User talk:Inclusionist/Archive 2

I see that you have worked recently on Labor history of the United States. I have been working on Labor history (discipline) about the development of labour history as an academic subject. If you have anything to contribute, especially about how labor history has developed in the US, I'd be grateful. Mattley 11:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello Mattley, I simply regurgitate what I am reading at the time, I don't know enough about Labor history (discipline) to write about it--if I do later, I will happily add info. I would talk to Jmabel, who also contriuted to Labor history of the United States. Travb 14:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll drop Jmabel a note about it. Mattley 17:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ReelectGore

Travb, you should be a little less harsh when admonishing "vandals". "I will report you and you will be booted." is false and too aggressive. Please remember WP:Bite and WP:AGF. After all, he only did it one time. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 23:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Not a problem, we all do it once in a while. :) Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 03:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No Gun Ri

Shouldn't the title be whatever it's generally called in print? To me, an "incident" would be more like what happened in the Gulf of Tonkin, or if a spy plane got shot down, etc., because there's nothing really else to call it. But when you gun down lots and lots of people, "incident" doesn't really seem to be the appropriate term. I wonder who are the "guardians" of this page against this term? BTW I haven't looked in at this page before; just came across it by chance this evening. Badagnani 07:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I think Lexis/Nexis is mostly USA sources...Google pulls up more for "massacre." Badagnani 09:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] personal attack

Your edit to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Business Plot is a personal attack. Please ask a member of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee to do a CheckUser before making such accusations.

In addition, madman, who voted for deletion above, may be a fittingly named sock puppet of Ted Wilkes. madman has no contributions on wikipedia[1], except to vote on deleting Business Plot. Travb 20:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)- Ted Wilkes

[edit] Samuel Dickstein

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Calton#Re:_Samuel_Dickstein

It is true. He was a Soviet spy.

Bull. Sloppy reading, credulity, and careless language doesn't make that flat statement in any way, shape, or form, true. I left notes on the talk page of the article, but it boils down to it being a house of cards: the so-called multiple sources stem from exactly the same single, unreliable source, Weinstein's incomplete trawl through some Soviet archives.

Unraveling the ludicrously long footnote you left reveals that all the multiple titles you ladled on have ONE source and ONE source only: it looks impressive, but is, at best, misleading puffery, and to use this shaky foundation to make flat assertions of fact like "he was a Soviet spy" wrong. You bought into the framework established by Junior-League Joe McCarthys like Nobs1, who seems determined to vomit up the entire contents of his pet history book all over Wikipedia, as if every word in it was holy writ. Have you seen what's in Category:Soviet spies? A lot of them created by Nobs1 are clearly cribbed from the book, since most of them contain little actual biography and a lot of "VENONA Project says SPY SPY SPY." And you want to carry water for these guys?

This nonsense isn't within shouting distance of being factual. --Calton | Talk 15:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

If you were presented by two conflicting facts, presented by two different people, who would you believe?

Straw man. I made no reference to, nor do I care, what someone else's pet theory is. This is not an exercise in comparative truth, where you start by assuming one side of two offered is true and try to work out which. My Rhetoric major co-worker, were she still here, could probably give you the Latin for that particular logical fallacy, but I don't have time nor inclination.

"So, Young Earth creationism or Old Earth creationism -- which one is the true explanation? How quickly did God create the Earth?"
"So, were the World Trade Center towers blown up by the Masons or by the Illuminati? Which one of them did it?"
"Texas? Only steers and queers come from Texas, Private Cowboy. And you don't look much like a steer to me so that kinda narrows it down, don't it?"

What I care about is the truth -- by itself -- of a strong and (were he still living) potentially libelous charge, of Dickstein being a Soviet spy. Rjensen snowed you with a whole lot of references, obscuring the fact -- perhaps deliberately -- that they lead to one single source, Weinstein's trawl through old Soviet records that other historians haven't seen and can't see now. So his sources have verifiability problems from the get-go and still do.

Yet despite this, you have no problems whatsoever in saying flatly in the article, without equivocation, qualification, or question, that "Dickstein was a Soviet spy," using only a bloated and misleading footnote as justification, giving it the appearence of an authority it hadn't earned by piling on duplicative references. You even removed the "accused" from category Category:Accused Soviet spies.

As for some other historians taking Weinstein at his word, I might point out that before David Irving went visibly bat-shit crazy, historians accepted what he said, partly because they were unwilling/unable to slog through the primary sources he relied upon, and thus didn't confirm or challenge Irving's interpretations. Only when doubts about Irving reliability -- and it took a libel action Irving brought to provide the motivation to do so. --Calton | Talk 02:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Feeding trolls

don't. WP:DFTT#Not_feeding_the_trolls KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute re: Promises of troop withdrawl by American presidents

I want to put this behind me, so I have deleted all references to this nasty revert war.Travb 10:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion for creating article

I happened across the AfD discussion on the recent article you created. I offer you this suggestion for building an article:

If the article will take some working on and/or you aren't sure what to name it while you are building it, you can use your own User Page to work on the edits. ERcheck 04:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for suggestion Endomion had the suggestion of putting it on Election_promise which I will do. Travb 07:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I concur with both these suggestions: Election promises is appropriate for the content, and the advantages of working on an article and getting it in better shape before posting it are self-evident. You might want to make a sandbox for this purpose. I have created articles almost entirely offline in a text editor also, which may be an option you might wish to consider.

I commend you for your offer and appeal to Petral to cease fire and make peace. Well done. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lodge Committee

Please stop removing content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Sango 123 (talk) 22:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Orgininally on Sango talk page:

Sorry for reverts Sorry for reverts on Lodge committee, I was just showing my family how wikipedia works. Travb 22:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I see. Next time, please use User:Travb/Sandbox for demonstrations. Testing in the main namespace is highly discouraged. Thanks, Sango 123 (talk) 22:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Orgininally on Sango talk page:

Thanks for your diligence, I am shocked how fast you changed it back--within less than a minute--I was about to change it back, and there was an edit conflict. Nice job. I wrote and created Lodge committee 99.9% of it, and it is awesome to know that there are people like you out there policing my hard work. thanks. Next time I will use sandbox--I never have used it before.Travb 22:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Nice work! :) I use #wikipedia-en-vandalism for spotting potential vandalism. If you'd like to, you can join WP:CVU and try it sometime. Happy editing, Sango 123 (talk) 22:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, but all I did was click the rollback button. ;-) By the way, the "niche" concept is pretty neat; keep up with the awesome contributions! Regards, Sango 123 (talk) 22:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Apache HTTP Server

Hi. I deleted some of the content you added to this article, because it didn't seem appropriate for an encyclopedia. If you have any questions about this, leave me a message. Mindmatrix 16:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] OK, Lets cool down here

Dude, what exactly are you talking about? I am not a sackpuppet, if that is what you are suggesting.

And I'm sorry if deleting unsourced information I asked about yesterday is so terribly POV.

The Philippine-American War section was POV. You said it yourself.

I knew most of the Indonesia stuff was true, it is just that last part about the communications transfer that bothers me. And the stuff about Chile is just speculation, neither the Church commitee (see my ref) or anyone else ever showed that the CIA assissted the 9/11/73 coup that brought Pinochet to power (see Talk:Augusto Pinochet for extensive discussion or Chilean coup of 1973. Of course, the CIA tried a coup in 1970 that was cancelled, and that can be mentioned. But that and statements like "its hard to believe the CIA was not involved" is in blatant violation of our NPOV policy. CJK 21:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your request

As is my custom, I have responded on my talk page. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DuPont

Thanks for the compliments! I live to serve. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 21:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind message - I'm actually going to have dinner soon, so you should go ahead with any editing you have at the moment. Bwithh 23:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to Ward Churchill

I'm glad to see your comment on the talk page. We could certainly use the involvement of some more editors who recognize that Churchill is not some mental patient suddenly released from an asylum when Fox News discovered him in 2005, but is a well-respected academic historian with widely read books. Any helping hand with the anti-POV struggle is greately appreciated. As you can imagine, keeping the article sane has been a tough task against the constant infusion of new accolytes of Bill O'Reilly. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] You

I've learned that its best not to argue with pathological anti-American propagandists (such as yourself) so rather than giving a meaningful response to your vicious personal attacks you post, I will simply reserve hope that one day you will stop your fake "outrage" against the US and live in the real world. CJK 16:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked for 72 hours

I've blocked you for 72 hours for violating WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and disruption with these comments. I strongly suggest you rethink the manner in which you deal with other editors. Carbonite | Talk 17:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Petral read this

As KillerChihuahua said above, don't feed the trolls (BTW she was talking about you). Leave me alone. I conceded defeat in your agressive delete war, despite your tactics which are clearly against wikipedia's policies and could get you booted for more than the 24 hours you were booted for 3RR. Do not post on my user page again. You are not welcome here. If you continue to goad me with your unwelcome comments, I will be forced to:

suggest you get booted for your reversions of my reports to the vandilism page, etc.
will further seek arbitration to get your vote for deletion made null, because you continued to delete my comments on the vote page.
In addition I will further use the http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:CheckUser steps to pierce your sockpuppet veil to find out who you truly are.

All you understand, as I suspected and predicted, is brute force, such as your 24 hour boot.

You want to goad me on despite me wanting to put the entire nasty event between us, behind me.

I know were this is predictibly going to end up, but I will take all steps necessary to show clear and convincing prima facie evidence that I was the more rational of the two of us, and I attempted to stop this personal vendetta you have against me.Travb 20:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The "Ward Churchill" firestorm I created

The "Ward Churchill" firestorm I created: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=33034099#Blockable_hate_speech_by_User:Travb

Who could have known a day after posting on "Ward Churchill" (were the "Little Eichmanss comment originated from) I would be targeted in a type of "Ward Churchill" firestorm.

The incredible, sad, irony:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ward_Churchill#The_vicious_attacks_on_Ward_Churchill

As I wrote on this post:

As Ellen Schrecker said: Political repression in America...is American as apple pie.

Or as Mark Twain said:

"In our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either." --Mark Twain

"I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America." --Alexis de Tocqueville

Freedom of speech is permissable, as long as a person doesn't cross certain unwritten boundries. Today, I passed one of those unwritten boundries.

Other great sayings about Ideologies.

BTW, in case anyone is confused: I agree with my punishment. Travb 20:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you serious? You think people are coming down on you because you have involved yourself in the Ward Churchill article? Just to clarify, you are being penalized because your statements to CJK were borderline blood libel. TDC 21:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello TDC, glad I can entertain you.

In regards to: "You think people are coming down on you because you have involved yourself in the Ward Churchill article?"

Ha ha. Absolutly not. Sorry if I was not clear. Please read my comments again. I will clarfiy anything you do not understand.

Just to clarify, you are being penalized because your statements to CJK were borderline blood libel.

Oh TDC, you are a regular amateur Rush Limbagh.

The definition of blood libel is: Blood libels are allegations that a particular group kills people as a form of human sacrifice, and uses their blood in various rituals. The alleged victims are often children.

Yes, to hear the user who suggested this to arbitration talk, I am a racist.

Now another member of the wikipedia neocon cabal says I am a racist too.

Please explain how my comments are blood libel. (this should be entertaining)

The only libel I see is your comments accusing me of stating that I said "Jews kill children": if not directly, then indirectly. This is patently obsurd to the point of being funny. Please continue to obfuscate (confuse) the debate, as you have on Winter Soldier Investigation in regrds to your double standards about copyright.

Again, I was not clear, please read my offensive comments that got me booted again. I will clarfiy anything you do not understand.

I must be careful with my comments, because I am well aware though, that you will joyfully use any of my words against me, in a sort of tit-for-tat for the misery I have put you through since October with the arbirtration...

Somewhere along the line, with all of the absurd acusations, like Churchill, my message I was trying to convey gets lost: that there is a certain group of jingoists in every society that justify their country's attrocities. I saw it myself in the former USSR.

And having the message get lost would just suit you and the rest of the wikipedia neocon cabal just fine. Because you only want one version of American history taught, your sanitized Disney version of history. As mentioned above, "In [America] we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either." With you and the wikipedia neocon cabal, the concept of free speech is just fine, as long as it is the correct speech.

Here is a fine example: You never see me try to delete whole sections of articles that don't conform to my pet POV, but that is exaclty what you attempted to do with Winter Soldier Investigation, and other articles, repeatedly. In fact, in a moment of unguarded frankness and honesty, you said the entire Winter Soldier Investigation should be deleted, and I called you on this. I was going to bring this up on Talk:Winter Soldier Investigation, but I can't seem to find the words on the talk page now. No matter. Travb 22:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

So far I have been booted twice, I hope I don't ever get up to 13 like yourself.

Did you vote to ban me for life? I would never do this to you because you and anon are to entertaining, plus I don't think anyone's voice should be silenced. Do you agree? I have repeatedly thought, and have told you that your edits are welcome and often good (example: What's the Matter with Kansas?).

Don't get me wrong: I am not saying you owe me anything, I would never ask, nor I would ever expect this from you. Whatever you do, please stick around and continue to entertain me.

"When adults first become conscious of something new, they usually either attack or try to escape from it... Attack includes such mild forms as ridicule, and escape includes merely putting out of mind." You are a case in point.

I look forward to your explaining how my comments were blood libel.Travb 22:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Travb, it is generally accepted that calling labeling someone as a "Jewish Holocaust Denier" is a kin to a blood libel. TDC 17:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TDC how to find out the identity of the anon

TDC, please leave the other info in regards to ward churchill, I don't want to cause any more controversy for my 72 hours. After 72 hours, I will archive all of this info, including my message. And I will respond to you and 172, on your own talk pages, at length.

You can request the identity of the anon by: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:CheckUser Please keep me updated on how this works, since I have an anon/sockpuppet problem too. I still think he may be EECEE, but I have no evidence, and I don't want to take the time to find out. You seem good at digging up dirt on the anon (you have a good investigative sense).Travb 17:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, you certainly seem to have an interest in people's identities - I count at least three different accusations regarding other posters on this page alone.

Please do request the identity of this anonymous poster who torments you so. In fact, I insist that you do. When you find out, don't even bother to apologize to me. Just get on with your life and leave me the hell out of it. -- EECEE

Finding the anon is easy, Travb. I'm right here. Did you need something? 165.247.221.181 10:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

LOL, let me change the title from "TDC how to find the anon", to "TDC how to find out the identity of the anon." Please don't hestitate to contact EECEE again about this too. I think revealing people's identity should be vastly easier. I have had some run-ins with a possible sockpuppet too. Travb 17:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry you are having trouble with sockpuppets. As you probably know, using sockpuppets is not against wikipolicy. Using sockpuppets to circumvent wikipedia rules, say to vote multiple times on a proposal or to revert edits beyond the 3RR limitation is against wikipolicy. In contrast with you, I feel peoples privacy should be respected. You speak of "digging up dirt" (spoken like a true Swift Boater) on EECEE or the anon. May I ask why? Would linking the two provide you with any great earthshaking evidence of wrongdoing? To me, it appears you singling out individuals and then desperately trying to find crimes to attribute to them, rather than the reverse. As I mentioned on the WSI talk page, some people come here edit and improve articles, while others come here to attack and fight with people.

As for contacting EECEE, please go right ahead (when blocks allow, of course). You have been doing well with notifying people about discussions concerning them thus far, why chose now to stop?

Anon, in regards to your question, If you are really interested, the reason I got involved and stay invovled with WSI are different.

At first, I was involved because I thought TDC was pushing his own POV, and trying to destroy your article. I was working on another article about invesitgations of attrocities at the time, which was similar to the WSI, I would hate for someone to do what TDC attempted to do to the WSI article.

I then realized, to my shame, how biased I personally was to focus only on TDC and be blind not see your own POV pushing. I attempted many ways of resolving the dispute between the two of you, but nothing worked.

I'll make another plea here for you to please cite this "POV pushing" of mine. Of course I have points of view, we all do, but if you are going to accuse me of pushing it in the article, can you be more specific?

My vision of the Winter Soldier Investigation page is between the two of you, a healthy criticism section and a healthy explanation section. I think wikipedia currently supports my vision of the page more than either of yours....

Many articles, due to their very subject matter, work well with a Pro/Con structure, or a Criticism/Explanation section if you prefer. If you will recall, you tried to set up such sections in the WSI article. Unfortunately, you filled the criticism section with cut-n-paste non-encyclopedic content from TDC (some of it copyvio material, as it turns out), which I removed after lengthy discussion with you and TDC. You agreed with the removal. I then requested that you try again to provide better quality criticism to fill out that section, but you opted out, claiming you didn't really have a lot of knowledge about the topic. Since then, TDC has re-submitted some critical content (See Pitkin, and expanded Wikiquote sections), but we're still wrestling, as usual, over some things. It's a never-ending process.

I find the whole debate funny and frustrating, so thus I pick funny at both of you.

Humor and levity are always welcome; personal attacks and harassment are not.

Sometimes I work on articles that I have no personal interest in and know little about simply because I think it is a disservice to wikipedia for one side (usually the right) to push their own POV. DuPont, which I jokingly refered to as the "Dupont weight loss plan" in the Talk:Winter Soldier Investigation page before you erased it[2], is a great example of a page I have little interest in and know little about, yet I have actively recruited people to save and footnote their criticism sections. Like Winter Soldier Investigation and Guenter Lewy, I have researched the topic to add information of my own.

I did catch the humor in your DuPont weightloss plan reference, but forgive me if I try to keep the discussions on that talk page on topic. That page gets so lengthy, so quickly, that I fear it is scaring others away from participating in the discussions. 165.247.219.211 20:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Kewl.Travb 21:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I fear this is not an adequate explanation for you anon, but it is the only explanation I have.Travb 17:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I thank you for the response, Travb. I appreciate you responding to my query about what your intentions were regarding the WSI article. I would, however, press you further to respond to the other question I asked you in that same discussion: Please provide one example where my standard for facts differ between myself and TDC. I don't believe they do, but if you see things differently, I would appreciate hearing about it. 165.247.219.211 20:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't have an example, not because there is not one, but because I am too lazy to find one right now. I am busy building my own wikipage to make $. Travb 21:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock Request

72 hours penalty (see above) up at 17:51 today. I have served my time, learned my lesson, and now am up to 76 hours.

17:51, 28 December 2005 --Blocked

17:51, 29 December 2005 --24 hours

17:51, 30 December 2005 --48 hours

17:51, 31 December 2005 --72 hours

Travb 21:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Your block should lift itself automatically. Give it a try.

If you are still blocked it's probably because of the autoblocker, which kicks in if you accidentally tried to edit, or followed a red link in the last 24 hours.

Any admin can manually unblock you if the autoblocker engaged. Post the note you get when you try to edit (here). It will include the ip address that the autoblocker blocked. If you don't want to publicly reveal your ip for privacy reasons, then you can email the information to an admin who you trust and they will manually un-block you. Or you could wait 24 hours for the autoblock to clear. --Duk 22:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)