User talk:Stone put to sky/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Stone put to sky/Archive 1, I'm Drini and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date, and use edit summaries whenever you change a page. If you have any questions, need help or assistance, check out Wikipedia:Ask a question or contact me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Enjoy Wikipedia!! 

-- (drini|) 05:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Jewish Defense League[edit]

I don't know the specifics of the edits you are referring to, but in general I would recommend:

  • Working out article changes on the Talk: page, and
  • Carefully citing every claim you make.

Properly cited, relevant claims, written a neutral way, are the key improving articles. Jayjg (talk) 16:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Your edits to Strawpoll: herding cats[edit]

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

This is a comment (found here) that I later removed from the talk page, when you first wrote a long essay on the talk page:

Stone, althought I sympathize with much of what you wrote, [[User:]], an ideologue on the right, is using your comments, which show your strong leftist ideology: "I'd also like to mention that Stone's diatribes precisely illustrate what this article is going to be, a POV pusher's magnet of people who equate a wartime, legitimate act of Israel or a legitimate act of the US with the indiscriminate blowing up of pizza parlors and civillian airliners". [[User:]] is using a time honored political tactic: point to the most extreme elements of a group, and then make the absurd claim that the entire group believes the same thing, in an attempt to discredit the entire group. [[User:]] has a very negative view of those who question his American civil religion, and is apt to put anyone who questions these views in a simplistic box, labeled "Anti-American", and disregard every word they say as "Anti-American" garbage.
Stone, I want to keep the title American terrorism, but if pushed into a corner, and given the choice between endless edit wars, AfD's and attacks on this page, I will choose a different name for this article. AfD's are hard fought battles, which tax me emotionally. I do not want to deal with a AfD every single month. I change the title to another article, dealing with American Imperialism, and like magic, the debate disappeared.
Many of the people here are devote believers in the American civil religion, America can do no wrong in there eyes (Or if America does wrong, it was a "mistake", an isolated incident, and is quickly justified away). To get these people to admit that America has committed terrorism is like making a Chrisitan admit that Christ was not divine: it will never happen. We are dealing with faith here, and you can not rationalize with faith.
[[User:]] positions on Israel is absurd, but I will not waste my time arguing why, because no matter what Israel does, arguably a client state of America, [[User:]] will continue to have faith in the American civil religion. Bringing up Israel is simply a waste of time on your part Stone.
I have a feeling that you are as big as ideologue as [[User:]] is, so maybe I am wasting my time trying to rationalize with you too. Travb (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Answer me one question Stone:

I was in a heated Arbitration on WSI about a year ago, my first and only WSI. I at first attacked the ideologue on the right, but I realized that the ideologue on the left behavior was just as bad. I was initially blinded by my partisanship and unable to see that the leftist ideolgue was just as guilty as the right ideologue, this really troubled me. I am not going to make the same mistake on this page. Your long ideological rants are even more damaging than my long partisan/wikipedia policy rants. I have seen that when a person or group of people hold a view which is contrary to the general population, and specially when the general population begins to attack their views, their views often become even more and more radical, and they begin to alienate more and more people. Step back and assess what your long comments are doing to "our" side.

I have seen it again and again, a radical ideologue (unfortunatly, sometimes this ideologue is myself) comes to a AfD, straw poll, or debate, and then they write very partisan views, couched in very offensive language. The ideologues on the right are empowered by those words, and "circle the wagons", and the more moderate people who are fence sitters, are turned off by these views and change their vote. So instead of convincing others of their position, they simply alienate potential allies, and embolden political oppponents.

I have no delusions that I can convince you that the current title is a recipe for disaster, anymore than I can convince the ideologues on the right that America has committed terrorist acts. Your long paragraphs, and hardened ideology, simply alienates my as an ally.

Again my one question:

Answer me one question Stone:

i have no problem with compromise[edit]

Look -- i have no problem with compromise. If it were up to me, the page would be a simple expose of the multitude of facts that demonstrate how yes, in deed as well as spirit, the U.S.A. does routinely sponsor and occasionally even initiate terrorist acts.

Unfortunately, the current edits of this page are going nowhere. The problem is simple and obvious: there are multiple definitions of "terrorism" at work here.

I would have no problem if you or someone else asked all the disparate groups involved with the page to come up with their own definitions of terrorism and then included each definition under a single "Competing definitions of Terrorism" heading. Then, each entry that came after could simply refer to how the examples cited did or did not fulfill the requirements for each of those definitions.

Now, some folks have argued for trying to establish some basic definitions for the page, and it's obviously necessary, but for some reason others are resisting it. My suspicion is that those "others" realize that they are actually arguing against the very idea that *any* definition of terrorism can include the actions of a western democracy.

At any rate, i would be perfectly happy if we were to change the title to "State Terrorism by the United States of America"; in such an event, i would insist upon the inclusion of "Sponsorship" as being a portion of the article, and would proceed to make it very, very, very long, with many, many historical references.

Now, as for "emotional involvement", a mea culpa here: i come back to this page only once every few days because i get very, very angry when i see how the edits are progressing, how the sockpuppets are overwhelming the boards with their comments, how my own carefully reasoned and composed resopnses have been removed from the page, and how the entire discussion has gotten diverted away from any semblance of facts or reality. So yeah, i understand how you feel. But i will keep coming back.

Maybe you should go look at the pages i've edited. I've taken on a couple of really ugly, bigoted pages and insisted on some key contributions that have eventually gotten accepted and have become focal points for the current state of the entries.

The key to success is simple: keep beating them over the head with the same facts. Don't relent. Don't back off. As long as the facts are there on the page, they *must* be included. As long as we insist on their inclusion, then the content of the page will fall into place.Stone put to sky 14:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

We have ideological similarties it seems, but our tactics are different.
You wrote: "Don't relent. Don't back off." We have to relent. That is the entire point of consensus. The one wikiuser who I am arguing with for months, his achilles heel, among other weakness is he doggedly refuses to comprimise, he refuses to admit he is wrong, and he refuses to apologize. Wikipedians don't like people like this, the ostrasize people who don't comprimise and build consensus. Travb (talk) 15:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
No. This Wikipedia is supposed to approach the truth of an encyclopedia; thus, there is no relenting on *facts*. To argue otherwise is thus to say that this isn't an encyclopedia, this isn't a set of reference pages, but is instead something else -- a political fantasy, a propaganda leaflet, a set of science-fiction playthings, or whatever. The only way to avoid that is to insist on the complete and unedited inclusion of all *facts*. To say otherwise -- to say, for instance, that one must relent on the facts -- is just plain, flat-out stupid fucking wrong.
Notice, however, that i didn't say there was no way to compromise. The presentation of historical facts allows for a lot of rhetorical leeway. I have said repeatedly i will compromise. However, compromise does not include disguising facts with misleading rhetoric to appease aggressive, bullying tactics by people who send armies across the globe to kill people they haven't seen, don't know a thing about, and wouldn't even bother themselves with if it weren't for the oil they desire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stone put to sky (talkcontribs)
The problem also is those on the left, such as myself and yourself (if I can be so bold to categorize you) are also unwilling to comprimise on some really minor things. I have always believed you can lose the battle but win the war. For example, changing the name, is a battle I am willing to lose, it is something I am willing to comprimise on, because I have seen first hand how effective a simple name change can be. Travb (talk) 15:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Look: saying the U.S. engaged in terrorist tactics during the Indian wars, during the Spanish-American wars, during the '80's in Nicaragua is not a 'minor thing'. If these things were taught in the U.S. school system -- had been taught when i was in the school system (late eighties) -- then the U.S. probably wouldn't be in Iraq today.
And like i said: i have no problem with changing the name. But changing it to "American Political Violence" is just watering the whole thing down so that nobody understands what it means. Political violence? That sounds like some sort of principle Republican think tanks use when they're developing strategy on how best to beat the Democrats at the next election. And how do the Indian Wars fit into "political violence"? Or the multiple massacres and concentration camps the U.S. used during its invasion of the Philippines? And how does that relate to the mercenaries that the U.S. supplied Croatia with back during the early years of their fight with Central Yugoslavia, the same Croatia that was flying the Nazi flag, and that started the whole ethnic-cleansing cycle of reprisals that eventually led to the Kosovo crisis? Did the U.S. initiate that violence because of "politics"? Can its supply of logistics and training to the Contras be well summarized with the phrase "Politics"?
When talking about the activities of governments, *everything* is politics, and some "political" violence is well justified; when the U.S. took action against Afghanistan, that was "political violence". When the U.S. fought WWII, that too was "political violence".
What you are doing by changing the name thus is watering down the term into something that is utterly meaningless and pointless and so negating the entire purpose of the page, which is to explain the relationship of the United States to its own definitions of Terrorism -- is it a hypocritical position? Does the United States live up to its own legal and moral rhetoric in that regard? Can we reasonably expect any nation to live up to that? By changing the name of the page as you intend, you make it ridiculously difficult for anyone to even formulate -- much leass find answers for -- those very important questions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stone put to sky (talkcontribs)
But those ideolgues on the left, many who share your view that "Don't relent." are refusing to comprimise on anything. That makes us look as bad as those who believe in the American Civil Religion, and are apologists for US actions abroad. I don't want to take the high road, build consensus, and comprimise on minor points so the major points are retained. Problem is that I am herding cats. Anyway, I need to go to school. I wish you would reconsider, but my dealings with other wikipedians makes me pesimistic. Travb (talk) 15:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Look: you are putting words into my mouth that i didn't say. I said "Don't relent on the *facts*." I will happily restructure the page however it needs to be, but the word "terrorism" should certainly be in the title, and *every* viewpoint represented. The changes you are planning on making to the page will practically eliminate any meaningful representation of ideas that challenge the current rhetorical mainstream in the U.S. -- and let me remind you, that mainstream is now responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis who did nothing except be born on top of the oil that portions of the U.S. business and political elite need to survive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stone put to sky (talkcontribs)
Please be careful what you write on the talk page (this is some advice I need to follow more often myself too). Don't alienate your potential allies and galvanize those who you are debating. I get angry too, and I often go back and take out much of what I write, or even (perish the thought) apologize for what I say to other wikipedians. Maybe another web blog would be better to vent? I vent on several other web blogs, to avoid those words coming back and haunting me later here. Travb (talk) 15:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Travis, this back and forth is a pleasure. I have no problem debating these things with you, and i hope you understand that there i harbor no hard feelings against you. However, your approach is typical of U.S. academics, and is a proven recipe for failure.
Do not underestimate the capacity of the U.S. public to assimilate unpleasant truths about their government. Now, in fact, is the time most appropriate for getting them out in front of people. Most of my life i have heard academics -- i myself am one -- argue that people need to be handled more gently, can't expect too much, won't accept ________. Unfortunately, it's all hogwash. What is necessary -- and nothing else will succeed in improving the current Stateside political situation -- is that the *facts* of the world be presented as completely and fully as possible, regardless of however painful or otherwise unpleasant they may be.

Politicians all my life have been arguing that they represent the only two extremes the U.S. populace will accept; if that is true, then i fear that the U.S. is doomed to fall apart quickly and violently at some point not too far in the future, because the truth of the matter is that neither pole of the mainstream U.S. body politic is capable of negotiating this new world we live in, and both have habituated themselves to reliance on military and policing solutions where instead frugality and moderation should be emphasized.

So while you would like to characterize me as some sort of "ideologue" or "extremist", i assure you that nothing could be farther from the truth. I have provided political counsel to Asian politicians on International Affairs, i hobnob with journalists from Jane's Defence Weekly, and i personally count among my acquaintances mercenaries, corporate leaders and other policy actors and makers. I am by no means "extreme" -- i am simply well-informed about the way the world is headed, and so long as the U.S. allows thickheaded, lowest-common-denominator types like George Bush and Dick Cheney to continue to influence U.S. political rhetoric then the place is, quite simply, doomed to a rapid and uncontrollable decline that could likely come much, much sooner than you or i envision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stone put to sky (talkcontribs)
Despite your impressive resume, IMHO you sound like an ideologue on wikipedia. Few people want to admit they are biased, narrow minded, anti-American, conformists, etc. (Disclaimer: I am not saying you are all those things, obviously you can't be anti-American and conformist in America at the same time. I am only using these adjectives as an example). That doesn't mean they are not. I am an ideologue too. There is no such clear cut distinction between an ideologue and non-ideologue. Instead we all fall on a scale. When a person does not understand a subject, or blocks out contrary opinion, there is only black and white. I think reality is much more nuainced.
You talk a lot about "facts". Yes, facts are facts, but the way different people synthesize facts is radically different. When you write long messages about fact x, you are intentionally or unintentionally leaving out fact y. User:Zer0faults and others like him will insist fact y be included in the article. Instead of weakening your argument, User:Zer0faults inclusions strengthens your argument. I wrote 90% of Phillipine-American War. It has stayed static for months, and was even mildly praised by a wikipedia watch site which never says anything good about wikipedia. This article is the end result of months and months of comprimise. Everyone is satisfied: The "flag waving Americans" are satisfied because Fillipino war crimes are included, the "peace loving Americans" are satisfied because American war crimes are included. I fought against both sides to get the article the way it is today. "peace loving Americans" didn't want me to include Filippino war crimes, but I demanded that they stayed in. Everyone is satisfied. And better yet, this wikipage, my wikipage, our wikipage is more convincing. I want to convince Americans that Americans committed war crimes in the Phillipines. A balanced article is the best way to do this. Balance comments on talk pages do this too.Travb (talk) 12:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Travis, an ideologue is someone who espouses an officially taught, carefully structured system of belief even when it contradicts demonstrable facts about how the world does/does not work or is/is not changing. I am certainly not that; ideologues do not move to a foreign nation and live there as an expatriate, making their way hand-to-mouth and adapting to the new rhetoric, language, and ideology of their environment. I have seen quite a few ideologues here in Taiwan -- in fact, most Americans i meet well qualify for that label, despite all their claptrap about being free and well-informed -- and they have a very difficult time gaining acceptance from the natives, here. People pal it up with them for the money and free drinks, flatter them with whatever inaccuracies are insisted upon, but as soon as the contract is signed they're packed onto the first available plane and sent back whence they came, with lots of laughter about how stupid and ill-informed they were.
As for facts, one simply cannot approach what aspires to be an encyclopedic reference with logical relativism. Facts are facts. For instance, it doesn't matter how many times one tries to deny it, but the U.S. sponsored a proxy army in Nicaragua throughout the Eighties, and advised that army to utilize terrorist tactics in their fight against the native government. Similarly, it's a matter of common historical record that U.S. generals ordered the slaughter of every "male over the age of 12" during a certain campaign in the Filipines. There are myriad more facts like that that can be cited; while it may be true that one person might insist that the Contras weren't actually utilizing what would properly be defined as terrorist tactics, what is undeniable is that they were coached, armed, and financed by portions of the U.S. government, operated with U.S.government blessings, and used such brutal and immoral techniques that it is perfectly understandable how many people around the world would categorically label them a terrorist militia.
The purpose of this page is to explain why some people consider the U.S. to be an exporter of terrorism -- *not* to explain why it isn't. Currently, the page is becoming an exercise is how to say something without using any words that accurately reflect the meaning of the authors, and that truly is pathetic. The page was introduced because many people around the world are convinced that the U.S. routinely sponsors terrorist acts, and has been set up to explain that viewpoint. While it is perfectly understandable that many people disagree, the proper response is to give them equal time to make their case against the assertions presented on the page, not to disguise the assertions beyond recognizability. Thus, the entire thrust of this current editing process is simply wrong.
Finally i'd point out that you never suggested renaming the page the "Filipine-American Political Disagreement".Stone put to sky 11:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Stone wrote: "Travis, an ideologue is someone who espouses an officially taught, carefully structured system of belief even when it contradicts demonstrable facts about how the world does/does not work or is/is not changing. I am certainly not that; ideologues do not move to a foreign nation and live there as an expatriate, making their way hand-to-mouth and adapting to the new rhetoric, language, and ideology of their environment."
We can continue the ideologue conversation if you like, but I a going to let it drop--no need to argue whether you are an ideologue or whether you are not an ideologue. I lived for 2 1/2 years in Ukraine, I completly did the same thing you did: "(I moved to a) foreign nation and live(d) there as an expatriate, making (my) way hand-to-mouth and adapting to the new rhetoric, language, and ideology of their environment." My wife is Ukrainian, my son is Ukrainian, and I have spent 4 years in America busting my ass to permenantly return to the former USSR or another country and never come back to the US. I readily admit that I am an ideologue, albiet an ideologue with a belief system which most of my fellow Americans abhor, except for those on the far left, (think Ward Churchill, Howard Zinn has become to conservative for me).
You wrote (I paraphrase): "(I moved to a) foreign nation and live(d) there as an expatriate, making (my) way hand-to-mouth and adapting to the new rhetoric, language, and ideology of their environment." The last four words are telling, just because you rejected the ideology of the US and adopted the ideology of Tawain, does not make you any less of an ideologue. Even if you did not completely adapt all of the views of this foreign country, and kept some of your own biases and value systems, you are still an ideologue in some respects. Like I said, every person is an ideologue, some of us more than others. Instead of considering some people ideologues and some people not ideologues, look at ideology on a sliding scale, instead of seeing it as black and white, see ideology on a sliding scale. Ever heard of the Kinsey scale?:
"The (political ideology) scale attempts to measure (political ideological) orientation, from 0 (exclusively a political free thinker) to 6 (exclusively a political ideologue)."
In otherwords, everyone has an ideology, even if it is a "0" on the scale. The only "0"s I know are probably in mental institutions. I would actually rank the two of us pretty high on the scale, albiet I think you are higher on the scale than I am.
Stone wrote: "...ideologues do not move to a foreign nation and live there as an expatriate, making their way hand-to-mouth and adapting to the new rhetoric, language, and ideology of their environment."
  • A few years ago they had an obituary in the Economist about an American who moved to China and became an apologist for Chinese ideology. The "Great Leap Forward" did not really kill people, it was a famine that did.
  • I wrote a whole page about many Soviet disidents who left the USSR and Predicted Soviet collapse.
  • Just recently an American moved back from North Korea who had played an American in many North Korean films, he had been in North Korea since the North Korean War.
  • My wife talks about American disidents who left America and migrated to the former USSR, she vividly remembers an American bum who moved to the USSR, he spoke about how horrible the US political system was.
  • American John Reed, good friend of Emma Goldman is the only American buried in Kremlin Wall Necropolis in Red Square. Reed embraced Communism and became a harsh critic of the US, dying in a Soviet hospital bed. The movie Reds is based on his life.
  • Hundreds of thousands of Cuba dissidents live in Miami and demand the overthrow of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro.
What do all of these people have to do with you? They also "move(d) to a foreign nation and live(d) there as an expatriate, making their way hand-to-mouth and adapt(ed) to the new rhetoric, language, and ideology of their environment." To say that John Reed, for example, was not an ideologue, is patently absurd. He simply rejected one ideology: American capatilism and democracy, and replaced in with another ideology: Leninist communism.
Stone wrote: "I have seen quite a few ideologues here in Taiwan -- in fact, most Americans i meet well qualify for that label, despite all their claptrap about being free and well-informed -- and they have a very difficult time gaining acceptance from the natives, here. People pal it up with them for the money and free drinks, flatter them with whatever inaccuracies are insisted upon, but as soon as the contract is signed they're packed onto the first available plane and sent back whence they came, with lots of laughter about how stupid and ill-informed they were."
I was always shocked to find how isolated American servicemen and embassy officials were isolated from the people they served. US embassy's actually discourage their empolyees getting to close to the natives.
In February 2006, I first flew over to Ukraine and their were three pompous Americans sitting next to me, highly educated nuclear regulators. They emboded the term "Ugly American". They were loud, arrogant, and egotistical. You could feel their disdain for the Ukrainians and their feelings of superiority. They were like three druken teenagers who had just gotten their drivers license and their parent's car keys for the first time. I was appaled at this behavior, and vowed never to be like this.
General Jacob H. Smith's infamous order, "Kill everyone over ten," was the caption in the New York Journal cartoon on May 5, 1902. The Old Glory draped an American shield on which a vulture replaced the bald eagle. Caption is: "Criminals because they were born ten years before we took the Philippines."
Stone wrote: "As for facts, one simply cannot approach what aspires to be an encyclopedic reference with logical relativism. Facts are facts..."
I agree with all of your examples (The actual order by Smith it is 10 years old BTW)--I wanted to say something before, but I felt like it was a minor error, and their was no point in brining it up and potentially embarrasing an ally.
I agree that all of this information needs to be in the article. But as I wrote before: "When you write long messages about fact x, you are intentionally or unintentionally leaving out fact y. User:Zer0faults and others like him will insist fact y be included in the article. Instead of weakening your argument, User:Zer0faults inclusions strengthens your argument." I am not arguing that your facts should be apologized away, as some American jingoists demand, I am simply arguing that if we give equal time to the opposing side, then the article becomes much more inclusive, believable, stronger and convincing.
I do not agree with the tactics of those conservatives who delete articles on Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America, and I will continue to fight them viciously. Their tactics are anti-encyclopedic and acedemically dishonest. I want intellegent conservatives to contribute to this article, not POV warriors.
I was in a huge edit war with the most intellegent and crafty conservative for months, User:Rjensen on the page Business Plot. Unfortunatly he used a lot of the same tactics that his less intellegent conservative allies use on wikipedia: delete large sections of articles that he didn't like. But on the other hand, he was an incredible researcher, the best damn conservative researcher I have met. Occasionally he misquoted sources, but IMHO he forced me to make the Business Plot page one of the better pages on wikipedia. All sides are represented here. Many historians views are listed. Thanks to User:Rjensen, this is arguably the best damn source about the Business Plot on the internet. Without User:Rjensen, I would never had been forced to confirm every word of this article. We need more User:Rjensens on wikipedia, not less.
Stone wrote: While it is perfectly understandable that many people disagree, the proper response is to give them equal time to make their case against the assertions presented on the page, not to disguise the assertions beyond recognizability.
Amen. I agree 100%. I will not allow the article to be "apologized away" by those who are offended by the facts. Although I allow equal time to others views, I will not allow others to delude my referenced contributions, unless they can show that my referenced contributions are incorrect with their own referenced contributions.
Stone wrote: "Finally i'd point out that you never suggested renaming the page the "Filipine-American Political Disagreement"."
Philippine_American_War#_note-1 "In 1999 the U.S. Library of Congress reclassified its references to use (the term Philippine-American War)." People have attempted to change the name to Philippine Insurrection repeatedly. If you can find US sources like the U.S. Library of Congress, which use the term "American terrorism", we can use this against those who argue against the term "American terrorism". But I doubt you can for another 100 years. It took the U.S. Library of Congress 101 years to change the official apologist title from Philippine Insurrection to Philippine-American War.
The bottom line is that we are in the minority. The vast majority of Americans, who also happen to be wikipedian editors are in denial. They will attack an American terrorism page repeatedly until they delete all of our work. I have seen it before, with all of the articles in the Template:AmericanEmpire series. We must tone down our rhetoric, or face the possiblity of all of our hard work being destroyed in a AfD. All I am advocating is equal time for all serious editors, conservative and liberal alike, to add their referenced material to a renamed Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America.
Thus far the tactics of the conservative editors on this page have been largely unacceptable. MONGO and TDC where the first conservative editors to break out of the "delete, delete, delete" mentality, and I praised them repeatedly. I have seen some wonderful comprimise by the other conservative editors recently. We have isolated the more radical conservatives, and are working toward real consensus and comprimise. I think changing the name would help a lot. Thanks for temporarily suporting this change. Best wishes, fellow ex-pat. Travb (talk) 14:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Arguments[edit]

(Comments deleted by User:Stone put to sky)

Now, as for the sockpuppet:
What you obviously failed to grasp in your readings is that i haven't yet provided *any* proof. In fact, i dare you to point to any place on the current page or in the current debate where i've even added to the current content. There is a simple reason for it (and one which you would have no need of me explaining to you, if you were capable of eighth grade reading skills and possessed a great enough sense of responsibility to properly use them): i haven't been given the opportunity, yet. All i've done is argue for a reasonable approach to resolving this impasse, and had my comments swept off the main page now once or twice thanks to the inundation of the discussion page with inane, meaningless banter and snide commentary that is obviously the contribution of multiple editors huddled together under the disguise of your single name. So i am under no illusion that i am debating a single man or woman, but instead probably some sort of political organization that works on this page in their off time (or is perhaps even paid to do so, as i understand some "think tanks" these days are now budgetting into their annual activities).
So it's no wonder that you have no idea what i have or haven't contributed to the page; it's obvious that, in all probability, the current comments i'm referring to weren't written by the same person who initially pushed my first postings off the main discussion page. So as much as i'd like to point out the stupidity and irrelevance of your current comments, i can't do so because i really don't think that the person who might respond tomorrow (if i let them -- please see below) will be the same person who posted here today, and so to engage in that sort of rhetoric is really pointless and merely distracting.
Now, as for providing evidence, that'd be easy enough to manage but the page is frozen. Moreover, i've noticed that it's frozen in a state that's quite amenable with Right Wing political sensibilities; odd, i think, how whenever Wikipedia freezes webpages they generally manage to do so in a manner that favors Right-wing sensibilities. I've seen it happen on too many pages to count.
But leaving that one complaint aside, i really don't see any reason to continue this discussion with a proven sockpuppet. If you and the people who work with you can't each use a single name and argue from a coherent position under representative pseuds then there's really not much point in bothering with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Zer0faults (talkcontribs)
User:Zer0faults wrote: What you keep suggesting is that all of your sources combined adds up to equal a accusation of state terrorism, however that is not the case, that is actually against WP:OR
Let me rephrase what i said above: I haven't presented my case yet. Don't know who you think you're quoting, but it ain't me and i really think you look foolish for suggesting that i have. The only thing i've weighed in on so far is the name of the page and the relevance of the current entry.
Since the rest of your comments deal with this imaginary me that you've created to try and bolster your baseless arguments, i deleted them. Moroever -- and please take this to heart --
I will consider *any* more postings to my personal page to be an act of aggression and initiate an ANI.
That's quite clear, now, right? So stay off my page. If you want to respond to things i have written, then do so on the public pages.
And, in the words of travb up there:
User:Zer0faults Please confine your comments to me atTalk:Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America, as you have demanded that I do on your talk page (after you demanded that the converstaion be moved to your talk page). Any further comments here will be "considered closed and will be ignored. Thank you for your cooperation."
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Stone put to sky (talkcontribs)
(later) Zerofaults:
This is the second time i have deleted those remarks from this page. I am now initiating an ANI. Any further defacement of this page will be greeted with the same response. I suggest you take it seriously.Stone put to sky 10:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I, travb, was the one who restored the comments of Zerofaults on your page, while I was Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages. I apologize.
Careful not to jump the gun, the last time I jumped the gun, I initiated a Checkuser and sockpuppet request against another user, Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America and it made me look like a complete ass. Zerofaults was the person who carefully showed by the page history, that I was that complete ass. I was eating crow and kissing ass the entire day, trying to remedy the damage I had caused, and repair the hurt feelings I had created. Remember: WP:AGF, something which I need to learn..... Travb (talk) 13:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

This talk page is a complete mess[edit]

Stone put to sky, please follow and abide by Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages. I had a really difficult time following who said what. Please comment below my comments. Instead of cutting up my comments. I have worked on this for 15 minutes and I still have no idea who said what. Can you clean this page up yourself? Because I am interested in the conversation. Use :: and ~~~~

Please sign all of your posts.

I have asked User:Zer0faults to do this also before, and he has ignored it. But I will not ask him to do it here, because I will not make other people's talk pages his talk page, nor will I answer anything he says on other people's talk pages, when he continues to delete my messages on his talk page, in violation of Wikipedia:Talk_pages#Etiquette. Travb (talk) 11:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You comprimised[edit]

I'll save some for you....

Talk:Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America#Survey

Wow. I can't believe my eyes. What incredible progress. You comprimised your postion. Yeah! Thank you so much.

I find that many of the lessens I learn on wikipedia, I can carry throughout my life. Maybe you have learned that sometimes comprimise is better that perpetual (infinite) war. This is something I learned here on wikipedia, among other valuable life lessons.

Another user who has had some of the same problems we have had, brought this to my attention:

You may also find this talk page of interest:

I have learned in life that the problems I have with other people follow me throughout my life. I can move, but my personality flaws move with me. If I have a problem with person x, I will have the same problem with person y.

I have also have found that when I have problems with a person, and dislike a person for some reason, usually most everyone else feels the same way.

Best wishes. Travb (talk) 11:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


Don't know what weed you're smoking, but i haven't compromised my position in the least. I said that i'll be happy to move to a more accurate page-title temporarily, but obviously that's on the condition that it's temporary and only temporary. Stone put to sky 11:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I'll save some for you.... :) Travb (talk) 13:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Can we agree on this title?[edit]

I cut and pasted this from User:Zer0faults page and Talk:Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America#Effects_of_name_change_to_.22political_violence.22_-_and_an_alternative_suggestion, slighty modified here:

I completely agree, makes for an article that contain lots of interesting content, removes allegations and seems encyclopedic. May get a bit large, but all together, nice work Travb. --User:Zer0faults 23:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank Lisa. Now if we can get Stone on board, I can request the mediator change the name ASAP. Appreciate your time ;-) Travb (talk) 02:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

How about this title?[edit]

Per your concern:

"Just so people are aware US Covert Operations would include domestic by its title, so it will include technically hundreds of articles COINTEL PRO etc FBI operations. It may end up being an article that then needs to be split up. --User:Zer0faults 03:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC) "

How about: United States international covert operations Signed: Travb (talk) 03:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

While "Covert Operations" may occasionally overlap with "terrorist activities", the two categories are quite distinct and largely don't overlap.
I oppose the name change. I'll explain in more detail on the public page. Stone put to sky 08:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You don't have email active[edit]

You don't have email active: Special:Emailuser/Stone_put_to_sky

Email me: Special:Emailuser/Travb

signed: Travb (talk) 15:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Allegations Commentary[edit]

Can you please stop adding commentary to the article, things like unfortunatly the definition doesnt do XYZ are highly inappropriate for a encyclopedia article. Thank you. --NuclearZer0 14:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

AMA[edit]

You made an request for assistance here. I'd be willing, but would like some clarification of your position and have asked some questions. Thanks. Trebor 00:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm willing to advocate for you. Would you prefer to communicate on-wiki or confidentially through e-mail? Trebor 14:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

That you are an advocate suggests you know better than i do on such matters, and as i have nothing to hide i'll be happy to follow your lead. Stone put to sky 14:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I e-mailed you. Trebor 16:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

RfC[edit]

I have opened a request for comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Seabhcan. Tom Harrison Talk 20:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Allegations of Sock Puppetry[edit]

(Miscellaneous stuff by M. Devonshire)Matt Devonshire2.jpgMorton DevonshireYo 10:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Refrain from being a sock puppet and i will. If not, then the label will remain. Stone put to sky 12:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

(More stuff from M. Devonshire) Matt Devonshire2.jpgMorton DevonshireYo 12:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep off my page. I'm not interested in your opinions or fantasies. You're not welcome here, and if you continue to deface my page i will initiated a formal complaint against you. Stone put to sky 14:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi again Stone[edit]

It appears like Nuclear has turned over a new leaf. Hopefully you will take his lead, and work on being a "POV diplomat" too. I would strongly suggest removing or editing your comments about Zer0 on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Seabhcan. Zer0 did not initate this RfC, and has written a very nice message supporting Seabhcan:Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Seabhcan#Outside_view_of_NuclearUmpf.

Watch and learn the way that those who are ideologically opposed to you talk and act. You can learn a lot from other wikiusers.

Your outbursts are eventually going to get you in trouble, especially when you go up against such a cunning group of tightknit editors. Travb (talk) 17:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries[edit]

Don't forget to use Edit summaries when making changes to articles.--MONGO 11:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

No Personal Attacks[edit]

Stop hand.svg

This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent personal attacks will not be tolerated. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This edit[1] is uncalled for. Matt Devonshire2.jpgMorton DevonshireYo 01:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Morton here. You are making broad accusations without any proof of sockpuppetry against several editors, not just myself. Take a look at what you are saying. RfC’s are meant to diffuse problems before the need for further action among users. Also, take a good look at who you are calling a page vandal. I’ll give you a hint – Nuclearzero. Please rethink this. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 01:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I would 'strongly suggest archiving your user page, and don't let comments on your user page make you say something you may regret later. Remember: be a POV diplomat.Travb (talk) 02:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)