User talk:Inclusionist/Archive 5

If contributions to Democratic peace theory have been deleted, it is likely to be Ultramarine's doing; he's deleted almost all the contributions by third parties to the article: he Knows the Truth, you see. Septentrionalis 18:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I will respond on your talk page later.Travb (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible exceptions

I'm sorry to see you think that. Worse than Ultramarine is a damning accusation indeed. This is substantially the same article that has been twice deleted (against my voice to begin with) as irreparably POV; I object to recreation of this cruft. If you think it can be salvaged, it is now a section of Democratic peace theory, or was the last time I looked. Septentrionalis 17:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

My discussions with Ultramarine on the merits of this article can be found in the archives of Talk:Democratic peace theory, and perhaps more availably in Talk:Never at War. How often should one have to debate the same fringe position? Septentrionalis 17:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Pmanderson I may be completly wrong about my intial feelings, it wouldn't be the first time. I am new to DPT.

Many of my own pages I have created been voted for deletion, most of them have lost, so I have very strong feelings about this issue.

My initial reaction is that I see Ultramarine's contributions as beneficial--again--I may be completly wrong. Best wishes.Travb (talk) 18:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me know the next time one of your pages is on AfD, and I'll see what I can do.

The problem with Ultramarine is this: he writes one-sided articles, he quotes his sources selectively (I think this may be a genuine reading difficulty, possibly that he is not a native speaker of English), and he continuously and implacably reverts any effort to edit what he has written - by anyone, not just me. I have discussed the issue of possible wars at enormous length; and this article contains the same question-begging and polemical phrases as Ultramarine's writing on the subject a year ago. (In short, I don't dislike the article because Ultramarine wrote it; I dislike Ultramarine because he writes articles like that.) Septentrionalis 19:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me know the next time one of your pages is on AfD, and I'll see what I can do.

Thanks man.

MY POV is completly opposite from Ultramarine. I will have to be neutral in this because I am not familar with your past dealings.

I added a little to DPT and he changed it, adding a rebutal, but at least he kept the info in the article.

I have found the best way to debate anyone on wikipedia is outsource them. Become an expert on DPT. Outsource him. Read everything that he does, and insist that all sides of the studies be included.

I did; he vandalized it anyway. Septentrionalis 21:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think deleting something you don't agree with on wikipedia procedural grounds is a cop out. As I mentioned on your talk page, I hate when ppl do this.

I don't know, that is between you and Ultramarine. You can call a RfC if you like.Travb (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

This has been through RfC, mediation, and ArbCom. I am leaving it alone, except for this, and hoping the wiki process will take over. I have tried NPOV'ing Ultramarine; for the results, see the archives and edit history of DPT. Septentrionalis 21:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

In that case, I will try to stay out of this, you know more about this than I ever will, or care to know. The more I learn about Ultra, the less it seems we have in common, and the less sympathetic I am to his cause. I won't retract my "strong keep" vote (it doesn't matter anyway), but I will stay out of this debate as much as possible.Travb (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fleetwood Mack

Are you a Fleetwood Mack fan? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey man, been a long time since we talked, what is the punch line? Answer: No. Travb (talk) 04:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

No punchline, just curious. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

No I am not a fan, I still dont get it :( Travb (talk) 01:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Fleetwood Mac = seminal rock band. Fleetwood Mack = a pimp :) -- Jalabi99 13:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Google Desktop

Google Desktop can be used to retrieve Older Versions of Files. First you need to search for the file you want. In the results the file you want has a link, an extract with quoted text. a text link (Normally with the online Google search the link brings you to Google that records your click and then redirects you to your sight.) a cached link and a date.

Click the cached link at the bottom and if it has # cached where the number is more than one it will Give you an option to chose which version you want to see. If it was latter deleted or revised you can still find earlier versions that you have vied. If you are writing a word document you may get a few different versions showing different steps you took. A thumbnail screenshot of the page is included in the choices of caches.--E-Bod 01:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote

Thanks for pointing this out. I have added the "Strong Keep".Ultramarine 18:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry it looks like it is going to be deleted.Travb (talk) 01:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Possible wars between liberal democracies 2

Please review my comments responding to your vote. I think you are under a misunderstanding as to the role of Wikipedia. 172 | Talk 21:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I had a long rebuttal on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Possible wars between liberal democracies 2 but I deleted it. I would rather just go our seperate ways. Travb (talk) 21:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

Re: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stir_of_Echoes:_The_Dead_Speak#.5B.5BStir_of_Echoes:_The_Dead_Speak.5D.5D

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. — Mike • 04:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Always the threat. Given that I was booted indefinately just a week ago, I will let this go. Travb (talk) 04:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

I don't like giving out my email, so if you have anything then it would have to be presented on Wikipedia. Sorry if that's not convenient. CJK 19:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your response is requested

A request for peer review on the article regarding Democratic Peace Theory has come to my attention. I am interested in helping. I am willing to act either as a reviewer or as a mediator. I have posted a comment on the talk page for Democratic Peace Theory. I invite you to respond and let me know how I can help with this article (an article that seems important but is in somewhat bad shape). --Blue Tie 03:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Philippine-American War

I know you've done a great job re-doing that article, but this raises some halfway decent points in addtion to yours (which might have been dealt with, I don't know). CJK 01:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see: User_talk:Zafiroblue05#Deletion_on_Talk:Philippine-American_War. If you would like to deal with the issues this jerk brings up, great, I welcome it. But please lets not give him any publicity or help his google rank, he doesn't deserve any. Travb (talk) 02:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

I lean more left than CJK and Joe Lieberman, I'm sure... I often agree with CJK on Wikipedia despite differences in our POV because he is an editor whom I think tries to rise above POV and make make his judgments on more encyclopedic criteria. 172 | Talk 05:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Somewhat involving Norman Coleman ;)

Ah a marxist I assume. We can argue later, if you like, we have a common cause together now, and must dispense of peity rivalries:

viva la revolucion!

On an unrelated topic, first of all, do you like my collage?

Now onto the subject at hand:

Want to help a sharp tongued wikipedian? I am compiling all of the articles on the senate scandal.

Can you research and make a list of:

1) the other people who were caught changing their wikipages?

2) those wikipages which state that these other people who were caught changing their wikipages?

I want to add this below the article section, to bolster our argument.

All of the articles list other names, which have been caught doing the same thing:

http://bailey83221.livejournal.com/88566.html

http://bailey83221.livejournal.com/88246.html

Message me on my talk page, let me know if you want to help.

Hasta la victoria siempre! I do, but to be honest, I don't follow U.S. politics (short of geopolitics) that closely, and know of but one other Wikipedia controversy involving a US politician is mentioned above on ^*gasp* User_talk:El_C#Norm_Coleman, involving Cathy_Cox#Wikipedia_controversy. That's all I know of or can recall right now. Please keep me informed about the effort, nonetheless, though. Perhaps I'd be able to help in other ways. Regards, El_C 12:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned on my talk page, I think there's potential for an article about these incidents as a whole (although the more narrow WP:SELF voices are likely to disagree). Let me know when you get the material compiled. Best, El_C 12:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Working on it now, all articles should be up in the next couple of days, hopefully sooner. Travb (talk) 12:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds promising; drop me a line when it's ready. Good luck! El_C 13:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

In otherwords, you write the majority of the article, then I will post it. : ) I need your help man.Travb (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, writing it is the easy part, it's the research and compiling the evidence that's time-consuming. The model for the latter should be (list-wise): [Congressionalist involved] - [type of edit alleged & scandal] - [mainstream source/s] - [maybe also Wikipedia diffs for those edits]. The rest is easy. If you're prepared to undertake that, I will do the rest. El_C 22:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I hope you change your mind, as mentioned on my talk page, not about Norman Coleman (whoever the fuck he is! :D), but about having the news-making, controversies-only counterpart to Wikipedia:Congressional Staffer Edits I proposed above, on the article namespace. That would be an interesting project and I'd like to see it come about (i.e. have someone else compile the evidence!). El_C 05:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, check the talk page of Norman Coleman. There is a lot of work there. I even started a list of those involved, which was very easy to find in the news reports. Since the article has already been started, I think it is just a cut and paste job, with minimal formating. Let me know if there is anything else I can do. Travb (talk) 05:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Did you cite all or most of those NC sources in the article itself today as footnotes? Eep, I don't think that story deserve more than one or two references in the article itself. Yes, I see that section with the other ones. Is that an holistic list? A bit more comprehensively [as per the above square brackets] and we may have a start there. Again, I'm scarcely familliar with US politics; I'm much more familliar with other parts of the world, so I sort of need to have my hand held for such an effort, with very clear sources/citations. El_C 06:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I cited all of them, and they were quickly deleted/reverted by 172 and his little henchman. " don't think that story deserve more than one or two references in the article itself." I agree. I wanted to put them on the offensive. It worked. They are now negotiating a comprimise. Is that an holistic list? Huh? Is english a second language for you? I often don't understand what you mean. I have that problem sometimes too. Please explain. You can just add those 25 articles, by cutting and pasting, to the wikipedia scandal. I will post some comments on the Norman Coleman page today.

Let's keep the NC-specific and the proposed article clearly separate. English is not my first language, though I did end up studying and teaching at an English-speaking university. Holistic here just meant encompassing all the Congressionistsistsss controversies. [NC] I think placing those tens of notes was a bad idea. They would have negotiated a comrpomise anyway, trust me. [/NC] I need a bit more organized of a platform, as per my comment whose lead sentence reads: "Hey, writing it is the easy part." [NC] I haven't looked at the article or talk page (aside from glancing at your list bellow the lexis-nexis hits section. But I will, eventually! I'm more interested in the [/NC] non-NC bit, if anything. How's that for comprehensible English? El_C 20:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it has already been built: Congressional staffer edits to Wikipedia Travb (talk) 20:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice, there we go. We just talked about it! El_C 20:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Congratulate User:arg, he built it while we were only talking about it.Travb (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I did write other articles while we were talking about it (such as Unit 8200), so yeah! Anyway, I gave Congressional staffer edits to Wikipedia a much-needed initial cleanup. El_C 20:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Wait, that was you with the references again! we don't need that many references, it's rather excessive, I find. Let's be more selective about these, something like one or 2 sources per Congressionist or so and two or three about the controversy as a whole, in the interests of due proportionality to the event. El_C 20:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment removed. Final warning, do not restore it, Travb. El_C 22:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't delete other person's comments on my page. Argue with User:Jonee G. Ralto, I don't care. Since you have contributed nothing to this project, I find it interesting that you are so critical of my contributions. Again, I don't care. Argue with User:Jonee G. Ralto. Travb (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

He is an indefinitely blocked user, removing his comments is at my discretion, not yours. And try not to be so defensive, feel free to revert to the 25+ sources (I hope you won't add another 25 if you find them) — if you find that is so critical, you may find Wikipedia extremely critical. As for contributing nothing, that is quite the accusation. My cleanup actually made the article half-presentable, I found. That is all. El_C 22:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Kewl, my mistake sorry: you probably made a lot of contributions. If you don't feel the articles should be there, thats fine, again, I don't care.

You are actually speaking to another an "indefinitely blocked" user, me. I was blocked for copyright violations. I know this will follow me forever, although it is completly irrelvant in most cases.

Again, please do not erase comments on my own board.

I am brutally honest to everyone here on wikipedia. Sorry if I offended you. If it makes you feel better I offend everyone, and I have made a lot of enemies few, if any friends. Travb (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, I do feel the article should be there, there were just too many sources (those are fine for the talk page to show the topic is notable and so on, but excessive in the article itself. I think you will find other people share my view on that. But, you are prohibited from restoring comments of indefinitely blocked users if they are removed by an admin, this is not your board, it is a Wikipedia user talk page. Unlike the abovementioned user, you are no longer indefinitely blocked or you'd be unable to edit any Wikipedia page except this one. In answer to your question on my talk page re: the user, the account is on WP:ANI#General_Tojo. El_C 22:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Please read metawiki:Don't be a dick. When push comes to shove, you start threatening with your authority. Pushing your points with your adminship. When logic fails: use brute force. Typical.Travb (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deep breath

RE: [1]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive114#General_Tojo

Please try to relax. That was the user's first edit, which counts as trolling. Indefinitely-blocked users do not get a platform, regardless what a user whose talk page it takes place in thinks. At the event, I'm leaving his comments on ANI, though many admins would remove those as well. El_C 22:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I've read and responded to your personal attacks and distortions on ANI. Please take the time to review the facts next time. Thanks. El_C 22:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User page cleanup

RE: [2] deletions

I happened upon the mess and started a gallery so that you'd see another option. Interestingly, in the middle of my work, your page was deleted by an administrator! I restarted the edit rather than risk reposting the offending information, whatever it was. --TJive 10:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

LOL, thanks for the heads up.

Thanks for the changes. I tweaked your idea a bit, and moved it down to the bottom, as I use the cite tags way to much. Maybe I can move my little collage to the talk page, as the Bible says, no need to hide our collective talents under a bushel!

Maybe you and I can come to a truce, as other conservative editors and I have. Stranger things have happened, as I said to 172, when I floated this same idea with him.

The original inspiration for the collage came from Ispren and TDC (and now looking at your user page for the first time, with the saddam hussien photo, you had a part in it too).

Does this mean you approve of the collage? Not to many people do :) A marxist guy said he didnt like it.

Why only piss off and alienate only one side when you can piss off and alienate both sides? :)

Weren't you one of the users who gloated on my userpage when I was infinitely banned? I can't recall. There was so many people who did.

Best wishes Tjive

Signed:Travb (talk) 10:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't leave any such message on your page. In fact I don't even know if I was active at the time, because I don't know when it occurred. The only prior interaction with you that I have had, other than the two articles we have both been at in the past so many days, was in an exchange over some comment about "McCarthyism" and such that I had noticed somewhere.

I don't make a habit of attempting to engage in conflict or war with other editors (which is distinct from that actually happening) so I find talk of a "truce" inappropriate. 172 has been misinterpreted greatly in recent times. He is quite significantly left-wing, but simply has very strong views about what an encyclopedia should be and who should be contributing to it in what capacity. They are views that I share, and ones that would likely see the loss of both of us as contributors (among thousands of others) were they enacted. We have also clashed a couple of times, which makes the remarks of some clueless parties on the NC talk page all the more bewildering.

The collage? I do not care. I am unfazed by the most strident expressions of anti-Americanism. That should not be misconstrued as lacking acknowledgement of the criminal stupidity contained in many of the comments. I admit that I got a chuckle out of some of them, however, particularly the "anti-fascist protection barrier" as well as Rodney King (who is the only person in the collection that I would not be shedding a tear for). However, you'll probably eventually be pestered by some "fair use" jackboot if any of them are tagged as such. --TJive 11:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't leave any such message on your page. Sorry to ask (accuse) you of such, I was not sure, so I thought I would ask.

"truce" inappropriate

Kewl. I am facinated by 172. That is all. I ask hard questions of everyone, including myself. I call my parents Joe Lib democrats too, although 172 rejected that characterization. I ask him some Jewish questions once on my talk page, as he seemed to indicate he is a Jew.

The collage? I do not care.

Kewl. Thanks for reformating it. I shed a tear for the children of Ukraine, since my wife and child are Ukrainian.

Glad we are best friends now :) You are smart. That makes you dangerous :) I respect that.

Until we met again.

However, you'll probably eventually be pestered by some "fair use" jackboot if any of them are tagged as such.

Alas, right now, that is a converstaion, and a vicious and brutal debate for another day :) I am just glad that I can still edit. Your point is a good one, and one which I thought of too. I await the "jackbots" whatever the f*** those are...

You anti-American friend,

Travb (talk) 15:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your user page

You added to your user page a site which stalked Wikipedians, tracking down their real names, and publishing their photos, etc. In one case, the Wikipedian had never given his name on Wikipedia; nor had he ever uploaded a photo, or linked to his website. It led to serious harassment in real life; he was sent creepy messages mentioning his children, and his superiour was also contacted. For that reason, the website was added to the Wikipedia Spam Filter. If a site is added to the spam filter by a senior Wikipedian in an effort to prevent stalking and harassment, please do not try to "get around it", by providing information that will enable other people to find the site. If Wikipedia had a good reason for not wanting people to access http://www.amazon.com , assuming that that site placed people at risk of real life stalking and harassment, it would not be appropriate to put www dot amazon dot com (or mention "Amazon dot com") on your user page or elsewhere. People have already been blocked indefinitely for linking to the website in question. I am assuming that you were unaware of this, but for the future, please do not attempt to promote or publicize that site in any way. Please also be very cautious about any links you provide to another site that discusses Wikipedians. In many cases, that site is full of speculations about real-life identities, employers, addresses, etc. of Wikipedians, and openly encourages such violations of privacy. If you provide a link to something that gives what may the real name of another Wikipedian (even if the guess is inaccurate), where that Wikipedian has chosen not to make that information public, you may be blocked. I have deleted your user page, and have done a selective restoration, leaving out the most recent versions. AnnH ♫ 10:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Ohhhhh, I think I know what that's about, then. --TJive 10:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it was an article about Wikipedians and Christians, I didn't read the full article, just liked the title actually. There was no explanation about why the site was blocked in the spam filter, on its face, I mistakenly guessed it was because it was critical of wikipedia.

So I added it as a http site com.

If I would have known this: You added to your user page a site which stalked Wikipedians, tracking down their real names, and publishing their photos, etc. I would never had done this. I have had other wikiusers phish information about me, which is troubling to me, so I understand the policy.

i think changing around my userpage was a little heavy handed, but I can understand why you did it.

Lord knows every admin on wikipedia has changed around my userpage at one point or another.Travb (talk) 10:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fictional History on List of US Military Events

RE: Talk:List_of_United_States_military_history_events#1818_--_Oregon.

RE: User_talk:Skookum1/Archive_1#Hi_Skookum1

An edit war is an edit war, incorrect facts are incorrect facts. The 1818 Entry for the so-called "Oregon Territory" (the Oregon Territory was not chartered until 1848, for one thing; in 1818 I'm not even sure the term "Oregon Country" was in use yet, since it's an American fiction; and there's no way the "US took possession" and the USS Ontario had frick-all to do with the fate of this region. You can complain about copyright conservatives; I'm a factual conservative, and don't like seeing loosey-goosey facts. Do it with your own history, but when it concerns someone else's (as this does, i.e. the British Empire, British Columbia, First Nations peoples and more) you gotta show some respect. So you can tell that to your "edit conservatives". Get the facts right, period.Skookum1 16:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC) And postscript - why is it that the invasions of Canada in 1812-14 are not listed? Lundy's Lane, Queenstown Heights, Chrysler's Farm - all defeats of US forces. Is that why they're missing?Skookum1 16:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Lundy's Lane, Queenstown Heights, Chrysler's Farm Add them.

Sorry I ever tried talking to you on your page. I really hope I don't regret introducing you to the new the list. Travb (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

You won't; I'm just testy about having our toes stepped on, and this was a big one; I understand your points about diplomacy, but truth is truth. I've adjusted the text again to give the sense of what was meant by "take possession" (i.e. "to assert US claims). Lundy's Lane and other War of 1812 battles I'll add, and we'll see what your edit-conservatives make of them....Skookum1 21:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Further on MilEvents

From your note to me:

There are 280 million Americans, but 6 billion people worldwide. As the list shows clearly, the US has invaded almost everyone of the coutries were the other 5.7 billion people lived. It is frustrating to be surrounded by the minority, but nice to be part of the majority. Welcome.

And there are thirty million plus Canadians, four million of them British Columbians, and all given short shrift by their hundreds of millions of southern neighbours who kind of take us for granted, OK? But one thing we're really touchy about is our history re yours - for any of us who know any, that is, since history is no longer fashionable in comparison to bigbox shopping and reality TV. Being diplomatic is a Canadian past-time/obsession - this is a country where someone says "excuse me" when you bump into them, instead of the other way around - but compromising a true fact because someone blustering a false one just isn't my own style. And the history of the Oregon dispute is one of my pet bugbears, both with Canadian historians (who treat it as a fait accompli) and Americans (who don't get it that the area was functionally British before they "settled" it).Skookum1 17:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Further reply to your recent reply on my pageSkookum1 21:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

pet bugbears Well, that appears obvious.

Go ahead and show those ignorant Americans a think or two! Seems like you have a chip on your shoulder which goes well beyond wikipedia. Please don't target me because of your ideological issues.

I am just trying to avoid a revert war, and be diplomatic about it. On its face, you seem to be on a personal crusade, and I pushed all the wrong buttons by even suggesting toning down the rhetoric. So much for me trying to be diplomatic.

Not to worry, you will have plenty of people to fight with in your personal crusade soon enough. I am tempted simply to unwatch the military events page, let you run like a bull in a china shop, and return to clean up the mess a few months later.Travb (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Me have a chip on my shoulder? Look, if Canadians sound like they have a chip on their shoulder when someone else comes along and rewrites their history for them, is that supposed to be uppity or something? There's no excuse for bad history, diplomacy be damned. You reverted something I corrected and now you're wrapping yourself in the high-and-holy and withdrawing to let the shit fly; how brave of you. Look, the point is the entry for "1818 Oregon" was entirely and specifically wrong, whether it's the US "taking possession" or Britain "conceding sovereignty". BOTH ARE UNTRUE. So if you want me to, in the name of diplomacy, agree with untruth, then you shouldn't be a Wikipedia editor. Asking someone from another country to agree with badly-written US versions of history is what really comes across like having a chip on your shoulder. You say you're critical of your country's record; fine, so deal with it; and part of that record includes badly-conceived versions of your own early history as regards Canada, Mexico, et al. If you need to go away and sulk, fine, but the guys at the Canadian Military History Wikiproject are probably more to the same mind than me, and despite this being a US military history page, would back me up on this one, even though most Central Canadians don't know the history of the Northwest as I do. But apparently what I know I'm just supposed to shut up about, according to you. Fine, "unwatch" my page; if you need people to pander to untruth you shouldn't be wiki'ing.Skookum1 21:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Continued: User_talk:Travb/Archive_6#Good_morning...yawn

[edit] Images on your userpage

You just reverted someone removing the images from your userpage. I note that several of them are unfreely-copyrighted and cannot be used to decorate your userpage. Please remove the unfreely-licensed images. There is, of course, no need to remove the ones that are freely-licensed. Jkelly 21:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why you think that I am a hypocrite. You won't find any unfree content at User:Jkelly. Weird accusations aside, this isn't a matter where we get to make choices or debate. Remove the unfree content from your userpage. I'll do it for you if you're confused about what images I am talking about. Jkelly 22:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Various

Hello, Travb, thank you for your message. I also saw your comments on Jkelly's talk page, and I can absolutely assure you that Jkelly does remove images from other pages as well. I have observed this myself on various occasions.

Additionally, the fact that he did not block you for your incivility at his talk page is an indication that he is not trying to get you "indefinitely booted". I am not going to block you for your comments either, because I feel that a block would serve no purpose, and would only cause more resentment and bad feeling. Nevertheless, you were pushing your luck, though I am glad to see that you have tempered your comments a little.

I have also looked at your post at User talk:Duk. Wiki-stalking is, of course, very annoying, but I think your definition of it is a bit too broad. If you look at WP:STALK you'll see that it involves tracking a user's contributions and following him from one article to another (which can, of course, be justified in some circumstances). It certainly doesn't include having a user's page on one's watchlist, even when it's a user that one has disagreed with in the past.

I'd just like to clarify the revert I made to your talk page. I would not have reverted Jkelly's replacement of posts that you removed before the issue was settled. However, I felt that once the pictures had been removed, there was no reason to force you to keep unwanted posts on your talk page. It's generally discouraged to remove messages from one's talk page (see here, here here, and here), but it's not forbidden except for things like vandalism warnings.

If I can help in any way, don't hesitate to ask. But please understand that we are obliged, per Jimbo's instructions, to be extremely insistent about the Fair Use issue with pictures. If you feel that you have been unfairly targetted while other people with FU images were ignored, let me know of any user or user talk pages that have such images, and I'll look into it. AnnH ♫ 23:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Musical Linguist thanks for your comments. I will not "out" other innocent users. This is breaking the rule WP:Point, and probably is breaking Wikipedia:Civility. One thing I have learned going up against some of the most powerful editors is how they seletively use wikipedia policy to enforce their own POV, and to be very vindictive to others. I love using policy against them, as vindictively and selectively as they do. If User:Musical Linguist, User:JKelly, and User:Mindspillage are as interested in fair use as they claim to be, they can find everyone of the user pages that those 14 pictures are on, and delete them. This will be terribly unpopular though, and will cause even more uproar in the wikipedia community.

As for me, I cannot discuss fair use at length, nor can I have a part in shaping its policy. I can only be the victim of its selective, often hypocritical enforcement.

I am not saying you are this way, you are fair, as I mentioned on your talk page. Duk seems fair, as does Tony, at least in my dealings with these users. I wish their were more editors like you. Travb (talk) 04:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your remarks

To be a little more harsh and a little more to-the-point than Ann (whom I agree with), your message to Jkelly is unacceptable. You are welcome to find another project more in line with your ideas of how copyright policy should work, but we can not and will not tolerate hostility of that sort toward fellow editors who are trying to enforce the policies currently in place; the schoolyard taunting has no place here. If you cannot extend good faith and courtesy to your colleagues, even those you disagree with, please take a break until you can do so. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Ever see a person's name and you either have a bad reaction, or a good one? I have a bad reaction when I see your name, and I am not sure why.

My message to User:JKelly was unacceptable, that is why I tempered my comments, and changed it User_talk:Jkelly#I_erased_the_collage_on_my_user_page.

You are welcome to find another project more in line with your ideas of how copyright policy should work,

No I cannot, the condition that I had when I was unbooted was that I would not discuss fair use policy. I have been voluntarily gagged.

but we can not and will not tolerate hostility of that sort toward fellow editors who are trying to enforce the policies currently in place

I agree. I only have a problem with selective enforcement used against some editors, ignored with other editors. Please don't quote policy when their is an uneven, arbitrary, and even punitive enforcement on some editors, and not on others. This is hypocricy. You can dress it up using as many policy catch phrases as you want, but what JKelly did was vindictive and reeks of hyprocricy.

the schoolyard taunting has no place here. If you cannot extend good faith and courtesy to your colleagues, even those you disagree with, please take a break until you can do so.

I agree fully that schoolyard taunting has no place here. JKelly's good faith in selectively enforcing fair use rules is in serious question. If you are truly interested in civility, which I question since you didn't talk to JKelly, I suggest asking JKelly to unwatch my page, and stop harrassing me. I am not watching JKelly's page. I did not gloat when JKelly got indefinetly booted. I did not interfere with JKelly being repremanded by another admin. I have left JKelly alone. JKelly messaged me looking for a fight, being a schoolyard bully, (to use your analogy) and he got it.

Again, I apologized for my comments and behavior by deleting my collage and changing my comments.

JKelly has not changed his behavior. If you are interested in following wikipedia civility guidelines, and you are really interested in WP:GF I suggest that you message JKelly, asking him to quit harrasing me. Otherwise it may appear that you are being as selective in applying your justice as JKelly is.

Question 1: Further, if you are so interested in deleting fair use images from users pages, why don't you and JKelly delete ALL the images from ALL the user pages which use the same images that I do? Policy is supposed to be evenly applied, and to at least on its face look even handed and fair. When users such as JKelly single out certain users and ignore others, then another user, User:Mindspillage, comes and defends his actions, this may appear to be a little hypocritical and may appear like certain users are being selective in their enforcement of wikipedia policy.

Question 2: I am interested how you found out about this argument, can you please tell me?'

I am sorry for my uncivil comments to JKelly. I am sorry that I had fair use images on my wikipage. I cannot emphasize this enough, and I think my behavior shows that I am sorry.

Signed: Travb (talk) 04:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The images

#	Image name	Copyright tag	Okay to be on my userpage?
1.	Image:My Lai massacre.jpg	{{PD-USGov-Military-Army}}	Yes
2.	Image:Holodomor4.jpg	{{no source\|month=June\|day=24\|year=2006}}	No
3.	Image:Berlin Wall.jpg	{{GFDL}}	Yes
4.	Image:TrangBang.jpg	Permission Note -- written permission was received from AP on 31 March 2005 which states: Wikipedia is authorized to display these images to its users solely for their personal viewing and not for copying or redistribution in or through any medium, provided that the images are accompanied by credit in the following manner: Nick Ut / The Associated Press	Yes
5.	Image:Hungarians Attack tank.jpg	{{nowCommonsThis}}	Yes
6.	Image:Filipino casualties on the first day of war.jpg [3]	{{PD}}	Yes
7.	Image:Choeungek2.JPG	{{PD-self}}	Yes
8.	Image:Nguyen.jpg	{{fairusein\|Nguyen Ngoc Loan}}	No
9.	Image:Prague spring café.JPG	{{PD-because\|web page says "No rights reserved unless misused by warmongers"}}	Yes
10.	Image:AbuGhraibAbuse-standing-on-box.jpg	"This image is in the public domain because it is ineligible for copyright. This applies worldwide."	Yes
11.	Image:Great leap forward-Backyard smelting 1.jpg[4]	{{no license\|month=June\|day=6\|year=2006}} {{copyvio}}	No
12.	Image:AbuGhraibScandalGraner55.jpg [5]	This image is in the public domain because it is ineligible for copyright. This applies worldwide.	Yes
13.	Image:Kingbeating.jpg	{{fairuse}}	No
14.	Image:Galloway and Saddam.jpg	{{fairuse}}	No
15.	Image:Donald saddam.jpg	{{Tv-screenshot}}	No
16.	Image:Tianasquare.jpg	The image above is an Associated Press photograph. It was taken by Jeff Widener on June 5, 1989. 'Permission Note -- written permission was received from AP on 29 January 2005 which states: "Wikipedia is only authorized to display this image to its users. Permission is not granted for copying or redistribution in or through any other medium. Image must be provided with the following credit: "Jeff Widener (The Associated Press)."	Yes
16 images. Total number allowed on user's page:			10
16 images. Total number not allowed on user's page:			6
16 images. Total number deleted from my user page:			16 [6]