User talk:Inclusionist/Archive 11

There isn't much I (or anyone else) can do until the anon user engages in discussion on the talk page. Keep adding sources and directly quoting reliable published sources for controversial positions as you have done in the last couple of edits, and the article will stay balanced and will eventually reflect all the dominant sides of the subject in an neutral way. If you can find multiple sources which reflect the controversial positions, then paraphrasing them in as neutral language as possible, then just citing them should be acceptable. --Davémon 13:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I actually gave up talking with the anon on the talk page.

I have little patience for POV warriors (of any POV) who come to an article and start removing well referenced sections that conflict with their pet POV.

I have a masters degree in international relations and most of my research papers and law degree writing requirement were on Latin America. I don't know, I probably don't qualify as an "expert" yet.

It is so frustrating that I am one of the few wikipedians with over 20,000 edits, I have written dozens of articles and added thousands of references, and an anon with less than 500 edits and a record of no contributions, just deletions, can hold Alliance for Progress hostage.

The more I contribute to wikipedia, the more I seem to be having to spend time "guarding" the contributions I have made, and the less time (and less desire) I have of contributing more.

But there are so many times that POV warriors like this one, who damage wikipedia more than they ever contribute to wikipedia, make me want to leave wikipedia.

Thanks for your help Thanks for listening to me vent :) Travb (talk) 13:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem, glad to help. Keep your eye on the long game! --Davémon 20:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

So you're quite self-righteous but apparently you don't have an ingrained ability to discriminate between valid summations of material and chunks of writing that plagiarize from other sources. What was wrong with my summation? It is valid and sums up what others have said. If that ('that' being what you were trying to keep in the article) is what the source in contention says, that quote should suffice, but should for several reasons not be Wikipedia's summation itself. Did you not comprehend the reasons for this while in grad school?

In short, get over yourself; you are not the only student, not the only teacher, not the only researcher, not the only editor, not the only individual who has put prudent time and work into determining the truth of events. 129.71.73.248 06:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments anon newb. Travb (talk) 09:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

We're all on the same team - trying to make wikipedia great, and this article great. Rather than focusing on the style of each others edits, it might help to identify the POVs you are representing, honestly and openly. I've no doubt each of your POV's is resonable, well researched and citable - and for the benefits of laymen like myself - the article really should clearly lay out these opinions. BTW It's important when summarising that the detail and accuracy of the source isn't lost, 'plagurism' isn't really an issue here - everything is cited and we calim "fair use" - only direct copyright violations are a problem. --Davémon 14:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

RE: Alliance for Progress

thanks for fixing my spelling mistakes, I am not the best typist in the world! Travb (talk) 14:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm not too. ;) Martial BACQUET 14:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contributions

Deletions are perfectly valid for content that is poor, unsourced, given undue weight, or is in general unhelpful, bad, trivial, or unencyclopedic. Your personal attacks accomplish much less. Kindly stick to content, thanks. 129.71.73.248 19:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mobile 01 (2nd)

re: User_talk:Akhilleus#confirm_sock.3F

Travb, I thought I was pretty clear in my comment on the case: "it's quite likely that the IP and User:Mobile 01 are the same person..." --Akhilleus (talk) 00:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Travb, we might have a misunderstanding here. I don't have Checkuser power, and the cases on the SSP page are decided by looking at evidence available on Wikipedia. As an administrator, I can look at deleted pages--otherwise, I'm working with the same evidence that any editor can see. So when I came to the conclusion that Mobile 01 and the IP were probably the same, it was just from looking at their contributions, which are quite similar. I don't know for certain that they're the same person, because I can't look over their shoulder as they use their computer(s)--but it's certainly a reasonable conclusion that they are.

I think I need to edit the SSP page to make it clear that it's not Checkuser. If you ever need to have a Checkuser run, go to WP:RFCU. I hope that clears everything up, but if you have more questions, please ask. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chicken George

Can you explain the entry that you restored to the Chicken George dab page? "Defunct fast food chain that once operated in the Mid-Atlantic." Is this notable - as it doesn't appear to be sufficiently notable to warrant an article, why does it warrant a mention? I deleted it as I assumed it was a hoax. Where is the "Mid-Atlantic"? Somewhere between Europe and USA? Was the fast food chain located on a fleet of boats? --Daemonic Kangaroo 05:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Silent Coup

Thanks for cleaning up & rewriting this page. --George100 18:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA sweep: Smedley Butler GA status on hold

I have reassessed Smedley Butler as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. We are currently revisiting all listed Good articles in an effort to ensure that they continue to meet the Good article criteria.

In reviewing the article, I came across some issues that may need to be addressed; I have left a detailed summary on the article's talk page. As a result I have put Smedley Butler's GA status on hold. This will remain in place for a week or so before a final decision is taken as to the article's status.

I have left this message because, from the article history, you have been a significant contributor. If you no longer edit this article, please accept my apologies - it's got a fairly complicated editing history and I don't like to do this without trying to notify potentially interested editors ;)

All the best, EyeSerene^TALK 18:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References on Vietnam election

[Ho Chi Minh] expected to reunite North Vietnam with the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam) in 1956, when the Geneva accords called for free elections. But the Dwight D. Eisenhower administration, after determining that Ho Chi Minh would win those elections, canceled them. Historical Dictionary of the 1950s - Page 128 by James Stuart Olson

When it became clear that the Vietnamese population would favor North Vietnam's communist regieme, Ngo Dinh Diem, with US diplomatic support, cancelled the election American Women of the Vietnam War By Amanda Ferguson - Page 7

With American approval, Diem canceled the 1956 elections. Abbie Hoffman: American Rebel By Marty Jezer p 32

...Ambassador Donald Heath...proposed that the provisions for national elections be ignored because they were not binding on either the United States or the government of free Vietnam. One CIA report, predicting the likelihood of a Vietminh vicotry, proposed using violations of the Geneva Accords by the DRV as a pretext to circument them. A similar position was suggested when the issue was raised by Secretary Dulles at a meeting at the State Deparment on October 8, 1954.

...The [election] issue came up again at an NSC meeting held on January 27, 1955...Secretary Dulles noted that it would be unrealistic to expect the communists to agree to cancel elections, but he added that there were other techniques, "many of which are familar to the Soviets," for preventing them from taking place. Shortly after the meeting, studies were initiated in Washington and at the U.S. Embassy in Saigon on possible means of averting or influencing the elections.

[The US and Vietnam government then attempted to set up strict compliance guidelines which they hoped the communists would refuse]

U.S. Containment Policy and the Conflict in Indochina By William John Duiker Page 216

Travb (talk) 06:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] October, 2007

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you!

[edit] Needs to stop

You wonder why I thought you should be permabanned? Perhaps you shouldn't make silly comments such as you did on Krimpet's talkpage...I'm sorry, but nonsense such as "Maybe they all work for Homeland security like MONGO did--I dont know" is just pure rubbish and you should know that by now. Furthermore, NuclearUmpf was full of it when he posted that misinformation about me leading some group via email to go and take control of articles, or nominate them and then filibuster for their deletion...that is the same misinformation that Diamonds was trying to say, that I was behind all those checkusers...yeah, right. If I have so much power...then why have these same people not "taken over" the NPA policy editing? If I am such a partisan, then why did I make such lax proposals on the Giovanni33 arbcom workshop (which was in opposition to a few loud voices calling for his banning) and indicate that I was opposed to his being banned? After some of the edit wars I had with him and the major disagreements for a long time, why wouldn't I just propose to get him banned? Speechless that after all this time, you would continue to see me differently than I really am...very disappointed.--MONGO 08:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You need to read the MONGO/Seabhcan ruling

MONGO was not found to be uncivil and he didn't lose his adminship over civility. He WAS found to overreact to harassment by trolls which he appears to have overcome with examples such as his civil comment above. Your "evidence" was roundly and soundly disproven and none of it made it to the decision page. Please read the decision and stop repeating something which simply isn't true about another editor. --DHeyward 00:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Never posted on American Civil Religion

I don't see how I could be violating WP:OWN. I welcome your constructive edits and criticism on this page. That said, it is much easier to critize (which I still appreciate) then to add actual content.

All the sources are available to read. If you are interested, you can start with the 1960's Bellah article. I will fix the spelling errors right now.

"At the very least, I'm putting a cleanup tag on it." Thanks.

"but an objective person with basic English skills needs to edit the article." meaning? Do you have the required english skills to edit the article? I found two spelling errors, which puts the entire article in question, correct? LOL.

"I don't really know how to fix the section" If I can rewrite sections about Pheremons for easier readability and better grammar, with no biological background, and my edits stay, which is monitored by experts in the field, I don't think this sociological term is difficult to grasp, if someone would like to take the time to study it. Travb (talk) 06:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guenter Lewy ‎

Thanks for the feedback on the Alliance for Progress 30. I think any advice given would be more impartial coming from someone else, rather than myself appearing to continually intervene. Hope that makes sense. So yes, listing it at the WP:3O would be the best idea - also have a read through WP:DR and have a look at some of the other options. --Davémon 15:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Duplication

Please check, you have several times added material that is already in the article.Ultramarine 00:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

thanks, I just noticed one, I will look at the others. appreciate your oversight...Travb (talk) 00:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The kidnapping line is in the Amnesty report but not in the source they cite, the SOA article.Ultramarine 00:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Go figure. Thanks for catching that. Thing that really makes me scratch my head is how specific I was when I added that sentence. I will look the history. Travb (talk) 00:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Information

I'm trying to collect some information in preparation for an arbcom involving TDC and the Winter Soldier Investigation article. I see this edit summary from TDC:

19:53, 3 February 2007 TDC (Talk | contribs) (time for the tag to come back, there is going to be a reckoning with this article, and Travb, considering your loose interpretation on CopyVio, you might just want to stay out of this)

Can you tell me what he means by your loose interpretation on CopyVio? Has he been involved in copyvio issues with you before, or is he speaking of something unrelated? Can you also tell me if there were any known violations of sanctions by any of the parties involved in the RfA you initiated a couple years ago? Thanks Xenophrenic 03:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you tell me what he means by your loose interpretation on CopyVio?

You can look at the archive history of WSI page. As I recall, he got User:Duk to put up a copyright violation tag on the WSI page. This caused everyone to get really angry, most of all me. It was one of my first introduction to wikiusers using wikipolicy to push their POVs.

Can you also tell me if there were any known violations of sanctions by any of the parties involved in the RfA you initiated a couple years ago?

I don't know of any violations of the sanctions. After the Arbcom I got fed up with the page and haven't done anything with it since.

I see no point in you starting a new Arbcom, when there are already sanctions available in the old one. Further, you probably need a RfC first.

I don't care much for many of TDC's edit war tactics, but I dont have anything much against him now. The anons tactics were almost the same.

If you are indeed the anon, which I suspect you are (but honestly dont care either way at this point) then if you file a Arbcom/RfC then there will be incredible scrutiny on your edits too, and the full sanctions of the old Arbcom will be put on you too.

Anyway, I hope you can resolve your disagreement. Let me know if you file a RfC and eventually an Arbcom. Travb (talk) 04:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, and the suggestions. I am still reviewing the archives of the WSI talk page, and related talk pages. There is a lot to read, and now it looks like I'm finding gaping holes in the archives too, possibly deleted. I thought Duk's copyright issue was with one of the unregistered IP users, not you. I am still reviewing.

At this point, I am still planning on ArbCom. RfC and other steps are suggested first, but this situation is different: This article and TDC have already been through an RfA, so I assume they have already been through the preliminary steps too. Further, he is involved in mediation with me (formal and informal), and there is now this discussion on AN/I. There seems adequate foundation to proceed to ArbCom. Besides, the sanctions of the old ArbCom TDC was a party to don't seem to have worked.

I am banking on the full scrutiny afforded by an ArbCom investigation. There are certain editing practices I have run into that need to be aired and addressed. The anon in the old ArbCom looks to have been sanctioned for two things, serious copyvio issues and serious revert-warring (almost 20 times on one article in a day?). I don't do copyvio and I don't do revert wars. I cite everything (maybe too much), and I'll initiate discussions, get Admins involved or have a page protected before I revert too much. I welcome the scrutiny and have been encouraging it, and I see this as the only way to motivate Admins and others to actually research this matter. Xenophrenic 05:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If you notice on the ANI, TDC is offering compromise and community wide sanction, without an arbcom. He says that arbcom is time consuming and can take months. He is right. If you refuse a community sanction, and push for a arbcom, this makes you look bad and will make TDC look like he is being rational and comprimising.

I dont know all of the recent details of the edit war, but in my experience with arbcoms (three), I would strongly suggest not doing another arbcom. Travb (talk) 05:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Trav, I saw your comment on ANI .. clarification, the proposed enforcements were not all agreed upon. There was some confusion on this, but the only thing that passed was the one year edit ban. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Anecdotes

Recently I left wikipedia then opened another account. The account was banned, and many conservtive editors including Mongo below, called for me to be permanently booted. I think I avoided this for three reasons:

I left wikipedia, having my user and talk pages blanked
When their was a checkuser, I openly admited that I was the other user
I never denied being the other account
I apologized if I broke the rules (which I still personally feel I didn't)

Two of these three options are still open to you (#2 and #4).

It is okay for an anon to later pick up a user name. What is not okay is for a user to later not tell the truth about being an anon. There is enough evidence against you that the arbcoms are going to assume you are the anon. They are going to investigate the evidence as cursory and quickly as I did.

I would suggest admitting it now and apologizing to everyone including TDC. That gives TDC and those who support him that much less ammunition against you.

There is a small chance you are not the anon, but the arbcom is not going to consider this. Travb (talk) 00:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for cautioning me that the Arbitration Committee only cursorily examines evidence, and doesn't carefully consider situations. Forgive me if I assume good faith anyway. Fuller response in a more appropriate location. Xenophrenic 11:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Travb. I copied the above text here because I wanted to reply to it, but the Request for Arbitration page isn't the appropiate place. That page is for presenting statements as to why the ArbCom should or should not accept the case, not advice to the parties about how they should handle the case.

I appreciate you offering advice based on your experience, but I think our two situations are different. Your checkuser came back Confirmed before you admitted anything, and after that there is nothing left for you to admit. Another difference is our interpretation of apologies. Here was yours:

PUBLIC APOLOGY Two users above have the gravely mistaken view, that I am "proud" of having to leave User:Travb and later returning to Travb. This is dead wrong. I want to publicly apologize for any wikipedia rules that I may have broke when I left User:Travb. If I did break any rules, I apologize. I am at a loss about what I could or should have done differently (A name change?). I am not going to edit the State Terrorism page, the page which is the nexus of this argument, until after September 15. I am seriously considering never editing it again, as I explained above. I hope this is acceptable. Travb (talk) 15:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

That isn't an apology, in my opinion. You said your accusers were mistaken; you said you apologize if you broke a rule, but you aren't sure you even did? To me, an apology is an expression of regret for doing something I didn't mean to do. Giving a blanket "apology" for something you may or may not have done, while continuing to defend your actions, just doesn't seem heartfelt. I also don't think it is sincere to "apologize" in order to take ammunition away from TDC or to garner sympathy from the ArbCom. Finally, I will not be apologizing for something I did not do, just because it may make things easier for me. You are not the first to suggest it, however.

I think you avoided having your Travb account banned like your sock account was because you offered to leave the article for at least two months, and maybe permanently. It also didn't appear that you were using both accounts simultaneously in an abusive fashion, but I haven't looked at your edit histories in detail. Anyway, were you serious when you said ArbComs don't investigate or consider things in much depth? I see Admins signing up for the case indicating they want to "consider behaviors" and "review things in depth." Is that just for show? Xenophrenic 11:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I have kind of given up on wikipedia (again). I blanked both of my user and talk page, and deleted my watchlist. But I dont like to leave unfinished business.

As far as my public apology, the reason I didn't get banned you maybe right. I said that if If I indeed broke a rule, it was inadvetant and I apologize. Your right, this is a conditional apology. Should I apologize for breaking a rule I didn't do? Which, of course, leads us to your case. If you are indeed not the sockpuppet, then you shouldn't apologize, as you wrote, "I will not be apologizing for something I did not do". Your right, our situations are different.

Anyway, were you serious when you said ArbComs don't investigate or consider things in much depth?

Usually in Arbcoms people layout a lot of evidence, representing months worth of edits. I have never been an arbcom, so I can't answer this question 100% for sure one way or another.

I really believe that the Arbcoms are simply going to see two POV warriors in an edit war and they are going to ban both of you from the article. They may ban both of you for a period of time.

In my opinion, the biggest ammunition that TDC has against you is that checkuser. Because that is the only thing that seems to differentiate you from TDC, and sockpuppetry is strongly looked down upon. You need to either admit it, or explain it away in a convincing way. So far I have seen neither.

When I was in a Arbcom case of Seabcan, my section changed all of the time, as I ammased more and more evience, and as the arguments changed of those who were against me. Every sentence I referenced with an edit, usually many.

Another admin thought I would be banned for a few weeks or months after that Arbcom. Thankfully I wasn't and the Arbcom ruling was incredibly and surprisingly favorable. Both admins were equally punished.

Anyway, I respect TDC. I don't like some of his tactics (which I have wrote about at length in his archived talk pages), but he is by far one of the more mellow conservatives. After my confrontation with TDC, I have run up against much more devious, powerful and sophisticated users, who use wikipedia policy ruthless, and who would make Machiavelli proud.

I wont be watching the Arbcom. Good luck. Travb (talk) 14:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier 2

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier 2/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 17:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks, but I'm going to decline

Let's just say I have very strong views on that issue, but I'm not going to discuss it at this point in time. ATren (talk) 04:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

thanks anyway. I really was impressed with your argument. Travb (talk) 04:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Which argument are you referring to? ATren (talk) 04:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive174 Travb (talk) 04:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that was a long time ago. I stand by my statements there, but I'm not about to get back into that debate. ATren (talk) 05:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

No need to. Simply wanted to say thanks for the inspiration. Travb (talk) 05:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Thanksgiving

Happy Thanksgiving, I hope you and your family are enjoying a great holiday. --Duk 21:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom Elections comments

Hi. Regarding your recent comments on candidate votes pages, unfortunately, they are too long and should be made at the voting talk page. This determination was reached on prior consensus on the ArbCom Elections talk page. I've gone ahead and moved them appropriately, but feel free to edit my move to your liking. However, extended comments, like the ones you provided, belong on the talk page. Thanks, and forgive the inconvenience. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 01:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC) [[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007#Hard-line view on commentary|

The too long comment is subjective, but your comments ran for more than two lines in my page, more than the average comment. I'm sorry this was not clear in the instructions, I meant no harm by my move. We're just trying to keep the vote pages for votes, with comments on the talk pages. Short and concise comments can be made, but if your going to provide discussion and links, you should move them to the talk page, where you can discuss everything you want. I know that not all long comments have been moved in the elections, but I'm the only one doing it and it's hard monitoring 34 pages with dozens of votes coming in every minute. Like I said, feel free to edit my comment after the move, but try to be brief and concise, and add a link to the talk page. Thanks. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 01:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus can be found here. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 01:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Travb (talk) 01:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

That's the first thanks I've received! You know, you can help! - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 01:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I understand why you are doing it. Nice job. I don't care much for housekeeping jobs like this, feels too much like work. Hope the modified message helps you. Have you considered adding a sentence saying "Please no longer than two short sentences" at the top of all 34 pages? I can add this if you like. Travb (talk) 01:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Awesome. I'll use that quote from now on. Thanks! - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 01:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Please Note: Comments longer than two short sentences will be removed to the talk page.

Looks good to me. Let's start adding them to the pages. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 01:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? What is not clear. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 01:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] clarification

Your clarification on my voting page is incorrect. Irpen explicitly noted the Miskin arbcom, he was referring to my questions page. Please remove it to the talk page? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 01:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I am indifferent. Travb (talk) 01:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Very much appreciated. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 01:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My mistake

It looks like I made a regrettable mistake by casting my oppose vote while mistakenly ascribing to the candidate the views that belonged to a totally different person. I can't understand how I got the wrong name stuck in my head. Please see [1] [2] [3] for the background. As my vote affected your vote cast in the immediate aftermath, I would like to prompt you to this development. I already apologized to the candidate but I am also sorry to have unintentionally misled you. Please reconsider the candidate completely disregarding the issue I have mistakenly brought up. Regards, --Irpen 06:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your user page

Sorry you didn't like my addition - seemed to fit right in. You have to admit, when one looks at the links you put there it can appear that they are designed to show people in a questionable light. In particular, the two links you have for me, read sequentially, has always rubbed me wrong, like you were sneering at my honesty. Am I wrong here?

I was wondering how long it would be until people started objecting to being listed there, given what is presented and the way it is presented. When I saw someone remove themselves, I decided to add something for you.

So, that link bugged you ... do you think others might be bugged in the same way you were? I was just trying to point this out in a humorous way, but history seems to judge my attempts at humor as sorely lacking :( --Duk 22:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Problem solved, now we can all go back to singing Kambaya. Really touched you still have my user page watched. I have purged mine about 20 times it seems. T (talk) 22:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement regarding Durova/!! matter

FYI, I am alerting user's who have voted to oppose based on my comments about the Durova matter that I have written a longer statement regarding my views on the matter which I hope clarifies a few points of apparent misunderstanding. See User:JoshuaZ/Statement regarding Durova and !!. Thanks. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I will retract my oppose, just as you retrated your boot. Best wishes :)T (talk) 12:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please explain

[4] Is there a reason why you were editing someone else's comment? Risker (talk) 04:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I had no idea what that person was talking about, so I linked to the quote for the benefit of future editors who read this info. Hope this explains. T (talk) 04:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Please revert yourself, if she wanted to include a link she would have. You may be misunderstanding her intentions there. If someone was to put a link into one of my talk page comments, I would be very displeased. Diplomacy is very very important on that page, I cannot emphasize that enough. Risker (talk) 04:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

your welcome too revert my comments. T (talk) 07:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I reverted myself. T (talk) 09:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conversation with a dead guy

RE: User:The Evil Spartan comment on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Giano II

My response:

==borderline anti-US rhetoric == [5]

What are you talking about, out of curiosity? T (talk) 06:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was reticent to post this, because it would make me look like I'm following the very kind of nationalism I'm trying to oppose, but the statement read:

This Admin does not just want de-sysoping she needs banning completely for all our sakes. Thank God she is not in the US military in Iraq. Giano (talk) 19:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Please maintain civility. I believe Durova did serve in the military, so that last sentence may be a bit too low. Please keep the discussion on Wikipedia alone. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

How on earth is saying that low, and how on earth an I supposed to know what someone called Durova does in RL? There is a whole world ourside of USA I suggest you explore it!<'Giano (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This seems like a blatantly anti-American statement, and I would hate to see, say an American make that kind of statement about French people (it would rightly be described as bigoted against the French)--removed. And even if it's only somewhat incivil, it is not the kind of temperament for someone who will be acting as a de facto judge on many nationalist disputes. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your response. I was really surprised and taken back by you digging up Giano's edit diffs. I really appreciate you taking the time to do this.

My views have often been called "anti-American", thats why I was curious.

Now a "forest view", a view which most people have no interested in:

Don't worry, Wikipedia will continue to become less and less "anti-American" as the "purges" continue.

I have taken a couple of sociology courses and there is a sociological idea where organizations become more and more conservative and "main stream" as they become older. As Wikipedia becomes more mainstream American , people like me will be pushed out, subtly and forcefully.

I hazard to guess that the admins which controlled Wikipedia 3 years ago, where much more radical than the admins today.

I bet if you took a survey of admins on wikipedia today and compared it with three years ago, today more of the admins would be conservative and hold more traditional values then those of admins three years ago.

The future on Wikipedia for users like myself and Giano are bleak.

On the other hand, I have seen a Wikipedia "purge" of far right views.

Don't worry, in the next five years, Wikipedia views will look more and more like America's (and your) views.

Personally I hope eventually, in the distant future, Wikipedia's views will look more like the world's views, but I am not holding my breath.

T (talk) 07:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

People have every right to an opinion, however, being non-neutral is enough of a sin in my mind to not quality for Arbcom, even if you consider this "purging" (you might notice I have right-wing editor immediately above who used the same word for his point of view). Sorry. The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

26 minutes later, Evil Spartan retires[6]

My response:

==Dammnit==

Sorry to ruin your nice retired page, and sorry to see you are retired. Wikipedia needs more vigilant people like yourself, not less. I was just in the middle of responding to you Here is my response:

In one sense, a Non-neutral arbcom is a misnomer, or maybe more correctly a lucus a non lucendo, would you agree?

I learned a new word today, as you may notice.:) T (talk) 08:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You know I like monologues at grave sites. Right after I wrote a message to conservative User:NuclearUmpf about general hypocrisy, he became a left wing advocate that same week. I would like to delude myself into thinking I was partially responsible for this Paradigm shift.

On a related note, did my gloomy message right immediately before you retired affect your decision to leave? If so I am sorry. Maybe the less flattering explanation is I annoyed you, and you simply didn't want to talk to me anymore.T (talk) 08:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Evil Spartan deletes my comments, saying "not interested" [7]

T (talk) 09:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] anons

User:85.180.169.128 HanseNet Telekommunikation GmbH, DE (Germany)
User:66.91.214.29 Herdon,Va 26.6 miles from CIA headquarters.

[edit] Re: Great Strategy

Thanks! I actually had no idea what the argument was about! The only reason I moved it was because the thread over 50k and was heavily clogging the board, and personally, I think moving it to a seperate page will help the board. It's annoying to have seriously long-threads, especially if you have a slow browser. If I see any more threads over 50k, they too will be going to a subpage. It's just to ease the board down a bit and to reduce the size of it. Cheers, Dav nel 03 21:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LeftChicago

I don't know if his vandalism was all that subtle, but he caught me in a patient editor-educating/vandal-reforming mood. Thanks for the barnstar! Acroterion _(talk) 21:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] harper's scan

Well, I went to email you and there was no way to do so. How do you want the harper's index scan, if you still want it? csloat (talk) 02:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I did the following: Enable e-mail from other users E-mail me the scan please. Trav (talk) 06:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfD nomination of "Egyptian mummy" ca.1898

I have nominated "Egyptian mummy" ca.1898 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Floaterfluss ^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] not a phish

hey, you emailed me last week about the harpers thing and said to leave a note for you here. cheers! csloat (talk) 19:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Machiavelli view on wikipedia

Not bad. I would like to change a few things around and turn it into a Wikipedia essay. Of course, I would like you to have first dibs since you wrote it. [8] It would be nice if you could change the name to something shorter. I really think this would help a lot of people. —Viriditas | Talk 10:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Power to you. Go ahead and make an essay. I have tried to make several and they never took off. It is so stupid that people think that I adhere to that bullshit. If I actually did have that stuff I wrote about I would be an admin by now. Trav (talk) 11:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It is now on my page User:Travb#Opinion lets see what my "friends" will do with this new development now. I will really wonder who you are if my "friends" seize on me posting this on my user page. A well, life is too short to worry about $%$^%&&. Trav (talk) 11:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] hi

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.47.244.242 (talk) 11:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America/strawpolls

On 08:13, 8 December 2006 this page was deleted, orphaning several pages in the archive. I have no idea where the moved strawpoll is now, and I want to refer to this old straw poll to help new users understand the history of the page. Can you please be so kind as to:

Restore this page
Message me where the new page is.

Thank you. Trav (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You will need to ask an administrator to do that. Thanks – Gurch 00:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Undeleted & moved to Talk:Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States/strawpolls, it appears to have been deleted because it was archived improperly. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems it was actually at Talk:Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America-strawpolls, and not deleted until October 2007, by ST47 – Gurch 01:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some help with a template

Hi, I saw you added the (very nice) option of uncollapsing, collapsing, or auto-collapsing the Template:Colombia conflict. I tried to do the same for Template:FARC-EP but quickly realized I was in way over my head. I want both templates to be uncollapsed by default in FARC-EP Chain of Command, but I haven't been able to do it. I would therefore appreciate it if you added that uncollapse parameter option to Template:FARC-EP. Thanks a lot, I hope I'm not asking for too much. For all I know you might just need to copy paste something. Thanks, Colombiano21 (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Collapsible_tables

{| width="100%" class="toccolours navbox collapsible {{{state|autocollapse}}}" style="white-space:nowrap;" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"
!<!---R1/11---------->colspan=6 style="background: #cdc" | 
===Title===
|-
|align=left|
|}

Need to change the state from autocollapse to collapsible Trav (talk) 11:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Thank you SO much

My pleasure. Please don't hesitate to ask for useful undeletions in the future, discussion pages have a bad habit of getting lost at times. Cheers, ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 11:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Making the graph

I have a list of each users edit timestamps. You can get this by going to user contributions, copying every edit (and this didn't take long because I edited the URL to get 5000 contributions at a time), then pasting into excel. Then I use "text to columns" and delimit by parentheses—this isolates the timestamp in the first column, and I can delete everything else. Then I used a function like "=TIME(HOUR(A1), MINUTE(A1), 0)" and filled down for all of the date time stamps—this creates a second column with the times in isolation. Then finally I did and X-Y plot where one axis was the date-time, and the other axis was the time in isolation.

I'm pretty good with excel. Cool Hand Luke 17:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you were asking about the other graph. That was trickier. I set up a column of all the times of day in half-hour increments. Then I used a sum-if statement. I used a function like this: "=SUM(IF((SH!F$1:F$8000),IF(60*HOUR(SH!F$1:F$8000)+MINUTE(SH!F$1:F$8000)>=60*HOUR('Time dist'!A4)+MINUTE('Time dist'!A4),IF(60*HOUR(SH!F$1:F$8000)+MINUTE(SH!F$1:F$8000)<60*HOUR('Time dist'!A5)+MINUTE('Time dist'!A5),1,0),0)),0)" This compares each of the edits to my time column and returns a value of 1 if they are within the range. You input this function pressing ctrl-shift, so that it iterates for every value on the source of time stamps.

I realize now that it would have been easier to use two countif functions—countif the edit is above a particular time increment minus a countif for if the time stamp was above the next time increment. That would have been much easier.

Anyhow, the next result is a count of edits within each time slice, and I graphed. These. If you send me an email, I can give you a copy of the sheet. Cool Hand Luke 17:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A pleasant surprise!

The Barnstar was a complete and pleasant surprise. I look forward to working with you. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 00:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:They Came Back DVD.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:They Came Back DVD.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Request for recusal

I'm quite sorry, but I don't consider having stood next to one of the parties when a picture was taken at a meetup to be grounds for recusal. Kirill 14:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories/Evidence, you will be blocked from editing. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. BigHairRef | Talk 04:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

response on your talk page. Trav (talk) 04:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, perhaps on reflection the level three warning was a little harsh but it looked very much like you were removing evidence from an arbcom evidence page. Having looked again it would appear that as you said you were removing osme double posting but you also removed another section which was not double posted as well. If you wish to do so (and whilst not an expert on arbcom funtioning) you should realy use the strikethrough notation instead of simply deleting something if you no longer think it appropriate to include as someone else may think it is and the arbcom may think it appropriate. The exception being if you posted naything libellous which is a judgment call. If you think it was then remove it but you should really use an edit summary to explain this. Hope that helps! BigHairRef | Talk 04:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

No I'm not yet an admin. Just out of interest can I ask what your reasons for the removal was? Feel free to tell me where to get off I was just wondering as it seemed like you were removing points which were in your favour? If you wish I think it's would be fair for you to remove the vandal warning as well.BigHairRef | Talk 04:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I double posted. I write in Microsoft Word and then cut and paste into Arbcom.

In regards to my comments at the beginning, I have an incredibly cynical and dark view of wikipedia, and I can tell you its future.

Passive aggressive is king on wikipedia. I've learned from this one prick, (I'm sorry "a wikipedian who should read WP:DICK") that you can tell someone they are an asshole, as long as you say it the right way.

In regards to my treatise, Arbcoms, like humans in general, don't want lectures about the forest, they just care about the trees. So in Arbcoms it is all facts, facts, facts, edit history, edit history, edit history, acronyms, acronyms, acronyms. That is how people win Arbcoms, among other hard truths I have learned. Trav (talk) 04:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More on 9/11

I'm sorry, but your passive aggressive strategy ([9]) is not conductive to decorum either. I'm formally asking you to stay off the 9/11 arbitration case pages and their associated talk pages for the next 24h in order to let the dust settle. — Coren ^(talk) for the Arbitration Committee 01:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Although I have tempered my words since you messaged me, and I am not sure what you find objectionable now, I will take a mini wikivacation. Thanks for all your hard work in keeping things civil. Trav (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's just say that your tone, if not the specific words, was not collegial. Letting things cool down will only improve matters. — Coren ^(talk) 01:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, thanks for your message and for keeping things civil and me out of trouble :) Trav (talk) 01:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please consider taking the AGF Challenge

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [10] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How about the civility challenge?

Gratuitously accusing people of vandalism [11] is incivil William M. Connolley (talk) 22:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

thanks for your comments. We have differnt views of what Wikipedia is, and what vandalism is, which I don't have the energy to discuss right now. Thanks again for your comments. Trav (talk) 22:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Makes me smile

Some of the best humor I have seen lately. [12] Thanks for the smile!TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 04:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks. Wikipedia is a love hate thing for me, lately it has been mostly hate. I have a lot of long essays on my user page about the hypocricy and bullying on wikipedia. I keep trying to leave, but like the Godfather, they pull my back in...Inclusionist (talk) 04:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Truism

...everyone always argues that their side has "consensus", it is the most abused word on wikipedia. Personally, I find that people usually point out consensus when there is none.

Good one. Viriditas (talk) 09:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You're blocked for disruptive editing [13] elading to the page being protected. Stop it William M. Connolley (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Unblock because WMC was heavily involved in that dispute. Viridae ^Talk 21:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

... and I've reblocked for the rest of the 24h. Being involved, I can see that the block was warranted even though the originally blocking admin should not have done so himself. — Coren ^(talk) 23:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't a person be warned before being blocked?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

He never passed 3RR also, he was on his 3rd when he was blocked. Just wanted to note that. Further Dance With The Devil who reverted Travb 3 times, was not blocked for tenditious editing.[14] [15] [16] --I Write Stuff (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

3 reverts isn't a right. And if you feel another user should have been blocked you had the right to raise it on ANI. If no admin wants to block then such is life I guess. John Smith's (talk) 19:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Correct, its not a right for either of them. So one should not be afforded what the other is not. --I Write Stuff (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

So did you raise the behaviour of the other editor on ANI? If not, then you should have. If you did and nothing happened then a lot of admins didn't think it was that bad.—Preceding unsigned comment added by John Smith's (talk • contribs)

Sorry I am not sure what you are talking about. If you do no tknow of the situation, you probably should find out instead of provoking other editors. The situation was not brought up, I am not here to dwindle the editing population of Wikipedia by stating "Dance also stole a cookie" however it does show the bias used in the block itself. It is all a matter of having all the cards on the table. Just to add, it is long after the 3 reverts for any block to be made. They are preventative, not punitive. --I Write Stuff (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

How am I provoking anyone? I was merely indicating the options available. And as for blocking one user, sometimes admins view one particular party as the troublemaker. You may disagree with that, but that's how some people feel. As for punitive vrs preventative, some people will argue that punishment prevents future re-offending. John Smith's (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

And our blocking policy on Wikipedia disagree's with you on how blocks are to be used. Further I am sure one can argue to death over who is a troublemaker, however if you review the edits, Dance had reverted several more times then Travb. It would none the less be an interesting argument to watch unfold. --I Write Stuff (talk) 23:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

What is the maximum number of reverts that one could do before deserving to be blocked immediatly and without warnings?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Depends on how long they've been around. Trav is an old user - he knows the score. So he doesn't need a warning. John Smith's (talk) 21:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This is incorrect, as even an admin will warn another admin before blocking. --I Write Stuff (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily, but that may happen more frequently because it's very rare for admins to do that to each other. Trav isn't an admin anyway. Users are blocked by admins all the time, even without warnings. In any case the block is nearly over - it won't be lifted prematurely now. John Smith's (talk) 21:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You do know admins are just users with more tools. They should not be showing other admins more respect or courtesy then anyone else. --I Write Stuff (talk) 23:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

While everyone should attempt to strive for none, since reverting is usually not the best way, the 3rd revert is your final revert in 24 hours as a hard rule. The 4th will warrant a block. --I Write Stuff (talk) 21:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem I see here is that the admin who is involved in the block issued it against his his opponent in a content dispute, and did not, block the other party who was doing the exact same thing. This is, in effect, using admin tools to gain a content advantage: two editors, one agrees with you, one doesn't, both doing the same thing. Yet only blocks are given to those who go against the POV of the admin who is involved in the content dispute. Also, I think it does matter that Travb was restoring the material that was removed improperly, and without consensus by the same admin, and others, who blanked half the article. Yes, editing with consensus matters, when it comes to blocking. Yet, here is seems that POV mattered most of all, and that is wrong.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] If this RfC doesn't work

I think if this RfC about Conolley's administrative abuses fails, we should call a long over due Arbcom on the Allegations of State Terrorism article. These "Deletionist" "bullies" contribute nothing to this article but animosity. Anyone who has been involved with this article sees how they abuse their administrative powers and selectively punish editors who don't support their views. Dozens of editors have been banned or left wikipedia because of these "bullies".

I am going to start documenting how little these "deletionist" actually contribute to this article. This is the typical pattern of the "Deletionist" "bullies": first entry: remove a section they don't like. Edit war. Edit war. Delete more sections. Maybe put the article up for deletion. Repeat. Inclusionist (talk) 00:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not aware of a Arbitration request, just the RfC over his admin actions. I believe he is a good editor outside of this article, just this article and possibly his emotional attachment to it, has caused him to abuse the tools the community entrusted to him. Which is why I asked the RfC only focus on his abuse of tools in relation to the article. I do not have any experience with him on other articles, nor heard of any other instances of abuse. --I Write Stuff (talk) 00:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You can try calling an arb-comm request, but I have a feeling it may be rejected because only talk page discussion has been used. At the least I would try to organise formal mediation - if that fails then arbitration may produce a result. John Smith's (talk) 10:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I meant RfC. LOL, I love your passive agressive tone. I wish I had the patience to use it still. Inclusionist (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I think in this case you are misreading WMC as deletionist. When I first went to look at the page I was a bit surprised at the material he removed (and I didn't remove it again after it was re-added) but there is a serious problem with the length of the article. In general you should try and write some sub-articles on say the major geographies or historical episodes and move stuff over. Then you can write a short teaser in the section with a "main article:" link. That way the major reason for deletion which is length would go. As for WMC I think you misjudge him and are being a bit aggressive in a way which isn't constructive. Not that I disagree he was aggressive first and not that I don't sympathise. Also there isn't a rule about aggression per same, but he has an excuse because he is working on twenty important topics and doesn't have the time I do to try to be kind. Also I don't think he cares at all about the article content (I haven't seen edits which shift meaning from him and don't even know which POV he would take) just editorial style. I have removed your "warning" from his talk page, since I don't think this is likely to make things better: he is one of the most experienced bureaucrats and knows how things work. --BozMo talk 06:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You all seem a bit unclear about the rules, so permit me to explain. Reverting more than 3 times in 24h warrants a block. If you are inexperienced, a block may be withheld pending warning; it depends on discretion. But 3 reverts in 24h is a hard limit, not a right. You can be blocked for less. All this is in WP:3RR for all to read. However, 3RR is a red herring in this case, since I didn't block Travb for 3RR but for tendentious editing William M. Connolley (talk) 14:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok but what about the people that were edit warring against Travb? Did you block them?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

John, everything has been tried on this article, Please remember, I have been editing it of and on for years. Myself and others have called a third party arbitration, I called several RfC's, straw polls, etc.

The underlying problem is that there is a group of editors who want this article to exist, and there is a group of editors who don't.

The statement I have heard again and again that the Arbcom does not handle content disputes is false. In Williams own Arbcom, and dozens of others the Arbcom handled content disputes.

BozMo, I know you are not attempting to delete the article, but the "article is too long" argument is used a lot by deletionists. Last time I saw this was on the CIA article.

BozMo, you must be from Britain too, because of the British English spelling.

bozMo, wrote:

"but he has an excuse because he is working on twenty important topics and doesn't have the time I do to try to be kind".

This is the Mongo and JzG defense. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/JzG2#Outside_view_by_User:GTBacchus there is this laughable myth that the rules apply to everyone, including "distracted" admins. As this case once again shows, that is simply not true.

Bozmo wrote: "I have removed your "warning" from his talk page"

Thanks.

Bozmo, looks like you are WMC number one apologist. Fair enough. Everyone needs a sidekick. ;)

William M. Connolley, I have learned from the Seabhcan Arbcom not to be distracted by comments off of the "main page" because the editors sometimes use those same words against me later. In this case, the "main page" is the RfC. You are welcome to comment on my talk page, but I may just start moving your comments to the RfC, which is common in disputes such as these. This includes Bozmo too.

Inclusionist (talk) 06:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE RE: Rollback

No, that is not a revert using the rollback function. That was done using Twinkle. Keegan^talk 04:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re-writing your comments

Re [17] - I think re-writing in this way is dubious; strike-out is better. In any event, you've now modified the text that G33 agreed with, so you need to check that he still agrees with the new version William M. Connolley (talk) 20:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)