User talk:Inclusionist/Archive 1

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Cool Cat ^Talk 03:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Revised the site:

As requested, I revised the site:

Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instances_of_Use_of_United_States_Armed_Forces_Abroad

The last section (Instances of the employment of U.S. military forces abroad: 1991-2004) as it was orginally put up was way, way to wordy, as you mentioned.

I was actually working on it when you made modifications.

Hopefully this site will become obsolete or is already obsolete with a more comprehenive list of "Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad".

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Travb (talk • contribs)

Hi, on wikipedia we often have a group of people that simply are destructive. I have accidentaly mistaken you for one.

I have revised your edit(s) [1] and I feel there is a significant amount of information is removed. I am not going to revert it back but I would be more confortable if you explained it. Also you may want to use edit summary box so other users have a better idea on what you are doing.

Sorry for the trobble

--Cool Cat ^Talk 03:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Cord meyer

I notice that the article you have posted at Cord meyer is identical to text from [2]. Unfortunately, since this is contrary to Wikipedia's copyright policy, which requires all contributions to be either your own orginal work, or from a public domain source, we cannot accept it. However, I can see that you are contributing in good faith; I hope this message is helpful, and that you will find contributing to Wikipedia enjoyable and rewarding. -- Karada 18:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio

Howdy! I saw your edit and wanted to chat with you for a moment about it. Copyright violation is a continuing danger in Wikipedia, because if someone DID pursue a claim, it could cost the foundation thousands of dollars that it doesn't have. I know it must be frustrating when something you've copied and pasted is put up for deletion for copyvio, but think of the opportunity to write your own summary of a subject! It's a lot more fun to create an article than it is to copy/paste from somewhere else, plus it keeps Wikipedia out of court. I look forward to seeing your contributions going forward, I know you'll do great. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

In regards to your comments in my talk page about copyright, there is no reason to argue with you about this. You are talking about "what ifs" that have not happened to justify a policy of destruction of information.

In addition, based on passed deletions, both Duk and TDC use copyright violations as a stick to pursue their own jingoist political ideology.Travb 16:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi there! I have to admit some confusion. Are you defending the copy/paste of copyright material to wikipedia? If so, I strongly suggest you take it up somewhere like Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems. This is an established policy, and if you disagree with it, then please consider discussing the policy, not just violating it because you don't like it. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright police

Hi Travb, I was sorry to read your low opinion of me regarding the copyright violation at Winter Soldier Investigation. You seem very angry at me. Can I ask you to please think about resolving the copyright violation instead of yelling at me?

There was a lot of discussion about this copyvio, over the last year on the article's talk page, at WP:CP and at WP:AN. A lot of people had input and I believe the copvio was resolved correctly, so please don't be angry at me in particular. The current situation is the same thing and needs to be resolved.

I will stay anonymous because I don't want you to actively try and destroy my hundreds of hours of contributions. I assure you that I would never do anything like that. --Duk 17:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Antiamericanism

Superb answer youve made to that military guy on the page against the US foreing policy. Nice to know there are MORE people who know a thing or two beside this blinding, fascist nationalism that covers US. ~~LtDoc~~

[edit] jingoist political ideology

Travb, I'd appreciate it if you didn't malign me behind my back. I have no jingoist political ideology, just look at my edit history - politics aren't my thing.

If you disagree with the way the copyright violation on Winter Soldier Investigation was resolved then file an RFC. see WP:DR. But don't engage in character assignation behind my back. --Duk 17:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV

I wasn't trying to deprecate that they were (are) regarded by many as imperialists. I'm not that familiar with the details of who was and was not and the particulars of their positions. You had put the term in scare quotes, which is not recommended by the Manual of Style. I was trying to find a way of including the term without the scare quotes while retaining some indication that the term may have very different interpretations depending on historical context, political ideology, etc.

Also, it is helpful if you Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Cheers, older≠wiser 22:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Freedom fighters and their organizations

Regarding: "we should start a webring here on wikipedia (or its equivelent) to stop the volunteer police force here from destorying so much information" - The fight for freedom is in full swing with those fighting for the freedom to own information pitted against those fighting for freedom of information. What the American Civil Liberties Union was for freedom a generation ago, the Free Software Foundation and people like Lawrence Lessig are today. The free on line available book Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig : How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity may interest you. WAS 4.250 01:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I am a member of the ACLU--thanks for the link--I was thinking about ppl here, stopping them from deleting posts. You are lookign at the big picture, I am looking at a tinier one....

[edit] copyvio argument

Hi, sorry to go off the handle with you...

no problem, I understand that it is upsetting to have articles reverted because of copyright violations. The information can easily be added back in a re-written form. --Duk 01:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, looks like we might be are arguing over different things. The quotes mentioned are one thing, But the copied and derived text from [3] is another. --Duk 01:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Duk, I argue that instead of deleting things, we find the source of things and add footnotes to the items, as I did in the Winter Soldier Investigation, and at H5N1

That sounds reasonable for certain quotes, but then there is the other writing in the article, taken from http://www.bigmagic.com and morphed a little that is part of the body of the article, not in quotation form. This stuff is a copyright violation, has to be rewritten and will cause the article to be reverted. --Duk 01:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed the larger quotes, just now. I still feel this is covered under fair use policy. If the author does not want this article on wikiquote, there are very easy procedures to remove it.

There are some excellent articles on copyright that I collected, many from the libertarian (far right) magazine the Economist.

It is not what the record companies make it seem like. You should look into the "mickey mouse law" more, if you haven't already.

Are you familar with Project Gutenberg? INCREDIBLE project

How about the [Ender's Series] by Orson Scott Card where there is a computer with all of the universes knowledge on it?
how about google's project to digitilize all the books in the world? which is meeting very fierce opposition from entrenched interests?

The entrenched interests will stop at nothing to keep the "status quo".

Are you familar with the fights over tape recorders and VCR's, there is a long history here...of moneyed interests attempting to keep the status quo (and their money) and resisiting change.

It is like the issue of unions, everyone attacks unions, but few people know the sordid history of employer suppression--and what unions have done for us---maybe someday I can write on this too here.Travb 02:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Winter Soldier Investigation

I put a message at Ed Poor's talk page concerning this. Please read the following instead of bickering and reverting:

Wikipedia:No personal attacks ever. no excuses.
Wikipedia:Wikiquette includes the sometimes useful advice "Come back after a week or two".
Wikipedia:WikiLove reminds us "It's only the internet! Breathe...... and relax!".
Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot

Act like a mature adult. The process works. You don't have to win. You don't have to make Wikipedia perfect by tomorrow. Spent your energy on making Wikipedia better ELSEWHERE rather than waste time in a revert war in any one place. walk away, edit elsewhere on wikipedia. Come back the next day or so. Try to never revert more than once per day on any one article. If it's not fun, you are doing it wrong. WAS 4.250 08:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RFM

Hello Travb, I'll have to look over the RfM before I decide if this is appropriate. I've tried several times to remove your font tags, but I keep edit conflicting with you, so if you'd be so kind as to remove all the font tags, I'd appreciate it. R e dwolf24 (talk) 03:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry problem solved....I am still new to wikipediaTravb 15:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Text from other sources

Just as a note, it is still better to rewrite anything you get from other webpages rather than copying and pasting. This will ensure that there will be no question about copyrights. Thanks! Sasquatcht|c 04:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources which discusses article sized quotes going into wikipedia and longer quotes going into Wikisource or Wikibooks. Rewriting is often done but is not mandated by any wikipedia policy. WAS 4.250 06:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Rewriting is better, in my opinion, because you could have avoided all the uglinesses that just happened. Anyways, I rewrote the paragraphs there should be no problem with it not. This should have been done before all this started. Sasquatcht|c 06:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio notices

Do not remove copyvio notices from articles. If you wish to contest the deletion of this article please post at WP:CP. Gamaliel 01:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Shihan Doversola, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from http://www.budokai.info/schools_styles.htm. As a copyright violation, Shihan Doversola appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Shihan Doversola has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If the source is a credible one, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:Shihan Doversola. If the article has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at Shihan Doversola, after describing the release on the talk page. However, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia.

Gamaliel 03:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Your a relic Gamaliel as the founder of wikipedia said:

"Finally, we should never forget as a community that we are the vanguard of a knowledge revolution that will transform the world. We are the leading edge innovators and leaders of what is becoming a global movement to free knowledge from proprietary constraints. 100 years from now, the idea of a proprietary textbook or encyclopedia will sound as quaint and remote as we now think of the use of leeches in medical science." ---Free Knowledge requires Free Software and Free File Formats

Until that brave new world arrives, you are bound by the rules of the present day Wikipedia. Please follow them. Gamaliel 03:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Unforunatly I look forward to you deleting one more of my wikipages. I did not get a decent screen shot of the last one.

Do you know how lawyers often change the law of the entire US? They find a perfect case to test the law. Whether you approve of Roe vs Wade, that is how the aboriton law, for better or worse, was changed in America.

There is a second way: A few years ago in Salt Lake City a lawyer got arrested for having the skiier on the Utah license plate covered up. He actually wanted to get arrested. Why? Because he wanted to challenge and then change the law.

In this case, you are that "cop" and I am the "lawyer" who will shortly be "arrested for having a skiier on [my] Utah license plate covered up".

I do not want to change the law of the United States, just the rules at wikipedia, I want to use you to change the backwards, contraditory to the spirit and purpose of wikipedia way, that copyright volunteer police like yourself destroy information.

Up until I created it today, there was no "fair use" boilerplate, but there are plenty of copyright violations templates and copyright violation boiler plates--why do you think that is? You sir, are a relic, a stumbling block to progress which will, God willing, become obsolete soon.Travb 03:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I have deleted Utah in the Spanish American War as a copyright violation. You have repeatedly been warned about the rules and have chosen to ignore those warnings, so I have no choice but to take steps to prevent you from violating those rules any further. You have been blocked for 24 hours, and if you persist, you will be blocked for longer periods. There will be no test case. You will just get blocked. We are not here for you to chart a brave new course for copyright law. We are not here for you to make a point (see WP:POINT) about your personal feelings regarding copyright law. We are here to create an encyclopedia. If you wish to participate in that project according to our rules, you are welcome and encouraged to do so. Gamaliel 04:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

If you are interested Gamaliel an image of my deleted artile is now here.[4]

Well, I always learn about these rules the hard way, sigh...I can't say that I was not surprised.

I clarified what I wrote above--I am not trying to change "copyright law", I don't have any bold visions like Jimmy Wales, I just think that fair use on wikipedia, and wikipedia alone is very contradictory and confusing, I would like a CLARIFICATION.

I didn't know about WP:POINT, but now I do :)--reading over the article, now I understand why this rule was made up. It never ceases to amaze me how many really smart guidelines wikipedia has made up.

Please tell me, how many words on wikipedia makes a copyright violation?

Is it less than 300?
If I were to put 300 words in quotes, in an existing article, with a footnote, would this be a copyright violation, or would this be covered under fair use?
If I were to post the exact same quote on wikiquote would this be a copyright violation? If so: Why?
What is wikipedia's policy on quotes?

[edit] email to admin

Maybe you are not familar with § 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Like most statutes, the wording is difficult to understand.

Because 107 is so difficult to understand, I will rely on Stanford University Library definition of what is fair use.

Stanford University Library has an excellent discussion on what is fair use [5]

Often, it's difficult to know whether a court will consider a proposed use to be fair. The fair use statute requires the courts to consider the following questions in deciding this issue:

Is it a competitive use? (In other words, if the use potentially affects the sales of the copied material, it's usually not fair.) § 107 (1)

How much material was taken compared to the entire work of which the material was a part? (The more someone takes, the less likely it is that the use is fair.) § 107 (3)

How was the material used? Is it a transformative use? (If the material was used to help create something new it is more likely to be considered a fair use that if it is merely copied verbatim into another work. Criticism, comment, news reporting, research, scholarship and non-profit educational uses are most likely to be judged fair uses. Uses motivated primarily by a desire for a commercial gain are less likely to be fair use). § 107 (4)

As a general rule, if you are using a small portion of somebody else's work in a non-competitive way and the purpose for your use is to benefit the public, you're on pretty safe ground. On the other hand, if you take large portions of someone else's expression for your own purely commercial reasons, the rule usually won't apply.

---end of Stafford text---

My 260 word paragraph on "Utah and the Spanish American War" (saved here: http://www.geocities.com/travbailey), clearly falls within the definition of fair use on all three counts:

it is for noncompetive use,
only one paragraph was used out of an entire article, and
the material is used for noncompetitive gain.

Second, the Wikipedia:

"Note that speedy deletion applies only to articles, that is text; and only when the source is a commercial content provider, that is someone engaged in directly making money off the content." (emphasis my own)

The source of this article was a noncommercial content provider not engaged in directly making money off content. (the State of Utah). http://historytogo.utah.gov/utah_chapters/statehood_and_the_progressive_era/utahinthespanishamericanwar.html

Because I was booted for text that:

not only falls within fair use doctorine as stated in § 107,
but the content I posted was also noncommercial content,

My posting priveledges should be reinstated and the 260 word article should not have been "speedily deleted".

If you booted me for WP:POINT, that is another discussion.

If I were to repost another new article, less than 300 words long, that is from a noncommercial entity, would my article be speed deleted and would I be booted again, if so why?

Thank you. travb

Any article which consists entirely of copyright material will be deleted, regardless of length. Gamaliel 17:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] You mentioned me

You stated at User talk:Jimbo Wales that I added that bolded text at the top of Wikipedia:Copyright problems. In fact, it was added by another editor in this diff. I just made the file Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Header as part of a restructuring of the whole page, and copied all the existing header material into it. -Splash^talk 05:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, as soon as I am unbooted in 24 hours I will mention this--can you please tell me what the policy is about mentioning other people in talk pages? Is what I did bad?-- Travb 06:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Not really, no, although the edit did pretty squarely lay the blame for a fairly extensive message on my shoulders. Jimbo's talk page is a rather more public place than most, of course, so that might be borne in mind. I suppose that, generally, if you're invoking one user's name elsewhere it might be nice to let them know you've done so. It's not obligatory, though.

Sorry again. I will do that from now on.-- Travb 06:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on copyright law, although I know reasonably well how the English Wikipedia handles it. I see from your talk: page that you're concerned over claiming fair-use on text where that is possible, much like we do with many images. This is an interesting question, and one I've wondered about myself. There's a crucial difference between images and text, though, from the encyclopedic point of view. Text is subject, in effect, to stricter rules than images before inclusion. Text must satisfy WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Satisfying WP:RS is handy, too. Images must meet those as well, but it's hard to imagine an unverifiable image (?!) or how an image might have a point-of-view at all: that can only be imparted by the text that goes with it d — and original images are positively encouraged, since they are free. Text is also constrained by WP:NOT — a whole list of things that Wikipedia doesn't carry. From a copyright perspective, the most significant of these is WP:NOT advertising. We get a (very) large number of copypaste text-dumps of promotional websites. Frankly, we don't want to claim fair-use on such material, and so we don't. A lot of other websites that could be copy-pasted from would lack sources, and so would signally fail to meet WP:V and in some cases WP:NOR: the example you have a screenshot of above certainly has these problems. So I think that if you study those three or four core documents carefully, you might come to see why we would want fair-use on text very much less often than on images.

On a legalistic point, I think fair-use probably does not extend to alteration of the still fully-copyrighted text. Any article here is editable at will, and it is unfair to take copyrighted work and then, over time, take it to pieces. So if we claim fair-use on text, I think we'd have to cross that bridge, too. I am not a lawyer, however, so that's an entirely less auhoritative view than the paragraph above. -Splash^talk 05:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the info and your time.

How can wikiusers get a consensus on this? This is all I want to learn-- that is why I posted this originally:

Template for the Copyright problems completly ignores free use

I will study your info at length later...Travb 06:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the removal you have made is ok, and it leaves behind the key sentence. We get a lot of newbies saying "...but Website X doesn't have a copyright thing on it, so it must be non-copyrighted" which, in US law at any rate, is wrong. I removed the {{copypath}} box. It was confusing (to me at least) and even once de-confusified, must be redundant with the straightforward instructions that are already on the page. Feel free to copyedit those gently, of course. I would suggest that the message you have put on Header/Talk be moved to the main CP/Talk page since I doubt many people apart from me and a couple of other even know the Header page exists. You might also cut your message down to size a little: short is sweet, after all. -Splash^talk 22:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moderate?

I am not really moderating. In fact, I'd probably be a shitty moderator for this situation as I'm already involved. I archived the Request for Moderation because the specific complaint was over deleting all the content over and over which was solved... Anyways... Sasquatcht|c 22:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm.. you're right.. well, I guess the best thing to do would to put a request over at WP:RFPP. I'm a tad hesitant to protect it myself and It's okay to mention other people's names so long as you aren't badmouthing them. Anyways, I'm trying to stay away from that whole thing before it drags me in. Sasquatcht|c 22:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

you know, what, screw that, I'm gonna protect it. Sasquatcht|c 22:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Ultimately it is your call, I havent seen the damage on the site yet, it may be minor, but it is probably signifigant--I would bet the revert wars have started anew today... I am busy talking to Ed poor now on the talk page....Travb 22:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fair Use discussion on Jimbo's Talk page

Thanks for letting me know about the Fair Use discussion on Jimbo's Talk page. I responded there before looking at the above. First, let me say that I, too, find current copyright law, especially the extension of it beyond any reasonable limit to serve the interests of the corporate elite, appalling. But, that said, unless and until the law is changed by an enlightened congress (cough), it is the law of the land, and I think Wikipedia is not a great place to pick to fight it.

Incidentally, my addition to the Copyright Problems page really isn't sui generis. Take a look at the very bottom of the Edit page. It reads "DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION All edits are released under the GFDL (see WP:Copyrights). [...] Only public domain resources can be copied exactly—this does not include most web pages."

Finally, a word about Wikipedia-- I see that you're pretty new here. So far as I can tell, there is no hierarchical organization that you can turn to if you want a clear delineation of policy-- Jimbo may weigh in on a question, more often he does not. So, we have met the enemy, and he is us. So the good news is, you can write policy yourself! The bad news is, you have to convince everyone else that it's the right policy.

And an important point relative to this-- a decision was made at some point (and this, I think, was Jimbo's call) that commercial sites should be able to use material appearing on Wikipedia without having to worry about copyright issues. So when you say, above, that your use of verbatim material is non-commercial, that's not the end of the story-- someone else may take your page and reproduce it in a commercial context. See all of our mirror sites, Answers.com, e.g..

Have fun. -- Mwanner | Talk 14:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're watching Wikipedia Talk:Copyright problems, but I've been doing some work on this stuff and I'm proposing an addition of a Fair Use link to the sentence that started all this, as well as a proposed rewrite of the WP Fair Use policy. Let me know if you see any problems (other than the one User:howcheng presents, below, which opens up another small can of worms (sigh). TIA, --Mwanner | Talk 15:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Wikipedia talk:Copyrights#Wikipedia:Fair_use_link

Actually, I was just wondering why there was no link to Wikipedia:Fair use from Wikipedia:Copyrights. I would have added it myself but the page is protected. IANAL so I don't want to get into such discussions; as long someone with a legal background can figure out what's fair and what's not and explain it clearly, that would be great. Of course, I realize that's much easier said than done. :) --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 23:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal alerts

Good morning, afternoon, or evening, depending on your timezone. Just thought I'd let you know that for vandalism, I don't generally take into account edits that go back 8 months when there wasn't a lot of activity in-between. The reason for this is that it's quite possible the edits are from a public computer (library, school, etc.), and it's just hard to be sure it's the same person. Regards, Scïmïłar ^parley 18:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments about the revert war

re: Winter Soldier Investigation

Hello, Travb.

Thank you for your efforts in editing the Winter Soldier Investigation article, and also for your suggestions toward resolving the edit war issues. I'd like to comment on some of your remarks on the Discussion page, and hopefully clear up some of the remaining confusion.

And anon, 165.247.202.196, whether you like it or not, there are some who have criticized the event, which should remain here on the page.

There are many who have criticized the event. It says so in the article, in more ways than one. Valid criticisms should indeed be in the article, and there is no indication by any of the anon editors that they feel otherwise.

What is "valid" anon? What may be valid to you, may not be valid to TDC. That is why I think the article, at least between the two of you, should be split into two sections: the controversy section, and the "pro" winter soldier section. TDC can write what he wishes, and you can write what you wish. But both of you agree not to change the other's content.

In response to your questions of me posted elsewhere:

Valid is what is appropriate to the article. If multiple editors disagree on content, then they discuss their disagreements until they form a concensus. Unfortunately, your simplistic solution of one editor writing what he wishes, and another editor also writing what he wishes doesn't work in the world of Wikipedia. Perhaps you should review the numerous articles on creating Wiki-articles?

Anon, you and TDC are so alike (see differences below). Do you have a solution? NO. There has been no consensus, instead there has been an edit/revert war between the two of you.

...give up the stupid idiotic "testimony" war,

TDC is fond of removing any words that might give weight to the article, such as the word "testimony." It has already been established that "testimony" is perfectly appropriate in this article. It is also appropriately used in books about the WSI, in the Congressional Record notes on the WSI, etc. TDC is also fond of inserting words like "alleged" to try to instill doubt in the reader. "Alleged veterans," or "alleged war crimes." He knows full well the veterans credentials were checked, just as he knows that war crimes were committed. He argues that unless every single crime was verified, and unless the veteran status of every single participant was triple-checked, he'll squeeze in the weasel words. I, on the other hand, will remove such words unless he can cite a single fraud.

Response: Agreed.

As I mentioned above in the section Words that should not be used "alledged" and other words should be deleted. Many Communists feel that Stalins gulags are "Alledged" some even feel that going to the moon was "alledged". The word alledged is a POV word, which should be agreed to be deleted from this entire article.

Split the article up ... Both of you will agree to leave each others section alone.

Leave sections of Wikipedia articles alone? Unless an article is perfect (and I haven't seen one yet), they are subject to editing. Spelling errors will be corrected, incorrect grammar fixed, and content added and improved. Are you suggesting Wikipedia articles should be handled otherwise? I will not be agreeing to such a thing. Something tells me TDC won't agree either.

Absolutly. Both of you have shown that you cannot be trusted to edit each other's sections. This is the only way to stop the revert wars. Once you have shown that you can be adults, and stop revert wars, then this can be renegotiated.

Response: I don't have a "section." Incorrect, the "only way" is to place sanctions upon those who perpetuate them, as Tony has done. Notice how the war ended? As for your condescending remarks, please don't try to bait me - it won't work. Keep this civil, or converse with someone else.

Great, as many editors have done for months, even years on the Winter Soldier Investigation. How long before TDC comes back and does the same thing? How many times has the article been locked? I know TDC starts these stupid wars, and I know someone needs to stand up to him, but how many times are you going to try the same thing and expect a different result?

I don't try to bait you, others yes, not you. Our political views actually happen to seem to be the same. No fun baiting those types of people.

165.247.202.196, although he has comprimised more, is also guilty of wanting to squelch critism of the Winter Soldier investigation.

I believe you are mistaken here. Not once has this anon user attempted to "squelch" valid criticism, and I defy you to point out one instance where he/she has attempted to do so.

What about this edit 165.247.202.196?

You deleted large portions of this section:

Seven years after the hearings, historian and Guenter Lewy wrote that a Naval Criminal Investigative Service report could not corroborate even one of allegation made in Detroit. According to Lewy, the NIS could compel few witnesses to speak with investigators, even after assurance that they would not be asked about their own actions. The NIS concluded that many of those interviewed had no combat service record and that some of the most gruesome claims came from men who were imposters using the names and documentation of real Vietnam veterans. One particular Marine who had been in combat eventually told investigators that a member of the Nation of Islam helped prepare his statement, and admitted that he had never witnessed any of the atrocities he had testified to in Detroit. According to the sworn statements of several veterans, corroborated by witnesses, that they had in fact not attended the hearing in Detroit. One of them had never been to Detroit in all his life. He did not know, he stated, who might have used his name. In the end, the Navy was unable to verify any of the hundreds of war crimes alleged by the Winter Soldier Investigation. Lewy goes on to note that journalists, historians, and military and Congressional investigators have failed to verify even one specific allegation made at Winter Soldier.[6]

Lewy also notes that, "The refusal of [those alleging atrocities] to give substantiating factual information . . . created a situation in which the accusers continued to reap generous publicity for their sensational charges while the Army in most cases could neither investigate nor refute them." Lewy concluded that there was another reason to be wary of such allegations: They were retrospective reports and therefore subject to distortion, "created by the veterans' perception of the interviewers and organizers of the hearings, by their attitudes toward the military and by their difficulties in adjusting to civilian life after discharge."[7]

According to Nicholas Turse, a doctoral candidate at the Center for the History & Ethics of Public Health , the US Army's CID investigators found the allegations made by 46 veterans at the hearings to merit further inquiry, and were able to identify 43 of the complainants. The CID also attempted to contact 41 of the people who participates; of the 36 they were able to locate, 31 submitted to interviews. [8]

Response: Your example is a reversion. Nothing was deleted. Check the summary notes. Again, I ask you to give me just 1 example. And again, as for your comments in this section, please cease the personal attacks. You don't see me offering ludicrous opinions about your age, or your ability to edit, and I wish you would do the same.

Okay. no more comments about your age or ability to edit. Sorry.

Again, you and TDC are similar. you are playing with the word "delete". When large portions of text disappers, whether it be in a reversion or some other way, that text no longer exists, so therfore it is deleted. If you are worried about not deleting anything, add this information back, which just happens to be critical to the winter soldiers, back into the article.

Quite frankly anon, you are not a good judge of whether this is "valid" criticism, anymore than TDC is a good judge whether your sections are "valid" criticisms. My suggestion to end this revert war once and for all stands: you edit the "pro" winter soldier section and TDC edits the critical winter soldier section. You have shown, just as TDC has shown, that you can not be trusted with information which does not follow your own pet ideology. Split up the artile, with pro and con, pro being first, con being second, and LEAVE EACH OTHERS SECTIONS ALONE.

But not two hours later, another anon, 209.86.2.114, who was "pro" Winter Soldier, came along and deleted everything I had worked on.

No, he/she did not. If you'll look closer, you'll probably find that a revert of TDCs vandalism was done, and your edits may have been reverted along with them. Also, as I look at your list of text deleted "down the memory hole," I notice that some of what you claim is missing is still in the article. Please give it another look. Also, I would be interested in seeing what additions you have for the article.

That is great to hear. thank you for letting me know. I will update the memory hole section.

(Later) Updated the "memory hole" section, most of the information in your current edit/version of Winter Soldier Investigation, which is critical of winter soldier, is still missing, in fact most of the "memory hole" information is gone. Travb 01:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Response: You are welcome. I am still interested in seeing these critical additions of which you speak.

Here is the edit: ::: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winter_Soldier_Investigation&diff=26414691&oldid=26402142

I am not adding any new information ,just trying to add back what has been deleted, see the "memory hole" section for information which has never been returned, and which is lost. Most of it happens to be critical of the Winter Soldiers in your edit/version.

This is when I realized, as TDC said, that working on the article was a waste of time.

Working on articles should never be considered a waste of time. Attempting to insert inaccuracies, biases and unsubstantiated opinion is indeed a waste of time, as TDC is discovering.

Again, you have shown that you ARE NOT a good judge of what is "inaccuracies, biases and unsubstantiated opinion" anymore than TDC is. Maybe you know 100 times mroe than TDC does about the Winter Soldier Investigation but that is irrelevant here, because if we dont agree to some strict ground rules between you and TDC, this revert war will continue, and I will be forced to submit this article to arbitration.

Let TDC edit his controversies section, and you can edit the pro section. Unfortunatly it has come to the point, that neither of you can be trusted editing each other's sections.

Response: There are no ground rules. There are Wikipedia rules, and they apply to you, TDC and myself equally. Also note, they "force" you to do nothing. Hope that clears things up for you.

again, you two are alike. There are differences: you are more willing to compromise, and you dont start these stupid revert wars, but your tactics are similar. What is seen as a "inaccuracies, biases and unsubstantiated opinion" may be perfectly fine with TDC and vice versa.

I also noticed that many of Duk's changes have also been lost to overzealous reverters on both sides, with no explanation.

Again, you are mistaken. Duk has made no changes to the article, with the exception of protecting/unprotecting it, and inserting the "copyvio" tag when he feels it is appropriate. I don't believe he has ever added or changed any of the content.

You are 100% correct, my mistake sorry. I was thinking of Ed Poor, whose ideology I may not agree with, but who adds meaningful edits, many non-POV, not Duk.

Response: You are welcome.

Anon has to come to terms with the fact that some authors criticize the Winter Soldier Investigation.

Actually, many authors do, especially during election season when Veterans are candidates. I think the anons are more aware of this than you may be. 165.247.200.154 00:11, 7 November 2005

I agree. I am VERY ignorant of Winter Soldier Investigation I will be the first to admit it, as I have above. I am not trying to add anything to the content here, and I never have, I am just trying to end this revert war, which I find childish and VERY unproductive.

Response: You are welcome.

Thank you for your kind words and courteous demeaner. Travb 00:53, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Response:And as a response to your assertion that I have a "right" ideology, and TDC has a "left" ideology... you have totally lost me. This is about accuracy and facts. You should know by now that political leanings don't have a place in neutral articles. 165.247.200.154 00:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Great theory, but everyone is biased. "political leanings don't have a place in neutral articles" great theory, but what is "neutral"? If you are interested in the history of where the entire idea of "non-biased" neutral news came from, which your views come from, let me know....

Travb 04:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Not at this time, thanks. :) My only interest here is to maintain accuracy in articles. I do that without bias, despite your misconceptions. Consider this:

Columnist Joe Smith writes an article about George Bush. Smith describes in gory detail Georges secret habit of eating babies every day for breakfast. Most people with common sense would see the article as hogwash. A few avid Bush-haters hold up the article and exclaim, "I knew it! Bush eats babies!" One Bush-hater even logs on to Wikipedia and inserts these new revelations into the George Bush article. A Bush-fan sees this in the article and deletes it. A more fair-minded Bush-hater reinserts the information, but prefaces it with "Some authors have written..." Yet another editor sees the hogwash, and reverts the article to pre-baby-eating state. Finally, another kind-hearted soul decides to put an end to all the madness, starts calling everyone children and other names, and suggests (to be fair) the details of Bush's baby-eating habit be put into a "controversial" section. Right next to the soon to be added information about Bush being the love child of martians and Elvis Presly...

I seem to have lost my train of thought. More later. (btw, where in the aboce scenario do you suppose you fit in?) 165.247.213.213 05:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Great theory, but everyone' is biased. I didnt claim who had a right or left ideology, I wrote: "The problem here is we have two pet ideologies, one on the right, one on the left. Both feel their view is "right" and the other persons is wrong."

you wrote: "Political leanings don't have a place in neutral articles" Great theory, but what is "neutral"?

(If you are interested in the history of where the entire idea of "non-biased" neutral news came from, which your views probably come from, let me know)....

I fell TDC is an ass, don't get me wrong on this central point. I have no repect for what he does. He starts all of these silly immature fights. But you play into his games, and you simply up the level of contention.

Would I do the same thing in your place, if TDC started to delete my articles, which also happen to embrace your left leanings? Probably. But what you have done for months, even years, simply doesnt work, and in the process you are deleting a lot of information, which makes you no better than TDC in some repects. In my opinon, being late to this revert war, this article should have gone to arbitration a long time ago. And there will be another revert war, guaranteed, which at that time, I will not hesitate to send the article to arbitration. You two will both probably be booted, TDC for a longer duration than yourself. -- Travb 04:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

My "right leanings," you mean. And you still haven't specifically pointed out what I have deleted. Mind filling me in? 165.247.213.213 05:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

By going through and deleting articles, line by line, no you have not, by reverting articles and in the process deleting large sections, we can both agree, you have. You are arguing what the definition of "delete" is, just like TDC argues what the definition of "testimony" is.

No, we disagree. Please, can you give me a sample of valid content that I have deleted? 165.247.213.213 06:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC) (Man, this is like pulling teeth...)

Perhaps you are busy. I'll check back later. 165.247.213.213 07:02, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

if TDC started to delete my articles...

I just caught that. Perhaps you are somewhat new around here still, but the articles here don't belong to the editors. I certainly don't have any articles here, and whether or not you realize it, neither do you. That's right, all your hard work at editing an article may morph and even vanish at the whim of other editors. You'll get used to it. Sounds chaotic, but over all it ends up producing some pretty fine pieces of work. 165.247.213.213 06:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

No, I mean simply articles that you worked on a lot, not that you have "your own articles"--I know that you are fairly new to winter soldier, or at least your new anon is...yoiu did not create winter soldier.

For example: I have built a lot of new articles recently, or completly revamped a lot and I would be pissed if TDC came along and started to take out large sections and slapped copyvio's. I was thinking of adding back all those things which have been deleted/reverted down the memory hole, but I actually personally support what winter soldier stood for. So if TDC wants to come here, and civilly add this info that has been erased/deleted/reverted, he can. Travb 06:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with tony finally reigning in TDC, three cheers...

lets see what happens now with winter soilder shall we? Travb 06:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The text that wasn't

Where is this text in your winter soldier article?

Answer: gone, not present, absent, astray, away, AWOL, burned up, consumed, dead, decamped, deceased, defunct, departed, disappeared, disintegrated, displaced, dissipated, dissolved, done, dried up, elapsed, ended, extinct, finished, flown, lacking, left, lost, missing, moved, no more, nonextant, not here, over, passed, past, quit, removed, retired, run off, shifted, spent, split, taken leave, transferred, traveling, vanished, withdrawn

Whether the text was taken out line by line "deleted" or reverted, is irrelevant. The text is GONE. Don't try to play a silly word game like TDC does.

Paragraph one: The information in paragraph one is indeed still in the article, but in a more accurate form, and without the inaccurate conclusions of the editor in the last 2 sentences. That paragraph has also been the topic of much discussion on the talk page.

Paragraph two: According to an edit by 209, "deleted quote by Lewy that was not about a WSI participant." Lewy was writing about a veteran that never testified at WSI, but at another less reliable inquiry altogether. TDC knows this, and quietly tries to hide the fact by misquoting Lewy - replacing key information with '...' and bracketed info instead. The deletion of that paragraph was properly noted in the Edit Summary, properly discussed on the Talk page.

Paragraph three: The text from this paragraph is indeed in the article, but in a more accurate form. The accolades (doctoral candidate at blah blah school, etc.) were removed as extraneous to the article, and that edit was so noted by 209: "removed accolades for people not relevant to this article." The inclusion of credentials of sources such as Turse were discussed extensively on the Discussion page, as is proper.

Don't try to play a silly word game like TDC does.

I'm not sure why you inserted this personal attack, other than to try to incite some sort of fight. As I reminded you before, I'm not taking your bait - please keep the personal attacks to yourself.

~~So I ask you again, can you cite any valid content that I have deleted? I am still waiting.~~ 165.247.219.253 01:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, don't bother. Blaming me for intentionally deleting valid content is probably just more bait as well, and here I am falling for it. I'm withdrawing from this conversation. Cheers, Travb. 165.247.219.253 01:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Notes in passing

Travb says: Neither you not anon have any credibility what so ever to define what is NPOV. Travb, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, please refrain from this sort of commenting about other editors. We all have our strong feelings about various editors here, but it serves no good purpose to express those feelings, and may make already emotional discourse even more difficult. The rest of your comment was quite valid, but adding the attack line above just deminishes its worth.

Travb says: Anon, like TDC also uses "weaselspeak" to support his views (...writer Guenter Lewy claimed...the alleged report...) Just a clarification here; the sentence you quoted was added by another editor, not me. Let's try to maintain accuracy here, please. I do, however, agree with the wording of that sentence. Do you have a suggestion as to how that sentence might be better written? Please keep in mind the words claimed and alleged were added after it was discovered the report to which writer Lewy refers doesn't exist - the Naval Department has no record of it - and Lewy now claims he doesn't recall seeing it.

I'll go back to quietly observing the WSI Talk page now, to see what develops. 165.247.202.184 01:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

All erase both sentences, thanks for bringing it to my attention. Travb 01:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Dont feel bad Travb, I am sure the Rfc will solve this debate. TDC 03:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Travb says: I am working on arbitration right now Travb 02:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC) Nifty. And I am working on creating better, more accurate articles. Each of us following their particular desires, I see. 165.247.200.100 03:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

To me, a better article includes both sides, not just one POV. Dont tell me you didnt see this coming. Travb 03:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

There is a difference between including both sides, and including rubbish. I see now that in our hypothetical article about George Bush, you would argue to include the stuff about him eating babies for breakfast. While the rest of us would argue such tripe has no place in an encyclopedic article. If you'd like to discuss your edits rationally, you are welcome to do so on the article talk page. Just like the rest of us. "Dont tell me you didnt see this coming." Oh, of course I did. Several days ago when you tried to drag TDC through your multi-colored, multi-font lambasting on the admin pages and talk pages. Then you moved on to Duk, and I couldn't help wonder when you would eventually get around to me. That's fine. Some people come here to pick fights and argue, others come here to collaborate on creating a good encyclopedia. 165.247.200.100 04:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Again, I think that Lewy is abhorant. But do you think TDC will ever stop? Honestly. I have been clear on this: he starts all these revert wars, but you continue them. In regards to my attacks on TDC and Duk, you didn't exactly stick up for them when I was attacking them--and I continue to attack TDC. I still think there should be a pro and con section, and the con section probalby should include Lewy

I don't "continue revert wars." I revert vandalism, unsourced content that seems outrageous, and blatant POV additions. Just as the Wikipedia rules suggest I should do. Just because some people are particularily persistent with their insertions, don't assume I am "continuing a war" just for wars sake. You think there should be a pro and a con section? You only included a Con section so far. And if it contains Lewy, that would be fine. But so far, you only inserted TDC's regurgitated and reinterpreted misrepresentations of Lewy ... not actual Lewy. You would know this if you read the Edit Summary notes to my edits, or my explanations to you the other day on your Talk page, or the discussions on the article Discussion page. Give it a shot, and get back to me. (And did you notice I didn't revert a single edit of yours involving reducing the quotes into footnotes and Wikiquote content?) 165.247.200.100 05:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I only included a con section because the overwhelming majority of the article is "pro". I have read the explanation of your talk page, and the edit summary notes (one sentence each time). If there is a section in the archives about Lewy, please guide me to that section. Please dont confuse my disagreement of your point of view with a lack of listening. Again, I know this pisses you off, but I feel like I am talking to TDC. And I will repeat what sasquatch said about TDC's copyright complaints: "Oh.. My.. god... go fix it... you're really good at complaining about problems, I get it. But please do try to fix some of the problems... I mean.. that's all I ask of you.. really.. that's it. Thanks." "Fixing it" does not mean deleting (or "reverting") the entire two paragraphs....That is a TDC tactic Travb 06:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of the article is "pro?" Most of the content is neutral and factual - neither pro nor con. I'm sorry that you disagree with my point of view that articles should be factual, lack of listening or not. Now I asked you who this Osborn guy was in the Edit Summaries. You still haven't answered. You insert stuff about him in the article, yet you can't tell me why. That doesn't seem a little weird to you? Regarding Lewy, and the stuff you inserted into the article. 165.247.200.100 07:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

look at the Wal-mart page: with both pro and cons, and then look at Winter Soldier Investigation maybe three sentences of criticism. No one would belive "George Bush, you would argue to include the stuff about him eating babies for breakfast." this is absurd and a fallacy of logic. But a good portion of people believe in the words of Lewy. Travb 05:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Then perhaps you should insert Lewy into the article, not the garbage you tried to pass off as Lewy earlier this evening. By the way, I noticed you haven't voted for which version you prefer in TDC's RFC on the discussion page. Haven't decided yet? 165.247.200.100 07:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Please respond to the arbitration request or post your comments on winter soldier. I do not want to talk too you anymore here. In fact, I am pretty much done talking with you at all. I don't see you as much different than TDC in that you only want one point of view espoused. It is clear in my view, that you have a different standard of validity for views which are opposed to winter soilder and views which support with winter soldier. The only way I ever see this being resolved is to allow both parties to have a pro and con section. It is clear that you do not want this, by your actions. The criticism section you completly deleted, and the criticism wintersoldier.com link you also deleted. I am 95% sure that the arbitration committee will agree that both views, whether you personally agree with them or not, need to be expressed on this page.

A different standard of validity? I hold all information to the same simple standard: it must be factual. I had hoped that you worked by that same standard, but I suspect you don't. You inserted this sentence into the article: "Lewy goes on to note that journalists, historians, and military and Congressional investigators have failed to verify even one specific allegation made at Winter Soldier." I asked you to cite exactly where Lewy made this notation, and you decide you "don't want to talk" anymore. When I ask TDC to cite a source for this statement, he decides he doesn't want to talk anymore either. You and TDC are indeed quite alike. I have no problem with controversial information existing in any article, as long as it is factual and sourced. It is unfortunate that you disagree with this standard of validity, as it is pretty standard for Wikipedia. 165.247.212.110 18:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Anymore comments here will be deleted here and then cut and pasted to the winter soldier talk page. Travb 17:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re:How lost?

Ed Poor was the subject of an arbitration case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor regarding some actions he made as a bureaucrat which several other users viewed as reckless. In particular

Deleting the entire Articles for Deletion (then called Votes for Deletion) page.
Using his position as bureaucrat to deny Lucky 6.9 adminship following the RFA where he had himself voted.
Forcibly changing the username of Trollderella despite consensus at this RFC page that the original name was acceptable.

When the case was accepted after a prolonged delay, Ed Poor decided to offer a "guilty plea" to all the charges and resign his bureaucratship while keeping his adminship. This means that Ed Poor no longer had access to the ability to make other users administrators or to change usernames. This is what I mean by "lost" his bureaucratship.

Nonetheless, there were grudgings that Ed Poor had gotten away too easily, and that the ArbCom should have put more effort into seeing if further sanctions than loss of bureaucratship were warranted.

Regarding the Ed Poor barnstar, it refers to this award, given to those who "ignore all rules in a big way in the service of Wikipedia and somehow get away with it." My issue with this award is that it rewards recklessness. Although ignore all rules has several good points (avoiding red tape and needless bureaucracy), I feel that invoking IAR with reckless disregard of other users is disruptive and something which should be discouraged not encouraged. The only case of the three I mentioned above was the last one (Trollderella's username change). That case resulted in a lengthy wikibreak from someone who had been doing a lot of legitimate work here, in my view due to intimidation. I cannot see that any good came of ignoring all rules in that instance.

Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Allegation

Hi Travb, can you explain to me why you think this? --Duk 17:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. It was buried at the bottom for a reason. I will change it to duk. Glad that all my actions on wikipedia are as important to you as yours are to me.Travb 17:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

So, can you explain to me why you think this? It's personal attack and untrue and I'd like to resolve it. --Duk 17:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I changed the text. I feel it is resolved. If you do not, I am sorry. I will not discuss this anymore, other than to say that I have been investigating in detail what has gone on the page Vietnam Veterans Against the War and Winter Soldier Investigation, and I found this entry, which I filed away for possible later use. Both of these pages which you, SEWilco, Ed_poor, TDC, the anon happen to have been heavily involved with.

By the way, I am inquiring about the 300 and 400 deletes to both of those pages, which you can see on my contributions.

I also mentioned you in the arbitration posting. Along with your compatriots.

I want the revert wars to end on these two pages. Period. If that means making enemies on both sides of the argument, that is a price I am grudgingly willing to pay. Travb 17:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RFAR/TDC

I fully support your RFAR against TDC, and have taken the liberty of reformatting your comments there to be more appropriate and readable, as well as adding a comment of my own. Regards, -St|eve 01:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! That was unexpected, since I was only asking about the deletes.[12] I uncovered the two requests for comment today[13] [14], I guess this is before you had the privelege of meeting TDC, because your comments are missing.

I look forward to your opinion on the deletions. Depite their incredibly high number, it appears the deletions are okay.[15]Travb 02:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

No they are not "OK." TDCs claims of copyvio were always overstated, and he had been using that claim as a basis for deleting the whole article, claiming that it was policy to remove all copyvio text -- its not, and particularly is not when POV users use policy to engineer the destruction of a valid article. -St|eve 02:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

A couple points for you to consider, since I think they may be relevant:

TDC claims he is just trying to remove copyright protected content, a nobel cause. Yet TDC has done the exact same thing that he accuses various anon-ip editors of doing, see just a few examples here and as Gamaliel notes, here. This leads me to believe TDCs motives may not be so righteous after all. Duk claims he, too, is just trying to remove copyright content. Yet do you see him jumping on the afore mentioned violations with the same vigor that he attacked the WSI and VVAW, even after brought to his attention on his Talk page? I like to assume good faith when possible, but I have to admit I've caught a whiff of the same smoke Travb smells. 165.247.212.109 20:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree 100% for the REAL reason for why these files are being deleted, and I have argued the same thing as you have on the Talk:Winter Soldier Investigation#True_intentions page, and Ed_Poor has questioned the real intention too [16].

I think we can all rest assured of TDC's motive, but I think, after some consideration and going through hundreds of Duk's edits, that he really isn't interested in politics. At first I could not figure out Duks motive, then I thought he was in league with TDC, now I am not sure again his motive. What is important to note is that Duk did not act on the copyviolations on Massacre at Hue. At this point I simply think TDC is a zelous ideologue, an opinion which has never changed, and Duk is a over-zealous copyright policeman who TDC uses for his own ends. Duk really is not politically motivated. The jury is still out on you anon, but you seem a lot like TDC, but not as confrontational. Travb 21:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

When I say "okay"--I mean that they are technically within the current guidelines of wikipedia, at least as far as I know.

Today on the news there was a report about Palmeiro testifying before Congress in March that "he had never used steriods". There was no proof that he actually used steriods when he testified, even though he tested positive to steriods use later. "The House Government Reform Committee concluded in a 44-page report released Thursday that it did not have enough evidence to determine whether Rafael Palmeiro had lied under oath in March when he defiantly testified that he had never taken steroids, even though he tested positive a few weeks later." [17]

I smell smoke in the case of over 300 and 400 deletes by Duk, but like the House Government Reform Committee, I have found no fire, especially since I have no real access to these deleted files.

TDC is the center of the trouble, so that is why I did the RFAR against TDC and the anon, and not Duk. Without TDC, I think Duk will not get involved. Travb 02:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Note: for links internal to wikipedia, use the [[bracket]] format. Also use larger blocks of text rather than smaller ones. (WP:TP). Re: deletes, keep in mind that one delete can delete hundreds of different edits. Restoring a page can restore all or some of the previous edits, but in practice this seems to be done inconsistently. the point is if copyvio policy requires articles be deleted, it violates the GFDL which requires that histories be preserved. -St|eve 02:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Should I add Duk's name to the RFAR or should I start a new RFAR? TDC and Duk are at it again with their abuses of copyvio. This is the reason why the "fair use" issue needs to be clarified, so it prevents abuse by people like TDC and his right hand man, Duk. Travb 02:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd say together, and shift the anon to third place - rename the case in otherwords. TDC, Duk, 62.... Note: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ isnt necessary in internal [[ ]] links. Instead of using a space to deliniate the link from the visible text, use a | (pipe):

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Travb#.5B.5BWP:RFAR.2FTDC.5D.5D my talk] 
should look like 
[[User talk:Travb#WP:RFAR/TDC|my talk]]

-St|eve 02:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I will add Duk, but in last place, because I think of the three, he is the least culpable (guilty), often being directed by TDCTravb 02:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

St|eve A half hour later, I got thinking. Sorry, if you want to add his name to arbitration yourself, as a seperate entry, you can, but I don't think there is a strong enough case right now. He is careful to always be within wikipedia guidelines and he rarely edits political arguments except the two. I dont want to get into my full reasoning here, since it is a public board.Travb 03:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Im glad that youre being thorough and nuanced about it. Duk appears to be on the right side of the TDC RFAR, and perfecly capable of explaining himself. -St|eve 02:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trials

The jury is still out on you anon, but you seem a lot like TDC, but not as confrontational.

I wasn't aware I was on trial. I'd rather not be at odds with you, since we share similar views on many things, such as "Fair Use." I think that whatever ill opinions you might hold about me were probably formed through misunderstanding and miscommunication. I've heard you claim that I don't allow edits that don't follow my "idiological viewpoint." On the contrary, I've always allowed such edits. You point to the 2 deleted paragraphs regarding Lewy as an example, yet you failed to notice that those were removed not due to differing viewpoints, but because they contained fraudulant information and deliberate misquotes. I've heard you claim that I refuse to allow a controversy section in articles, yet that section still exists in the article today, awaiting some valid controversies. I've heard you claim that I participate in revert wars - well, I suppose so, but my reasons for reverts tend to be different from TDC's. He changes every instance of "testimony" to "stories" and I revert it. He sticks the word "alleged" before every instance of "Veteran" or "war crime" and I revert it. Sometimes he sticks in an outright lie, such as "Lewy says blah blah blah in his book..." when Lewy says no such thing - so I revert it. Sometimes he inserts spelling errors, lord knows why, like changing Artillery to Artillary, or changing Prairie to Prarie... so I revert it. It has nothing to do with Ideology, and it has nothing to do with wanting to war with TDC. I simply revert the edits that insert crap into an article. If I can remove the crap with a simple edit, then I will do so. But TDC has a habit of compounding edit upon edit into his reverts until half the article is being changed every time.

So there's my take on it. If there is any residual animosity, I would hope that we could work through it and clear the air. Let me know what you think. If our paths should cross on other articles, it would be more productive if we could collaborate rather than compete. 165.247.213.142 01:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

What I mean by "jury" is that my opinion of you is still in flux, and not settled. I am trying to figure out what makes you tick. You are not on trial, of course.

Look at the comments on arbitration, particularly Tony's comments. I think we are all in agreement in regards about TDC.

Some advice, which is the same advice that I gave to TDC below--is focus on your defense on the current arbitration, not on the "crimes" of the other person.

I keep looking at the Wal-martpage and the Winter Soldier Investigation page. The Winter Soldier Investigation has so much further to go. Winter Soldier Investigation has come a long way--look at the earliest pages--but I think there is a lot of great potential for the page. Hopefully the arbitration will settle it, once and for all, so it can become a great page. I think TDC needs to be banned from editing the page, and you need to allow criticism. I need to go.Travb 05:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

You also need to allow criticisms, Travb. As for my defense in arbitration, I see nothing to defend against. You claimed I was a participant in a revert war - true. You claimed I deleted some stuff - also true. You claimed I refused your suggestion that I only edit one small part of an article - very true. All justifiable actions on my part. Everything else seems to be about other editors, so I'll just observe, thanks. 165.247.213.171 19:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RFA

Against my better judgement, but out of courtesy, which I promised to you before, I wanted to mention that I mentioned your name again on my talk page. Travb 02:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, and out of curiosity what do you think of the latest copyvio ? --Duk 03:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

To use the wise words of sasquach: "Oh.. My.. god... go fix it... you're really good at complaining about problems, I get it. But please do try to fix some of the problems... I mean.. that's all I ask of you.. really.. that's it. Thanks."

Thanks for the heads up I will change it.

And what exactly about the user who continually puts them into the article after being repeated told to stop? TDC 18:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Red Herring

TDC wrote: And what exactly about the user who continually puts them into the article after being repeated told to stop?

That is why anon is listed promenently in the arbitration too. He does not escape blame.

TDC, I would not worry about writing in my talk page and focus on writing your defense on the arbitration page, as you have only a week from when I posted the complaint to respond before the arbitrors decide. I grow tired of both you and anon complaining and focusing on each other's offenses while ignoring your own.

Both you and anons repeatedly trying to focus on another person's guilt on another is called a "red herring" fallacy of logic. In a court case if you were accused of robbery, you could not claim as a defense that someone else is just as guilty or more guilty. Regardless of others' actions, you would be tried and punished for the robbery.

One of the most common forms of ignorantio elenchi ((Irrelevant Conclusion)) is the “Red Herring.” A red herring is a deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert the argument from the real question at issue;

For instance, “Senator Jones should not be held

accountable for cheating on his income tax. After all, there

are other senators who have done far worse things.” Another example: “I should not pay a fine for reckless driving.

There are many other people on the street who are dangerous criminals and rapists, and the police should be chasing them,

not harassing a decent tax-paying citizen like me.”

Certainly, worse criminals do exist, but that it is another issue! The question at hand is, did the speaker drive recklessly, and should he pay a fine for it?

[edit] Labor unions

Nice additions at Labor_unions_in_the_United_States#Decline_of_US_unions_compared. I've edited a little, I hope it will be viewed as "friendly edits". Also, looking at that, I can't tell the source and dates on some of your foreign data, could you look again and see if you have some source info you accidentally forgot to add? -- Jmabel | Talk 03:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I suppose its time to directly engage

Contrary to the tales you and Stevertigo have been spinning, this is not an attempt to have the article erased or to have a certain POV dominate it, only to clear up glaring NPOV issues, remove copyvios and plagiarism and improve the quality of the article. Let me repeat that for you : THIS IS NOT AN ATTEMPT TO HAVE THE ARTICLE ERASED OR TO HAVE A CERTAIN POV DOMINATE IT.

The problem with using so much cut and paste is that the information is plagiarized from sources overly sympathetic to the VVAW (including the VVAW’s own website) and the WSI. The inclusion of this information in its current form fundamentally alters the NOPV of the article. You cannot make an NPOV article by using POV sources and not even citing them.

A few other points:

The copyvio in the Massacre at Hue article was dealt with as soon as it was brought up. End of story. And once again, the anon used the same tactics there as he has done on the WSI and VVAW article. Namely, plagiarize material and leave out relevant information from the sources he plagiarized.

Steve, you should be the last person criticizing me about POV pushing, or have you forgot the fact that you are currently being stripped of your admin rights for abusing them? TDC 19:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Citing Sources, Separating between fact and opinions

Deleted from: Talk:Winter Soldier Investigation

The following from the article, is a mix of undocumented facts and your opinions

The U.S. participation in the Vietnam conflict was the source of much deeply divided sentiment among Americans. The Winter Soldier Investigation produced a conglomerate of testimony resulting in the implication and indictment of American leadership in criminal conduct, and thereby further drove a wedge between proponents and opponents of the war. Many people viewed the Winter Soldier proceedings with a critical eye, and questions have been raised about the testimony given at the Winter Soldier Investigation. Details in the testimonies have been questioned, as have the identities of participants, since the first day of the three day investigation. It has been claimed that participants were frauds; that they were told to not cooperate with later investigators; that their testimonies were inaccurate or just plain fabricated. For more than thirty years since the WSI, individuals and organizations have sought to discredit or at least minimize the painful revelations brought forth at that event. To date, no records of fraudulent participants or fraudulent testimony have been produced.

Clearly you did not write this yourself, it has been ripped off from someone. But that is neither here nor there. The passage combines facts along with opinion. Opinion has to be cited and sourced. Facts have to be sourced if they are in contention. These are two simple and necessary steps that you have been unwilling to do, and the article will be forever in dispute until you do so. TDC 20:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

You appear to be addressing an individual, but I hope you don't mind if I comment. Some facts are self-evident, such as "the sky is blue" and "the earth is round." Surely you would not require such facts to be cited and sourced. I see similar self-evident facts in the paragraph above. Which ones do you consider "in contention?" 165.247.213.84 21:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

TDC, oh the hypocricy. I have never once seen you document any of your sources, I bet you don't even know how to footnote. There is the standard you set for yourself and your views, and then their is the standard you set for those whose views that you oppose.

Your comments on my talkpage ring so very hallow "THIS IS NOT AN ATTEMPT TO HAVE THE ARTICLE ERASED OR TO HAVE A CERTAIN POV DOMINATE IT." ...in light of your repeated actions not only here but on many articles.

I hope the arbitration committee responds to my injunction request soon.

As sasquatch classicly said TDC: "Oh.. My.. god... go fix it... you're really good at complaining about problems, I get it. But please do try to fix some of the problems... I mean.. that's all I ask of you.. really.. that's it. Thanks." You have never once responded to this criticism, you can spend dozen of hours finding obscure sentences on google, but you have never once fixed your alleged "copyright violations".

How about these gems when you were the center of attention:

"I've never really seen him do any of the basic work of building an article: instead, he's always trying to score political points, slant articles his way, etc." Requests for comment/TDC-2

This really begs the question: Have you ever actually written an article TDC?

"TDC stands out as an tenacious POV warrior, more interested in slanting texts to suit his particular political ideology than in building good articles. For him, the collaborative editing process serves as a weapon rather than as a matter of facilitation. It is virtually impossible to find an edit among his contributions which is not intended to score political points. He frequently gets into edit wars, yet makes minimal effort to enter into dialog and look for compromise on Talk pages. He blatantly tries to game the 3RR rule by disguising reverts as new edits, something he freely admits in edit summaries and on Talk pages. He rarely cites sources for his edits, and when he does the sources often turn out not to say what they claim he does or they turn out to be irrelevant and not mention the subject of his edits at all." Requests for comment/TDC-2

The blatant hypocricy TDC.

Anon could respond to your criticisms, just as I did based solely on the complaints of others about your past and present behavior, without ever writing another word... Travb 01:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Allen Culbertson

No problem, just trying to work my way through the backlog of things to wikify -- Nice article btw. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 18:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier/Evidence. You may make proposals and comments at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier/Workshop. Fred Bauder 20:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

It is a good idea to copy your evidence to the /Evidence page. I have notified those you listed in the request. Fred Bauder 00:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia, arbitration etc.

(IN reponse too my comments on Ruy Lopez talk page:)

[edit] Massacre is POV

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Katy%C5%84_massacre#Massacre_is_POV

I didn't mention your name (although anyone can search my contribution history)

Excellent point on your talk page!

Plus I cut and paste it here, along with some other points: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:No_Gun_Ri_incident#Name Travb 08:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How to deal with beligerent jingoists

Hey Ruy, I notice your fight over at Talk:Khmer Rouge have you considered arbitration? I just submited someone to arbitration recently, it takes a month or two, but I think it will get real results, based on past rulings I have read. Your jingoist seems much more beligerent than mine. You said that "[he] has stated he will revert any edit I make, *ANY* edit I make on sight." and "refused a request for the mediation committee to come in a while back, he said he would not abide by their decision." Sounds like you have an Excellent case for arbitration.Travb 08:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Ruy Lopez comments:

I'm not really high on the idea of arbitration or of anything on Wikipedia coming out OK. The one constant I've seen on Wikipedia is not a move towards political-based arguments coming closer to being resolved, but the opposite, it is probably worse now then it was six months ago. It was worse six months than a year ago, worse a year ago than two years ago and so forth. I have no faith in the admins, the arbitrators, "Wikipedia process" and so forth.

Wikipedia is controlled by Jimbo Wales, who once says he envisioned it be run as a type of model idealized by Ludwig von Mises. Returning to the subject of ArbCom, he recently appointed JayJG to ArbCom, which more or less shows how "neutral" ArbCom is meant to be.

I gave up on the idea of "fixing" Wikipedia long ago. Eventually, you'll just get worn down in attrition. I have more important things to do.

There are alternative wikis out there like Anarchopedia, Red Wiki, Infoshop's OpenWiki, as well as dKosopedia and Demopedia. None of them have as much momentum as Wikipedia, but their content is mostly GFDL or Creative Commons, making it easy to move articles from one wiki to another. I've been writing articles on these wikis instead of on Wikipedia. I have the ability to put up my own wiki of this type if I want to, but I want to make sure I could financially sustain a well trafficked one and not be asking for money all of the time, so I haven't put one up yet, but I may in the future. I'm fairly certain in a few years there will be one or two progressive wikis with some momentum - perhaps one of the ones mentioned already, perhaps a new one. Ruy Lopez 00:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chemical_warfare#United_States_Senate_Report

Thank you for the excellent source that you found and placed onto chemical warfare. I'm going to remove the references to purely biological to radiological experimentation, but I'll be sure to be sure that the section still links to Operation Whitecoat. – ClockworkSoul 06:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration for User:TDC

Hi, you don’t know me but we have had contact with a mutual person, User:TDC.

I got your username from the Requests for comment/TDC-2[18] or the Requests for comment/TDC[19]

Currently there is arbitration pending on User:TDC. [20]

I welcome and encourage your comments on the arbitration page.Travb 01:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration about arbitration on TDC, nor is there any link to anything of the sort in the message you left me. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

What's going on with TDC ? Why is he back I think he was banned for life ? Ericd 22:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moving content from Talk:Wal-Mart to archives

Good job on the administrative work on Wal-Mart's talk page. When moving items to an archive, it's best to use a date cutoff. You move content from those sections that haven't had a comment posted in the last X days. Then you create a pointer at the top of the talk page with a listing of topic headings and the date cutoff (...contains Subject A, Subject B, Subject Z dated before September 1, 2005). Feco 01:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

You may disagree, but I think this is a special case, an excpetion to wikietiquitte. I hope you can see "out of the box" just for today.

This "split" /"merge" argument has gone on for months, and I want people to see all the arugments laid out clearly--without having to refer to the archive pages

As soon as the voting is over, OR you show me the three times there has been a vote, I will archive everything. I plan on archiving using the wikietiquitte, but please give me a week or so to "think outside the box".Travb 01:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Moving something temporarily then planning to move it back can lead to the loss of date/time information on the original comments. When you move them back, they will all appear to belong to you. Pulling timestamps from the text is less reliable than pulling timestamps from the edit history page. Since what's done is done, however, please remember to move everything back. It's better to create a conflict-specific subpage in the talk space.
Asking a user to document their good faith while stating that you will assume bad faith unless they prove innocence.... I would suggest you avoid that in the future. I would also suggest reading for more precision when quoting other users.
Finally, best of luck riding herd over a very ugly debate. I plan to continue doing what I had been doing since giving up on ever resolving the issue... I'll try to defend NPOV and organization/hierarchy/readibility/usability without worrying about content forks.

Feco 03:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Feco excellent points. Thanks for your comments--my apologies for assuming bad faith--you are right--

I had HOPED, really hoped that there have been three votes in favor of merge--as you said--remember we support the same things--and have similar POV--I think the only solution in arbitration.

This will be the first and last time I ever archive this way on wiki. Thanks for your patience. Travb 14:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] General rubbish

keep digging a hole for yourself--which I will gladly fill in and bury you in. GROW UP! This is NOT your exclusive web page--this is a community effort! GROW UP
Edits which support your own narrow view are quoted and supported, edits which contradict your pet wikipage are scorned and deleted with impunity.
your continual stubborness and unwillingness to play nice with others (I guess you both missed that day in kindergarden)

Once again, Travb, please ... well, you know. I've reminded you several times before, so I won't repeat it again. A little restraint is all we ask. 165.247.204.80 00:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] archive

how do you archive your talk pages?--Jayanthv86 18:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)