User talk:Polarscribe/Archive 3

NOTICE: Unsigned postings may be removed at any time for any reason.

Archives:

• User talk:FCYTravis/Archive 1
• User talk:FCYTravis/Archive 2

The Status of Protest on Wikipedia

Wikipedia it seems does not delineate between freedom of expression and the right to protest and vandalism. Wikipedia is supposed to be a viable source of information. In my mind it must also be an "appropriate" source of information. But if we can't conduct peaceful, nonviolent protests on the texts of actual articles which people find disturbing (i.e. queef) what kind of message are we sending across to people who wish to protest but find themselves being blocked as a result of what editors consider "vandalism". I agree with the sentiments expressed by some that a template that has been termed as "nonsense" (Wiki-Protest) should be allowed in order for editors, WPs, and contributors to protest what they consider as harsh, racist, or inappropriate wikipedia articles in a manner outside of the normal spectrum for wikipedia. What do you all think about this? A friend of mine was blocked recently for participating in this kind of protest. -- Dominick_Turner

RFC/KM

You commented on Kelly Martin's second RfC. it is up for archival. you may vote at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Kelly_Martin#Archiving_this_RfC. CastAStone|^(talk) 03:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Snowspinner RFC

I saw your outside comment at the RFC AzaToth filed. I think the implied threat of a block was inapropriate... especially given that AzaToth has not in fact done anything wrong. In your statement you take him to task for using 'meta-templates'... but in truth he was actively working to remove a meta-template. The dispute has nothing to do with whether meta-templates should be removed or not. That was the goal of both AzaToth and Snowspinner. Where they disagreed was on how to go about it. On Wikipedia, when people disagree as to the best course of action they are supposed to talk about it and get other opinions. If they are admins they are explicitly not supposed to protect the page at their preference. Nor threaten users with blocks for no greater 'offense' than disagreeing with an admin. AzaToth wanted to create non-meta templates and redirect to them before shutting down the original to make the transition seemless to the users. Snowspinner wanted to just replace the original (apparently needless disruption is somehow a good thing)... and used page protection to enforce his opinion on that. As a result he has caused several hundred user pages to display the wrong information... including yours. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 21:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• It's not an implied threat, simply a statement of which someone would prefer. If a meta-template exists with no good reason for its existence, nuke it. ASAP. Especially if it's nothing more than a userbox. I really don't care if it "causes several hundred user pages to display the wrong information," even mine. It's a userbox - WHO CARES? Userboxes are not essential to the function of an encyclopedia, and they're certainly not any more important to me because I have a few on my userpage. If someone keeps reverting to a meta-template, Snowspinner has two choices: Protect the page, or block the person reverting. If I was doing something that was contrary to policy, I'd much prefer someone lock a page so I can't violate policy anymore than have someone block me for violating policy. It's a choice of two things, and Snowspinner took the path of least disruption to AzaToth. Honestly, tempest in a teapot. FCYTravis 21:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

  Sorry, but I couldn't disagree more. Blocking someone for trying comply with WP:AUM without causing disruption? 'Nuking' meta-templates on sight with no thought to the results? Both seem completely contrary to 'building an encyclopedia' to me. BTW, choice number three for Snowspinner... do nothing and let AzaToth remove the meta-template the way which doesn't break anything. I'm still not understanding why that wasn't an option. I just don't get the whole 'disruption is good' viewpoint. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 22:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

  Disruption to userpages is not necessarily good. Disruption of the servers with a huge, widely-used meta-template is worse. The servers are more important than someone's userbox on their userpage. Kill the meta-template and sort it out later. Breaking things that break the server is *good* because reducing load improves the part of the encyclopedia that actually matters - the articlespace. We are not here to circle-jerk around templates, we're here to write an encyclopedia, and if nuking meta-templates in userspace improves the ability of people to view and edit the encyclopedia, then nuke away. FCYTravis 22:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Constant Musicianforums reverts

I guess you have to give the anons credit for being tenacious? Joyous | Talk 05:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• The DVD player's skipping ;) FCYTravis 05:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Garneau User Group

in regards to Garneau User Group deletion. Once you have adressed my question on the delete page. Perhaps you may be able to explain, will making reference to WP:N, more specifically:your arguments for deleting this alleged non-notable article... (of course should probably prove that it's non-notable first!) For that you will need to demonstrate your subjective nature concerning notability. Is it merely an issue of defining a guideline? --CyclePat 21:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Penis censorship

I'm a little concerned about the attempts to censor the pictures on the Penis entry (as well entries of other anatomy). I've reverted the removal twice, but I don't want to run afoul of WP:3RR. The two users representing the "against" bloc have been known to rally support along idealogical lines (Roman Catholic, in this case). As an editor, I try to remain as neutral as possible and don't want to align myself with any particular religion or politic, but I do feel strongly about censorship. What do you think? OhnoitsJamie^Talk 18:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Eric Van article

Sorry if I am stepping on any toes here. I got your message. As someone responsible for much of the original content, I do not appreciate terming it 'patent nonsense'. everything I wrote is fact gleaned from either specific documented sources or years of message board trolling, message boards that van himself posted on. That said, I agree I put too much POV in it and probably could have sourced better. I will do some additional research and rewrite it at a later date. As it stands now, there is absolutely nothing to the article. Phantasmo 15:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Having absolutely nothing, on Wikipedia, is considered preferable to having an article full of POV and original research. There was no sourcing, and it was filled with all sorts of irrelevant and flat-out stupid bits, like "had stomach pains on a message board" and "is going to be considered for Commissioner of Baseball" - c'mon now. "Nary a man has possessed the depths of statistical knowledge as has the man himself Eric Van." - Yeah, right. C'mon now, you can do better. We don't care what this guy did on a bunch of message boards. FCYTravis 17:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I will attemot to rewrite the article as I indcated above. I understand your points. The headers were POV, and there was some poor sourcing. Not sure when I will, but will work on it at some point. That said, if 1/2 the article is sourced via references provided, and 1/2 is badly sourced via the original research you cite, maybe 1/2 the article worth keeping is all I am saying Phantasmo 19:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Having absolutely nothing, on Wikipedia, is considered preferable to having an article full of POV and original research. - Is this official policy, or your personal opinion? 84.66.184.74 18:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Official policy. Please see What Wikipedia is not, Verifiability, No Original Research and Neutral Point of View. All articles must conform with these policies and guidelines. FCYTravis 18:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for restoring that article :)

AfD Thanks

Please accept my embarrassingly belated thank you for supporting my RfA, which much to my surprise passed 102/1/1, earning me minor notoriety. I am grateful for all the supportive comments, and have already started doing the things people wanted me to be able to do. And hopefully nothing else... Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

InsideMacGames

Thanks for your help on InsideMacGames. I was half expecting an afd from rc patrollers, so it was nice to see someone come in and clean up the entry, thank you. I'll keep an eye out for you for other OS X projects as they might arise. Santaduck 08:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Clay Sun Union

Hi, where is the AFD page for Clay Sun Union please? [1] Kappa 08:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Article on Boze Hadleigh

User: Ted Wilkes seems to have started a new edit war concerning the content of the Boze Hadleigh article. You may have a look at this page and the related talk page. Thank you. Onefortyone 23:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

International Travels

Hi Travis, I'm going to continue what appears to be a fine tradition and pinch the code for the intl travels box :) Cheers! --kingboyk 06:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Direct Flights

I hear you. Elektrik Blue 82 12:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Crack addicts and police officers

hey there... I see you corrected the vandalism of Police officer (merging the Crack addict article back as it should be). Is it possible to do similarly with the talk page (which User:StrengthCoach has copy and paste restored)? Not the end of the world if the edit history for that is lost, but would be neater to restore it properly, if possible... thanks! _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 22:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Ted Wilkes

User:Ted Wilkes is still denigrating my contributions. He made this unfounded request for arbitration accusing me of having inserted fabricated information into the Nick Adams article and claiming that Adams and his wife were never divorced. This request was immediately, and significantly, deleted by a Wikipedia administrator. Nick Adams's divorce from his wife is mentioned on the following webpages:

• "... he had waged a long and tedious divorce and custody battle with his ex-wife, Carol Nugent... Nick won an expensive custody battle after proving that Carol was an unfit mother because she was having an affair with a fellow named Paul Rapp." See [2]
• "He had a troubled life, which included separating from his wife (but retaining custody of his 2 children)..." See [3] and [4]
• "His personal life was in turmoil as well, as he and wife Carol Nugent became increasingly estranged." See [5]
• "... unfortunately by the time he got back to the states it had already severed his marriage with actress Carol Nugent." See [6]
• "Married to actress Carol Nugent, and his divorce from her was expensive. However, he won the case, since it was proved Nugent had an affair, and he was given custody of their two children." See [7]

Here is the best account of Adams's divorce from his wife:

• "While appearing on 'The Les Crane Show' the following evening to plug Young Dillinger, Nick shocked audiences by announcing that he was leaving his wife. ... After that announcement, Nick's career and personal life went into a tragic free fall. Nick and Carol publicly announced a reconciliation a week later, on Jan. 19. ... Alienated from Carol, Nick fell in love with actress Kumi Mizuno and even proposed marriage to her later. ... Nick and Carol's reconciliation didn't survive Japan. At the end of July 1965, they decided on a legal separation. Carol filed for divorce in September. Nick was still in Japan when Carol was granted a divorce and custody of the children on Oct. 12. On Jan. 26, 1966, Nick and Carol announced another reconciliation on a local television show, 'Bill John's Hollywood Star Notebook.' It wouldn't last. ... On Nov. 26, 1966, Carol resumed divorce proceedings and obtained a restraining order against Nick. Carol alleged that Nick was 'prone to fits of temper' and in a special affidavit charged that Nick had 'choked her, struck her and threatened to kill her during the past few weeks.' 'I'm going to fight this thing all the way,' Nick said. 'I want to keep possession of my home and possession of my children.' It was the beginning of an acrimonious, contested divorce and child-custody battle. Nick became enraged after discovering that Carol's boyfriend was physically disciplining his children and telling them that Nick was 'a bad man' and a 'bad daddy.' Nick hired an attorney, former L.A.P.D. officer Ervin Roeder. Robert Conrad says, 'He (Roeder) was a very, very tough guy and he was a kind of man that was tough to like.' Nick got a restraining order prohibiting Carol's boyfriend from coming to the family home and being in the presence of the children. On Jan. 20, 1967, while waiting for a court hearing to begin, Nick was served with an $110,000 defamation suit by the boyfriend. Ervin Roeder's job was to wrest custody of Allyson and Jeb Adams from their mother. It was one he did well. On Jan. 31, Nick won temporary custody of his children. It was a hollow victory in his tug of war with his wife. Jeb Adams said, 'He saw it as a competition, basically, more than anything of getting custody of us. But, a matter of a week or two later, he gave us back to my mom.' She later regained legal custody of her children." See [8]

I do not understand what Ted Wilkes is doing now. Onefortyone 16:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

User:12.210.1.200

Please rethink you're indefinite block of the IP address above. It might be an vandal account but he might want to come back one day an edit in good faith. Can I suggest instead of indefinite, you extend it to about 6 months? SWD316 ^{talk to me} 04:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Violation of probation?

I think User:Ted Wilkes is now continuing edit warring and, together with User:Wyss as it seems, still harassing me. For their behavior, see the following Wikipedia pages: Talk:Nick Adams, Memphis Mafia, Talk:Memphis Mafia, Boze Hadleigh, etc. In my opinion, this may be a violation of the arbcom probation order which says that "Ted Wilkes and Wyss are banned from making any edit related to a person's alleged homosexuality or bisexuality." [9]. On the Talk:Nick Adams page, Wilkes again goes as far as to call me a "convicted liar" which is certainly a personal attack and unacceptable. See [10]. On the Memphis Mafia page, he has added a fabricated text to my direct quote from Peter Guralnick's book, Careless Love: The Unmaking of Elvis Presley. In the book, the original passage reads:

"Nick Adams and his gang came by the suite all the time, not to mention the eccentric actor Billy Murphy, longtime friend of John Wayne and Robert Mitchum..." See [11]

Ted Wilkes's version reads:

"Nick Adams and his gang (roommate Dennis Hopper, Russ Tamblyn, Red West) came by the suite all the time, not to mention the eccentric actor Billy Murphy, longtime friend of John Wayne and Robert Mitchum ..." See [12].

This is of much importance, as another source, namely Rona Barrett's autobiography, Miss Rona (1974), says that "Nick had become the companion to a group of salacious homosexuals." It seems as if Ted Wilkes, with such additions, tries to obscure the impression that the members of Adams's gang were homosexual. Wilkes has also repeatedly deleted two external links to websites concerning the Memphis Mafia, presumably because the content of these sites is not in line with his personal view. See [13]. He only accepts hyperlinks to external personal webpages he likes. This is POV and not O.K. Would you please have a look at the related pages. Thank you. Onefortyone 19:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Would you please also have a look at the Elvis and Me article. Ted Wilkes has added fabricated passages to the text. He has repeatedly included the words "Pentecostal", "virginity" and "slut" in the said article, thereby deleting the direct quotes from the book I had inserted (see [14]). The fact is that these words nowhere appear in Priscilla Presley's book, as an Amazon search proves. See [15], [16] and [17]. Therefore, I rewrote the said paragraph which included the correct quotes for many weeks. Now Ted Wilkes is continuing edit warring, as he reinserted his fabricated version of Priscilla's text and removed another paragraph including critical remarks by Suzanne Finstad about Priscilla Presley's book (see [18]) which certainly belong to the Elvis and Me article. It seems as if he is trying to suppress critical remarks about one of his favorite books. This is not acceptable and not NPOV. Onefortyone 23:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for quick deletion

Thanks for your responsiveness to the Mafia-related copyright violations. Nice to see someone who isn't afraid of the delete key. JohnRDaily 04:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Relentless Bias

From [WP:DRV]] "Keep deleted and plow a ton of salt under - There is nothing encyclopedic to say about this person, and the content of the article was essentially "ha ha look at this guy he's funny-looking and he's a sex offender, OMGWTFBBQ LOLLERSKATES." It's a juvenile and pathetic attack page."

This is an unjustifiable claim and I find it disgusting and hypocritical that you say this after your ridiculous tirade against the supposed lack of factual verification in the actual article. If you go to so much effort to make enforce verification on other people, how dare you make such ridiculous claims? I thought that administrators were meant to be pillars of the community, not detractors and hypocrites. --220.239.77.85 11:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation

YYZ means several things, so a disambiguation page is necessary. See WP:DAB. Deckiller 19:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah okay, you do have a point; the song is included at the top of the page. Okay, I'm officially neutral on this issue now :) Deckiller 19:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

And if we run across a third page called YYZ, for whatever reason, I think going to a dab page is good. I was simply following precedent set with pages like SFO and MCI - which redirect to their "most noted" meanings. If there's another way, perhaps those two should be changed as well. FCYTravis 19:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes Aimbots Are Notable

Software is notable, for research on cheating people will want to know about the only two colour aimbot's avalible and further information about cheating software.

I am expanding uppon the past cheating material please do not interfere.

It's like saying is Sub7 Notable?

Yes, it is.

Poking the brown starfish

Hey. You deleted Poking the brown starfish but neglected to close the AfD debate. Just a heads up. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 06:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• Hey, thanks, I didn't even see an AFD on it! FCYTravis 06:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of John Fine

Hi Travis. I see you have deleted John Fine. Responding to a speedy request, I had deleted (then undeleted) the article an hour or so prior to your deletion. You might want to consider AFDing the article instead. If you haven't already you should probably take a look at Talk:John Fine for the details. Regards Paul August ☎ 14:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Chooserr and date notation

Unfortunately User:Chooserr appears to be renegeing on his agreement not to change date notations; see, for example, this, this and the sad history of this article: [19]. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Kaiser Permanente article

Hi! Thank you for the improvements you made to the article on Kaiser Permanente. Unfortunately, several of your edits were reverted by User:Pansophia. Particularly, you'll note that she restored the link to her blog in the External links section...

I'm not quite sure what to do... Some of the edits you made, which she didn't restore, were important in making the article more readable. Unfortunately, I now stand accused of being biased, so I don't think it's appropriate for me to make edits to the article.

The article still needs your help. Please?

Justen Deal 11:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Sorry we had to meet for the first time under such circumstances, but I certainly need to let you know I appreciate your comments. I'm off for a break, one I obviously need.

My new flagship quote, to help me keep perspective:

"Care about what you write and articles you love, but be careful about caring for Wikipedia as a whole. It's like trying to feed the world; in the end it will only break your heart." --DanielCD 15:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Facebook

You moved Facebook back to Facebook (website) saying that there was "no consensus". However, the closing administrator on that vote was the one who moved the page. It doesn't really matter if the move was disputed because the article which they were disputing about no longer exists (it was transwikied to wiktionary). It is unheard of to disambiguate for a project page and a wiktionary page. Therefore, since there is no namespace conflict Facebook (website) belongs at Facebook. Could you please move it back? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 16:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

There's great potential for an encyclopedic article about college facebooks at Facebook. The fact that one hasn't been written yet doesn't mean we should remove that potential. FCYTravis 19:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there one day could be an article on facebooks. I don't agree that it would be a great article, though, or that the move removes the potential for it. It just doesn't seem like there are that many references that could be utilized/that much that could be said. I've started a new merge discussion at Talk:Facebook that takes into account that the old article has been transwikied. Even if a new stub is created for facebooks, it doesn't seem like the disambiguation page should be the primary page unless both articles are of comparable quality/notability. Since there are only two pages with claim to this namespace, one should probably be the main article and the other should have a dab notice prominently at the top of the other. Please weigh in on the move discussion. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 20:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Pansophia

I think you should be aware of allegations that User:Pansophia is making against you, both privately such as here and publicly at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Kaiser Permanente. I've been the target of sneak attacks like this before and I thought you should be alerted so that you can be prepared. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

There was nothing sneaky about it. I went everywhere complaining about that problem.--Pansophia 03:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The same can hardly be said of your jumping to the conclusion (based on his geographical location) that Travis has relatives or friends employed by Kaiser Permanente and your suggestion that this allegation could be raised against him to try and limit his ability to edit.[20] -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Brian Peppers

Jimbo has deleted this. Thank you for your advocacy and perseverance on this difficult matter. I have blanked some of the discussion from your talk page and its archive, among many other places, for reasons I'm confident you can appreciate. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like I'm going to need some help because some editors want to fight the whole war over again for each and every talk page deletion. I'm not going to do that. I do think it's important to edit out any content from the former article because it is going to show up in seach engines and caches otherwise, and I know from experience that many people who get to the point where they're complaining to Jimbo are not especially receptive to the "oh, that's in a discussion page, not an article" line of reasoning. You can help by looking at my contribs, my talk page, and the stuff that links to Brian Peppers. At some point we should search for references that don't link, but the search database here is way out of date and it will take time for Google and the like to catch them all, so that will have to be done later. Thanks again. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

...

what is wrong with my edits?? --Freestyle.king 05:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Jack Thompson

I had cut this down to a sensible size when I saw your note on the Admin board but someone keeps adding it all back - so get the scissors out! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper?) 11:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Justen

Hi, FCYTravis - is there anything that can be done about Justen's false accusations of sock puppetry on the Kaiser Permanente talk page? --Pansophia 19:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Abusive edit summaries

Hi, I don't appreciate you swearing at me in edit summaries, and I don't appreciate you abusiving WP:SNOW to delete articles which pass WP:CORP just because some other articles from the same source were deleted when no-one tried to save them. Kappa 14:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should have taken a closer look at the article before your knee jerked "omg keep that rouge deletionist admin is out to get u." The article you cited is about A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT COMPANY based in Colorado, and we have no available evidence that links the firm in Colorado with the firm in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. It's arguably libelous to conflate the two, given the negative coverage for the Colorado company. FCYTravis 19:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Um well would have been helpful if you had mentioned that thinking in a PROD tag instead of speeding it with a "fuck you Kappa" message. Kappa 19:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say "fuck you Kappa," Kappa. I said "For fuck's sake, Kappa." It was an admittedly obscene expression of frustration, not an insult directed at you personally. But no matter how I intended it, what matters is how you understood it - and really, I shouldn't have expressed my frustration in such a manner that would easily be misconstrued. My apologies for being both uncivil and for the unintended insult. Mea culpa. FCYTravis 20:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Travis you should do what I do ... only swear at yourself in edit summaries, i.e. when fixing a mispelling you just put in, "OMG I'm such a fucking retard". I actually had someone complain about that on my talk page though, telling me to be civil. Lmao. My response was to, "I'll curse at my own fucking self as much as I damn well please." Didn't hear back from him :-P Cyde Weys 19:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kaiser Permanente, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Lulu Lemon & PROD template

From the Wikipedia:Proposed deletion page "...If someone removes Template:Prod from an article for whatever reason, don't place it back. If the template was removed and replaced, the article will not be deleted. If you still believe the article needs to be deleted, list it on AfD." Please do not replace the template but you may want to list it as either a speedy or a AfD. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Ted Wilkes has now clearly violated his probation

User: Ted Wilkes has violated his probation, as he is continuing edit warring and has removed content from the Nick Adams page which deals with Adams's supposed homosexuality. See, for instance, [21], [22], [23], [24]. Wilkes also included some additional passages in the Boze Hadleigh article which try to denigrate this author who has written on the homosexuality of celebrity stars. See [25]. The arbcom clearly said that "Ted Wilkes and Wyss are banned from any article regarding a celebrity regarding which there are significant rumors of homosexuality or bisexuality..." and that "Ted Wilkes and Wyss are banned from making any edit related to a person's alleged homosexuality or bisexuality." See [26] and [27]. Wilkes also removed an external link to a Crime Magazine website which includes the best account of Nick Adams's life, presumably because this webpage makes mention of Adams's supposed homosexuality. See [28]. Onefortyone 04:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

David Quinn deletion

I respectfully disagree with your proposal for a 24 hour ban. Ringess has been somewhat off-put by the fact that most people are recommending deletion and has now inserted a template to prevent new users from voting. Her attempts to manipulate new users by the use of this template is misleading, given the 700+ revert war on the main page and the ABSOLUTELY ENDLESSSLY mindless revert dialogue discussion occuring between her and about 40 Quinn students. Rather than just to her side, look at what she has done to the pages and her commentary. She's writing an Encarta entry at this point...for a teacher! It's nuts.

Firstly, the block warning is in regards to one specific thing - you've got to not worry about the AFDNewbies banner. It's a bog-standard template that simply explains our deletion process, and has no binding impact on the closure of the AFD. I haven't had a chance to take a look at the article in detail, but someone who hosted 3-2-1 Contact (I watched that when I was a kid!) and won a Peabody Award seems to me to probably merit an article on Wikipedia. Whether it should be so detailed is a question for discussion. It's certainly not particularly of great quality at this point,, but the general subject appears acceptable. Work to improve, not delete, encyclopedic subjects. FCYTravis 09:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to be rude, but you really should look at both the history and the article and the delete discussion before jumping in on the side of Ringess, who clearly has some agenda, given the fact that she has been living on the David Quinn page all week. The insertion of the template, no matter how standard, was a purposeful manipulation of the process. And, to be honest, David Quinn could care less about the fact that some nut created a bio for him a few months ago. He wants it gone; if not gone, then at least correct. This isn't a fight to join this late, given the 700+ reverts, the three dozen people involved, and the fact that Commander Keane is involved to a great degree.71.197.148.37 09:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Then what's not correct about it? If it's not correct, spell out what isn't correct. FCYTravis 09:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I just left a nice message for you on the David Quinn entry. -DQ

And a voicemail.

Lululemon AfD

You recently voted in the AfD for Lulu Lemon. I'd appreciate it if you would reconsider your "delete" vote. Since your vote, I've added some information to the article and removed more of the "advertising". Would you revisit the article as well, as the comments that I made a number of entries below your vote. Thanks so much for your consideration. —ERcheck @ 23:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WebEx and Min Zhu case. Raul654 19:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey mate, sorry they were hard on you. If you made an error it was one I could easily have made myself - it's easy to be wise after the event; the real problem is with POV-pushers, the rest of us are often just collateral damage. That mop is heavy sometimes, no? Just zis Guy you know? 23:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

An "admonishment" is a small price to pay for the successful conclusion of a fight to ensure encyclopedicity and fairness on Wikipedia. FCYTravis 00:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Duke Nukem 3D page NPOV edit war

I spoke to you earlier on IRC about a certain malicious user who insists on performing edits on the Duke3D page which aren't NPOV in nature, and you told me to leave a note here if he continues; as predicted, he has done it again. Please look into this when you get a chance, thanks! TerminX 06:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi FCYTravis ! be sure you read properly all the Duke3d talk's page, especially the Link Change. If it is decided that 1 line is still too much, I'll remove it.

Edit: TerminX you can't talk about NPOV issues when what's stated is a verifiable and proven fact. For example, stating a given political party sucks or stating there is life on the moon is not a Neutral Point Of View. Stating Canada is the biggest country in north america or stating that MacOs is the 2nd most used OS is a NPOV, because these are verifiable facts. Thanks. 132.203.32.206 07:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit: This issue is about to be solved. No intervention required for now. 132.203.32.224 08:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Contact info on ytcracker

i didn't think the contact info was noteworthy but i didnt think i could delete it so i just rearranged it in a previous edit - thanks for deleting it though didnt really want it there anyway Ytcracker 10:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Brilliant DRV comment

You said in the Pokemon Kid DRV: "I think the meme inclusion guidelines should include no meme younger than one year, to allow perspective to build and "faddishness" to die away.". I think that's a fantastic idea, and if you ever propose it as policy somewhere, let me know and I'll gladly support it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Qantas SFO-YVR

Hiya, Travis! I was wondering if you had any further details on the planned Qantas service from SFO to Vancouver. All I have is the press release, and it has not shown up yet on their web site as bookable or on the travel meta-search engines like Mobissimo. Since the press release calls the Vancouver segment an "extension", I wonder if they actually have traffic rights SFO-YVR, or if the segment is only available to through passengers to/from SYD. I'm also going to ask on one of my airline mailing lists. (I'm interested for myself as well as Wikipedia, since I go to Vancouver now and then and it would be a hoot to do it on a QF 747-400!) Best, MCB 01:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• See this Web page. Qantas is offering tickets for sale SFO-YVR. You don't need "traffic rights" SFO-YVR because the US and Canada have open skies for international service. FCYTravis 02:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Wow, that looks like a pretty good deal -- thanks! MCB 06:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Question

I an image simply being an orphan grounds for deletion??? If it is what is the template? Thanks for your help! Flying Canuck 01:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

From WP:CSD: "Unused copyrighted images. Images that are not under a free license or in the public domain, which are not used in any article, and which have been tagged with a template which places them in Category:Orphaned unfree images (or a valid subcategory) for more than seven days. Reasonable exceptions may be made for images uploaded for an upcoming article. The templates {{or-cr}}, {{or-cr-nr}}, {{or-cr-re}}, {{or-fu}}, and {{or-fu-re}} place an image in this category."

If it's uploaded under a free/PD license, you'll have to take it through Images for Deletion. FCYTravis 01:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Gatekeeper

I don't know if your rewrite will stick - I think it will be reverted, or the NPOV stuff will be added back in. Esquizombi 22:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

He's right -- I did revert it, for deletion of information. But I would be happy to work with you to re-write it; as I understand it, Wikipedia policy is that it is better to NPOVize articles by adding balancing information, as opposed to deleting information. I'd like to suggest that we discuss it on the article's talk page, as per normal Wikipedia practice. --HK 01:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

And I reverted back. Said version is clearly not considered workable by editorial consensus - but instead of deleting the article, we're simply going to start from a stub. Add referenced, sourced information back to the stub and build it from there. It is much easier to keep an article neutral rather than try to change an article which is patently misfocused and arguably not neutral. The article as it stood focused far too narrowly on one alleged aspect of leftist gatekeeping, rather than presenting an encyclopedic overview of the concept of gatekeeping. FCYTravis 01:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Should the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gatekeeper (politics) be added to the talk page, or does the fact that the name is now different make that problematic? Esquizombi 01:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

sports wiki

Hey, I noticed your edits to the NCAA tourney page. You may be interested in visiting ArmchairGM, a brand new sports wiki. Lemme know what you think! --DNL 23:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Gaia Online subculture

I noticed you deleted it, but I can't find an AfD for it. You call it cruft, which isn't a speedy criterion. What was the rationale for this deletion? CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 06:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• Every single bit of it was unreferenced, unsourced and completely unverifiable from any reliable source. It was an essay, not an encyclopedia article. WP:NOT a place to write essays. Wikipedia is not a place to list every single thing ever done on an online forum. Utterly unencyclopaedic. So I deleted it. FCYTravis 08:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Katelyn Faber

Could you weigh in at the bottom of the Talk Page for Katelyn Faber regarding the inclusion of an image of her? User:Tufflaw, who unsuccessfully tried to have the entire article deleted back in December 2005 insists on censoring/deleting it for extremely specious reasons, and I've been asked to gather a consensus. Please read the bottom two sections of that page. Thanks. Nightscream 18:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello FCYTravis : ) Nightscream wasn't familar with WP:DR and brought User:Tufflaw in front of the arb comm without any prior dispute resolution. I saw the case and advised him to try other means to resolve the content dispute. I suggested getting a lot of input from experienced editors. I notified Slim Virgin, Guy, and DanielCD. We all think the image is not appropriate. If you are familiar to Nightscream, you might explain WP:DR and WP:BLP. FloNight ^talk 19:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

OneCone International

Hi. Just wondering why you deleted the OneCone International article? ZPMMaker 03:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• The article was deleted pursuant to an Articles for Deletion consensus, which can be found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OneCone International. FCYTravis 03:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)