever else is worth linking. Have I gone off the deep end? :) Cgingold 14:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I am creating it right now. :) Travb (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

(Later) done: {{Template:Congressopp}} I don't know of any Spanish-American War congressional ammendments. I will see. Travb (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ludlow Amendment‎

Wow. You sure jumped right on that one! Almost like you were just waiting for me to add it to the template. ;) I'm thinking that with a little more work, maybe we could get it mentioned on the main page, possibly in the Did you know? feature. Cgingold

Thanks for the fascinating article! I never heard about it before, and I couldnt sleep at 4 am still thinking about it. I will nominate it for WP:DYK, if you can come up with the question. From what I understand, "Did you know" is for articles which are brand new--1 or 2 weeks old, this article doesnt qualify, being made in May 2006. Travb (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome and/or I'm sorry! :) Yeah, it's an amazing bit of forgotten history, isn't it?!

As to the Did You Know? feature, it actually includes "newly expanded" articles, too. I think it's got a real shot, once we get it all finished & polished up. Cgingold 15:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation for Firestone

Ive agreed to take on mediation. We can get started now at the mediation talk page, as there are multiple articles involved. Thanks -Ste|vertigo 00:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediation takes place on the discussion page Mediation Discussion —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mobile 01 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] DYK

On 27 February 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ludlow Amendment, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Yomangani^talk 22:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Congrats Trav. Classy article - I hope you don't mind that I nominated it. --Duk 16:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't realize another editor worked on the article. Can you copy the pretty little DYK tag to his page and let him know that I'm sorry for not crediting him in the nomination? I was kind of embarrassed to get a "nominators" tag - I didn't work on the article at all ! --Duk 16:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It already is on his page. I added it to Cgingold's page. User_talk:Cgingold#Barnstar

I guess the DYK staff is used to selfish people nominating their own articles (As I am going to start to do--I found in my last Arbcom that reputation goes along way on wikipedia) instead of selfess people like yourself.Travb (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Be careful of 3RR

I'm with you on what you are doing and don't want to lose your momentum. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 01:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute

There is a difference between a dispute over the wording of a policy or guideline, and a dispute over the existence of the policy or guideline. What is going on at WP:N appears to be the former, but the tag implies the latter. Perhaps {{inuse}} or something like that would be more appropriate, or perhaps {{disputedtag}} simply needs rewording. >Radiant< 09:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'm back now

I just left a reply to your notes on my talk page. Btw, did you ever find a way to get in touch with Howard Zinn? If not, I believe I may have an email address for him. Let me know if you're interested! Cgingold 15:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Facts

Please get your facts straight. The notability/academics page was (1) never an essay, (2) never changed to policy, and (3) discussed quite a lot on the talk page. Yet you say that I changed it from essay to policy without discussion. That is quite obviously not the case. Further analysis will show that I was initially opposed to the proposal but was persuaded by the discussion. >Radiant< 09:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

F***, I wanted to be on vacation. My deepest apologies, let me change that information ASAP. Sorry.

Thanks for not adding the a nipple photo like Morton, sigh, I guess our stormy relationship has devolved to immature vandalism. Travb (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Wait a second, i was in the process of writing an apology:

RE:

[4]

"The notability/academics page was (1) never an essay"

I'm sorry this statment is incorrect. I am going back on my vacation. We will talk later. If I made a mistake, I will offer a very big mea culpa. Sorry. Travb (talk) 14:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You need to get a sense of humor.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 17:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments about Fair use to Mobile 01

Found here.[5]

== Fair use image in User:Mobile 01, User talk:Mobile 01, and User: ==

Note that, per Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy criterion #9, fair use images are not allowed in any pages outside of articles. I noticed that you directly include Image:Adel panorama.jpg on your user page, on your talk page and on your talk page archive. This is inappropriate. Please remove them. You may, however, include them as a direct link. Thank you. --Iamunknown 06:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

RE:Fair use image

I warned you didnt I? I am so sorry that a fair use enforcer has found you.

It is only a matter of time before wikipedians delete the photo. Wikipedians, who have little grasp of fair use law, no training in fair use law, and actively push their own eroneous views of copyright law on other wikipedians.

Many wikipedians have fought back and continue to fight back. I was indefinetly booted for daring to question current wikipedia policy.

The admin, a powerful friend of Jimbo, refused to answer my questions and threatened to boot me. Another wikipedian, who supported this admin, went through everyone of my edits, and had another admin boot me.

This admin who refused to answer my question was later hounded off wikipedia.

Recently a large straw poll was closed down by Jimbo Wales, the creator of wikipedia, because it threatened the status quo. The straw poll was asking for clearer guidlines on fair use. Several long time editors left wikipedia as a result.

The big picture

What is happening with wikipedia is typical of any organization as it gets older.

Aging organizations becoe less dynamic, innovative, and creative.

Aging organizations begin to become less democratic as power is centralized into a small group.

Many aging organizations, whether it be Communist Russia or Capitalist America, a NGO, a religious organization, or a small group of people all do the same thing purge those who threan the status quo and threaten the power of the small group who have power.

Wikipedia has first mover advantage, which makes it hard for newer companies to compete against Wikipedia, but eventually, as Wikipedia becomes more and more popular. There is bound to be a newer company which will become more popular than wikipedia, and steal away dissatisfied wikipedians. This new organization will which has all of the wonderful democratic qualities that Wikipedia is slowly, inevitably losing.

Unless Wikipedia and reinvents itself Wikipedia's eventual decline is immenent.

If I had to bet against wikipedia becoming an extinct dinasour or Wikipedia reintenting itself, I would bet that Wikipedia will eventually become a extinct dinasour. (I have a Glass half empty view)

Travb (talk) 10:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)