User talk:Zer0faults/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Procedure on Talk Pages

I have been participating on some talk pages for articles that are highly motivated politically. Recently alot of comments are being made that are not about the article but more of political commentary, changing the talk page into more of a discussion forum on world policy then about the article. Am I allowed to remove these items and comments? Is there anyway or procedure I have to take to get the talk page cleaned up? I know there is a NPA tag, but what about comments where they are attacking an entire country? not discussion a point about the article, but bringing up things in the countries past to call them terrorists or hate mongers etc. Can i remove those as well and slap down a NPA tag even though its directed not at a person but all person from that country? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

We don't usually remove uncivil of political comments or discussion forum on a talk page. However, they are misusing the function of a talk page, its supposed to discuss about the article actually, not whatever you think. Regarding your concerns about them attacking the whole country, I am not too sure. But I believe its not right to insult one's homeland, as it can raise some misunderstanding. Btw, what article talk pages is it? --Terence Ong _{(Chat | Contribs)} 13:00, 11 Aug

Talk:2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict Its becoming a hot bed for commentary instead of discussion on the article. Its surpassed 10 archives already and the current page needs one as well, mainly because of people not actually speaking about the article. I have tried to tell people to get on topic, but new sections are created way too often to stay on top of it. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You could place {{Talkheader}} at the top of the talk page to discourage random comments. I wouldn't label them as NPA, as that can get a bit insulting as the person is just confused about Wikipedia. I generally don't remove the comments, I just tell the person to discuss their problem elsewhere. But if it is getting disruptive perhaps the random comments can be removed. I expected this to be discussed at Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines but didn't see it there. Essentially, I'm not sure.--Commander Keane 13:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The talk header is already attached to the article, however its mainly new users and anon users that are carrying on the discussions that do not relate to the article. Many times an anon will make a comment like saynig Israeli Soldiers are terrorists and then a whole discussion will spring from it of attacks and defenses, all the while none of it sourced or intending to do into the article itself. I could walk away from the topic, but that still leaves it a mess and someone else will have to attempt to clean it up then. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding references

I have been fixing up an article where the reference tag is used <ref> and the {{cite news}} inside of it. I noticed some people wikilink the name of the publisher/author and some wikilink the date, as well as the date being in different formats at times. For instance the date will be "07-28-06" or "July 28, 2006" or "28 July, 2006" My question is do items in reference tags get wikilinked and does the publisher / author get wikilinked? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No they dont. :p If you need technical help, give me a link to the page. SynergeticMaggot 17:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

But also, if you would like to do this on your own, you can review this: WP:CITE#How_and_where_to_cite_sources. SynergeticMaggot 17:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I will take care of it on my own and de wikilink all of the dates and publishers, thanks for the link. The article in question I noticed was 2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict. Again I appreciate your help. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. And if there is anything else I can help you with, stop by my talk page, you need only ask. SynergeticMaggot 17:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh wait. Those arent wikilinks, those are embeded html. You can find the info on the link I gave you :p SynergeticMaggot 17:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

In the article itself contains the wikilinks. For instance

<ref name="WTOP103GroupImage">{{cite news|title=Hezbollah Raid Boosts Group's Image |publisher=[[BBC]] |date=[[07-12-06]] |url=http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=500&sid=810114}}</ref>

Where both publisher and date are being wikilinked using [[ ]]. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah thats using citebook. Also covered in the link I gave. If you click on the link it should take you directly to the web site where the info comes from. I never use citebook, so I dont have too much knowledge on the subject, but it should be in the link I gave. SynergeticMaggot 17:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikilinking Dates?

I have worked on quite a few articles up to this point, and I notice many times an article eithe rhas its dates wikilinked by an editor using AWB, or has them removed by the same process. Is there a set standard that I can read or follow regarding dates in articles? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) is the set standard. Basically, you link when trying to get data preferences to work, otherwise you don't link.--Commander Keane 20:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It depends on the editor and which dates are being wikilinked and which are not. According to WP:DATE, full dates, like June 1, 2006, should be wikilinked like [[June 1]], [[2006]]. The same is true for Month Day combinations (June 1). Month Year (June 2006) combinations should not be linked. The area you run into editor preference regards the linking of years. Some editors think that years should never be wikilinked unless it is in an article that is important for that year (IE, the end of WWI in 1918), but even then only once. Other editors prefer to link years at least once per article, just to provide context. --Bobblehead 20:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the great feedback. I think I will take to the once per article mentality as context seems very important in understanding some of the world events and articles I edit. Again, thanks for the fast reply. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 21:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Ding Dong the Witch is Dead

Never thought he would go away. Congrats, my friend, for the long hard battle fought. Guess he couldn't take the fact that multiple folks didn't agree with his POV-warring! Cheers. Morton Devonshire^Yo

Broken Sig

As of your last archiving, the link in your sig broke. Just notifying you :). GofG _|^|_| Contribs 04:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 10:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Lingeron

Thanks for the email. Get mine? Shannon^{duck talk} 17:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I got your email, but it just said to email you back. Just let me know whats up. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You get your own section --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't let you know what's up here because of that Eye in the sky we talked about before. Some things can't be discussed here. They are important things. They are big, devastating things. I can't talk about them here for the safety of many including you and me. I don't know how else to tell you this. If things were different here it would be different but they clearly ain't.

What did you mean "You get your own section"? Was that comment to me? Shannon^{duck talk} 18:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

oh, duh. Gottcha Shannon^{duck talk} 18:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

And congrats on the dead witch! Shannon^{duck talk} 18:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I see the issue, you dont actually see my email address when sending mail through wikipedia. I didnt get that at first, I was under the impression you did. I will send you an email when I get home from work today. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes you are right. Thanks. Shannon^{duck talk} 19:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

How come you can edit Wikipedia from work but you can't send an email from work? Shannon^{duck talk} 19:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

That witch is not exactly dead. See here Shannon^{duck talk} 19:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Cannot check non-company related mail. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 19:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Dirka dirka. Jihad dirka. Shannon^{duck talk} 20:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Been watching too many puppet shows. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. LOL. Shannon^{duck talk} 20:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC) Plus, I know whatcha mean and all that I want to say may involve that puppet show thing.. Shannon^{duck talk} 20:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC) But it goes way deeper than that. Shannon^{duck talk} 20:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I will email you when I get out of work and we can see just how deep the rabbit hole goes. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

cool. Shannon^{duck talk} 20:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

nice job

Nice job on this edit : [1]. Took someone awhile to come along and notice you picked only part of the convention and misread it.--Paraphelion 10:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 10:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history Coordinator Elections!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 11!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 19:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Bumper Sticker

File:Israeli War Time Bumper Sticker.jpg

The tag says that this image is conveying Israeli domestic reaction to attacks. Shouldn't it go somewhere? Tewfik^Talk 16:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it should perhaps, like the summary says most likely in a section dealing with propaganda however. The section it was in was not appropriate. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

WoT

Template is unprotected. Circeus 20:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Help please

I reponded to your RfC two weeks ago on the Template of War on Terrorism by when I tried scrolling to bottom of the page on the 27th of July I could only get to section 40 of 42 of the talk page, so could help me to see what's going on. Aussie King Pin 00:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the page, had to remove the template it was messing things up. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Kelly Martin/R

I have read the user's statement, and my opinion stands: a user has created a silly page in her user space for the sake of it, and an admin has decided to take offense and delete it. After all, I have a few silly pages in my user space myself, and have registered a sockpuppet account which I use pretty much only to edit my user page (and one of its edits was mistakenly reverted as vandalism). Now that you know about it, what are you going to do? Have all its edits undone, the pages deleted, and the account (or even me) blocked? Or will you say "who cares" and leave them alone? - Mike Rosoft 13:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs deemed inappropriate by Clear Channel following the September 11, 2001 attacks

You've edited the article, now it's up for Afd. Finally! Consult your Wikipedia policy book, and weigh in! Cheers. Morton devonshire 05:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:WoT

Template:WoT has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Found this while perusing the contributions of the User:Soviet Canuckistan. And just in case.. It's not Template:War on Terrorism. :) Bobblehead 22:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Balance to google bomb miserable failure

I have created Great President and Waffles (John Kerry). Immediately it is under fire. You've edited Bush and Kerry articles previously so I thought you might be interested. --Tbeatty 19:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Rewriting WOT

The current article is highly inconsistent with several areas claiming the Iraq War isnt included and that other things like Chechnya are. It also focuses, as you said, on the critocisms rather than what it actually is. I have made a page on it under its namespace where we could try and put together a more cohesive replacement: War on Terrorism/Rewrite. Feel free to link anyone else to it that might be willing to help. ~Rangeley (talk) 18:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

AfD of possible interest to you

Hi. As you had strong opinions on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guild Wars articles, you may care to participate in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warcraft character articles.. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 03:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The voting was still open when I added my comment, sorry, it was not deliberate if that was the case. Shandris^{the azylean} 01:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election - vote phase!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will select seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of eleven candidates. Please vote here by August 26!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 12:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Graffiti image

This is the second time I need to post sth on your board and to be honest it's getting pretty annoying. I just moved back the graffiti image to where it was. I spent a lot of time creating the nice graphical introduction to the article and I'm not going to let a person who believes a swastika is a good example of graffiti move it only because ... yeah, because what? I just went through all your graffiti related contributions and want to say - with all the respect my friend - leave it to people who know something about it. Only because you like graffiti doesn't give you the right to mess around with their stuff. The picture is good and it fits the introduction so please leave it as it is and do sth constructive instead. Greetings.

Do not post here again, you are in violation of WP:OWn and WP:CIVIL. The image was moved because at 1280x1024 resolution its screws up the layout. Next time ask instead of being nasty. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

barnstar

Maybe you didn't notice, but I added a barnstar to your home page. --Zonerocks 02:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I am a little absent minded sometimes, thank you very much for the barnstar. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 10:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

yvw, I thought you deserved it, I also see you fix formats and edit alot of stuff, you have worked harder and pushed for more stuff then others. So I thought to give it to you. --Zonerocks 15:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Fixing unbroken redirects

Just as an FYI, unless a redirect is broken, Wikipedia generally does not want you to fix redirects like you did with this edit. But considering it was to a template, your edit makes sense IMHO. Just letting you know for future knowledge. --Bobblehead 15:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I was mistaken as to what double redirects were, never did a move before, and so I was at first changing all mentions to prevent any redirects. I soon figured out what the double meant and just fixed the redirects since it was becoming difficult to edit each article. Some required US to be specifically mentioned, some were wikilinks broken up with | etc. Again sorry about the trouble. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Editing Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America

If you look on the talk page, a rough consensus towards stating the reasons for any removal or replacement is forming. I would advise you to follow this guideline, as it will result in greater understanding of your reasons, and prevent anyone from assuming bad faith.

It took a careful long read and re-read of the reference for the cuba section to determine that you were right, that no alegations of state sponsorship was made. The US did put pressure on panama for their release and the article speaks of moral issues with that, rather than US sponsorship of their actions. Something akin on the talk page should help to cool the spirits of anyone who objects, which is the reason for this plan. We know that some editors may be tempted to engauge in edit wars, and a calm discussion openly presenting reasons is a good means to cool the situaton. LinaMishima 16:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The sources actually state that the US did not put pressure, just that people thought they did. The article needs a major cleanup and that should not be delayed simply because people want to argue if Chomsky as a sole source can link unlawful combat as being equal to terrorism. The article is filled with A+B=C logic that fails WP:OR. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 16:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You realise that without explaining points carefully and in depth, you are risking an edit war. Please, don't lump things together as "bad", explain each and every one seperately - this will help your cause. People believing that the US placed pressure on something is a valid reference for the suspicion of the US placing pressure. On Chomsky, he is one of the top 10 most cited scholars in the world. Finding peer-reviewed text to replace his current references with shouldn't be hard - and papers published in high-standing peer-reviewed academic journals are among the best sources possible. A quick search on swetswise shows up lots of papers on 'terror', we could possibly be able to use some of them LinaMishima 17:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Chomsky is not a lawyer, nor doe she hold a legal degree. Because he is a professor does not make him a lawyer. Furthermore the article does not state that Panama had pressure placed on it, both the US and Panama said they did not. Sure you can claim their is a conspiracy, but that will require even more sources and yet still does not fall under state sponsorship of terrorism. Telling another government to free 4 people after they been in jail for 9 years on immigration charges would barely count as supporting terrorism. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Because he is a professor does not make him a lawyer no, it makes him a professor, and then we judge him by his peer reviews and his current standing in his fields. And denial by countries of a speculation does not nullify the speculation - it provides a NPOV counterpoint to go with the speculation - it is not for us to remove one simply because of the other. However this is again diverging away from the point, especially as I had to agree with that removal, just not your involvement in the community process to prevent edit wars. LinaMishima 17:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

His field is linguistics not law. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

He's an interesting guy. Alot of families that immigrated to america before the 40's from eastern europe were communists and his family was one of them. He was a bit of a family rebel though-- rather than be a Marxist like his father and uncle he was black sheep and became a anarchist communist. He suffered some heated debates for that kind of free thinking over teh family dinner table I am sure but it was that kind of independent thinking that made him so open to the new ideas he lectures on today. THis is of course polite, dry sarcasm. What I mean to say is he hasnt had an original political idea since his father taught him to hate capitalism. Mrdthree 18:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Bin Laden

I know you are a busy man but I wanted to attach this to the opening paragraph of Osama Bin Laden:"UBL.. is a militant Islamist, a primary founder of the al-Qaeda Islamist paramilitary organization, a member of the immensely wealthy bin Laden family, and prior to his implication in the September 11, 2001, attacks he was most well known for his 1998 edict that Muslims should murder civilians in the United States and allied countries [1]." It seems reasonable to me but for some reason it gets a lot of reverts and nasty comments--sometimes more than two or three reverts. Any ideas on how I might get something like that to stick in the article longer? 19:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like all that information is already in the lead, the 98 Fatwa is the 3rd paragraph and the family mention is there as well. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 19:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Two old ladies lying in bed . . .

. . . one rolled over to the other and said Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InfoWars Morton devonshire 07:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Moved from talk page, as you requested

User:Rootology, User:Zer0faults is not making any positive suggestions about this article, and is only criticizing the work of others. He is repeating the same stuff over and over again. I have asked him repeatedly the following, which he has ignored:

1. How many historians would you like me to find? Give me a reasonable number, I will find this number, then I would like you to change your vote, since you will then have no basis for your vote. You complained about there only being 5 authors, so I asked how many more authors you wanted, you ignored this request, then you raised the bar, now the hurdle is historians. Now I ask you: how many historians do you want me to find? Are you going to ignore this question too? And I have no doubt when I find xxx amount of historians you will then complain that they are not reputable historians. I find the historians, then you vote for this section to stay. I don't find the historians, I will vote for this section to be deleted. You will not complain about how reputable these historians are, you will also not argue that these historians are not really historians. I find xxx amount of historians, you vote for this section to be kept. (User:Zer0faults we will not argue the reliablity of the historians: I find the historians, you accept the section) Travb (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

How can you ask for a reasonable number of historians if I do not know who they are, you are asking me to tell you a number yet the quality has to be shown right? Do you now follow WP:RS and WP:V. Maybe your historians are all from the a racial hate party, then me telling you, you need 3 more other then those would cause you say I am extending the bar. Each sources has to get weighed against WP:RS and WP:V etc. So no I cannot provide a flat number of unknown sources. Are you stating you will not provide sources unless someone gives you a target? —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Zer0faults (talk • contribs)

User:Zer0faults, this is your strategy: FIRST: I provide sources, it doesn't matter how many sources, because no matter how many sources I provide. Because SECOND: No matter what source I provide, you will criticize that source or you argue what the source actually says. It is a common silly tactic on the internet: never admit you are wrong. You have done it repeatedly with Chomsky. If I were to take out the Chomsky quote, would this be acceptable? Would quotes for the International Criminal Quote be acceptable? What in your opinion is a reliable source, you have talked a lot about what is not a reliable source, how about a reliable source, in your world, are law review articles, written by law professors and mentored law students a reliable source? If so why not? Travb (talk) 23:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF Again I already told you, present the sources and they will be weighed against WP:RS and WP:V. Asking for a set number and them being accepted regardless of if they pass WP:RS and WP:V etc would be against policy, can you please stop advocating this. If you have questions on what are WP:RS and WP:V sources as well as who qualifies as an expert in the field of law you can do that on the appropriate policy/guideline pages. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 01:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Would quotes for the International Criminal Quote be acceptable? Are law review articles, written by law professors and mentored law students a reliable source? Again, you are accusing me of not showing good faith.Travb (talk) 03:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

2. Please apologize to me for having bad faith. I have asked you too, and you have ignored this.

I assumed bad faith? I dont remember labeling you a deletionist and insisting that you are attempting to destroy this article and not providing anything positive ... If you have a personal problem with me take it to RfC, stop wasting the space of this page. PS I have asked you numerous times to provide sources, still waiting on them. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

In the spirit of building consensus, I would like to publicly ask User:Kalsermar to join me in condemning User:Zer0faults for not apologizing to me for refusing to apologize for his accusation of bad faith. Travb (talk) 23:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

File an ArbCom request I think admins will be interested in you calling for people to unite against a user on an article talk page. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 02:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, when backed into a corner, people often threaten others. (as you did below). I simply want an apology. A simple sorry. I am asking others to request that you apologize, so we can move on. We seem stuck on the same questions and problems, I am simply attempting to move on. Travb (talk) 03:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

You are now being ignored in all dicussions relating to this, you may not move on but you will not hold this article hostage while you wait. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 03:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

New question User:Zer0faults:

1. What is the dictionary definition of terrorism? Travb (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

When this becomes a court and your a lawyer, you will get to question me. But I am sure since you claim to know much about this topic you will know like most definitions it depends on the dictionary. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I ask you again: What is the dictionary definition of terrorism? You want me to answer your questions, I am. But I first want to know what is the acceptable dictionary definition of terrorism from you. Please answer the question.Travb (talk) 23:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

A wise user once said: "like most definitions it depends on the dictionary." --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 02:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

2. What is a good title for this page? Please answer above.

What Chomsky calls terrorism since so far two of the examples are just his opinion, the court cases that is. The cuba extradiction thing doesnt even state terrorism took place by the US or they sponsored it. How can I name something that is in such limbo for lacking sources? After we clean it up we can name it. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Signed Travb (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, I ask you the question: what is a good title for this page? Please answer above. Or by default do you accept the Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America, if you have no suggestions, and you refuse to give me an alternative, I will assume by default that you accept the title Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America.

I am still waiting for you to provide any positive feedback on this wikisite. Maybe to reinforce how you have not added any suggestions to this wikipage, I should start a ticker: it has been xx amount of days, and User:Zer0faults, has not provided one positive suggestion to this wikisite, and counting.

I will assume that for the time being, you accept the name of this site. You stated this yourself: How can I name something that is in such limbo for lacking sources? After we clean it up we can name it. Therefore, you are satisfied with the status quo right now. Is this correct?Travb (talk) 23:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The name of the site is Wikipedia, I accept this name as I have no control over it. Please refrain from attempting to badger the witness, Jack McCoy is screaming out objection adn you are not listening. When you want to have a discussion let me know, if you have a survey you would like me to fill out then please email it to me and I will put it in the stack of "internet surveys I have been spammed to one day fill out" Now if you are ready for a conversation instead of a silly attempted grilling, please let me know. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 02:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, when backed into the corner, people often make jokes. So you are satisfied with the status quo right now. I just got your vote by default, since you are too stubborn to answer a simple question and contribute anything to this article. Travb (talk) 02:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy, we do not vote here, please read up more on policy and guidelines to see why you are making no sense by stating you have anyone's "vote". Furthermore I make jokes because you think this a court, however when a poll is posted I will voice my opinion in the manner I feel, regardless of your assumptions of having my "vote". Now can we please get back on topic or do you have more cross examination you would like me to ignore. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 03:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Heh, nobody gets to grill anybody here on Wikipedia. Morton devonshire 20:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I was waiting for the cast of Law & Order to come out, where is Jack McCoy when you need him. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Morton, I would invite you to join me in asking User:Zer0faults to apologize to me for accusing me of having bad faith. Both User:Kalsermar and I have apologized for each other for similar accusations. In the spirit of consensus, I would welcome this. Further, were does it say on wikipedia you can't ask pointed questions to an illusive wikipedian who has never contributed one word to the article? I really don't think this policy exists. Travb (talk) 23:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Continue your attempts to start a cabal against me and I will report you to admins, please comment on the content not the editors. Also take this to my talk page please you are turning this article into a mess with your prime time soap opera accusations and attacks. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 02:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, when backed into a corner, people often threaten others. I have asked for an apology from you, for stating that I am an "American hater" and that I am not assuming good faith. you have failed to do so. Repeatedly. I am inviting all editors to ask you to apologize to me, as I apologized for calling your group the "d word". I would remind you to "please comment on the content not the editors." Travb (talk) 02:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Didnt call you an American hater, I stated one could call you one for taking offense, since the original posters comment was not directed at you. Please read more carefully and stop spamming this page with your cries for an apology you will not get. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 03:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

You've got a tough job TravB. Here is my sigh of empathy and a show of moral support. --NYCJosh 21:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I am on the verge of showing that these deletionist editors are illogical and possibly hypocritical, sit back and enjoy the show. Travb (talk) 23:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you just say you want an apology of me assuming good faith then follow it with "showing that these deletionist editors are illogical and possibly hypocritical", wow just wow. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 01:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Message to User:Kalsermar

You have been gone for a while, so let me update you: A lot has happened since you have been gone. I apologized for starting a sockpuppet inquiry on Morton, telling Tbeatty that he was not telling the truth, and also apologized to everyone for calling a certain group here the "d word". I then deleted the "d word" from most of this article. When I again ask for an apology from Zer0fault, for telling me during the AfD that I was not assuming good faith, he refused. When I ask him to apologize for calling others who don't support his view "american haters", he also refused. When I pointed out his behavior, he insisted and ask permission from everyone to move certain section to his talk page. I initially refused, but then I reluctantly moved the conversation to his talk page, to get past this road block.

So I have apologized for being a deletionist. Back to Zer0fault, as long I write something like this for example to you, I am okay:

WP:DBAD...Try not attack people giving their opinions, one can say you are a jingoist for taking offense.

This is a verbatium combination of two attacks of Zer0fault, except I replaced, WP:AGF and "American hater" with jingoist.

To drive home my point, how about this:

WP:-(...Try not attack people giving their opinions, one can say you are a imperialist for taking offense.

WP:AGF...Try not attack people giving their opinions, one can say you are a American apologist for taking offense.

Is this inflammatory? Of course. I do this only as an example I am not calling you all those things. That is why I invited you to help me condemn Zer0fault for saying this. Travb (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:POINT, I will make a note that you disrupted a article talk page for the last week to "prove a point" --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure why I am being addressed on another user's talkpage but here goes, I totally condemn your tactics Travb, your ongoing diatribes, you telling other users what to do, what to think and how to act. I suggest you cease and desist from doing so and stick to facts and discussing substance. It is also highly unusual and probably impeachable to try to set two users up against one another. Divide and conquer springs to mind here only, it won't work. Apologies to Zerofaults for using your talk page in this manner.--Kalsermar 16:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Zer0faults, I am not proving a point, I am attempting to build a consensus on the page. Unfortunatly there are some wikiusers who refuse to comprimise one inch. User:Zer0faults, WP:Civil try not to attack people who are willing to comprimise, who have offered numerous suggestions, who have backed down to try to facilitate comprimise, one can say you are a being uncivil and uncoroporative for taking offense. You also have a very interesting and selective view of what is dispruptive. Putting an article up for AfD without following suggested guidelines is probably the most disruptive thing you can do, yet you readily supported the decision. Deleting large sections of referenced material is incredibly disruptive also. Not apologizing for calling someone an "American hater" is distruptive too. Assuming right off the bat, someone is not acting in WP:AGF is disruptive also, and refusing to apologize at the time is also disruptive. Refusing to state your position clearly, despite repeated requested to do so, is also disruptive. Refusing to comprimise one single inch, is incredibly disruptive. Accusing me of (being disruptive, when you are disruptive) yourself, (is like the) pot calling the kettle black and all that.... Travb (talk) 19:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so eagerly condemn me, but what about User:Zer0faults? Wasn't it you who got so offended by me calling you the "d-word", wasn't it you who got so offended for me stating that your comments are "boarding on vandalism"? When User:Zer0faults stated that I was not following WP:AFD I cut and paste your response: Accusing me of acting in bad faith is not assuming good faith by yourself, pot calling the kettle black and all that.... I would appreciate you striking that part of your comment out with an apology as well., which was ignored completely by User:Zer0faults. I apologized to you weeks ago, struck out the sentence, and went on. User:Zer0faults continues to state that I am not meeting WP:AFD, that those who disagee with him are "American-haters" and refuses to apologize. So I guess the following statment only applied to me?: Accusing me of acting in bad faith is not assuming good faith by yourself, pot calling the kettle black and all that.... I would appreciate you striking that part of your comment out with an apology as well. "one can say you are a (hypocrite) for (applying one standard to those you disagree with, and a different standard for those who agree with you)." It is important for wikieditors to apply their interpretations of wikipolicy in a fair and even-handed manner.Travb (talk) 19:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

"I have been working days to show how you have a double standard. I finally have proven it." WP:POINT. Please refrain from this type of actions in the future. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 21:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL WP:CON for quoting so much wikipolicy, "one can say you are a (using wikipolicy as a weapon)", and selectively interpreting WP:POINT to fit your situation. Thank you for pointing this out. I have wanted to discuss WP:POINT with you, which states: Discussion, rather than unilateral action, is the preferred means of changing policies, and the preferred mechanism for demonstrating the problem with policies. I have attempted repeatedly to get your apology for your actions. In return I have gotten unilateral action on your part, and a failure to comprimise and build WP:CON--your actions are not WP:POINT, of course, but neither are my own. The cases on WP:POINT deal exclusively with editing wikipedia to prove a point:

In the past, many contributors have found their Wikistress levels rising, particularly when an issue important to them has been handled in a way they consider unfair. The contributor may point out inconsistencies, perhaps citing other cases that have been handled differently. And the contributor may postulate: "What if everyone did that?"

In this situation, it may be tempting to illustrate a point using either parody or some form of breaching experiment. For example, the contributor may apply the decision to other issues in a way that mirrors the policy they object to. These activities are generally disruptive: i.e., they require the vast majority of nonpartisan editors to clean up after the "proof".

In general, such illustrative edits are not well-received and are strongly opposed by those who believe them to be ineffective tools of persuasion. Many readers consider such techniques to be spiteful and unencyclopedic, as passers-by are caught in the crossfire of edits that are not made in good faith, and which, indeed, are designed to provoke outrage and opposition. As a general rule, points are best expressed directly, without irony or subterfuge. Direct statements are the best way to garner respect, agreement and consensus.

I have not used any experiments to wikipedia, I have not postulated "What if everyone did that?" and attempted to show how I am right by editing. In fact, the only disruptive edits, have been by yourself User:Zer0faults and others like you. Of course, none of your disruptive edits have violated WP:POINT.

Continuing to read WP:POINT down the page:

1. I have not "gamed the system"
2. nor do any of my actions reflect any of the 7 examples, which is dealing with edits alone.

I am simply emphasizing on the talk page that "one can say you are a (hypocrite) for (applying one standard to those you disagree with, and a different standard for those who agree with you)." Wikipedia editors must apply policy and decisions in an even handed, NPOV manner, to build a better encyclopedia. It serves no one to have some editors selectively apply their interpretation of wikipedia rules one way to match their POV, and ignore them in other cases. I have encouraged and fostered "discussion", repeatedly on the talk page. Please remember that: Discussion, rather than unilateral action, is the preferred means of changing policies. This includes disruptive deletions of referenced material, and selective interpretation of wikipolicy to match your own POV. Thank you for your understanding. I still await that apololgy. Travb (talk) 23:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Your comments on this page from this point forward will be ignored as you have already admitted you caused all of that trouble on the article talk page to prove a point. This page will soon be archived to due to the length of conversation here. Good day. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 11:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Morton devonshire is using a sockpuppet

Moved from talk page, as per request:

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Morton devonshire Travb (talk) 00:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

What a ridiculous assertion. I know you don't like me, but this sort of personal attack is beyond the pale. Further, it won't make me stop editing this article. I emphatically deny that I am User:TheOnlyChoice, and quite frankly I am tired of Travb's attempts to have me punished. Please run a checkuser on me and User:TheOnlyChoice -- go ahead. We are not the same person. As Clint would say: Go ahead punk, make my day!  : ) Morton devonshire 01:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

See the evidence here: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Morton devonshire including User:Tbeatty falsifying the history logs to make User:Morton devonshire appear like he isn't a sockpuppet. Travb (talk)

Perhaps you should apologize to Morton and Tbeatty for calling them sockpuppet and liar respectively. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 01:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I await you retracting your allegation made in the AfD that I am not assuming good faith. If these users are in fact correct, I will apologize. I have yet to see your apology. There is only one person who ever admits they are wrong between the too of us, and that is me. Travb (talk) 01:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I still do not know what you are carrying on about regarding me not AGF with you in the AfD ... As for these users an admin has already replied to you, please read edit histories more carefully next time. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 02:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

My I think I found what you been ranting about

We do not vote here, and try not attack people giving their opinions, one can say you are an America-hater for taking offense. It does not say POV-pushers are America-haters either, they are two groups being talked about. Unless you are assuming there is no such thing as an America hater. Since noone is being targetting in his comment I do not see why you or anyone here would take offense, its almost like taking offense if I say there are racists that participate in the KKK article ... That doesnt mean that all contributors are racists. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 03:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

This specifically states that only an American hater would feel like they were called one because the comment was thrown out and noone was targetted by it. I still stand by this, I do not know why you would take offense to a comment that isnt directed toward you or anyone in particular, stating that are American haters that edit Wikipedia, well if you want to say they do not exist ... that is a whole new issue. Please take your complaints off this page from this point on, this really belongs on a talk page for users. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 02:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF your accusations are not only baseless but pointless. Are you telling me I have to contribute to an article in order to say its a POV topic with no possible way to source it because its basically taking the word of 5 journalists? Please keep your accusations to yourself next time. If the article actually had some content and historians calling the incidents state terrorism it would fly, instead it has journalists some in OPed pieces as its reliable sources for stating something historians have not even been ready to state. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF Only one of us can admit they are wrong User:Zer0faults. I suggest that you retract this statment, which I have asked you to do several times in the past 10 days. Saying people are "American haters" causes the converstation to esculate into notes on Admins boards, etc. I will ask you only one more time: ARE YOU GOING TO APOLOGIZE OR NOTTravb (talk) 02:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Umm if I see something to apologize for. What exactly was I replying to? Please show difs not selective quoting. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 02:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Better yet take this soap opera to my talk page, as of this point any of this banter here will be ignored by me. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 02:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

When finally backed up into a corner User:Zer0faults steps out of the ring and quits the fight. "soap box" "ranting" "banter" What else are my comments? If my comments are all of these things, what does it make your comments? rational discourse? Bottom line, you simply cannot acknoledge you are wrong, and apologize. Please show difs not selective quoting. I cut and paste the entire section, were you attached WP:AGF. Since then you have accused me of acting in bad faith, for the past ten days. Unrelated to this, you have called other users "American haters", and you still back up these comments. Here is my apology for calling others deletionists, which I will not do again: I apologize for calling my fellow wikipedians deletionists. Now, can you please apolgize for calling your fellow wikipedians "american haters" I bet you simply can't do it. Travb (talk) 02:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

"backed up into a corner" sigh, my talk page please. I didnt call my fellow editors american haters, it was actually not a word I used, it was a word another editor used, did you even read the AfD page? I was defending someone else's comments. I ask you to show dif so people can see what was said before and after ... Again take this to my talk page and its not just you its all banter including my comments to the banter, its all not for this page, now stop spamming this page with your need to have an apology that I do not feel you deserve. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 02:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore you are now being ignored by myself, I will not address anymore of your comments at all, I just noticed your edit summary calling this a "fight" and your intentions have now been made clear, if you want a victory in your fight, then you have it as I will ignore anything not directly related to this article contents by you. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 02:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

True or false, did you make this stamtent: "We do not vote here, and try not attack people giving their opinions, one can say you are an America-hater for taking offense." Still waiting for that apology. Travb (talk) 03:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Zer0faults wrote: We do not vote here, and try not attack people giving their opinions, one can say you are an America-hater for taking offense. "One can say" Since you are writing this comment, this means that you are calling rootology an "America-hater". How about this: one can say you are an "deletionist" for taking offense. Is that acceptable? I have been working days to show how you have a double standard. I finally have proven it. Are you going to apologize for calling rootology an "America-hater"? Are you going to apologize for quoting WP:AGF to me? I have now apologized to people I called deletionists, and I have apologized to the person who started the AfD twice. He apologized to me once. But were is User:Zer0faults apology? Travb (talk) 02:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

A third party neutral just informed me on my talk page that I was incorrect. Looking over the edit history even closer, I was wrong. I await the results of the checkuser, then I will apologize to User:Morton devonshire. I was wrong about the edit history and I apologize.

Deletionists, TDC, and Mongo, please enjoy attaching this mistake to everything I wrote here and everything I am attemting to do, via guilt by association. I am well aware that this makes my credibility suffer. I hope that my future edits will help rebuild this credibility.

On a completly unrelated note, I have been waiting about 10 days for User:Zer0faults to retract that I was acting in bad faith. When User:Zer0faults wrote this, I had note done Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Morton devonshire, unless User:Zer0faults is a prophet who can see in the future, when he accused me of bad faith, he had little to base this on but the AfD. Both myself and User:Kalsermar have apologized for our behavior. I still await User:Zer0faults apology.

I want to apologize to TBeatty for saying he was not telling the truth. I was wrong, it was a grevious mistake, please accept my apologies. I have no excuse for my behavior.

I will close out Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Morton devonshire Travb (talk) 02:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

You have been acting in bad faith for sometime, when you show me when I was wrong I will apologize, use a dif and take it to my talk page, this soap opera here is just making a case for keeping this page look worse, you are being counter productive. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 02:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I wrote above: Deletionists...please enjoy attaching this mistake to everything I wrote here and everything I am attemting to do, via guilt by association. your behavior is so terribly predictable.

Here is your logic: One editor, (myself) launched an incorrect Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Morton devonshire so therefore the entire article should be deleted. Where is the logical connection User:Zer0faults? I still await your apology, and I still await answers to several questions. Travb (talk) 02:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I didnt say that your mistake should cause the article to be deleted, you fail at putting words in peoples mouths. I said your soap opera drama here is making you look bad, and it is. its only hurting the idea that this article is salvagable because rational conversation cannot even happen without you making accusations against people and calling them deletionists and violating AGF and touting of a victory of those deletionists and showing them as illogical. Try reading before commenting, dont analyze just read it for what it is. I am a simple person =), no hidden meanings. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 02:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Again take this soap opera to me talk page. Further comments addressing just me will be moved there. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 02:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology. --Tbeatty 02:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll just sit here and whistle and wait for mine, and pigs to fly. Morton Devonshire^Yo

Travb still thinks he can get a checkuser with no evidence and an admin telling him he was wrong. "I await the results of the checkuser, then I will apologize to User:Morton devonshire." --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 02:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone object to me moving this off this page as it reads more like a soap opera then anything else. I would like to move it to my talk page now as it contains nothing but Travb's accusations of users and his constantly repeated statement that he would like a personal apology. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 03:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Do not remove my comments User:Zer0faults I have clearly showed that you called rootology an American hater, and assumed that I had bad faith, by quoting WP:AGF. I apologized to the person who initated this AfD twice, he has apologized to me once, I apologized above for calling others the "d word" but somehow, no matter what, you refuse to apologize. I have backed you into a corner, and now that I have, you are attempting to move the converstation. I have apologized for my deletionists comments.

I want to apologize to Morton_devonshire for initiating Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Morton devonshire. I was compeltly wrong, it really was a bad mistake on my part. I hope you can accept my apologies. I really had no excuse for my behavior.

There, now User:Zer0faults has no excuse and we can now all kiss and make up, and move on.Travb (talk) 03:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Dude, you're forgiven. No hard feelings. Morton Devonshire^Yo

Now if we can just find a picture of a flying pig flying in a frozen hell. Travb (talk) 06:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Morton, you can be such a twit sometimes. MortonsSockpuppet^{Yes, I'm a handsome boy. You want to do me, don't ya?}

Afghan Civil War

I am trying to get some ideas about how to go about the rather confusing Afghan civil war, if you are interested your help in the area would be greatly appreciated. ~Rangeley (talk) 04:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)