User talk:Travb/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

1

2

Petral sockpuppet

CJK boot

3

4

Jew and my CJK boot
My Indefinite boot

Unblocked

5

6
7
8
9
10


Contents

[edit] No gun ri

TRAVB~ ...and I think that's all the editing I'll do. About 12 words or so, none of them controversial. I'll leave that to the rest of you. --RobertBateman 11:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I welcome active particiaption in the article. you are the most qualified person to write the article. If you have a problem using your real name, please create another account, no one will be the wiser, and I believe this is okay to do. Travb (talk) 11:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] McGowan's War FYI

Just that you might be interested in this bit of episodic farce; someone had expanded my original stub fairly well, considering the source (see talk page) but it's pretty interesting story, and almost more a part of US/California history as it is of BC's; I'm going to have to consult the History of California/San Francisco pages to see what the appropriate links to the Vigilance Committee and Law and Order Party should be, but it's pretty well-told now; this has to do with that stuff with the Border Comission Troops, also....Skookum1 18:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Travb/Some argue - spelling

Hello Travb...actually the spelling error was mine not yours...I just recatted your template which had really good spelling. The origianl typo was mine. :)
—Lady Aleena talk/contribs 18:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fraser Canyon War

Just winged it in one sitting; have to check back with the books later but I think you'll enjoy it; quite the tale...Skookum1 20:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Italian general election, 1948

I did not, in fact, add that section, nor do I know who did. The last revision before my edit earlier this year was in the previous November on that same section. The paragraph you noted as mine on my talk page read, before my revision:

This propaganda campaign proved successful as the Christian Democrats (Democrazia Cristiana) won the 1948 election with 48 percent of the vote, while the FDP only received 31 percent of the votes. The FDP would not win a general election for the next 40 years.

Though I am deeply suspicious and distrustful of American influence in the democratic processes of our "allies," I felt that professionally the paragraph was not balanced and that there wasn't a clear connection between the allegations made regarding American efforts and the result of the election. Thus, I toned it down to the paragraph you cited, in exactly the hope that a more interested and knowledgable person such as yourself would repair it properly. I appreciate your doing so, and hope that I have been of some help. Wally 00:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[useless rant]"Professionalism" (I still think most of us are amateurs here, despite having degrees here and there, and I have one in contemporary history) does not mean negating historical fact, such as the US heavy - and hidden - hand on Italy we've been experiencing on a daily basis since 60 years, because you do not have a quotation right at hand. Even Mafia does exist, despite its lawyers' best efforts at saying "you have no proof of it". However, if the rule requires finding an appropriate online quotation in English (difficult)... I'll avoid further writing on sensible subjects, and keep at my typo- and link-fixing routine, so the Anglos can keep on believing what history they prefer. A pity: English Wikipedia IS THE ONLY Wikipedia worth working on, for it is the truly international version, not one made only for consumption of Americans, Brits and so on. They invented it, but a whole world understanding English desires to write down its own history from an own POV, for politically uncorrect it can be [/useless rant] User:Basil II 22:40, 17 July 2006 (CET)

[edit] Preview

Please use the Show preview button before saving your edits, rather than making several successive changes. While it may not be a big deal to just save everything when editing an infrequently edited article (though it does push the page history down), it is very problematic when trying to have a discussion on the Talk page and is anyway unnecessary. —Centrx→talk • 04:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Adw

You edited Template:Adw instead of the talk page you presumably wanted to edit. I have reverted on the template, but not knowing where you wanted to post I cannot move your post there. You need to repost that. (Liberatore, 2006). 17:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Acutally, the problem is that the template includes a section header, and clicking on the [edit] tab leads to editing the section within the template. The easiest solution is to subst: the template, which I just did. (Liberatore, 2006). 17:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes I did accidentally alter the template, but I believe it was rectified by netsnipe minutes after my doing so. What problems still remain? AdamBiswanger1 18:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
The problem was not that you altered the template, but that you used {{adw|...}} instead of {{subst:adw|...}} in User talk:Nbrandon and User talk:Chm33. Then, User:Travb tried to edit one of these two sections and ended up editing the template. Everyting is fixed now, but this kind of problems can be avoided altogether using subst: in the future. (Liberatore, 2006). 18:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks guys. It was actually User talk:DKalkin I was editing.Travb (talk) 21:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TDC

Hey Travb - having had my own disputes with TDC in the past, many of which were far from civil, I have been following your comments on his talk page, and I checked out the Peltier page after seeing your note on his talk page about him being up to his old tricks there. What makes you think you were 100% wrong about Peltier? I know little about the case myself, and my own bias in this instance is probably pretty close to TDC's on this particular matter, though I disagree with him on almost everything else. But it took me less than five minutes on google to learn that TDC was the one who was 100% wrong in his deletion of that material. His google searches looked reasonable, but his bottom line was completely fallacious -- if the Amnesty Intl website doesn't say they consider peltier a political prisoner then they don't. However, AI is quoted saying exactly that in numerous places, including a number of mainstream newspapers. All he can do is assert that a respected harvard-educated lawyer made up the quote. Having interacted with TDC for over a year now, I have caught him in several lies, so I know who I believe between him and the lawyer. Anyway, I appreciate your attempt to dialogue with him; hopefully he will eventually come to see that adding information is better than deleting it and that more points of view make wikipedia stronger. It is not his POV that I really have a problem with; it is his overbearing, disruptive, and uncivil behavior in trying to make Wikipedia conform to that POV. Anyway, I encourage you to take another look at the Peltier stuff.--csloat 08:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, he definitely watches my page. Thanks for the comments. You're right about how easy it is to get sucked into arguing on his level; I sometimes think that's his only real goal here - to find certain (liberal) users who he doesn't like and goad them into anger. The RfC was dropped because nobody would properly certify its basis. He had one other user who supported it but he could not provide any evidence of having tried to resolve the dispute, and TDC's so-called evidence was all from totally different disputes (including one over a year old). I contacted several conservative editors I had arguments with in the past and asked them to comment on the RfC and they unanimously supported me. TDC's charges were absurd - stalking and civility. While I could certainly tone down my language, I have never stalked anyone. But as you know, his definition of "stalking" includes reading his edits on any page, even those on your watch list. Wikipedia policy is much more specific and rational than that. But that doesn't stop him from accusing me of stalking every time I challenge one of his edits. Anyway, thanks for the input.--csloat 19:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, best of luck. Nice to talk to you two. Travb (talk) 21:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of United States military history events

I have corrected your spelling of the word "involvement." Also, I believe that the article is America-bashing as it stands, so I've included the following paragraph:

  • Hundreds of incidents (the overwhelming majority) are included herein where U.S. forces never took military action, and were present strictly for humanitarian or other peaceful purposes: disaster relief, for example, or providing security for the evacuation of U.S. civilians during a civil war.

If you are going to insist on misspelling the word "involvement," and if you're going to insist on America-bashing, go ahead and do another "revert." AlyssaM (talk) 10:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editing your user page

Hi Travb, glad you didn't mind my reflexive, pedantic edit on your own user page! Thanks for your vigilance of the Firestone article, among many others. MarritzN 15:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)MarritzN

[edit] Exporting democracy

Please do not remove the Articles for Deletion template from the US history of exporting democracy‎; I have nominated it for deletion. Thank you. JPotter 06:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to say sorry for nominating your article for deletion. I definitely jumped the gun there. It was well referenced and decidedly not POV. Sorry again. JPotter 14:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United States territorial acquisitions Merger

  • Glad you liked the job I did with the merger. The prose still needs work, but the whole Wikipedia is a work in progress. Lovelac7 06:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] American Empire

What does Anti-Americanism have to do with the American Empire page? W123 17:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State terrorism by United States of America

Having seen your note on WP:AN, I was going to close this AfD and redirect State terrorism by United States of America to American terrorism, but it appears that, though most discussion participants support the merging of the two articles, there is no consensus as to which article ought to the principal one, and so, your merge notwithstanding, and even as the AfD should be closed and the discussion apropos of naming taken to the articles' talk pages, I don't feel comfortable closing (for me, the arguments by several that the formulation of the latter title is preferable but that the American styling is imprecise are persuasive, and so I'd concur in your suggestion that we redirect this article to the American terrorism article and that we subsequently rename the latter, but I think it's best that editors who have been working on the articles work to name the conflation of the two articles). Joe 19:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved from this conversation

I moved the following from the Talk:Howard_Zinn to here, because of complaints about this information being irrelevant to Zinn:

[edit] Out of desperation, I post my question here

I am interested how I can email or mail a question to Zinn.

The question goes something like this:

Why does Zinn believe that the American people are being decieved by the politicians and elite in the United States?

Zinn and many other authors on the left have this reoccuring theme that the American people are being decieved by the media elite and the politicians. This theme is throughout Zinn's book "The People's History of the United States".

I think the reality is just the opposite: Americans delude themselves, and American's politicians and media elite are only a reflection of this delusion. Americans want to believe in their hearts that they are benign. They ignore and even ruthlessly attack inconvient facts which question this mythology. Americans are a bloodthirsty people with a shameful history. Americans should not blame their leaders, they are only a reflection of American's own delusions, we should blame ourselves.

But when an author is peddling an ideology, whether that author is on the right or the left, you don't want to tell your customer who you are peddling the ideology too that they are a murderous people. If you said this, no one will buy what you are peddling.

So the right peddles America's righteousness, and the left peddles the American people's righteousness too, but plays the "class card": demonizing the leaders and elite in the society. The left tells Americans they are only decieved victims of an elite.

Anyway, I am interesed how Zinn would answer my question. If anyone knows how to contact him, please let me know.

Signed: Travb (talk) 05:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, Zinn believe that the Americans are being decieved by the politicians and elite because they have been, continue to be and most likely always will be. Many people, typically conservatives/the right/republicans/whatever, believe that everything the U.S. does is somehow justified, howeveer horrible these actions might be. There are other people, typically liberals/the left/democrats/whatever, who beleive that there are many, many things that the U.S has done and continues to do that are reprehensible and in no way justified. People of the latter ilk are willing to see the blood on their own hands to varying degrees. People of the former ilk are either delighted by the blood on their own hands or they believe that it's somehow justified for being there. Regardless of the truth factor of whether the "people" are deceived or not (I think clearly this is true, but think what you want), I think that reading "A People's History of the United States" can make people aware of the brutality of America and they can decide for themselves if they are part of the aggressor/oppressor or part of the oppressed/deceived. The truthful answer for 99% of Americans is that they belong in both groups. It kills me how people don't quibble over the veracity of any of Zinn's claims and facts, just the interpretation of them. So go write your own book which makes no distinction between working-Joe-type-Americans and a war-profiteering, blood-thirsty war general or a CEO of a corporation that uses sweatshop labor in foreign countries. Then we'll see if people quibble over interpretation, or whether they'll question the factual basis for your claims that would paint such a ridiculous picture.--Hraefen Talk 16:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, Zinn hasn't addressed this question before, anyone know?
My question revolves around the concept of "National guilt"
Actually in retrospect, there are certain leftist who share my view of national guilt to some extent Ward Churchill and his little Eichman speech is the most infamous.
Of course there is a difference between "working-Joe-type-Americans and a war-profiteering, blood-thirsty war general or a CEO of a corporation ", there is much different culpability (guilt).
I am not to concerned about apportioning guilty as much as I am concerned about how the US sees itself. This is were I believe Zinn is wrong: Of course Americans are decieved by the politicians, this is not were my major concern lies. My major concern is the foundations of these myths about Americans goodness. I think an entire society with free press cannot be decieved by a small elite so effectively. I keep thinking about the book Hitler's Willing Executioners which exposes the myth that only the elite and SS where involved in the extermination of the Jews. The book argues that Hitler could not have been so effective in killing Jews without the majority of German support. I argue that American myths and American wars are just the same. American leaders throughout history could not have caused so much death and destruction without the consensus of the American people. The majority of Americans selectively ignore and selectively interpret certain historical events because they want to be decieved. They want to downplay certain events which make America look bad and focus on other events that make American look good.
In otherwords, even if 280 million plus Americans picked up Howard Zinn's "The People's History of the United States" today, and read it, the majority would disgard it, because it threatens a belief system that they want to believe in, that the media and the politicans to not create, but foster.
People's History is a great book, but I think Zinn's theory about Americans being decieved is wrong.
Anyway, I am wondering if Zinn has ever tackled this question. Travb (talk) 17:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ward Churchill addresses the issue

As usual, unfortunatly I found a partial answer to the question myself. I still have not found any article by Zinn which discusses this issue.

But Ward Churchill's essay discusses the issue, and his argument is surprisingly the same as mine:

Contemporary conservatives, whenever they can be momentarily boxed into conceding one or another unsavory aspect of America’s historical record, are forever insisting that whatever they’ve admitted can be “properly” understood only when viewed as an “exception to the rule,” an “aberration,” “atypical” to the point of “anamolousness.” None have shown a readiness to address the question of exactly how many such “anomalies” might be required before they can be said to comprise “the rule” itself. When pressed, conservatives invariably retreat into a level of diversionary polemic excusable at best on elementary school playgrounds, arguing that anything “we” have done is somehow excused by allegations that “they” have done things just as bad.
Progressives, on the other hand, while acknowledging many of America’s more reprehensible features...have become quite monolithic in attributing all things negative to handy abstractions like “capitalism,” “the state,” “structural oppression,” and, yes, “the hierarchy.” Hence, they have been able to conjure what might be termed the “miracle of immaculate genocide,” a form of genocide, that is, in which—apart from a few amorphous “decision-making élites” —there are no actual perpetrators and no one who might “really” be deemed culpable by reason of complicity. The parallels between this “cutting edge” conception and the defense mounted by postwar Germans—including the nazis at Nuremberg—are as eerie as they are obvious.
...
Noting that the (Philippine-American War) was a matter of public knowledge by 1901, Creighton Miller goes on to observe that collective “amnesia over the horrors of the war of conquest…set in early, during the summer of 1902.” He then concludes by reflecting upon how “anti-imperialists aided the process by insisting that the conflict and its attendant atrocities had been the result of a conspiracy by a handful of leaders who carried out, through deceit and subterfuge, the policy and means of expansion overseas against the will of the majority of their countrymen.”
"...anti-imperialists were letting the people off the hook and in their own way preserving the American sense of innocence. Unfortunately, the man in the street shared the dreams of world-power status, martial glory, and future wealth that would follow expansion. When the dream soured, the American people neither reacted with very much indignation, nor did they seem to retreat to their cherished political principles. If anything, they seemed to take their cues from their leader in the White House by first putting out of mind all the sordid episodes in the conquest, and then forgetting the entire war itself."
The full incredible article is here: The Ghosts of 9-1-1: Reflections on History, Justice and Roosting Chickens "This excerpt is an expanded version of his controversial essay “Some People Push Back”" Travb (talk) 05:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Again, I am wondering if Zinn has ever tackled my above question.Travb (talk) 05:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Not that anyone is reading this (based on my sparce response, but I just created this page: American civil religion. Travb (talk) 00:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I've been reading this, but it's not really appropriate for this talk page since it doesn't refer directly to the article or an issue arising from the article. To answer your questions, you could probably contact Zinn directly if you like, though probably a better approach would be to read his works. If you want to start a general discussion with such comments as you've made, you could take them to my or others' talk pages and see what happens. :~) Pinkville 11:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Azplace argument

Response to this posting about Kerry's "gaff" :

“ You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq. ”

Naum, listen to the entire speech. It is obvious who he is talking about. I saw the entire speech.

There is no need to use a weak red herring logical fallicy to defend Kerry:

“ One thing I am certain of is that Kerry's "foot in mouth" faux pas isn't anywhere near as offensive as this famous presidential indiscretion that made light of the deliberate misrepresentations fostered by the Bush administration for its illegal, immoral and unconstitutional invasion of a country that posed no threat to the United States. ”

When you read the speech, in context, it obvious what he is talking about, George Bush.

Kerry is a smart guy, but he is no Clinton, and he isn't even a George Bush. Americans are enamored with likable "oh shucks" politians. Kerry is a highly educated elite who doesn't have the people skills of Clinton, or the polical advisor (Rove) that Bush does. Although Bush is an idiot, he is surrounded by some of the most intellegent Machevellians in politics who will do anything, anything to hold onto power. Granted, Clinton was also power hungry and ambitious. Clinton had no problem using military might to further his own political agenda. Kerry is no different, he is just not as good a politican.

That said, what I do like about Kerry is that he does flip-flop, that he is more human than Bush or Clinton.

“ Kerry will change his views to fit the facts; Bush will change the facts to fit his views. --Hillary Clinton in the 2004 race. ”

Kerry spent a lot of time researching the dirtiest part of American politics--he was a crusader of this in his congresional career, why he never mentions this in the debates, I have no idea. Maybe because americans, who are so apt to have collective amnesia, don't want to be reminded how murderous and nasty US foreign policy is, and how they, as Americans, are all collectivy to blame.

No one remembers the Senate reports that Kerry produced, because as I mentioned before Naum, liberal or conservative alike, everyone is enamoured (zealous) about their own righteousness, believing that Americans in general are good, decent people, which is reflected in Americans foreign policy. Naum, as I mention before (http://azplace.net/index.php?itemid=839#17387) you share this disillusion too.

As I quoted before, Ward Churchill states:

“ Insert the text of the quote here, without quotation marks. ”

4:59 am, I am going back to sleep.

Written by: RWV 11:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unseen Pictures, Untold Stories

May 21, 2005 Los Angeles Times [1]

"These pictures are going unseen because editors don't print them," Chris Hondros said. "And they don't print them because readers don't want to see them."

But there is some evidence that the public holds a more ambivalent view.

A survey on behalf of Associated Press managing editors questioned 2,461 regular newspaper readers about a series of photos, including the image of the mortally wounded Babbitt.

In the unscientific survey, 59% of the readers said they would have published the Babbitt photo.

[edit] Hey

Did you really think I was a woman? I couldn't tell if that was a joke, and sometimes those are the best ones :-P Karwynn (talk) 20:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I wasn't offended or anything, I just wasn't sure if you were serious. Thanks for the compliment! Karwynn (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] tags/refs

Crap, sorry, I was the one that broke the page with a missing ref. :( rootology (T) 21:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accusation of vandalism

Travb, I highly reccomend you cease and desist in your implications that I am bordering on vandalism. One more step out of bounds in this regard and I will take up with admins.--Kalsermar 01:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

See my response on your talk page. I highly reccomend you cease and desist in your large scale deletion of Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America, which are not in good faith.Travb (talk) 01:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

Thanks for your kind words. I am fully booked right now, but will try to find time. Remind me again if you wish. You might like to summarise the issues, as you see them, on my talk page. I am happy to take up what Kalsermar wants to be examined, however, if you or he care to give me details/diffs... You may have spotted I've been sysopped recently. Tyrenius 05:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the article

I'm sorry, the threaded on top of threaded nature has me a bit confused... do you still think it should be named American terrorism? rootology (T) 16:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Travb, please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Morton devonshire. Addtional information from SYSOPS have been posted. Please review this as it shows how you were in error. I hope you can learn from this and be more carfull in the future. Æon Insane Ward 01:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I've closed this as there is insufficient evidence at the current time. However, if you feel that you have enough evidence for a related Checkuser, you are welcome to proceed with the same. Thank you -- Samir धर्म 02:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I already have requested a checkuser, thank you for your work. Travb (talk) 02:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Central Intelligence Agency

Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I removed the paragraph that you just restored to Central Intelligence Agency because it's based entirely on one man's personal opinion on his personal website - such sources are specifically excluded from inclusion under our reliable sources policy. -- ChrisO 22:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SSP

That's what I am here for, as well as other things. :-) Iolakana•T 15:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Iolakana•T has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

[edit] Love your pet graph.

Love the graph! Well done. I totally agree in concept. I'm proud to say I just ordered a copy of the Annals of America for the exact reason that it contains copies of original source documents from American history.  :-) Lawyer2b 19:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC) P.S. - I will soon be stealing your graph to put on my userpage as well.  ;-)

Response on your user page, thanks. *Blush* Travb (talk) 23:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Antagonism?

Re: Talk:Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America

I posted the following (in a box) on a user's talk page, in response to what a user wrote at Talk:Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America:

==Some would say lots of things from looking at your userpage==

Some would say lots of things from looking at your userpage I am facinated by what some would say. Like my collage? It is a combination of two users fight on another user page.

Not that it matters, what I think about your user page, but I think it is a good idea too archive your page too. I archive mine all the time, usually when I don't want to deal with an debate any more. Best wishes and happy editing Travb (talk) 15:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Travb has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

WP:AGF Users response: Dont post here anymore or I will ask for admin assistance, your attempts to antagonize me will only fail.[2]

Smile removed: [3]

Question removed: "removed antagnozing comments."

All messages archived.[4]

Message on board: "Do not restart discussions here, all discussions moved to archive are considered closed and will be ignored. Thank you for your cooperation." [5]

WP:AGF How in the world is sending a wikiuser a smile antagonism?

WP:AGF A wikiuser wanted me to move the comments here to this wikiuser's talk page, and then this wikiuser calls my smile and my harmless comments "antagonism". Another wikiuser sent me this smile today, and I thought it would be a nice gesture.

As per Wikipedia:Talk_pages#Etiquette:

Actively erasing non-harassing personal messages without replying (if a reply would be appropriate or polite) will probably be interpreted as hostile. In the past, this kind of behavior has been viewed as uncivil, and this can become an issue in arbitration or other formal proceedings.

Goodness, has this conversation become so degraded that posting a smile and a casual comment to a wikiusers talk page considered antagonism? How can we build consensus together with such negative feelings?

I don't want someone to elect this page for Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars, but it is quickly becoming WP:LAME. I know those who have sought Talk:Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America destruction will point to this WP:LAME argument as proof positive that this page should be completely deleted.

In response, I argue that some of the best articles have gone through huge edit wars. If we were to follow this argument to its conclusion, articles such as George Bush and 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict would have been deleted long ago.

Signed: Travb (talk) 00:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You may be interested in...

Hi. I might be wrong about this, but I thought that you might be interested in Campaigns Wikia. Jkelly 01:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CIA

I was randomly looking through the Wikipedia:Requests for Investigation and I found out you requested someone to be blocked on account of adding the "nobody" Mohammad Reza Aghaei Laghaei to the CIA page on Wikipedia. I found his name on the CIA website. Just telling ya. --66.218.20.28 05:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Debating - Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America

I think you may have over-estimated how hard anyone wants to work to make the page into what you think it ought to be. If you want to contribute to that page, keep at it. If you would rather do something else, that's fine too. Either way, happy editing. Tom Harrison Talk 13:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] state terror mess

I'm trying again. rootology (T) 02:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me ask you a favor--your dedication and devotion to an ideal is freaking awesome--but lets try to reign it in a little. I know some of them are working extraordinarily hard to get under others' skins for some reason, but let it slide. If some fool comes along to try to troll you, screw 'em. I'm not even going to reply to them if they try. rootology (T) 02:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American Empire

I don't know if you noticed, but I removed the link to American exceptionalism because it is already linked to earlier in the same paragraph. I was hoping you would remove your rivision of my edit. thanks. also, please see[Overlinking]--Niro5 18:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

thanks!!--Niro5 03:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] War crimes & anti-imperialism

As someone who once served in the U.S. military who is both an anti-imperialist and sensitive to the concept of legal warfare, the Lodge Committee is an important topic to me. My father served in the Phillipines in WW II, and I have known other veterans of World War II there. My father and others I have known had many warm rememberances of the Filipino people, and I had a first cousin who was a Peace Corps volunteer there. His position on the Phillipines was William Jennings Bryan's finest hour in my opinion. Although I'm in many ways a conservative, I think that real American conservatism is anti-imperialist by nature because in many ways it is anti-Big Government by nature and imperialism is by nature "Big Government". Thanks for your positive comments. As a Tennessean, I am somewhat familiar with Senator Carmack due to his large statue on the State Capitol grounds. Rlquall 19:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, there is a legitimate use of military force to protect American interests, which may involve overseas deployment. But such deployments are only truly successful when they involve returning governance to the local populace (Germany and Japan being notable examples). We were certainly wrong to aquiesce in French imperialism in post-WW II Indochina. Sometimes, though, things which look very marginal morality-wise work out well. South Korea is far from perfect, and for many years we propped up a very corrupt, anti-democratic military regime, but now there is relative democracy and freedom and it certainly looks far better than its Northern counterpart. Kurdistan is an apparent mostly-success, even as most of the rest of Iraq (to date) appears more and more to the outside observer to have been a wretched failure. (As our military leaders do so often, they prepared to fight the last war.) We learn almost nothing about "winning the peace" from one time to the next, it seems. American soldiers in my experience are never well-trained as peacekeepers. (Please investigate history in the American Zone of Germany from the truce up till the time of the establishment of the "Constabulary" for verfication of this, and don't just trust me and my experience.) We need to leave this to other countries with our moral, financial, technical, and logistic support whenever it is possible to do so. Rlquall 19:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CIVIL

Please address the content not the editor, continuation of your attempts to attack me directly will result in an AN/I post regarding your behavior. This post is in response to: [6][7] --zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments I never posted

We are all adults here, I want to believe that with User:Wikizach assistance we can reach a consensus ourselves without having to be babysat by the Arbitration Committee. I have found Arb Com decisions to be very punitive and restrictive. I think all of us want to have the freedom to edit this page as we deem fit.

[edit] Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America

I will (try) not get to involved with the article, but I think unprotecting will lead to a bitter edit war. I appreciate you attempting to mediate this difficult topic. Travb (talk) 05:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, we'll see what happens. I've watchlisted the page to revert any obvious vandalism and make sure a revert war doesn't start: if one does I'll have to reprotect the page. —Mets501 (talk) 12:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] War Crimes

The inquiry into war crimes in the Philippine-American war led to the court-martial and conviction of a brigadier general. Note how subsequent U.S. trials for war crimes seem to involve, invariably, enlisted personnel and junior (company grade) officers and almost never senior officers, especially those who are graduates of the service academies. Not that there's any bias or prejudice involved in this ;.} Regards, Rlquall 15:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You are right in this assertion. The most shocking aspect of McKinley's imperialistic and paternalistic attitude toward Filipinos was probably his comment on how they needed to be "uplifted and Christianized". (I get the feeling that Kipling was one of his favorite authors but that he would have doubted whether the nonwhite Gunga Din could have really been a "better man".) I've never gotten over the irony of one of the main rationales for Hearst to fan the flames of the Spanish-American War was how the Spanish used concentration camps to maintain control over Cuba, and then in the subsequent American occupation, concentration camps were again utilized to maintain control over Cuba by its new masters. I have always been terribly disheartened as an adult that the Philippines were and remain so much more economically backward than the rest of Southeast Asia despite having been "colonized" for so long by the world's leading exponent and exporter of capitalism (which I ardently believe in, within limits). As to your question about when did certain nonwhite peoples become human beings in the eyes of the majority of white Americans, I certainly think that the outcome of the Civil War had something to do with it, although the horrific attitude that you cite with regard to American Indians was very predominate long after the war's conclusion. Lots of works reflect this trend but I can't come up with one or a short list that are largely on the topic. As you seem to share my abiding interest in civil rights, you may be interested in improving upon my relatively new article on United States v. Shipp, which seems to have represented something of a recognition by Supreme Court of a need to make a more proactive stand on civil rights, particularly in death penalty cases. Regards, Rlquall 16:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re-mediation cabal

Thank you for that detailed intro. I hope I can get to know this case well, that way I will be informed of 'all sides'. In the case that I cannot resolve the issue (which we must try), I will be glad to get this further. But I hope there would be no cause for that. At this time, I am considering a suspension of the straw-poll. It just creates more division, and we do not need that. I will discuss this further more with you in the morning. Thank you for your help! WikieZach| talk 01:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed the straw poll in full, sorry for the above comment. 2nd, I have never even heard of the users you mentioned until now, and it you want proof, review my contributions. I am Very good at mediation, but I just need the talks to start ASAP on the mediation page (that's when things can get rolling). Thank you for your request, see ya in the morning! :) WikieZach| talk 03:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved comment back

I've moved my comment back on Allegations of_ state terrorism by United States of America/strawpolls#Oppose_.28state_suggested_alternative.29, since it's a slightly different title ("United States political violence" could mean violence by the U.S. or in the U.S.) Fagstein 17:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation policy question

There are some policy questions being brought up about your mediation request. Just to let you know, if they become larger, I may have to refer this to the Arbitration Committee. WikieZach| talk 19:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It's from a comment posted as follows, So just how do we determine what should be included here (and in similar articles), how do we name it in a way that preserves NPOV, and how should it be worded? Fagstein 17:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC) My response was that only the Arbcom or Jimbo can decide what is NPOV and so on. I just wanted to draw you attention to this in case it becomes a major issue as the mediation process continues. WikieZach| talk 19:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question on the LostCasts AfD

Hello, No, the plea for votes is not against Wikipedia policy per se (and I was not suggesting anyone be blocked), yet, the votes of people who aren't involved in the community, and thus don't have any concept of the norms, goals, or guidelines of Wikipedia, can and should be discounted. For backup on this, see WP:AFD#How to discuss an AfD/Wikietiquette and Wikipedia:Single purpose account.

In this case, the overwhelming numbers of "Keep" votes for the article stemmed from people who'd never contributed to Wikipedia at all, and were driven there solely because of a posting on the fansite being referenced. Allowing/accommodating actions like that, in my view, exposes Wikipedia to sheer votes determining things, rather than policy. -- PKtm 20:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Formating

Thanks, and so simple too! Tom Harrison Talk 20:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations of state terrorism by the United States of America

Thanks for the email. While I broadly agree with the views you have expressed on the article talk page, I personally would prefer to keep the current title. The current title has 20 unique google hits ignoring repetitions, while political violence has only 1. Addhoc 22:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I've responded to the notes you left for me

I've responded to the notes you left for me. There are more, but relevant to this page:

The current edits of State Terrorism by the U.S. are going nowhere. The problem is simple and obvious: there are multiple definitions of "terrorism" at work here.

I would have no problem if you or someone else asked all the disparate groups involved with the page to come up with their own definitions of terrorism and then included each definition under a single "Competing definitions of Terrorism" heading. Then, each entry that came after could simply refer to how the examples cited did or did not fulfill the requirements for each of those definitions.

Now, some folks have argued for trying to establish some basic definitions for the page, and it's obviously necessary, but for some reason others are resisting it. My suspicion is that those "others" realize that they are actually arguing against the very idea that *any* definition of terrorism can include the actions of a western democracy.

At any rate, i would be perfectly happy if we were to change the title to "State Terrorism by the United States of America"; it would provide an opportunity for the ostriches who are currently vandalizing the page to provide lengthy rebuttals, and in return the rest of us could insist upon the inclusion of "Sponsorship" as being a portion of the article.Stone put to sky 14:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, I will respond on your talk page. Travb (talk) 14:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your e-mail

I could'nt find the link for your e-mail ? Thanks RaveenS

[edit] Straw Poll

I don't see anything in the talk page for me to fill in. Did I look in the wrong place? User:Green01 10:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Reply

Is it okay to message you? Any suggestions about my behavior to help along the Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America I am starting to get really annoyed at a particular user, which is not helpful for consensus building. You are probably tired of this mediation already. Any suggestions how I can change my behavior? You can email if you want, unless that is bad when you are a mediator. Or respond here or on my talk page. Thanks for your work thus far. I am starting to really get tired of this argument--maybe I will take a vacation from the page for a few days, and unwatch it.

Yes it is fine to message me, but please do not email me (it's usually a private thing). I believe you are doing a fine job in getting everyone to participate in the straw poll which I see has been getting much progress. I wish that you close it sometime Friday afternoon. The user that is annoying you, you may email his name to me, so not to expose it in public. I think the mediation process is going well; I am in another complex case so things may slow down, but I am still reviewing Wikipolicy on some questions, concerns brought earlier. Last, please do not take a VACATION, for you are helping the process greatly. Thank you, good day! :) WikieZach| talk 22:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and please send a summary of the results from the poll once it closes. WikieZach| talk 22:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

Hi. Sorry. --Bhadani 02:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Howdy

I've avoided the Allegations of US sponsored article, but noticed the string on AN/I. You may find this ArbCom case of interest. It was started by Nescio who quit Wikipedia because of Zer0faults tendentious editting. --Bobblehead 14:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

he he, you made my day. I will email you. Travb (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits

Your recent edits to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Mcilvaine skirt both WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Since you already have been blocked for violations of both I am blocking for you for 24 hours to cool off. JoshuaZ 14:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've unblocked you per your email. JoshuaZ 15:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hey

I'm done with this, but thought you'd appreciate Truth one last time. [8], [9]. rootology (T) 15:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time for straw poll closure

Please stop voting at 18:00 wikipedia time (UTC), and make anything after invalid. I will ask that the summary of the results be given on my talk page by Saturday Night, thank you! WikieZach| talk 01:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted comment

Deleted here: [10]

[edit] Blush

Message to User:Zer0faults

RE: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Mcilvaine

You should attempt to assume good faith of your fellow editors. Accusing others of POV [11] ? [12]

You like my collage User:Zer0faults?

Great isn't it?

It is actually a combination of two ideological opposites, before another wikiuser deleted all the photos.

Since the photos have been removed, the collage now serves two purposes:

First the collage serves as my protest to hypocricy on both ideological spectums (I have railed against liberal ideologues too).

If you saw this collage with all it's pretty photos, you would be hard pressed to label me anything. For some reason, those who are incredible supportive of one ideology only see one condemnation, never both condemnations. [13] [14]

I stole the collage from User:CJK talk page.[15]

Another user saw User:CJK's collage, emphasizing communist attrocities, and decided to build an opposite collage, against the US, entitled: "U.S. imperialist contributions to history" I stole both collages and put them side by side here.

User:CJK is a nice guy, part of the "vast right-wing conspiracy" (his phrase not mine). You would like him. In fact he has commented on the page we are arguing on, supporting your POV.

The second purpose is my silent protest to heavy handed admins who wouldn't know copyright law if their lives depended on it. The full list of photos can all be found here: User_talk:Travb/Archive_5#The_images.

User:Zer0faults:

Would you support User:CJK's collage but condemn or apologize for the "U.S. imperialist contributions to history"?

That is my point :) Travb (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trolling and harassment

You have trolled and added many harassing comments today, calling me a "season[sic] POV warrior"[16] (it's fairly obvious you're meaning me), referring to Fred Bauder as biased and other excesses. In the last 24 hours, not less than 40 comments and edits have been made to my arbcom case by you, and I think you are harassing me. If this doesn't end, I will be forced to write up an Rfc on your actions. I have already brought the matter up at AN/I.[17]--MONGO 04:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't let it go? You are the one who showed up at the arbcom and incessantly posted more than 40 edits there in less than a day. Look at your edit summaries and your commentary ...talk about a complete failure to assume good faith.--MONGO 07:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious....are you so blind to your editing and edit summaries that you fail to understand that you did nothing but attack me and even an arbcom member? No doubt, you showed up at arbcom to pick a fight immediately after discussing matters with rootology...who spent yesterday attacking numerous wikipedians in the worst way he could....guess what that makes you look like? A supporter of a troll. I'm done talking with you...either an Rfc or I'll take this issue to arbcom.--MONGO 07:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this comment clearly indicates you didn't call him a lawyer...if anything, it definitely was meant to be insulting as to his neutrality and his ability to be unbiased.[18]

[edit] Wikivacation

I am taking a short wikivacation. I have wasted inornate amounts of time on wikipedia these past two days, and my "real life" is suffering immensely.

I see a large amount of more time on the horizon, defending myself and defending my continued privelege of editing on wikipedia, and I simply have no time right now.

Please post a comment here, and I will reply when I get back.

Sorry, but I temporarily disabled my wiki-email too.

Best wishes and happy editing. Travb (talk) 09:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If you will

Please close the straw poll WikieZach| talk 00:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. WikieZach| talk 00:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry :P

Yes, I realised that another possible name would cause all kinds of problems. Sadly, I don't believe however that this suggestion would have came up without there being a definate single proposal on the table to cause someone to look through the article, and in doing so realise what was actually being said. I'll keep an eye on what happens, and if it looks like zerofaults understands my suggestion and others begin to agree, I'll deal with the rest. Oh, and by the way, I'm a cheap lass, really... a good pasta dish would suffice :P LinaMishima 02:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Best wishes, my only demand is that the word "alleged" not appear in any suggestions (as per WP:AWW). I say demand, because WP:AWW is a real pet peeve for me. Travb (talk) 02:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm never 100% right

Yes, it's time to move on. I think we all get worked up from time to time, me and you included, so forget it. I don't know about what websites may support the notion of flight 93 being shot down, but here's one from a neutral souce that provides the text from the flight recorded of that plane.[19]--MONGO 11:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apology

Thank you for your note. I doubt very much that because someone "works for Homeland Security" that they are here to promote the agenda of Homeland Security. They may believe that the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were, in fact, attacked by terrorists, as opposed to the attacks being a US government conspiracy. Seizing on that remark and trying to run with it was a major error, as was making it. Fred Bauder 12:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Travb (talk) 12:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tally

Actually I found that Wikipedia policy shows very clearly what consensus is, and I belive I will review the totals. WikieZach| talk 14:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tag

Heh. Happy to have been of assistance! --Elonka 17:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page moves

I moved the strawpolls page to Talk:Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America-strawpolls and Talk:Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America-strawpolls-talk. Elonka is right that the page should not have been in article space, which you probably would not have known. I should have noticed it when the page was first created. Sorry for any confusion. Tom Harrison Talk 18:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed move to United States international covert operations

As much as we would like there to be a consensus for a move to United States international covert operations, there is currently not one. Instead we have myself, you and Zer0 wanting the move, and an equal number of others who believe that state terrorism by the US deserves to be documented, but do not wish to properly follow WP:NOR. I suggest instead that the suggested alternative name be created on it's own seperately, or rather as a series of articles. The main article, sorted by date, would be United States covert operations or Covert operations of the United States, with then an additional list United States covert operations by country or Covert operations of the United States by country. This would have the advantage of avoiding any arbitary limitations on content, which is probably a good thing. LinaMishima 16:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] That article ..

To finally have something develop from that article I would like to support a name change, just not political violence as I dont think sources would be ample for that. Who do you see as a staple of prevention of a name change, and what are names you would go for? --User:Zer0faults 15:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Disregard this, I just read [20] and now no longer think you were operating under good faith. By pointing people to an arbcom ruling I feel as though you were attempting to alter my position through other means. Good day. --User:Zer0faults 15:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/r/a/User_talk%7ETravb_Archive_7_bbdd.html"