User talk:Inclusionist/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] AfD comments

From WP:AFD: "Don't reorder comments on the deletion page to group them by keep/delete/other." Moving comments to another page entirely is even worse. meta:Wiki is not paper on size limits applies here too, and the comments are indented anyway so it's clear that it's a subdiscussion and no one is going to read it who doesn't want to. I think your intentions were sound but it would be very easy to interpret that the wrong way. Better to leave it be. — coelacan talk — 17:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: FYI

RE: User_talk:Quack_688#FYI message in regards to Talk:Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America#Moved

I'll have a look at the talk page, see what's going on. Can't take the credit for that userbox, I'm afraid - I'm still looking around to see what's out there. I just found User:GRBerry/Userbox migration, I'm having a look there to find another userbox or two with just the right sense of humour. :-p Quack 688 00:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

But you are one of my sockpuppets. You're just a figment of my imagination. Now get back in line, or I'm putting you at the back of the drawer and you won't see sunlight for a month.

:-O

(cue twilight zone music)

P.S. You're right. Sockpuppet allegations are fun. Thanks for sharing! Quack 688 01:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Say What?

You wrote:

"Looks like from your talk page, with all the warning messages here, you are on the way to being booteded. If I was a beting man, I would bet you will get booted."

What in Satan's name are talking about? What warning messages? Are you trying to provoke me with false allegations or something? ;-) Why are you trying to drag me into this mess? - F.A.A.F.A. 05:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I simply want you to tell Stone how fun RfC's are, because Stone needs help. Read my comments at face value. I am very blunt. More soon. Travb (talk) 05:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a SINGLE admin warning on my talk page, so I think you must be confused. - F.A.A.F.A. 05:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What are you doing?

RE: [1] Why are you archiving my talk page??? Please restore it to how you found it. What's gotten into you??? - F.A.A.F.A. 05:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I will restore it right now. My apologizes. Thanks for your understanding FAAFA. Travb (talk) 05:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I already did. I don't archive frequently, and there aren't any disputes on my page. The ONE warning was from a Freeper who claimed my quotes from Freep founder Jim Robinson (his own words) were a BLP violation. I went back and sourced every one, and every word was verbatim! - F.A.A.F.A. 05:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Please, please don't act like a lawyer, althought their were not official warnings, almost everyone of the messages on your wiki talk page were editors who were warning you, not officially, but they are warning you. Lawyers argue what the defintion of "is" is. You are arguing what the defintion of "warning" is. Please stop. Reread all of your messages, they are not very friendly.

The BLP warning is simply one editor who knows how to use icons and pictures, it probably isn't an "official" warning either. I know how to make impressive warnings to other users, with . There are pages of templates to warn other users. See: Category:User_warning_templates Veteran editors know how to do this. It is much more impressive, threatening, intimidating, attention getting, (add your own adjective here) to write something with Category:User_warning_templates then to write it yourself.

You already have a RfC, you need to look at the glass half empty dude, not half full. Travb (talk) 06:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

(UI) You wrote: "Please, please don't act like a lawyer, althought their were not official warnings, almost everyone of the messages on your wiki talk page were editors who were warning you, not officially, but they are warning you. Lawyers argue what the defintion of "is" is"

Dude! I think you must be looking at someone else's user page. I ask you to stop making false allegations about my talk page. If you're talking about the unarchived part, there are almost NO 'warnings' or any messages that could even be loosely construed as a 'warning' except by RW. Are you sure you're looking at MY page? If so, PLEASE point out what you're talking about. - F.A.A.F.A. 06:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I give up, just like I gave up on User:Rootology. You accuse me of "false allegations" on wikipedia. You don't say stuff like that on wikipedia, especially to veteran editors who know wikipolicy better than you do, and who you are in an edit war with. I am not talking about myself, I am talking about saying this to other wikieditors.

I defended Rootology to the very end, and he made me look like a total jack ass, because he wouldn't listen to anyone, and he committed suicide. Four or five times bitten, twice shy. I wrote a couple of days ago that I need to radically change the way I defend some wikieditors who won't follow wikipolicy, because when I try to defend them, they make me look like a jack ass. Well, you are the first editor that I am implying my new policy: I give up. Sink or swim, but don't yell for help when you are drowning, because I am really tired of looking like a jack ass. User:Cplot after I defended them, come to find out, had tons of sockpuppet accounts. That makes me look like a jackass when I defend them in a ArbCom. I may help User:CamperStrike still, but User:Cplot deserved to get booted, just like User:Rootology and his sockpuppet User:XP deserved to be indefinetly booted.

Prove me wrong man about my predictions, you know how I am betting, I would sincerly like to lose this bet (Caveat: but only if you stop deleting well referenced pages--if that keeps up, then best wishes on another website, there will be no tears lost from me). Have the last word, then I will archive your comments. :) Best wishes, happy editing. Travb (talk) 06:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

(UI)Just show what 'warnings' you were referring to. They don't exist - thus they're 'false allegations'! Sorry - but I don't let friend or foe impugne me unfairly. I have reformed in the past 2-3 weeks, and you should be the first to notice and note it, instead of tyring to drag MY good name through the mud to make a point with Stone. If you think a Neologism no more imprortant than 'Freeptard' desrerves its own article, thats your opinion. I don't, and as I told someone, I would vote to delete 'Fitzmas' too. - F.A.A.F.A. 06:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Best wishes FAAFA. I am sure we will edit the same article in the future, so I will see you around. I already said you have made a lot of improvements (as I did above), and I am really happy about that. Travb (talk) 06:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outspoken barnstars

On: User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff#I_will_watch_your_page

User:badlydrawnjeff
The Outspoken Stars are given to users who defend the freedom of political expression in the Wikipedia community, on talk pages and in debates regarding deletion of articles, categories and templates.
Niccolo Machiavelli would be proud. Congratulations on this well deserved award. Keep up the great work, Mr. Jeff. :)
Best wishes and happy editing, Travb (talk) 15:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

For misuse of his administrative tools and failure to relate appropriately with other administrators, MONGO is desysopped. For misuse of his administrative tools, as well as disruptive conduct in edit warring and incivility, Seabhcan is desysopped. Seabhcan is placed on standard personal attack parole for one year. He may be briefly blocked by any administrator for any edit which is deemed to be a personal attack or incivility for up to 24 hours. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 08:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Refactoring

RE: Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America [2] RE: Talk:Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America#Move_to_talk RE: Talk:State terrorism by Guatemala [3] RE: Talk:List of acts labelled as state terrorism sorted by state [4]

Travb. Can you do me a favour and not move or refactor my comments around anymore. You've done this numerous times and I've said nothing about it before. But it's really bad form.--Zleitzen 06:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

refactor my comments: ouch, I do that with everyone, I am sorry it bothers you.

move: I copied and pasted your comments to another article. You can delete the comments if you like, and I will try to remember never to do this to you again. If I do forget please let me know ASAP, and I will remove comments ASAP. (I am afraid I might forget) Travb (talk) 06:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

On an unrelated point. On my user page are a few links to a film by a friend of mine called "War Feels Like War". I highly recommend it. Essential viewing if you can find it anywhere on the net or elsewhere. Have replied on my talk page to other issue.--Zleitzen 06:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Best wishes, Travb (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] That userpage

As long as it's used in support of policy, there is no pressing problem. The page was used for some time as a way of centralising discussion of a large number of problematic articles, many of which have now been deleted. It was MfDd before and kept by acclamation. Do feel free to work on the tone if you think it's straying too far into advocacy, though. Guy (Help!) 10:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message JzG, merry christmas. Travb (talk)

[edit] School spam question

Could you give me more of the context of your question? I'm not willing to make much of a statement on Wikipedia as I do not want more trouble and, if possible, would like to have my name and me personally, left out of any discussions about schools. Sincerely, Mattisse 03:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course, if you are wikibonked, I completely understand and have the greatest sympathy. Sincerely, Mattisse 03:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Fighterforfreedom

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fighterforfreedom
• Vandalism on my page [6]
• Wikipedia:Taking it outside Discussion with Fightforfreedom [7]

[edit] Oddly Enough

The MfD really had no chance due to Striver. It matter almost as much the person nominating as the arguements made. The initial arguements being the most important. Many people do not bother reading a whole XfD, so the goal is to make the introduction cover the points and counter points that will be made by the opposing side. Also Striver is so hated by some circles on Wikipedia, you will have people that do not like Striver voting against anything he does, as long as they see others doing it as well. That is the cross to carry when you make enemies here it seems, they will pop up at times when it has nothing to do with them, thanks to the open approach of Wikipedia, then hide behind AGF if you question their motives. It seems to me like Wikipedia is more setup for behind the scenes deals then open interaction. Friends vote in tandem, enemies vote in tandem against common foes. For a while I would not even vote on an AfD because I knew two editors were basically gonig to vote against me without even examining what was said by anyone. I wouldnt really call this blowing off steam or taking it outside, just sharing my observations. Feel free to post on my talk page whenever you feel like. --NuclearZer0 20:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100% with your assessment of the AfD.

First: The argument for the AfD could have been better written, I was aghast that Striver put this up for deletion, and like the Rootlogy Arbcom, I was frankly doing damage control the entire time. The best I can hope for in this AFD at this point is a "no consensus". I had planned on slowly building my case against the userpage, gathering information on canvasing then adding a very strong argument like Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard_(2nd_mfd)#First_separation.

In a perfect world, Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard_(2nd_mfd)#First_separation would be on the top of the page, followed by your revealing statment: "Its vote stacking at its best, I dont have to post on your page, cause I can post in a central location."

Second: I noticed that some people who were arguing with Striver came onto this AfD, in what appears a way to spite Striver. I often won't vote for certain AfDs because I know some users (including yourself) watch my edits. If the consensus on the AfD is to keep, my vote for keep to my actually change the consensus to delete, because several other editors, who don't like me, may vote the opposite of me.

I think the reason there are not more deletes on the AfD, is that I have argued with so many editors who share the same POV as I do, that I think they have ignored this AfD because they are mad at me.

Unlike yourself and others, who appear to only condemns one side, I condemn everyone liberally, including such leftist users as:

1. User_talk:Ruy_Lopez#Comments_on_CJK.27s_talk_page
2. User_talk:Seabhcan#You_ARE_Anti-American
3. User_talk:Fairness_And_Accuracy_For_All/Archive2#You_might_get_indefinetly_banned

My viewpoint maybe more rational, fair, and evenhanded than many wikiusers, but this makes me no friends or allies in the long run. When I was indefinetly booted, it was an admin who I argued with about copyright in my first ArbCom who unbooted me. After months of being on wikipedia, I had no friends who supported me and argued that I should be unbooted. If you were booted tommorow, how many editors with likeminded POV would come to your defense?

Unlike Fair and others, I feel like all pages should be kept. I am disappointed about how Fair put the Clinton Chronicles up for deletion, because that makes him no better than those who contribute to User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard.

I shamefully have to concede that I have voted to delete in some AfDs in the past, but my requirements to vote for a delete in an AfD is much higher now today.

I have had a lot of articles I have written, well researched articles, be deleted, often out of spite, and sometimes by sockpuppets. User_talk:Travb/Archive_6#Deleted_pages_which_I_created

I have consistently condemened those on the left and the right, who delete well referenced material.

Examples:

1. Talk:Philip_Agee#Peter_Struder_part_II, where I join forces with User:TDC to protect his contributions, and argue that Horowitz should stay in the article.
2. Talk:Vladimir_Lenin#Removed_tag_on_Richard_Pipes, where I condemn both sides.
3. Talk:Predictions of Soviet collapse, were I side with conservative User:Rjensen to keep the information about Reagan in the article.
4. My first ArbCom: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier

Many editors delete material to push a POV. I condemn these editors because I think it runs counter to what wikipedia is, and why wikipedia was founded:

1. User_talk:TDC/Archive_5#Your_edits
2. User_talk:TDC/Archive_6#The_more_things_change...
3. User_talk:Rjensen#I_am_disappointed
4. User_talk:Fairness_And_Accuracy_For_All/Archive2#You_might_get_indefinetly_banned

I have worked with several editors with opposite POVs to build really good balanced articles, which both of us are happy with.

1. Talk:Philippine-American_War#Boot.27s_book_The_Savage_Wars_of_Peace with User:CJK

In my opinion, working together with other editors of different POVs is the way wikipedia is supposed to work.

Best wishes, Travb (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seabhcan ArbCom

I have to say Nuclear, you siding with Seabhcan on the Arbcom was a stroke of genius. I was very, very, very impressed with how much you had changed and grown in the past couple of months since we had edit warred on Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America‎. Your entire tone had changed and you had become more Machiavellian in a good way, developing into a POV diplomat. I should create a barnstar award and award it to you, as I recently did with TDC User_talk:TDC#The_Resilient_Barnstar.

If I could only get you to stop deleting well researched articles and sections, we could be allies.

PS are you a sock of Morton? :) I was accused of being a sock for the first time a week ago, User_talk:Travb/Archive_9#Re:_FYI and I have to admit, it really made me laugh and smile. I can see why Morton loves it when people accuse him of being a sock, and finds it so funny.

Best wishes, Travb (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

No but I was accused of being a sockpuppet of Rex Aka Merecat, that went on even after 3 RFCU's said I was not, Ryan was pretty adamant to the point where the Checkuser admin had to tell him, there are no more Rex socks! I laughed the whole time, they kept directly asking me and I just kept ignoring them, mainly because they had no right to accuse, but also partially now that I look back on it because I liked seeing them use my refusal to appease them as a reason I was guilty. Doesn't anyone believe in those inalienable rights? --NuclearZer0 21:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I found being accused of being a sockpuppet funny too. Now I understand why Morton likes it so much.

I have read the Rex Aka Merecat accusations thrown at you, in passing.

Your edits and understanding of wikipolicy, if I vaguely recall (and I may be wrong, it has been several months since I looked at your edit history), seem to spring up from nothing. I am WP:AGF: you must have been editing as an anon before.

There are sophisticated ways to register a different IP address. I used this technology several years before on a crooked business expose, long before I ever heard of Wikipedia. At least the free technology was tedious to use. I have noticed on my webpages that some sophisticated spammers use this technology, they must have shelled out the money necessary for this techology. I sometimes wonder if some of these obvious socks are doing this, after the checkuser fails. Maybe User:Rootology / User:XP did this. More likely he used the low tech way and simply had dial up, or went to a friends/public computer.

Well, I have said to much again, in violation of Wikipedia:Don't stuff beans up your nose

Happy holidays, Travb (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I dived into policy after having it thrown at me editing political articles. I quickly realized that "passive agressive" behavior would keep you out of trouble and policy will defend you like a shield. I am the kind of person that reads the manual before playing the game. I never edited as an anon actually, I believe the first edit I made was under zer0faults. Happy holidays to you as well. --NuclearZer0 22:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links to Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars

RE: Wikipedia_talk:Lamest_edit_wars#Links_to_lame_edit_wars

Why are there no links to some of these edit wars? I would love to read some of them. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 21:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Aren't you seeing clickable links for each title headline? Or are you asking something else? (scratches head) David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 21:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to Template:Welcome-anon

Hi. I just used the welcome-anon template and was a bit surprised by your changes from yesterday:

• I would recommend that you get a username, because:

1. You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia
2. Creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and there are many benefits of having a username.
3. Your privacy is better protected with a username. If you edit without a username, your IP address is used to identify you instead.
4. Veteran wikieditors take your edits more seriously, and are less likely to revert your work.

In point 1, you're telling people to get a username because they don't need a username!

Point 4 is actually true, but it sort of implies that we have a "bite the newbies" policy, when we should try to judge each edit on its merits.

If I delete your first and last points, we basically end up with what was there already...so I'm going to revert those edits. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 23:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Be polite and keep it up

RE: Comments which were deleted from User:XP but admin User:Splash was kind enough to retrieive for me.

Attacking you [User:XP] seems to be the last avenue left for parties opposed to your opinion in the Seab/Mongo matter. The rationale for their assault is transparent to uninvolved outsiders. Stay polite and keep it up. Abe Froman 16:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Rootology/XP reminds me of the Ward Churchill scandal. There is no doubt that Ward Churchill was guilty of breaking scholarly rules, but he wouldn't have been found out for breaking the scholarly rules if he wouldn't have written "On the Justice of Roosting Chickens: Reflections on the Consequences of U.S. Imperial Arrogance and Criminality."

See: *Littwin, Mike (May 18 2006). "Witch hunt apparently pays off at CU". Rocky Mountain News: 7A. 

I think there is little doubt at this point that XP is Rootology.

Rootology made a lot of enemies because of his stupid and incivil behavior on Encyclopediadramatica and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO/Proposed decision. The bottom line is that, like Churchill, Rootology was guilty of breaking the rules. If Rootology's new sock XP, would have shut up and kept out of the MONGO argument, he would have never been caught, but Rootology loved the attention and drama of breaking the rules and not following wikipedia policy, which continues to this day. I personally think Churchill's infractions are less grevious than what Rootology did. (Albiet I admit, I don't know all of the details of the MONGO arbcom).

Rootology/XP is too stubborn to realize that he has to follow the rules on wikipedia, just like everyone else. There is a hard way to recognize that you are wrong, and should change your behavior, and their is an easy way. Rootlogy/XP took the hard way, and continues to hit his head needlessly on the wall. Rootlogy/XP deserves to be banned to the leper colony, with the other outcasts, also known as Encyclopediadramatica.

User:Abe.Froman, be careful who you choose as allies, because it often reflects badly on you. I have learned this the hard way, starting with Rootlogy. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 17:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] XP

Originally posted on: User:Abe.Froman

Here is the full message on the ANI, I decided not to post it all there:

Abe, I trust Thatcher131, although we have different views about a lot of things, I respect his integrity and I am impressed how he has helped me several times before.

I honestly don't know all the sorid details about why rootology was desyoped, and I probably never will. All I know is that 6 people who were elected by wide margins to be arbcoms because of their history of being impartial, fair, and great editors, decided to desop him. Other things about the MONGO arbcom trouble me a little, but not this decision. rootology's behavior right before he was desoped was stupid and suicidal. It is hard to justify that. I think if Rootology wants to come back to wikipedia, he can apply to come back, because only he knows the reason why he was desyoped, better than me and you Abe. I believe in second chances, being a product of many second chances myself, but I also support the 99% of wikipedia rules, and think they are here for good solid reasons.

I have got to change my strategy in attempting to help people like rootology. Some wikiusers I have stopped from going over the brink, and they are still editing here on wikipedia, but several, like rootology, have started sockpuppet attacks, etc. This makes me look really bad for trying to help them. If you have any suggestions on how to approach this, I would welcome your advice. Travb (talk) 03:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Partial vindication for you, Mea Culpa for me

Originally posted on User:MONGO.

SupportTSA…OtherwiseTheTouristsWin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User:SupportTSA…OtherwiseTheTouristsWin, User talk:SupportTSA…OtherwiseTheTouristsWin

If you ever want me to defend you against vandal User:Cplot, let me know.

I have no sympathy for him or for User:Rootlogy See: XP: Banned to the ED leper colony.

If you don't want me to post on your user page again, please let me know. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 02:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I found your tips very useful

And I still do, thanks. Credit was deserved.--Cberlet 04:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

thanks, been following your work on Facism articles, keep up the good work sir. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 04:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Business Plot

Re: Business Plot. Lyndon LaRouche-related publications are fringe sources that are not suitable as reliable sources. The article you linked, The Morgan Fascist Coup Plot and How FDR Defeated It, is a good example. It reads, in part,

• ...in the late Winter of 1932-33, the U.S. government, much as today, was a captive of a cabal of private financial interests: the London-New York banking axis, whose strategists were the prime sponsors of fascism in Europe.

Is the U.S. government captive to a cabal? Anyway, the ArbCom has made a ruling against using LaRouche sources in unrelated articles. -Will Beback · † · 08:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] All the King's Men (2006 film)

Talking about reviews and essays, a "scribe" is synonym of "movie critic", although it is only used in the United Stases. Take a look at some news from the Variety site, or at Rotten Tomatoes... Anyway, if you think it is a not so well known word, you did the right thing in taking it out. --Mad283 22:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For keeping both your integrity and a cool head in the most trying of circumstances. Ireneshusband 05:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

thanks a lot--in the 14 months I have edited, this is my first barnstar. Best wishes sir, if you ever need anything, let me know ! Happy Old Christmas, Travb (talk) 05:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Wells

I was looking at your contributions and followed the link to Brian Wells. I hadn't remembered the name, but certainly had the case. Fascinating! That's what I love about Wiki - you start wandering around and find something interesting and important! Thanks for working on that article - I hadn't thought about that case in a long time. Any theories? (I guess I should follow the links to find out) Cheers - Fairness And Accuracy For All 08:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I love wikipedia. My wife brought it up in passing a couple of days ago, wondering what happened to him. She has seen it on the news years ago. I had never heard of the case.

I typed in what information she gave me in Google (Also an incredible site--it is eire how accurate Google can be) and the first article that came up was about Brian Wells. I then typed in Brian Wells on google, and sure enough, like almost every search on Google, one of the top ten sites was Google. (Yesterday I was having problems with Norton Ghost, typed in a couple of search terms, and the first link on Google answered my question)

User:Fairness And Accuracy For All wrote: Any theories?

I have no theories, since I only heard about it a couple of days ago. Watch the video and check out his brother's site.

Sigh, I start school tommorow, last semester. Thank God. I take the bar in July, then we are going to go to Ukraine in August for a month. :) I am so excited.

Happy New Year. Today is the Old Christmas in Russian Orthodox calendar. So happy old Christmas. Next Sunday will be Old New Year. The Russian Orthodox calendar is 14 days behind the western calendar. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 17:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] reply

Hi Trav,

I appreciate your kind thoughts. We'll see how this new system works out. Hopefully, now we can go back to improving articles. GabrielF 17:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Third opinion

Your 11:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC) W:3O request is still on that page after more than 48 hours—has it been resolved? Athænara ✉ 20:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

LucaZ (talk) (contribs) edited only between 16 and 18 November 2006.

Mobile 01 (talk) (contribs) began editing two days later, 20 November 2006.

They may be the same person. —Æ. ✉   22:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

You said it, not me :) I will quote you, although I suggest striking the "may be" from the statment: "They may be the same person." I have been gone for a bit. I will check. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 06:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Helping

RE: User:MONGO comments

If you really want to help MONGO, you might start by not making a big scene and making melodramatic declarations of your wish for deadly diseases to strike all ED editors. Almost all of the unpleasantness for anyone even tangentially involved [8] stems from a combative attitude rather than an, um, ignorative (for lack of a real word) one. Take it from someone who would rather not see you banned simply from having an imagined association with ED. Other people have gotten much grief by being branded with that label, despite mountains of good work here. Milto LOL pia 03:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Athaenara Wikipedia:Third opinion

RE: Wikipedia:Third opinion and my post:

Your 11:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC) W:3O request is still on that page after more than 48 hours—has it been resolved? Athænara ✉ 20:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

LucaZ (talk) (contribs) edited only between 16 and 18 November 2006.

Mobile 01 (talk) (contribs) began editing two days later, 20 November 2006.

They may be the same person. —Æ. ✉   22:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

User_talk:Robdurbar/Protection#Please_initate_these_four_requests_on_the_ANI_board thanks. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 08:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, seen and read, Travb, thanks. I'm restoring the posts on my own page in a 'Tire companies' subsection under the pre-existing umbrella 'Wikipedia:Third opinion' section, but that will take a little longer—there's a need to retain the narrative flow, as it were, and I fuss. Athænara ✉ 09:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Athaenara, about me archiving my message here,[9] then cut and pasting my response on your talk page,[10] despite your narative at the bottom of your talk page:

<!-- NOTE: IF YOUR POST IS ON A TOPIC WITH AN EXISTING SECTION, PLEASE POST IN THAT TOPIC SECTION. THANK YOU. -Æ -->

In my defense, I had already archived the comments, and I didn't want it to seem like I was blowing you off, in violation of Wikipedia:Talk_pages#Etiquette

You wrote in response: "there's a need to retain the narrative flow"

I am the same way. ;-) Two anal retentive people are bound to butt heads :)

The answer to your question is: Yes, there is a desperate need for a third opinion. Sorry it took several messages to answer. :( Best wishes, Travb (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

As you know, I don't edit any of those articles and I am not involved in disputes about them. My own third opinion is that those two, or that one in (so far) two guises, should be prevented from editing the article and good editors such as yourself allowed to retrieve the encyclopedic material from the debris. I hope Robdurbar, wangi, perhaps others, continue to assist. Athænara ✉ 22:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RIP Robert Anton Wilson, fnord!

Robert Anton Wilson, one of the great writers and thinkers of the 20th century has passed on. His seminal work, The Illuminatus! Trilogy, and other writings, taught me not only to question almost everything, but to honor the power of, and sometimes even embrace the outlandishness of certain conspiracy theories, while not necessarily believing in them. After all -- how far apart in terms of probability, are the claims that aliens from the planet Xenu terrorized the earth, that the planes which hit the WTC were actually holograms, that George Bush and Queen Elizabeth are really Reptilian Humanoids, or that a man lived inside the stomach of a whale for 3 days and survived unscathed? Robert (RAW) was a libertarian, founder the Guns and Dope Party, The Pope of the Church of the SubGenius and Bishop of Discordianism. If you don't know his work, especially The Trilogy, you should. All Hail Eris! and fnord! - Fairness And Accuracy For Tom Delay 23:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request to cease personal vendetta

Please stop your relentless attempt at persecution of myself and users LucaZ and Bobblehead plus numerous anons which you are attacking in your "Personal Page" User:Travb/m. Your whole page is built on conjecture, assumptions, coincidence and your own personal vendetta against anyone who will try to thwart your continued attempts to hijack the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company article and turn it into your own Political Action Group version of StopFirestone.Com.
Your IP address search is very impressive and most commendable, you must have a lot of time on your hands. Firstly let me point out that Australia is about the same size as the USA. I live in Adelaide (think of it as where Dallas is) now one of the anons you try to link me to is from Sydney (think of that as New York). Adelaide as you pointed out hosts the head office for Bridgestone Australia, and it's not unreasonable to assume that some of their employees may well be editors on wiki and using an anon account. Just because I live in the same city as 2 million other people does not meen that every wiki editor in Adelaide is a sock puppet of mine.
You also try to imply that Bobblehead is also a sock of mine because he made comment about the americans spelling Tyre as Tire. I should point out that the rest of the world spells Tyre this way and only america spells it tire. Are you saying that every wiki user in the world who spells Tyre this way is a sock puppet of mine. 15 billion sock puppets and their all mine. Woo Hoo, I am a busy editor.
The only one you got right was the anon I used to send a message to an admin, because I was at another person house at the time. I still signed the message Mobile01 and then corrected it to the 4 tildas when I got home and properly logged in.
It is disturbing that although you say these are "Possible" and "Probable" sock puppets, you then go on to include all the negative comments from these other editors and attribute them to me with no proof except your own conclusions because we all happen to maybe live in the same country. All to try and make your case look more impressive.
Remember that it is you that started an edit war where there was none, and it was you that refused to accept the article as agreed on the discussion page by many users, and it was you that had everything protected (once you got your edits in place) and it was and is you that is waging a vendetta war against me personally.
Your comments about me are becoming abusive and highly confrontational. I think the comments calling me anal retentive on an admins talk page were definatley outside of wiki policy, the same policy you accused me of breaking. Mobile 01 02:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Liked your little archive menu on the right hand side, took me a while to work out how it worked but I managed to get it in the end. Placed a similar one on my talk page too, thanks. Mobile 01 16:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] For Your Information

Bridgestone Australia Ltd is an Australian Company currently listed on the Australian Stock exchange, It has a Majority share owner (51%) of Bridgestone Corporation a Japanese company. It does not manufacture Firestone tyres. Firestone tyres are not manufactured in Australia. The nearest Firestone manufacturing plant to Australia is in New Zealand. So, my original statement hopefully makes sence to you now. "There is no Firestone in Australia", I thought I would try and clear that up for you as you keep trying to harp this point as having some significance.

One another note, you tried to make another point about editing the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company article before me, because I wrote on my page "Then along came an editor" etc etc... This does not mean that you began editing at that point, it refers to the fact that it was at that point that you started to revert user edits and generally disrupt that article. I think I have made my position on this article clear to you on many occasions, I am not against proper discussion or NPOV editing, I am against your continued POV editing and citing references which are anti Firestone based. I have done a lot of research on this company and its problems in the USA and have found numerous references that contradict yours. Because of this I have chosen not to include those references in the article because those references would be just as POV as yours and either rewrite the negative comments to be more NPOV or remove those that I can not substantiate without providing POV references.

While I appreciate that you may have some personal issues with the content on this page, it is also proper wiki editing to either modify the article to NPOV or remove that which can not be done so. I think the compromises we had reached were fair and equitable with adequate coverage allotted in the criticisms section on the issues of the company plus links to full coverage in other wiki articles. I still don't understand why you started an edit war on this page or why you are now threatening to spill your war over to the Bridgestone page. Your last comments on the discussion page were that you wanted to avoid an edit war and were 100% behind a straw poll. Then with no further discussion you had the page proteced and started this whole vendetta against me. Frankly I am at a loss to explain your current behaviour.Mobile 01^Talk 13:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Three revert Ruling

By removing my message to you from your page you are now in violation of the three revert rule. Your user talk page is the place to send messages and initiate dialog over issues. By you removing my messages to you immediately you not only ignore me but also place a barrier to any meaningfull discusion on the topic. Mobile 01^Talk 14:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, users can remove anything they want from their talk page, you may actually be cited for vandalism for putting it back against the users will. Good day and happy wiki editing. --NuclearZer0 17:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I restored the past two week of edits. t (talk) 02:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NPA

RE: [11]

I have looked at the links you provided in your WP:NPA that you left on my talk page and do not see any personal attacks. I see me explaining my actions to you or other editors and stating my opinions about your edit methods.

I would like to thank you though for deleting your user talk:Travb/m page or having had it deleted by an admin. I am not sure which as there is no edit history any longer. If an admin deleted it then I am grateful to them for seeing what was going on there.

I notice that all your personal attacks on me are slowly being deleted by you from all over wiki where you wrote them. Thanks for that too.

I also noticed that the third party user you enlisted for support also seems to be distancing herself from you or at least trying to remain impartial on her talk page.

Your WP:NPA seems to be in response to my request above for you to cease your personal vendetta, I read the WP:NPA and it states in the first paragraph that it should not be used to accuse people you are in a conflict with.

Please remove the WP:NPA from my talk page as it is only poking the fire and trying to push me into further escalation. I have tried so hard to enter into discussion with you about this situation but you seem reluctant or unwilling to rationally discuss anything and just keep adding more wood to the fire. So I am asking you one more time to please enter into productive discussion over these issues and to cease your personal vendetta against me. Mobile 01^Talk 09:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Do not violate WP:NPA again with "Lengthy, contentious, misleading" attacks[12]. I have warned you repeatedly, and these warnings have been ignored repeatedly. This "third party" User:Athaenara is a member of WP:Third opinion, which I filed immediatly after the page was protected, after the page was protected you created several redirects too, in your words "orphan" the protected page. Excuse me, but I don't want to be distracted from showing the clear, blatant WP:COI violations on these pages which you edit on.

I would appreciate it if you no longer post on my user page.Travb (talk) 09:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mobile 01

Many of the edits that you cited as personal attacks are mostly legitimate criticism and hardly the sort of out of line statement that deserves a {{npa}} warning. I'd recommend that you back off and take a breather. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Response on WP:ANI Travb (talk) 10:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

At this point I think an RfC would probably be a good idea too. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 12:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

(Later) I now have more than enough evidence to already show that User:Mobile 01 has been using sockpuppets and has been lying about it. See: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mobile 01. I am going to take a much deserved wikibreak. Travb (talk) 12:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Dude, could you produce the evidence on Mobile01 with a single (or less edits)? You are already filling up the RC Patrol IRC channel. :D — Nearly Headless Nick 13:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Mobile01 almost admits now that she used a sockpuppet for User:NeilinOz see: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Mobile_01#User:Mobile_01_I_am_not_User:NeilinOz

I have caught her in several "factual inconsitencies" this is only one of many.

mea culpa

Nearly Headless Nick, I am sorry if this case is confusing, User:Mobile_01 is a complex case, which implications could be far ranging. I am trying to make it simple as possible. Any suggestions for improvement.

To my discredit, I compile evidence slowly, which is often maddening to some editors. I also get impatient with editors, and speak my mind, which makes me enemies. It is something I am trying to curtail.

concerns

I am concerned, but not surprised, that established, veteran wikiusers are talking off- wiki about this case.

Why not address these issues here: Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/Mobile 01 were wikirules, including WP:NPA apply, and I can respond to any inquiries myself.

I sent you a message asking how to join Wikipedia:Recent_changes_patrol[13]

I look forward to your reply. Thanks for the heads up. Travb (talk) 13:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:LAME

Nice work compiling that list on the Lamest Edit Wars Ever talk page Travb. I laughed my ass off. Quadzilla99 05:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Encouragement

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Awarded 20 January 2007 to Travb for his valiant defense of   the Wikipedia mission to produce a neutral encyclopedia.

"It is easy to discriminate between right and wrong in this case ... But one encounters a hardened sinner, and, aroused by anger, one goes a little too far ... indignation blots out finer sensibility. However, there is no great harm in this, because the penalty as such is just."

"Punishment is to be carried out by someone who lacks the power and authority to do so. Therefore the culprits do not submit. The matter at issue is an old one ... and in dealing with it difficulties arise. ... [B]y taking up the problem the punisher arouses poisonous hatred against himself, and in this way is put in a somewhat humiliating position. But since punishment was required by the time, he remains free of blame."

I know the circumstances are difficult, and some people on the periphery are exacerbating them by catering to the defendant's penchant for personal attacks in attempts to evade genuine issues of Wikipedian policy and behavior. Keep the faith.

The two passages I've quoted above are from the I Ching, or Book of Changes (Wilhelm/Baynes translation, the Bollingen edition of the Princeton University Press) in the chapter called "Biting Through" (#21) on the theme of lawsuits: "Recourse to law and penalties overcomes the disturbances of harmonious social life caused by criminals and slanderers." — Athænara ✉ 06:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation

Discussion has commenced on the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company article. As one of the major editors of that article, I would like to invite you to join in this discussion so as to promote not only an informative and usefull article for wiki, but also one that covers all points of view. Please give us your thoughts and comments for format and content for this article on the discussion page. Thanks.

Mobile 01^Talk 00:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FYI - Yahoo News: Microsoft offers cash for Wikipedia edit

FYI: Microsoft offers cash for Wikipedia edit Not good. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 08:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mobile 01

It's interesting you bring that to me; I've recently begun trying to change the whole sock puppet system on Wikipedia because quite frankly, its such a bloody headached to go over (see here for my ideas.) I'll have a look but I'm not promising anything. --Robdurbar 17:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You're really pushing it, Trav. I reverted your trolling on my talk page. As for your inappropriate removal of my valid opening opinion, I am also reverting that to the investigation page, but I'll leave out all the subsequent crap, which I agree is irrelevant. As for your assumption that I only came to Mobile 01's defence after fighting with FAAFA, your are dead wrong. I haven't "fought" with FAAFA in over a month, so get your facts straight, and not from FAAFA's mouth, before you start editing my comments. I don't fight with FAAFA anymore, but I do keep a close eye on him, as I do now with you. - Crockspot 17:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

My advice would be to let this go and try and shape the future of the article directly by helping with the discussion at Talk:Firestone Tire and Rubber Company. I've had a look over the sockpuppet page and it seems clear that Mobile 01 HAS used socks (hell, he/she admits it), but I don't see any significant abuse of them and I don't see a link between him/her and the Bridgestone company editors.

It looks like Mobile has started to edit in good faith (I agree that the user has commited personal attacks and may well have done some sneaky sock puppet edits... I'm hoping that's in the past). If you give him/her this chance then you can develop the article to be neutral, which is what everyone wants. --Robdurbar 17:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: the edit histories of the accounts (Mobile10/IPs) do show that neutrality was not what that user intended to achieve. — Athænara ✉ 18:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I have had two admins look over this sockpuppet account. There is no doubt that:

I have linked this user to an anon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/203.49.235.50.... who signed a page as NeilinOz1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/NeilinOz1

Travb (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. But now Mobile01 seems to be willing to contribute honestly. We don't punish people for their activities on Wikipedia, so I don't see anything coming of those conclusions. --Robdurbar 09:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not about punishment as such but appropriate community response, which may include penalty. The situation was exacerbated by the user's prevarication and repeated attempts (with some eagerly complying as above) to discredit those who are willing to publicly discuss specific violations of policies and guidelines. — Athænara ✉ 09:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Travb/m

Just to let you know, this has been listed at Miscellany for deletion, nominated by Mobile 01 (talk). As it is your user subpage, I feel you probably should be notified. The debate is currently happening here. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 20:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I closed the debate out. Daniel.Bryant 22:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why not collaborate?

Hi there, this is just a plea and request that you place your energy towards collaborating on the Bridgestone and Firestone articles, rather than pursuing the situation with User:Mobile 01. She has tried to invite you to participate in re-working the Firestone article so that all sides can be happy, but you've ignored this offer and continued to bring up the now closed sock puppet case. As is, it'd be a great show of faith if you removed the two posts you made about her at the aforementioned articles, and turned to the discussion on making the Firestone articles the best they can be for the encyclopedia. With thanks, ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 18:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Firestone

Thank you for your input and explanation. The part about typing in underwear probably falls into the "too much information" category. :) Regarding Firestone, it seems fair to discuss their various problems without making trying to paint Firestone as "evil" or something. In my experience, both individuals and corporations often do stupid and shortsighted things. Sometimes there is no serious harm, other times it can be disastrous. The conspiracy-theory viewpoint can be encapsulated in this slogan: "When something goes wrong, someone, somewhere, knew that it would." Wahkeenah 15:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Wahkeenah wrote: The part about typing in underwear probably falls into the "too much information" category. LOL.

I have no problem with even Bridgestone employees editing this article, and presenting their own view, with two caveats: they state they are Bridgestone employees, and they reference their contributions (they could even reference their contributions with official Bridgestone pages--I have seen that WP:RS is so abused by editors attempting to push their own POV and remove everyone elses POV).

I had no problem with User:Mobile 01 adding pro-Bridgestone material, and I even praised her for it, what concerned me was how she deleted referenced material, and attempted to split up the criticism section into other articles.

User:Wahkeenah wrote: Regarding Firestone, it seems fair to discuss their various problems without making trying to paint Firestone as "evil" or something.

Firestone is not evil. Firestone is simply attempting to make money. There is nothing wrong with that.

User:Wahkeenah wrote: In my experience, both individuals and corporations often do stupid and shortsighted things.

Agreed. I don't know any organization/individual, religious, non-profit, government, or corporate who do stupid and shortsighted things.

User:Wahkeenah wrote: "When something goes wrong, someone, somewhere, knew that it would."

Agreed. Ever read any Carl Sagan? He wrote this wonderful book about religion and science: The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. He talked a lot about prophets and prophecies.

I once read this author who made fun of the conspiracy theorists, like the JFK, 9/11, or UFO conspiracy theorists. He speculated that those in power love these "fruit cakes" because they focus so much on the bizarre, that they don't focus on the real conspiracies: the common corruption of the government. Travb (talk) 15:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfC to be deleted in 24 hours...

Don't worry about being in that RfC. Since Bryan is no longer co-certifying it by virtue of his being permablocked, there are not two editors certifying that RfC. It will be gone by tomorrow at this time, having failed the 48 hour test for two certifications. --BenBurch 01:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why I ever got invovled in this RfC. As far as it being deleted, I will believe it when I see it. Thanks. Travb (talk) 01:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Now TBeaty is trying to certify though he cannot legally as he already commented. --BenBurch 01:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

BenBurch, I think Tbeatty can withdraw his comment and put it up at the top next to mine, since there doesn't appear to be any rule preventing him from doing so; or, since that seems to be his intention, I might move his comment up to the top for him. It doesn't appear that there's any shortage of people who have disputes with you. Your friend Guy's relentless attempts to delegitimize the RfC aren't going to work, simply because you've been doing what you've been doing to too many people for too long, and an airing of grievances against you is overdue. Every time Guy removes one, another one will step forward.

Travb, I have briefly returned from Wikibreak solely for the purpose of removing your name from the RfC. Kindly follow through on your offer to remove your comments. Dino 03:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Converstation with Mr. Morton

In regards to the stalking charge:

Following an editor to another article to continue disruption (also known as wikistalking)

The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor.

This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. The important part is the disruption - disruption is considered harmful. Emphasis my own

Deleting Associated Press articles stating WP:RS is a "violation...of Wikipedia policy"

I would gladly post this on your user page instead of here, but you have banned me from your user page, and delete anything I write there. Travb (talk) 23:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't want you on my talk page. If you want to discuss edits on edited pages, that's fine. The reason I have banned you from my talk page is that you make false accusations repeatedly. If you just stuck to actual policy violations, we would have no problem, and could discuss things calmly. Don't you understand that each time you overstate your case that you undermine your credibility? It's not an effective tactic, as it waters-down any real actionable case you might make -- haven't you seen people on AN/I make this very same point to you? I want to get along with you, but you have to play by the rules for that to work.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 00:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I will comment on the AP article when you wish you talk about it.

We can move this discussion to my talk page, or offwiki, if you wish. Travb (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

If you want to talk through it, we can discuss it on your talk page -- I have just watch-listed your talk page, so I will see it.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 01:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I have really nothing to add, unless you do sir. I thought this conversation would be better here though. Travb (talk) 02:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Please stop"

With all due respect, please get your facts right before leaving such a message. Mark83 11:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You're reverting ADMINS now. You are brave. Mobile 01^Talk 12:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Mobile01 has informed me what you were talking about. You have no right to dictate what tags should go where. You have a right to put them up and any other user has a right to take them down and everyone has a duty to discuss it. You have failed to discuss it and you failed to leave an edit summary explaining your rationale for replacing the tags. My position is that they have been up for 15 days and no one has made any comment, further the merging of these articles is not sensible. Please read the Manual of Style. As an important company in its own right it needs an article. Since it is a subsidiary of Bridgestone there should be a summary on that page with a link to the main article. Please discuss the issue further before replacing the tags. Mark83 13:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Mark, thanks for your comments. Travb (talk) 14:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)