User talk:Polarscribe/Archive 4

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

Archives:

• User talk:FCYTravis/Archive 1
• User talk:FCYTravis/Archive 2
• User talk:FCYTravis/Archive 3

Image copyright problem with Image:Midohio fcy.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Midohio fcy.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 14:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Tampa International Airport

Hey, how come you removed the Red Side/Blue Side airline listings at TPA? -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 22:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Because it's redundant to list every single airline at the airport twice. :) FCYTravis 03:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You're right, but it still felt more organized that way. I feel like the article just seems lacking now. Oh well. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs}

America West Express

• According to the Mesa website, the April route map for HPX [1] and USX [2]. Clipper471 17:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The Game (game)

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages or sections with blank content. It is usually considered vandalism, even when you are arguing about proper application of WP:V. Thanks Ashibaka tock 15:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I took a look and it's a clear content dispute. So please don't suggest or imply those on the other side of your edit war are engaging in vandalism. Let's keep things civil, alright? --C S (Talk) 16:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Oops, sorry... diffs looked like he was blanking the whole thing. Ashibaka tock 16:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

However, this is not a good use of edit summaries. Please try to refrain from making personal attacks. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

US Airways

I thought I had reverted out that call sign change. Apparently I still don't know exactly how rollback works since it stayed there. Vegaswikian 18:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

from thewolfstar

Hi FCYTravis, I've been involved in editing the Democratic Party (United States) article quite a bit for a few weeks. I went there just now and couldn't help but notice that there is a page protection on the article, and you put it there. Why did you do that? Can you get back to me when you get the chance and let me know? Thanks. thewolfstar 18:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Xeni Jardin

Probably removing content from a protected page is not going to be at all helpful for us to resolve this dispute. --Kickstart70-T-C 06:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• I am not interested in involving myself in the dispute. I am interested in immediately upholding WP:BLP, which states that we are to err on the side of caution at all times when dealing with articles about living people. There is no obvious reason why we should include a random bit of defamatory bloggerel written by an unknown person which cites no sources at all whatsoever. It is up to those who wish to include such material to demonstrate why Wikipedia should care that "the temple of me blog" wrote something nasty about Ms. Jardin. What makes "the temple of me blog" an authoritative source on such matters? Until such has been satisfactorily explained, it may not be included. I invite you to examine our policies and guidelines relating to biographies of living people. FCYTravis 06:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

  The problem is that you are seeing the messy result of an edit war, which left the page in even worse disarray. The phrase you removed "allegedly irresponsible journalistic practices" referred to a section that was ripped out earlier, which was about XJ mixing photos from the Minuteman Project with unrelated anti-immigrant posters, and not telling her audience they were from two-plus different sets of people. I have no problem whatsoever with you removing parts that violate WP policy or guidelines (though...just a thought...since it's protected, maybe that should be limited to policy temporarily), but those edits should probably not be based on the current, mangled due to edit war, revision. In any case, it appears that you did involve yourself in the dispute on the talk page, and not in the RfC where this issue is really going to be resolved. That, itself, doesn't help move this along. --Kickstart70-T-C 16:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello. You'll note my name signed below. I have a website. You've mentioned or alluded to my website twice seemingly without researching the facts for yourself. You wrote above: "There is no obvious reason why we should include a random bit of defamatory bloggerel (1) written by an unknown person (2) which cites no sources at all whatsoever. (3) It is up to those who wish to include such material to demonstrate why Wikipedia should care that "the temple of me blog" wrote something nasty about Ms. Jardin. (4) What makes "the temple of me blog" an authoritative source on such matters?" (5)

(1) What "defamatory bloggerel" have I written on Ms Jardin? Can you point to the "harmful and often untrue" information about Ms Jardin you claim I have posted?

(2) I am not unknown. Many people know and use my full name. Because I don't use it to sign my editorials does not mean they are anonymous. As a journalist I am sure you could find me to get your information directly from a source if that is your goal.

(3) In my editorial on the actions of Ms Jardin (and others) I cited every point I discussed. Did you read the editorial?

(4) "Something nasty" about Ms Jardin? Exactly what did I write that you consider "nasty?"

(5) The Temple of Me is not an "authoritive source" by Wikipedia standards. If you read the Talk page on Ms Jardin's article you would have seen the numerous times where I argued such. As soon as I realized someone had cited (and misquoted) my editorial I joined the Talk and posted that websites are not notible. Note that I "joined the talk." I never edited the article itself.

I would welcome any questions you have about my site, my editorial, or my posts on the Talk page. domoni 03:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

"Many people know and use my full name. Because I don't use it to sign my editorials does not mean they are anonymous." - this is nonsense, and you are not a journalist, you are a computer programmer or office worker who writes a blog for a hobby. If a writer chooses to use a pseudonym he absolves himself of personal responsibility for his work. If a writer does not have the courage to use his or her real name then that writer's words have very little weight or authority. Christopher Hitchens does not use a fake name for the sake of convenience, and neither does Noam Chomsky. Ashley Pomeroy 16:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Ashley Pomeroy? Isn't this the talk page for user FCYTravis? I have watched the past week as someone followed searches to my site. If that was your research I applaud your effort. If so, as I am neither a computer programmer nor an office worker it is obvious your research failed you. If you did no research then on what evidence do you base your claims? I am sure you would have learned a great deal more simply by reading my website or writing me directly.

You display a lack of understanding about identity, anononymity and pseudonymity. I'd suggest you start your research with Pseudonym. You wrote: "If a writer chooses to use a pseudonym he absolves himself of personal responsibility for his work." shows a misunderstanding between anonymity and pseudonymity. Your mention of Hitchens and Chomsky is merely Hasty_generalization. For a better understanding of identify in this era you might want to look into the concepts of informational self-determination and the work of Coyne and Wiszniewski.

FCYTravis is who I addressed and he has not answered for himself. I have no impetus to discuss my life with you. Your words don't give me the idea that you are acting to achieve understanding, but are merely arguing a point. And I happen to agree with Shaw's view on arguing. (Don't you find it odd that so many Southern Americans think that idiom is a regional construct?) I do wish you continued peace and happiness. domoni 21:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

DRV Review

An editor has nominated the closure or deletion of the article Sports betting forum for deletion review. Since you closed the deletion discussion for, or speedy-deleted this article, your opinions on this will be greatly appreciated. Regards, MartinRe 11:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for voting in my RfA!

Thanks for your comment, and for voting in my RfA! Much appreciated. The nomination did not gain consensus, but I'm really glad I accepted. - Amgine 20:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Pretenders Ernst August

Please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Ernest Aug. and constibute to the discussion there. I look forward to people assessing UE:should English be used in all these cases and how; would any sort of numeral be acceptable; what are the correct ordinals anyway; and Is there any other sustainable way to disambiguate these systematically. Shilkanni 11:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

KP article RFC

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Pansophia You showed an interest in Kaiser Permanente this RFC is mainly about that. Midgley 16:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

No posting of results of AfD

There is currently a second AfD for Prisonplanet.com. However, there is no notice on the article's talk page with the results of the previous one, shouldn't there be? I address this to you since you summed up the first one. __meco 09:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I put up the notice myself. __meco 10:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Les Aspin history deletion

I note that you deleted two revisions from the history of Les Aspin. However, you apparently missed the fact that the libellous information persisted in the article over several subsequent edits in a span of two months, from 28 March to 28 May. The current history of the article makes it look like an innocent editor added the information. Either the two versions should be restored, or all the subsequent edits need to be deleted as well. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the deleted revisions — there's nothing there that isn't found in later revisions as well. Feel free to re-delete, but please get them all this time if you do. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 03:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Dude

I swear I've seen your name before online. It's freaky. I'm thinking AXA, but then again I think a lot of things. I thought it would be important that I tell you this for some reason. --24.223.144.215 07:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Louisiana flag on your user page

Can you please replace instances of [[Image:Louisiana state flag.png]] with [[Image:Flag of Louisiana.svg]] on your user page? My bot was not capable of doing this automatically, since your user page is protected. Thank you! —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 02:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Your comments at User_talk:Pschemp

I see that you corrected my mistake at User_talk:Pschemp. At no point have the "sock" you pointed out and this account edited the same article, participated in the same vote, etc. Thus, I have never violated the wikipedia sockpuppet policy with these two accounts. Given that it is completely legitimate to have multple accounts if used appropriately, I wonder what purpose your pointing out this mistakes makes. I honestly do not want any trouble and made a seincere commitment to user:Pschemp not to cause any trouble. Why would you want to cause problems for me? Interestingstuffadder 12:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Matthvm

Can you elaborate on your decision to unblock this user? Let us accept that I chose the incorrect template for recommending deletion of the article Lawtons? Despite that, the user's behavior (as determined by two other admins) amounted to vandalism there. After having that page Speedy Deleted in large part because at the time the page contained only numerous hangon tags, the user then vandalized my userpage and then his own. After having a short two-day ban on main page edits applied, during that very window, in direct contradiction to warnings from administrators, the user proceeded to vandalize his own page multiple times. This led to a week long ban and the protection of his talk page. Yes, the user absolutely failed to grasp the dispute resolution process, but the process was clearly explained through the normal channels of talk pages and edit summaries. Examination of the history at Lawtons, the history at User talk:Matthvm and at my own main page should clearly demonstrate this. Kershner 21:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• It is highly understandable that someone not familiar with the arcane ins and outs of our policies, and not familiar in the least with how we do things, should lash out in frustration. Blocks are not designed to be punitive, but are designed to stop someone from damaging the encyclopedia. This user has never demonstrated any intent to damage the encyclopedia - only an extreme frustration with being prevented from making a good contribution to the encyclopedia. We must not be too hasty with extreme measures when users have demonstrated good faith and Matthvm's contribution was not vandalous but was an attempt to improve our encyclopedia. Blocking is a last resort and results in escalation and frustration, as we have seen here today. In my judgement, the causative factor of the user's behaviour was an overzealous use of the delete button and a failure to assume good faith on the part of established Wikipedia users. FCYTravis 21:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Matthvm has had a history of this, however. It is not about the Lawtons article (which I agree is notable), it is about his total disregard for WP:CIVIL, his repeated removal of warnings and his blanking of his talk page. I have been insulted and threatened with admin action by him before over a simple content dispute (when I produced 3 sources proving him wrong, he still called me a vandal). He may assume good faith, but is incapable of resolving disputes without drastic measures like this. He has had ample time to clean up his act, but still refuses to do so. Kirjtc2 21:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

FCYTravis, I have to support Kershner here. Matthvm has been removing templates from his talk page, and after being told to cut it out several times, he keeps on doing it. We weren't warning him to be punitive. By unblocking this user, you've completely undermined King of Hearts, AmiDaniel, Kershner, and me. Do you think it's a good thing for administrators to have an edit war? - Richardcavell 22:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

He removed templates from his talk page because an article he created was inappropriately deleted, and when he did something about it, he was rewarded with the template "blatantvandal," placed there by Kershner - is that how we respond to people who complain about an article they wrote being deleted? Matthvm was completely correct when he removed the db-repost template, because it was an inappropriate use of that template. An article that is speedily deleted may be recreated, and anyone then wishing to delete it should then use a non-speedy process such as PROD or AfD.

From WP:CSD: "In case of a speedily-deleted page (before invoking CSD-G4) they must also determine that it met a criterion for speedy deletion in the first place." The article in question met zero speedy deletion criteria. The author contested Kershner's claim that it was a vanity article, and per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, "If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead."

I think it is a good thing for administrators to make the right decisions, and if an administrator makes a bad decision it is incumbent upon other administrators to correct them. No administrator is infallible - we all make mistakes and that includes me. It is hardly an "edit war" to unblock a user who I believe was wrongfully and excessively blocked. FCYTravis 22:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Please excuse my ignorance if the following point is incorrect, but it was my understanding that the original creator of an article may not remove a speedy delete flag even if he feels that the tag was placed in error. Instead the correct procedure is to apply a hangon flag and explain the circumstances on talk at which point an administrator will make a decision. Additionally, it should be noted that Matthvm would not have received any kind of warning for adding a hangon, but repeatedly adding a dozen hangons is vandalism. At no point did I remove the hangon tag from his article, all I did was reduce them to one at which point he reverted to a state with many. Even had that been the only behavior, it was only when the individual began to take out his frustration on my userpage and on his own talk page that I sought administrative assistance. That should have been the end of the process, but instead, the very next day, Matthvm vandalized his own talk page in spite of multiple warnings and through multiple reverts. Your objection appears to be that this issue arose over an eventually valid article. It should be noted that the article was speedy deleted at least once with identical content before this issue arose at which point it was immediately reposted by Matthvm with no changes to content. It was for this reason that I mistakenly used the db-repost template. The article was functionally identical to the 10-sec earlier deleted version. This user deserved a block not exclusively because of his conduct at Lawtons but instead because of his conduct as a whole. Kershner 22:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I hate to continue this discussion further, but now that Matthvm has been unblocked, he seems to believe that his behavior is appropriate. As such he is going through my talk page and adding comments critisizing long ended discussions on deletions and urging others to report my behavior. This is in spite of a concerted effort on my part (see his talk page under Dispute Resolution) to make good and explain the process. Kershner 22:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
    • And he has agreed to stop (admittedly after testing my patience!) If he does it again, I'll personally block him. Here's the thing - I recognize where you're coming from, but this all has its roots in a mistake by us. Put yourself in his shoes - you've just written an article in good faith and it winds up deleted for what appears to be no particular reason. Ya know what? I'd be pretty pissed off too. If this had been a junk spam vanity article, then absolutely the actions here would have been correct. However, it wasn't - it was about a perfectly valid, important and encyclopedic article that was deleted out of ignorance or haste or whatever. Everything that happened here resulted from an inappropriate deletion action. If we had not failed there, none of this would have happened in this particular case. FCYTravis 23:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure how to proceed here. Is it appropriate for me to revert his comments saying "rv - Removed comments by Matthvm posted in bad faith." I don't want to cross the line, but I'd prefer if his aggression against me didn't spill over onto my talk page in every topic. While he has stopped for the moment, the uncivil remarks remain. Kershner 22:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree. Feel free to remove it all. I would. FCYTravis 23:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

PHL page external links

The problem with those links that I removed, and which you reverted, is that one is commercial, and the other is opinionated and nonencyclopedic. I don't want to get in to a revert war, but think hard about Wikipedia standards, and hopefully you'll revert back to my revisions. Thanks. Trevormartin227 13:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Neither page is commercial, and there is absolutely nothing in our external links policy which says we don't link to "opinionated" sites. The PHL Citizens Watch site is an example of something we should link to per "On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link." We have a prominent discussion of the capacity and expansion issues affecting PHL. We have links to the airport's point of view, expressed on their Web site, while the Citizens Watch link gives readers a chance to explore the point of view of those opposed to noise, expansion, etc. The "Wings Over Philadelphia" page offers "neutral and accurate material not already in the article... (with) a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article." The link exchange banners, etc. are hardly an "objectionable amount of advertising." FCYTravis 14:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Userbox

Hello. A userbox you are using (Template:User gay) has been moved to user space per WP:GUS. The new link is {{User:UBX/gay}}. The link currently being used on your page is a cross-namespace redirect and will not last. If you wish to keep your userbox, it is advisable to change to the new link. I would do this for you, however, your user page is protected and I cannot edit it. Thank you. —Mira 04:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Tom Van Flandern

Heh, I like it! Less is more and all that. I hope you do likewise with Jack Sarfatti, but I can predict that a sane appraisal of how many electrons these guys are worth will not stand. WP's processes tend to encourage growth over pruning. Tant pis, since as all real editors know, excision is their most essential task, not insertion. :-/ ---CH 02:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:Disambiguation Quote

Good find there in WP:Disambiguation in regards to Talk:Georgia (country). I think disambiguation pages are so much more useful than endless "battles of the continents" or whether, page hits, Google, etc. count! Another wonderful example is Talk:Syracuse that I'm involved in right now as well. This kind of endless WikiWarfare is ultimately going to cause a major rift in the cooperation and effectiveness in the Wikipedia community. -newkai | talk | contribs 20:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

British Isles

Just curious about that litany of citations on Talk:British Isles. Do you have a particular interest in the issue over terminology?--Shtove 19:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Apologies - I mistook you for another user who's already well involved. Thanks.--Shtove 19:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Georgia Move

As a past participant in the discussion on how to handle the Georgia pages, I thought you might be interested to know that there's a new attempt to reach consensus on the matter being addressed at Talk:Georgia (country)#Requested_Move_-_July_2006. Please come by and share your thoughts to help form a consensus. --Vengeful Cynic 04:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Forum links

I am just wondering why there is a personal attack on my links and you keep the other fan sites??? You remove my MediumTV.com site and keep the Medium-TV.com site that was created far after mine. My MediumTV.com and 2andaHalfMen.com were created before any other forums on the subject. They have the right to stay. If you remove my sites, you must remove ALL fan sites. That is only fair. The more I read the Wiki web notability rules the more I wonder how you are in administrator here. I went ahead and removed all the spam that you missed from the Medium page.

--EmmSeeMusic 11:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for updating Reform Party USA page

I apologize for inadvertantly participating in a revert war. I tried to keep my comments neutral, but it is dificult when I am somewhat partisan on this.

Your edits made the page more NPOV while retaining some of the elements I added. Much appreciated.

Please see my comments in the Discussion section of the RPUSA page for more background/info.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Reform_Party_of_the_United_States_of_America#First_Person_POV_of_current_RPUSA_situation:__Not_wholly_neutral

• No problem, I don't consider it a revert war at all - just two people working in good faith to improve the encyclopedia. The fact that you have a bias is OK - everyone has a bias on something. The fact that you acknowledge it and respect the idea of NPOV when editing articles you have an interest in is what's important. That marks you as someone I have great respect for, because it can be very difficult to juggle the desire to put what one "knows" is right, vs. the knowledge that we have to uphold NPOV. Myself included in that statement! Incidentally I just stumbled on the article through some other links, I'm not involved in the Reform Party. Your efforts to improve the encyclopedia are quite appreciated. Thank you for the kind words! FCYTravis 03:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

FairTax study

I noticed that you placed Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy under the section Revenue-neutral rate studies. Do you have a source for this? Was this a study by them or just a statement? If it is a statement, it does not belong in this section. If it was a study, was it based on the FairTax plan as written or did it include exemptions. Also, all of the studies presented are using the legislative framework as a basis for the rate calculation.. is this figure presented "exclusively"? The idea of phantom (government cost) taxation might warrant its own section. However, the calculation of these taxes is misleading as the current system calculates them. It is a wash but to calculate a revenue neutrality, you have to add it in. Though this may be a good discussion for the article. :-) Morphh 18:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed this entry as it was not an analysis of the FairTax but their own made up plan. If we exclude this, this, and this then the FairTax rate would be this. I don't think this is a fair piece to put in this section as it does not show the plan as written. If a section was written on "phantom taxes", perhaps it would fit there but even then I'm not sure what the point is... If we modify the plan to exclude the Government, the rate would be this. The plan does not exclude the Government, or churches or vets - so the point is moot. I think it is ok to criticize the plan for not excluding these things but we don't exclude them today from income taxes so I'm not sure what the point would be. Morphh 19:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Excluding government purchases is a must for rational discussion, because the government paying taxes to itself is just shifting money around. Can you tell me where the revenue is gained when the Department of Defense pays a 23-percent sales tax to the Treasury Department when they buy a new fighter jet? You don't get to exclude criticism just because it fails to fit your predefined notion of what the FairTax is. FCYTravis 19:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not excluding the criticism. I'm just saying that it is not how the bill is written. The bill says it is going to tax X,Y, & Z. The statement says "If you don't tax Z, the rate is this!". Let's just exclude Y too, and the rate is this. You can't make up your own plan and then critize it claiming that it is the FairTax plan. However, to critize that Z is taxed in the plan is an argument. Now to your question about the fighter jet (taxing Z)... The government currently pays employee income and payroll taxes just like any other business. You could say today that they are paying themselves. You are correct - it is a wash, they get nothing from paying themselves (today or under the FairTax). It's a big money shuffle. The problem comes when you try to do revenue neutral factoring. If I collect $100 today and $20 is the government paying itself. In reality, I would only need $80 to fund the government. So, the FairTax also collects from the government to get $100. Now the IETP screems and says that $20 is just paying itself (buying a jet) and if you remove the $20 you are only collect $80. Then they boost the FairTax rate (as now we're only collect $80) to collect $100. Nice shell game. $80 is all that is needed under the current system and the FairTax, however, they use Government when caclulating the current revenue collected but then don't count it when they want to calculate the FairTax. Morphh 19:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, you are excluding the criticism. It doesn't matter how the "bill is written" - the ITEP claims this, and you cannot exclude it just because you disagree with their conclusions. You may introduce a cited criticism of their criticism but you may not remove this citation simply because you don't like it. FCYTravis 20:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with their criticism. I also don't have a problem with them making statements based on their criticisms. They can claim all day that Government and Church services should not be taxed but it does not mean that get to make up FairTax rates based on excluding them. You are not introducing their criticisms in that sentence. What you are doing is just presenting the "what if" factoring. Where does it end? Exclude health care, food, government, etc and you get a 100% tax rate! Should we include this? No - it is not the FairTax plan! It's a made up national sales tax that does not exist. Your including a made up NSRT and presenting the tax rate for it. Yes they are criticizing the FairTax with taxing government but they are presenting a "what if" when discussing that rate. What if we change the FairTax plan so that they do not receive revenue from the Government, Church service, vets, etc. At that point, it stops being a study of the FairTax plan and becomes a comparison plan. It's not a matter of if I like it or not. I don't like the Gale studies, however, he presents a rate that is of the FairTax plan as written. In his articles he includes numbers up to rates of 60% when he starts excluding things. They are not included as they are not the FairTax plan. Morphh 20:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Read my talk please - your change does not flow logical. I think your doing what you accused me of.. moving it up for the reason of making it look bad. While I am moving it for the logical flow of the page. You are including an analysis to make it look bad. No other analysis is present in this section and their is no rebuttal. Morphh 21:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you know how hard I worked to get that GA? I spent many nights working on sources - look at the history. You just removed it because of a simple dispute. Not cool! Morphh 21:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

This article should be able to go straight to Featured Article Candidates once we resolve these disputes. It's plenty comprehensive, has some good illustrations (perhaps we can find a photo of a FairTax rally somewhere to illustrate the political movement?) and is fairly well-written - but I object to what I perceive is a POV. The Good Article requirements state that the article should be stable and not have an ongoing edit war. Well, we've got an ongoing (but civil) edit war/dispute, and thus it really shouldn't be listed thereunder. FCYTravis 23:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good - Just wanted to let you know that I replied to you on my talk page. I still think this is a GA. We had a couple reverts but I was making changes to it trying to compromise. There was little discussion on what we could do to make it better and work together on it. The article had very little changes in content for quite a while until your additions this week. I wouldn't call that unstable but ongoing improvement. Most of my changes were copyedits with exception of two points - the ITEP, which I compromised on, and the Tax panel quote in the rate section. My next thought was to keep the quote but address it in the next paragraph as critiques of the rate studies. I think this would have satisfied my desire for legislative flow and your desire to include the quote. The section will then grow as a counter point is included but I'm willing to do so if you think it would read better. I think you jumped the gun with removing the GA. Morphh 00:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thought I would toss this out to you since you identify as gay and might understand it better. Would it be accurate and or benificial to include a statement in the FairTax article that gay couples, for the first time, would be treated equally, from a tax stand point, as heterosexual couples? I don't have a source for it. Just information based on the rebates and such. Morphh 20:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Ionized bracelet#Ionization

Could you help me with this section? I see you removed the template I put there because I apparently wasn't using it properly. I feel that the entire section should be removed, actually, but I already deleted a similar contribution once, and I really don't like doing that. The section in question is poorly written, references no sources, and exists only to label QT Inc. as charlatans selling worthless hunks of solid steel. QT Inc. says they have a secretive ionization process, but from everything we know about ionization, this seems highly unlikely. However, it is not our place to call them liars in an encyclopedic entry. At least not without reputable sources.

What should I do? Should I just post the above argument in the discussion page and strong-arm any contributors who come along crying shenanigans? –Gunslinger47 07:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Remove my template then don't reply to me when I ask for suggestions? *sob* (:p) After searching endlessly though the Wikipedia namespace, I found the recommendation that moving the text of a contribution to the talk page is less harsh than a complete revert. I'll try that. –Gunslinger47 23:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been slightly busy of late and forgot about it! I think you're right, it just needs to be rewritten... we can't call people liars but we can mention that mainstream science says it's impossible to ionize metal and let readers decide whether they believe mainstream science... or QT Inc. I'll get to it later... for now removing it to talk is fine with me! FCYTravis 23:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Edited your userpage

Sorry for editing your userpage, but I thought it's better than leaving you with a redlink. Conscious 13:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Heh heh, DVC, eh?

Oooh, cool. So many people from all over the place, and here we are in each other's backyards. :) Luna Santin 20:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Why the Changes to RDU page?

Why all the drastic changes to the RDU page? I found it was easier to just list the regional partners than to have to constantly go in whenever an airline decide to change partners on a certain route. It also looked more organized and more informative. I just don't get it.

Also, why add the "Renovation" header if it is already covered under "Terminals". That seems very redundant.

I reorganized the regionals and destinations because it's generally our goal to list the mainline and contract carrier destinations as correctly as we possibly can - as is done on all the other airport pages. Every other airport article has them broken down by carrier. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports for our style guide to airport articles. If you think that styleguide should be changed, feel free to start a conversation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports and bring up your point of view. I spend quite a bit of time trying to keep the USAir destinations up to date... As for the renovations section, I didn't notice that it was already covered, my bad! Also, a tip: you can sign your posts by typing ~~~~ - it will post a signature. FCYTravis 03:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

RLDS

You rightly pointed out an overzealous comment on my part, and I removed the phrase you objected to on Talk:RLDS (disambiguation). I am not a lawyer and I do not speak on behalf of any organization with respect to Wikipedia. I am a veteran WP editor and fully agree that we operate through discussion and consensus. However, trademark law should be respected here just as much as copyright law. Think about this: if Company X claimed that Coca-Cola had changed its formula and Company X then marketed its own product as "Coke", I don't think WP would allow Company X to use "Coke" as the name of its product in an article. We would cite Coca-Cola's ownership of the trademark as the legal basis for our prohibition. --Blainster 22:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Coke is, as you may notice, a disambiguation page. We do not cite any legal basis for anything - our sole disambiguation policy is "What are the readers looking for?" A quick Google search confirms that the top several dozen results for "RLDS" are all related to the "Community of Christ" church - hence it makes sense that most are probably looking for said entity. That's why I redirected. However, Wikipedia cannot make any judgement as to the validity of claims to the term "RLDS," nor can we take sides in what appears to be a religious schism. If the initialism is applied to other groups, we must respect that situation and help our readers find those groups as well. That's why I created the disambiguation page. Remember, trademarks can vary from nation to nation - see Budweiser for an excellent example. FCYTravis 22:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

False semiprotect notices

Quote (from my talk page): Your placement of false semi-protection notices on Cilcain and Lores of Halkyn is not permitted. Please refrain from such behavior in the future, or you may face sanctions against your ability to edit Wikipedia. FCYTravis 23:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Acknowledged comrade. I was unaware, that with 'Lores of Halkyn' not being a published work (more really a story that appears in a section of the local paper occasionally) it was not eligible for having a Wikipedia article written about it. I would not object, therefore to the articles deletion, and I can assure you that my 'behaviour' as you so boldly put it, will not be repeated on Wikipedia in the future. Indeed, my humble contributions to the project, I can assure you, have hitherto been well received.

The false semi-protection notice was put up following vandalism on the guestbook to the website whose link I used as a 'source' for the article. I was afraid the vandal would 'strike again' on Wikipedia, and being a fairly recently registered user, was unaware that I was falsely 'semi-protecting'.

No offence taken,
Chris CTwells 23:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

While CTwells may not take offense at this notice, I do. Such an authoritarian and threatening tone is certainly not an appropriate or kind way to address what appears to be a mistake by a new user who does not appear to have ever had a conversation with another editor, has never been welcomed, has never been pointed toward relevant policies, and does not appear to have a good understanding of policy, as easily evidenced by the creation of these articles. Please try to be more civil, polite, and welcoming in such cases. Such a cold welcome could easily drive away an editor who, while confused and misguided, could have helped with editing articles on areas in Wales. --Philosophus ^T 05:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection notices are not something a newbie generally places on an article. I was factual, to the point and non-judgemental - all I said was, what you're doing is wrong and don't do it again, or someone might block you. There was nothing uncivil or impolite about what I said and no offense was intended. The message was gotten across clearly, firmly and respectfully. FCYTravis 05:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

richmond

hahha i thought i was the only person from our crappy town on wikipedia hahha Richmond, California was so crappy i like fixed it and shit, wanna help? Qrc2006 03:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Editing of comments on Talk:Yoshiaki Omura

I can understand, at least partially, the justification for your removal of what amounted to an unfounded personal attack on the editors of Yoshiaki Omura, but removing parts of a signed comment without adding a note of this is not an honest remedy. Not only does it represent User:Icaet as saying something other than what he actually said, it also makes Arcsincostan seem to falsely accuse Icaet of possible libel and personal attack. While NPA does allow for refactoring of comments, would you mind adding notification that you have done so (as I have now done on that page)? --Philosophus ^T 05:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Auto racing pic

There are a bunch of pics in the subcategories of Commons:Category:Touring car racing. Perhaps you can find a good replacement there? Since I don't know squat about auto racing (except a little F1 because it's on the Fox Sports World report which I watch for soccer news), I'll let you pick something. But you should be able to find an adequate replacement. Remember that WP:FAIR#Policy requires us to use a free image when one is available. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 06:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Richard Norton matter

I would welcome your input at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Block of Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

User:WILLIAM DAKOTA

Since you were involved in the contentious editing history of Nick Adams, would you please look at this editor's contributions? He might be a sockpuppet. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

A River Runs Through It

That blew my mind when I noticed the lack of an article. It's even got Oscars! I want to expand this one out a fair deal (if I can)... rootology (T) 06:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

My Userpage

• Ummm, thanks for protecting my user page, though I didn't ask for it, and wasn't told it was being done, anyways is there any way to allow just me to edit it? -- pm_shef 01:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I've unprotected it - sorry it went so long! I saw something in #wikipedia about a request to protect that userpage because of the very vile vandalism it was getting. I deleted those revisions from the page history. FCYTravis 01:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Thanks -- pm_shef 01:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Logos for Airports

--Golich17 02:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Logos do not "Gork" Up The Page

I'm trying to make Wikipedia easier to see and use. Logos show the paticular airline and help people to know which airline. They do not "Gork" up the page. I can't believe you said that. Gork is an inappropriate word to use. Thanks for taking my work away. By the way, I fly many times and paticullary from Detroit which you removed the logos from.

images

What do you think of a small additional images section at the bottom of the article, as the last section? I saw Padme_Amidala#Costumes this and thought of--perhaps 3-4 screen shots, in very small form visibly, that can be clicked on. It should fall under the banner of "fair use" but I've never seen something like this on a movie article. What do you think? Almost would seem to make sense for just about every movie article, as they're articles about a visual thing/medium. EDIT: talking about A River Runs Through It specifically, and others as well... rootology (T) 07:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Breaca2

Breaca2 appealed to unblock-en-l. Could you provide more information regarding this indef block? An indef block for a single contribution seems counter to WP policy, even if it's a vandalistic or libelous contribution. The block review was turned down on grounds that Sasquatch thinks they are a sock, but didn't say who of or who they're socking as.

We need some context here. I can't respond to the unblock-en-l email without some context... Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 18:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

NASCAR-bio-stub

I don't understand the basis of your objection (or reversion). The 'bot made those edits on the basis of double-stubbing, in one case, and on permanent category membership in the other, both of which seem very clear-cut. I'd have done the same by hand in both of those cases. The autoracing bios were significantly oversized until recently, and there was approval at WP:WSS/P to split along those lines, if the whole stub-type is what you have objection to. Alai 21:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• That's right, the 'bot's a big NASCAR fan (unlike me). As I said, in one case, the article already had a {{NASCAR-stub}} on it, and you reverted to that version, so I assume you think that wasn't misplaced. I'm missing how a article can merit both {{autoracingbio-stub}} and {{NASCAR-stub}}, but not {{NASCAR-bio-stub}}, and I've no idea how to adjust the bot's basis of operation to reflect such a belief (other than not running on the particular category again any time soon). Alai 21:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Correction: they were all based on double-stubbing on {{autoracingbio-stub}} and {{NASCAR-stub}}: I was just confused by the fact that in one case you'd done a straight revert, and in the other, you'd also removed the latter stub type. Perhaps the problem (if any) here is over-liberal application of the NASCAR stub type in the first instance. Alai 22:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

United Airlines and Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport

Thank you for protecting those two article... —Cliffb 00:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

BOT - Regarding your recent protection of United Airlines:

You recently protected[3] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 01:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

US Airways

-- We're getting a bunch of articles numbers all mixed in. There are three separate but related companies -- US Airways and America West Airlines, and US Airways Group each should only have information on its specific company.. —Cliffb 05:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

-- I think that the US Airways written annual report is more accurate than a route map. Plus it didn't say LAS was a primary hub; it said LAS was a secondary hub (like Pittsburgh), and the info box in the article is listing the secondary hubs along with the focus cities. So yes, LAS is a hub, but it is a secondary hub, not a primary hub.70.58.112.77 18:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

On another note...

Okay, so I'm enjoying the productive disagreement on the US Airways articles... But I also stopped and read your userpage, and well I'd like to get to know you a bit more personally.. So what do you think? —Cliffb 06:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

New anti-Semitism

Greetings FCYTravis, I noticed you editing there (and reverting :-) and I was wondering if you might take a look discussion surrounding the poster image at the top? Thanks (→Netscott) 19:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

sprotection on Comair Flight 5191

We need it again. An anon insists that Wikipedia is the ideal place to list every victim of disasters.--chris.lawson 02:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

LCC A321s

Travis, I'm confused as to what the correct number of A321 orders are. The press release said that they ordered eight new planes, plus converted 7 previous (A319 and A320) orders to A321s. For a total of 15 new A321 orders. I took the 13 that were already listed, and thats how I got the 28 A321s on order. Like I said on the USAirways talk page, I've got an email out to investor relations as to what the exact order count is.. —Cliffb 08:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Kyra Phillips

You have made an edit that could be regarded as defamatory. Please do not restore this material to the article or its talk page. If you do, you may be blocked for disruption. See Blocking policy: Biographies of living people. GRBerry 20:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not leave false and misleading warnings on my talk page. I know perfectly well what WP:BLP says. I suggest that you re-read it. FCYTravis 20:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I stand by my actions. I have read WP:BLP back before it was policy, and have had it open and been referring to it throughout my RFC respionse. Please do not attempt to restore any of this material to the article without discussing it on the talk page for the article and getting consensus from other editors that it adheres to the required standard. GRBerry 20:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove any well-sourced, cited material from a page unless you can prove that Southern Voice should be considered unreliable. I am filing a request for mediation in this case. FCYTravis 20:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead. I note that you continue to not go to Talk:Kyra Phillips and offer any justification for the claim that it is a reliable source or to offer an explanation as to why other editors and I are incorrect about the evidence to the contrary that we have presented. GRBerry 20:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you might get a faster response at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard if you want to try that in addition/instead. I don't know how fast either cycles. (Though this may be moot given the response below.) GRBerry 20:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

the Kyra Phillips article

Hey, As you know, I'm more or less on your "side" in this in that I don't see the need to do away with a criticism section. Even more specifically, one particular editor's assertion that a GLBT newspaper is inherently unreliable and biased struck me as ridiculous and a misreading of policy. His methods for changing the article were fairly disingenuous (changing the section title from "Criticism" to "Objectivity" and then attacking it for lack of peer criticism), and that didn't sit well with me either.

GRBerry's comments, however, seem to be pretty forthright, and he does make a good point regarding the fact that Sovo seems to lack a factchecking system (and if they have one, we can find out soon enough). GRBerry left a lot of the criticism section intact, and frankly at first glance it comes off as more balanced and neutral than some of the versions in the past 24 hours. Maybe his version would be a good compromise while other editors try to establish the high quality of the sources that were deleted.

Maybe I'm mistaken in my new assessment of the situation. All I know is that I have a newfound appreciation for how tricky editing bio articles is.--Birdmessenger 20:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean they don't have fact-checking? All one has to do is contact them - their contact information is here. That took all of 90 seconds. FCYTravis 20:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm referring to a system of checks and balances common at weekly papers by which someone (often an intern) gets copy from an editor, reads it, highlights every fact (names, dates, biographical details, whatever) with a marker, corroborates them all via phone or internet, and hands it back to the editor to make necessary corrections.

The fact that they do not list such a staff responsible for this in their masthead is what gives me pause.

Then again, maybe the fact that they don't have a factchecking staff has nothing at all to do with WP:BLP. If not, it would probably be good to explain why. --Birdmessenger 21:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That's called an editorial staff. They have an editorial staff, again as demonstrated in the masthead. Of course they don't have one person called "factchecker" - 90 percent of small/medium papers don't have a dedicated person to this because they do not have the funding for a huge staff and an ombudsman like The New York Times does. The newspaper I work for doesn't have a "factchecker" either - our editorial staff does it as part of their responsibility for editing the stories submitted by staffers. This doesn't mean we aren't a reliable source - it simply means we don't have a huge staff! I bet you the Point Reyes Light doesn't have a "factchecker" - and they won a Pulitzer! FCYTravis 21:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

If you feel like doing so, you should argue that on the article talk page. That would refute the one decent reason given so far for Sovo not being the high quality source required for bio articles. Just a suggestion. (You all should get some interns. You can force them to work for free, you know.)--Birdmessenger 21:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I have done so. It's just so stupidly simple - could GRBerry not have spent 30 seconds to find the MASTHEAD or ABOUT US links prominently displayed on the front page, listing their address, phone number and staff? It's not like it's rocket science here. Oh, and we all work for free. It's a student newspaper. :) Besides, as editor in chief, the last person I want to do fact-checking is someone who's inexperienced and unpaid. I'd rather do it myself, and do a better job. FCYTravis 21:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

US Airways Hubs

You can't just change an article because you "disagree." Your only "proof" of LAS being a PRIMARY hub is that the route map calls it a "hub." However the company's annual report further defines it as a SECONDARY hub, which it also does to PIT. Please stop reverting this article when I have cited proof.149.169.115.145 22:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Note that my IP address is different because I am at a different computer, but I'm the same person who's been citing the annual report.149.169.115.145 22:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Invite to Wikipedia:Libel-Protection Unit

Biographies of Living Persons WP:BLP requires a higher wikipedia standard since the Siegenthaler Controversy in December 2005. Articles like these involve WP:LIBEL and WP:NPOV It has been 6 months, and wikipedia still has hundreds of potentially libelious articles.

Many editors and even administrators are generally unaware of potential defamation either direct or via WP:NPOV. To help protect wikipedia, I feel a large working group of historians, lawyers, journalists, administrators and everyday editors is needed to rapidly enforce policies.

I would like to invite you to join and particpate in a new working group, tenatively named Wikipedia:Libel-Protection Unit, a group devoted to WP:BLP, WP:LIBEL and WP:NPOV and active enforcement. From your experience and/or writings on talk pages, I look forward to seeing you there. Electrawn 17:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Advocates for Children in Therapy

The material added is not original research and reflects material on the cited websites and the lack of material on same sites. regards. DPeterson^talk 18:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The groups in question do not cite ACT but do cite other groups in their work. DPeterson^talk 03:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

'You are misrepresenting the statement'. DPeterson^talk 14:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC) The information you are adding is clearly original research and an attempt to establish uncited, unsourced connections. Wikipedians are specifically prohibited from creating any new interpretations of evidence or drawing conclusions that have not been reached by other reliable sources. As such, your additions have been reverted. Please do not add them until you have reliable sources to cite which support your theory. FCYTravis 17:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The material added is not original research and reflects material on the cited websites and the lack of material on same sites. regards. DPetersontalk 18:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC) The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If you can specifically cite a report on one of those organization Web sites that explicitly rejects the group, do so. Otherwise, you're engaging in original research. FCYTravis 18:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC) I disagree. The groups in question do not cite ACT but do cite other groups in their work. DPetersontalk 02:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC) Sorry, that's prima facie original research. Please present sourced evidence that these groups refuse to recognize ACT, such as a position paper from the APA which says "We do not recognize the ACT." If you have no such evidence, cease inserting your unsourced original research allegations which could be construed as libelous. FCYTravis 04:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC) You are wrong on this point. The do not have to say they refuse to recognize ACT as that is not the point, the point is that they just don't recognize ACT use it's materials. DPetersontalk 14:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DPeterson"

What is being stated is that the professional groups in question do not mention ACT in any of their material in support of the professional group's positions. This is despite the fact that ACT seeks to influence such groups and has clearly not been successful in it's efforts. The citations provided support this.

Please stop reverting this article. As you have found out many of what your had thought were improper elements of the article turned out to be correct (for example, the term is AT not attachment therapy or Attachment therapy; and the Manual of Style does not prohibit links to other Wikipedia articles as this is done in that article)...Please do some research if you need more information about ACT and it's work. This will help you understand that the lines your object to are factually correct. DPeterson^talk 14:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The Manual of Style says that terms should not be repeatedly Wikilinked and that See Also sections should only contain articles which are not Wikilinked in the article itself. If the term is AT then you don't need to repeat the abbreviation over and over and over again - choose AT or Attachment Therapy and stick with it. All the parenthesed abbreviations are ugly. You cannot say that the group has not been successful in their efforts unless you have a reliable source which says so. What you are doing is clearly original research by claiming that you've looked at every single thing available ever done by these groups and that none of it mentions ACT. You cannot draw that conclusion from your own studies - you must cite a reliable source which has done it already. Otherwise, you're out of bounds on Wikipedia and you should take it to Wikinfo or Wikinews where POV and original research is allowed. FCYTravis 16:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop deleting the Also see section. I think your actions might actually be becoming 'vandalism'. Other points:

1. The style manual does not say that terms should not be repeatedly Wikilinked...The Wikilinks do not constitute 10% of the article and meet the standards of the style manual.
2. The quote uses AT and so to be accurte must include the actual words used.
3. The group has not been successful in it's efforts. The websites and articles speak for themselves.
4. What the other editor wrote is NOT original research and should remain. Reliable sources (the websites of the organizations themselves!!!!) are cited.

16:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not vandalism to remove a See also section which should not be there. It's not vandalism because our manual of style says that articles which are ALREADY LINKED IN THE ARTICLE should not be put in a see also section. Wikipedia is not a link page. That's what wikification is for. The style manual at WP:CONTEXT specifically says under "What should not be linked" - "The same link multiple times, because redundant links clutter up the page and make future maintenance harder. However, do link the first occurrence of a term." The Web sites and articles do not speak for themselves, you are creating an original research synthesis conclusion, which is not permitted. Cite sources which say XYZ, or don't say it at all. FCYTravis 17:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Show me where the MOS states that, I believe you are incorrect in your assessment. OK on the multiple links, I see you are correct on that. DPeterson^talk 17:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Warning

I believe your continued reverts to Attachment Therapy and Advocates for Children in Therapy may constitute violations of Wikipedia policy and maybe vandalism....please stop. In addition, I think you may have abused your admin priviledges when you put a block the page. Please stop your actions. Consider this a first gentle reminder/warning. But do continue to offer suggestions of improve the articles. regards. DPeterson^talk 17:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

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/Attachment Therapy, 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. 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/Advocates for Children in Therapy, 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.

Roadwar warning

I understand your perspective. But this is a warning, and my apologies that our first communication is so abrupt but here it is.... Figure out how to go along, NOW, without more arguing, or get blocked. I'm not kidding. Your points are valid, I admit it. But figure it out anyway. Everyone gets screwed here from what I can see. Set up the redirects to match the pattern and leave the articles the way they are, wouldn't that work? But figure it out. ++Lar: t/c 04:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? That is a highly inappropriate threat and if you carry it out, I will have you desysopped for abuse. There is nothing in the blocking policy which allows you to block me for carrying out civil discussion and debate. FCYTravis 04:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

answered on my talk page. let's stay threaded, whichever you like here or there... ++Lar: t/c 05:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Wishing you the very best for the season - Guettarda 05:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Redirects

Please see Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not change links to redirects that are not broken; thank you. --NE2 16:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

At least one link - US 40 (CA) - might redirect somewhere other than U.S. Route 40 in the future. As for the rest, can you offer any sort of reason as to why we shouldn't use them? Did you read the link I provided above? --NE2 20:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

So then we can change the redirect link in US 40 (CA) and point it to U.S. Route 40 in California once the article is created. AL2TB Gab or Tab 21:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly - but if we replace the redirect with a direct link to U.S. Route 40, we can't. --NE2 21:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

What you are saying contradicts Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not change links to redirects that are not broken. Also, according to Wikipedia:Piped link, avoiding redirects is not a reason to pipe a link; piped links are for when the text actually appearing is not the only meaning (like town names). --NE2 20:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It's an unnecessary edit that makes the page longer for no good reason. Is that good enough, or am I still being "an insensate policy wonk"? --NE2 20:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Why would one of these redirects be broken? You're not making any sense. --NE2 20:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Now who's being "an insensate policy wonk"? Both pages are pretty clear that there's no problem with linking to a redirect. --NE2 20:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

What helps the reader about your edits? The reader clicks the link and gets to the right place either way. --NE2 20:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Why does it matter if "they're bounced through the redirect title system"? The link works the same as a direct link. --NE2 20:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

So readers who hover over the link can see a complete preview title of the article they would jump into if they were to click on the link, rather than an abbreviation. Honestly, would all readers be able to interpret SR 42 (CA) ? They might go, what is an "SR" and what is "CA"? With the piped link, they do not actually have to click on the link, or possibly be misled by a potential malicious redirect. AL2TB Gab or Tab 02:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Clementine

Hi there! I saw some of the activity over on Clementine regarding the quotations. I and other editors have been trying to discuss this with User:CarolSpears, but she has not yet responded to requests to discuss before reverting. She's getting awfully close to violating the 3RR and other edits have been disruptive as well. Well, anyway, I just wanted to give you a heads up and let you know there are some other people concerned about her editing. I took a read through WP:QUOTE, too (though it doesn't identify itself as an essay, policy, or guideline... curious) and it seems to indicate that quotations like these should be sources of information for paraphrasing, not quotations. They're not unique quotes, not poetry about the subjects, and they are of low importance and would be better off as references for paraphrased info. Well anyway, have a happy new year! Best, Rkitko ^(talk) 20:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thomas de Waal

Hi. Could you please have a look at the above article that you previously edited? We need an involvement of a third party user, such as yourself, to keep the article complaint with WP:NPOV. Thanks. Regards, Grandmaster (talk) 07:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Fairbanksans R US

Just a hello from a fellow Fairbanksan and journalist. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Layout and copyediting. Just moved up here a week ago. JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

UCFD

If you are going to go through with that, you need to expand it, otherwise it will be seen as excruciatingly pointy. You also need to tag the categories. I'm likely not to involve myself in the upcoming bloodbath, but I'll have the popcorn ready. Horologium (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thought you should be aware

Your good name has been dragged through the mud. [4]. You've been falsely accused of blocking User:CarsGm5 because we have "a relationship." As this is my first ever contacting with you or even being on the same page as you, I thought you should be aware that you are being disparaged and because you were unaware of the issue and haven't responded you are being further accused of deceptive behavior. Sorry your good name has been smeared. I never would have contacted you had things not gone so far with User:DJS24. KellyAna (talk) 02:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleting talk pages to archive them

Is that really allowed procedure? It prevents non-admins from being able to view previous discussions. Kirkburn (talk) 00:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If you wish a particular thread to be resurrected for good reason, let me know. FCYTravis (talk) 00:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not that, it's just feels ... wrong. An admin especially should be accountable for all his dealings, so why delete the history? Kirkburn (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk pages are not permanent records of "all someone's dealings." FCYTravis (talk) 09:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

That is not what I said, I said "should be accountable for all his dealings". Deleting your talk page removes some of your dealings. Kirkburn (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Other admins can see it, and if someone has a good reason for me to dig up and repost a particular thread, I'll be happy to provide relevant information. I surmise that you're looking for, in particular, our past discussion about the Pete Doherty article. If you'd like me to repost it in an archive, let me know. There's way too much tripe vandalism in there for me to simply undelete it. FCYTravis (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I'm not bothered about the Pete Doherty thingy. It was just that since we chatted on here I noticed you did the delete thing, so I just wanted to enquire about that, one wiki admin to another (I admin on the WoWWiki). Kirkburn (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI, you actually are not supposed to delete your talk page, and many admins have been forced to restored their talk histories. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Caltrop's talk page: Forced merge and restoration appropriate? for the most recent case. Also, it really shouldn't be semi-protected. - auburnpilot talk 21:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know how you feel. FCYTravis (talk) 08:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not how I feel it's policy. I'm not going to run off to AN/I and complain over your talk page history, but the protection must be removed. - auburnpilot talk 18:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Not going to happen unless ArbCom tells me to - and if that happens, I quit the project. I don't have the time to waste babysitting this page from vandalism. FCYTravis (talk) 19:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

So you are refusing to follow the protection policy unless the ArbCom tells you to? That's absurd. - auburnpilot talk 19:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You want to babysit this page from anon IP crap? Thought not. Thank you, come again. FCYTravis (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This page is already on my watchlist. It is specifically against policy to preemptively semi-protect your talk page, as well as to protect it indefinitely. Please remove the protection. - auburnpilot talk 19:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't care if it's on your watchlist. I do not want anon IP crap on this page.

Every time I get anon IP shite here, I have to delete the page and start from scratch again. There's no way I'm going to go through and individually select eleventy squillion good edits to undelete. So the semi-protection that you're complaining about, keeps the talk page history problem that you're complaining about from being worse. Choose one to be annoyed about.

This place is not worth me wasting my time, and if I have to babysit this page again, I'm just going to quit. So go ahead and get worked up about it - either way is fine with me. FCYTravis (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I can view your deleted history, and going back 2 years there are maybe 25 edits from IP editors. From what I can tell, only once were those edits reverted. I don't want to see any contributor quit, but if you think threating to quit the project will allow you to violate policy, think again. This place isn't your personal play thing, and everyone, including admins, must follow policy. Also, maybe give Wikipedia:Civility a read. - auburnpilot talk 19:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

They weren't reverted because I just deleted the page. And the obligatory "ZOMG UNCIVIL" reference. How condescending. Please go away. FCYTravis (talk) 19:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#FCYTravis. - auburnpilot talk 19:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Per AuburnPilot and my comment at AN/I [5] I feel you should unprotect your talk page, until a legitimate reason is needed, and undelete so non-administrators can review the history of your talk page. — Save_Us † 20:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Pete Doherty

What compromise? It must have been a secret one, as I didn't see any evidence of a discussion. And yes, I will be filing with DRV. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 03:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks like deletion won't be overturned. Would you mind e-mailing the text to me through my Wiki-linked e-mail? I'd like to have it for myself. I won't repost it or anything. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 04:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy to. FCYTravis (talk) 18:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Salon.com

I just posted this edit to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard mentioning Talk:Salon.com/as a source for Wikipedia. I feel there is some possibility that you may wish to continue the discussion. If so I would ask that we take the conversation someplace other then Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Question_regarding_Orson_Scott_Card I think we can both agree that in any case that argument needs at least one good reference beyond the one at Salon.com and our discussion will not be helpful to the involved parties at the notice board on Card. Jeepday (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Feedback action

Per your feedback, I've condensed it (at least visually). Thoughts? — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Award of a Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		The Barnstar of Diligence is hereby awarded in recognition of extraordinary scrutiny, precision, and community service, especially with regard to biographies of living persons. Awarded by Addhoc (talk) 17:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Graphic Request

I love the graphic you use of US States you have visited and would like to politely ask your permission to copy and modify it as applicable for use on my user page, with credit to you of course. Thank you. Civilengtiger (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Vicki Iseman

Is this a decision by an administrator or an editor interrupting the attempt at consensus on the discussion page? ∴ Therefore | talk 19:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I apologize -- I spoke too soon. You did the right thing. ∴ Therefore | talk 19:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Category:Rouge admins

Hi Polarscribe,

I noticed that you still use the Category:Rouge admins on your userpage/usertalk page. Please consider removing it, as it has now been deleted as of this discussion. Have a nice day!

The Helpful One ^(Review) 13:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of John McCain lobbyist controversy

An editor has nominated John McCain lobbyist controversy, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John McCain lobbyist controversy and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice job at United States journalism scandals

Thanks for your help, you can probably now see what I've been up against and it's nice to have another interested and civil editor watching the topic even if we disagree...you could tell I was becoming fatigued...thanks again. WNDL42 (talk) 20:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk page protection

Thanks for the help! I've unprotected -- hopefully they've gotten bored. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Picture removed for having no source

Hi Travis. I don't know you but I saw that you removed an image from Tony Rezko because it had no source. I have dealt with image disputes in the past but always thought that the image's validity/source should be debated at the image and not articles that it is contained in. I ask only because I noticed you are an administrator. Where can I learn when and where to take action on/defend images? Thanks Corey Salzano (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Article Washington University Student Union

Hello FCYTravis, since you have been involved in editing the article Washington University Student Union, you may want to look here: Talk:Washington_University_in_St._Louis#Student_Union_merge_proposal. I am concerned that these articles are being removed out of personal ideolgies and without proper debate/concensus. Many thanks, --Lmbstl (talk) 05:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

SU WikiProject

I'm starting a WikiProject for students' unions and thought you might be interested in seeing the proposal. GreenJoe 16:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

State flags

Hi. I noticed that, in the state flags box on your page, New Mexico is neither listed as a place you've been, nor as a missing state. The District of Columbia makes the total come out to 50, which had me confused for a minute, but sure enough, one is missing!

I was also dropping by to thank you for your comments at the RfC. I have no wish to vilify Guy, and I appreciate the balance that you're bringing to that thread. Sometimes, I get a bit high on my horse, and pay insufficient attention to the fact that the people representing the ideas I'm against are still people. It's helpful to be reminded of other parts of the picture. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Vanessa Angel

In regards to your edit summary on the Vanessa Angel article, what follow up email are you talking about? Did someone request the birthdate be taken down? Pinkadelica (talk) 08:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick clarification. Pinkadelica (talk) 09:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Travis, just wanted to say "thanks" for helping to keep things straight on Ashley Alexandra Dupré from a BLP perspective. It really can be a chore trying to distill down a bunch of tabloidy trash into a neutrally-written biography. I'm trying hard to stay on the right side of the line and use only reliable sources. I've noticed that you've had some issues with certain citations when you believe that a publication (normally believed to be a good source) itself uses sources which you believe to be questionable. I've tried to walk the line by using phrases such as "So-and-so reported" and "Such-and-such claimed" (backed by citations), but BLP is about as clear as mud when it comes to these situations. This is my first time tackling a controversial bio like this, and I welcome any advice you can provide. Cheers - Nesodak (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Quick question - can you explain your removal of the birthdate? Nesodak (talk) 21:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and restored it - the source says it was released by her attorney.[6] Nesodak (talk) 22:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

TMZ.com

I don't know if you checked out TMZ - it's run by AOL/Time Warner and they claim their information is vetted for accuracy. Do you still feel it's unreliable? I can't speak to The Post Chronicle. Nesodak (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting to get that you won't reply to questions on your talk page, but could you please comment here? Thanks. Nesodak (talk) 01:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I do reply, but I don't necessarily reply within 10 seconds. It's still work hours up here in Alaska ;) FCYTravis (talk) 01:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Tina Tinio

Travis, thanks for protecting that article! I originally noticed it because it came up really high on Wikirage when it was being vandalized, and have tried to keep an eye on it. Anyway, would you take a look at deleting Image:SexyTina.jpg? It has no source and has been inserted several times in the article, I think in a vandalism attempt. Thanks! Nesodak (talk) 17:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast - you rock! I've found the BLP stuff more and more interesting since I got involved with the Dupre article...I understand now how Wikipedia keeps from being buried in garbage by people with axes to grind. Is there a place or project for people who like to help with this stuff, aside from the BLP noticeboard? Nesodak (talk) 18:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Duck!

When a certain type of bird calls, 'though it be the proudest mallard drake, if--it--quacks--like--a...well a duck, it's STILL a

Would WP'dians discussing prostitution only be allowed to say "sex work"? (Those talking about gambling, "gaming"? . . . ) So why on God's green earth <takes deep breath> wouldn't WP'dians discussing self-acknowledged post-pubescent pornography be allowed to say, in the most encyclopedically succinct way possible----(you tell me what term to use)? As to censor WP here would denigrate its ability to, in NPOV fashion, concisely term this genre using the industries' own accepted jargon, while embeddedly linking the scholarly term likewise denoting softcore teen-porn. And would not possibly expose WP to lawsuit. What jury in the world (OK, reasonable adults within Wikipedia's home jurisdiction of---ironic, ¿no?---Florida) would but giggle and shake heads at the idea WP is liable for slandar by its saying, let's see----a center-position graphic on GGW's homepage of a flushly blushing young'un with a CLICK HERE banner pixeled across her bosom----etc., um, ahem, quite legally yet self-awarely catering to ephebophilia?--Justmeherenow (talk) 05:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The question isn't whether we're exposed to a lawsuit. The question is whether or not we are being responsible, tasteful and restrained when writing the biography of a living person. Using loaded terminology such as "Lolita" and "ephebophilia" is not in keeping with that policy.

If you are here with the aim of penning a tabloid-driven tell-all exposé of Ms. Dupré's life, I suggest that you cease editing her Wikipedia biography and go find somewhere else to do it, because that sort of agenda is not acceptable here. FCYTravis (talk) 05:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The Tao of Wikipedia. A riddle. What's the difference between England's massive atrocities during the Boer War and hazing and taunting at Abu Graib? (Please wait for the solution printed after my post.)

<clears throat> Ah the Boer War! This was, for example, before the Progressive reforms at turn of the American century, when, believe it or not, prostitution was actually widely legal throughout the U.S.of A.

But what Victorian propriety was all about was Place and Time--- That is, when there is an elephant in the room, one must dance around the beast as though it's not REALL there! His Grace has a private little affair or indulges in a bit of an indiscretion? Remain discreet and keep the issue perfectly private, or at least only mention the fact in hushed tones and to those who in proper society correctly assumed to disapprove. A great system, really! As, in society, yes, you have got to be diplomatically adept at such byways, for sure--- Nonetheless, when it does come time when proper circumstances actually require us to talk about the proverbial elephant (say, in an encyclopedia), the modus must change. Then it's best to say something simply and directly at the first blush. (Like, you know... "An elephant stood in the corner of the room, eating some straw." <shrugs>) <whispers> The solution to the riddle is telegraphs-versus-camera phones. Openness. --Justmeherenow (talk) 06:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about "openness." Wikipedia is about reporting what other reliable sources have reported. Unless you have reliable sources which call what GGW does, "ephebophilic" or "lolita," to call it such is prohibited original research and synthesis. Furthermore, the place for reporting on any debate as to what GGW is or is not, is the Girls Gone Wild encyclopedia article - absolutely not the biography of a model/prostitute who happens to have been caught in a political scandal. FCYTravis (talk) 06:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Dawn Wells

It looks like User:Proxy User is back to his old tricks, reinstating his "Marijuana Incidents" section [7] and his POV version. He seems to be edit warring on the page with another user he's had conflicts with in the past. Would you mind taking a look? I'd like to try and avoid contact with User:Proxy User, as I find interaction with this user to be very unpleasant. Cleo123 (talk) 04:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Cleo is at odds with the facts. I am NOT in an "edit war" with anyone. Cleo conveniently ignores her own part in reverting valid sections of the Dawn Wells Article. She may politely try to suggest she has no part in it, yet edit records show that again and again she has removed valid content that she finds personally objectionable. Personal feelings are not valid reasons to remove content. The fact is, a short concise paragraph concerning The Incident are well within guidelines for appropriate content.

Point of fact: the content is relevent and appropriate. If you remove it, I will revert it. If you revert it more than 3 times, I will file a complaint against you. Proxy User (talk) 02:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Travis is an administrator, I don't think he needs to be reminded of WP:3RR. Perhaps you should read WP:BLP. Kelly ^hi! 02:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

He may be an Admin, but if he shows POV than that's a big issue. The Marijuana Incident is relevant, referenced, and valid content. As to Travis being an Admin, well, I guess I will have to see binding mediation. I will start the process immediately. Proxy User (talk) 03:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The request for comment process is thataway. FCYTravis (talk) 03:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Reported at WP:3RRN. Kelly ^hi! 03:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, FCY, you misspelt "lynchmob". :) (Serious news: I've UAA'd PU) Sceptre ^(talk) 03:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think WP:UAA was really appropriate there...what would be the justification? Kelly ^hi! 04:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Dawn Wells. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 14:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Your recent revert on Talk:Main Page gave me my first rollback failed message ever (with the MediaWiki Rollback tool)! :O FunPika 19:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The header at Guy's RFC

I apologise if you found that header offensive, but I used it because there seemed to be some feelings on the page that there was no clear definition of what civility was and that was being used to say that making such attacks was okay, that that wasn't an underlying issue. I used the header because I wanted to take on that point and simply clarify whether people actually believe using that language against another user is ever justified. For me that's come to be a line you just don't cross. I appreciate other people have different opinions, but I think there was some fudging of the issue and I thought it was better just to tackle the point straight on. Is that behaviour acceptable? I'm not suggesting mistakes can't happen, but I think it is a dis-service and an error if we allow people to have the impression that it is acceptable. Hiding T 08:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not disputing it and I know why you did it. I just wanted to explain myself, and to apologise. And you're right, a part of it was a response to ScienceApologist's un-standard header. Hiding T 08:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Your request for process

Your request for process has been denied with prejudice. Thank you for requesting a process. You may request new processes at any time. Elfits FOR GREAT JUSTICE (klat) 14:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

Hi, you just bestowed a barnstar to 63.111.163.13 which, unfortunately, is a shared IP originating in my company's labyrinthine server complex. I wanted to take a second to thank you for doing that, however. I know I'm the same guy who, just a few weeks ago, tried to include the names of the Star Wars Kid's parents in the article, in a backhanded attempt to bring his identity forward, but after thinking this over, I've had a serious change of heart on the matter, and tried to convey that in my post to the discussion page. I just wanted to let you know that I appreciate your noticing. Bistromathics (talk) 23:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's what I don't get

We get trolls, SPAs, and vandals all the time. Our entire goal should be to let them disrupt normal business as little as possible. If a SPA edits an article, we don't call it "tainted" and delete it. We merely undo the damage. Here, the SPAs did no damage! Sure, they presented some stupid reasons at AFD, but AFDs very commonly have clueless folks showing up and giving invalid reasoning. It doesn't hurt anything, we just ignore it. So, yes, this AFD had bad reasoning in it. There was a lot of shit to look through, searching for valid reasons. Luckily, several established, reasonable contributors also showed up and provided useful discussion. There was exactly one factor to consider in this AFD: What level of coverage in proper sources does this group have? A search was done, the best sources available were presented, and they were mostly useless, trivial mentions. So, there was still a valid result to be found from this AFD, once you ignore the crap. The closing admin found that valid result.

Then, you come in, and instead of discussing the substance of the issue, you just rant and rave about trolls, getting louder and more shrill the whole time. This is not useful. This does not have to be cast as some grand battle of Good versus Evil. We can simply ignore the invalid stuff, and look at what's left. This is what the closing admin appears to have done. Where's the problem? Friday (talk) 13:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Help!

LOL! Hi! I'm wondering if you could take a look at this if you have some time. I just stumbled across an MFD regarding the material and have to admit I really haven't had the time to plow through the whole history. It seems this contentious debate has been going on for quite awhile, with Wikipedia as the primary battleground. It seems as if some active administrative intervention is really needed at this point. It's ugly - and I can understand why people may not want to get involved with this one (you'll see! lol!) but it seems as if there are serious issues relating to libel, defamation, harassment and potential abuse of user space that shouldn't be lost in the shuffle. If you have the stomach for it, I'd appreciate any input you could provide. Thanks! Cleo123 (talk) 05:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You may also want to have a look at this new complaint if you have a chance. Cleo123 (talk) 03:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

NASIOC DRV

Thank you for more directly stating what I was trying to convey with my comment. I was dancing around the topic, and you cut through to the heart of the matter, which was what really was needed. Horologium (talk) 02:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

RFA thanks

Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/e 17:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Baltimore-Washington vs. Baltimore/Washington

I understand. However, the title of the airport article has a hyphen in it. It would be great if you could check it out for yourself and get back to me to see if you changed your mind or not. Thanks! --Plane nerd (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI

We'd been debating here which is now archived. I was deliberating on reblocking and glad the decision was taken out of my hands :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

i.e. thanks for calling it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

PBOC Motorsports Club

It looks like you restored this after it was deleted at AfD, without taking it through deletion review? It's come up in the notability backlog, and I'm wondering what to do with it. Seems like it should have remained deleted. Jfire (talk) 04:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It was deleted after an illegitimate nomination by a sockpuppet troll, and I neglected to remove the AfD tag from it. PBOC runs sanctioned motorsports events (i.e., actual cars on actual racetracks) and as such, is basically encyclopedic. I'll detag it, except that it still could use a bit more sourcing. FCYTravis (talk) 04:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Tory Christman

Thank you for taking action at this article. I filed a report at WP:BLPN. Could you perhaps comment there about this, and also drop a note at the talkpages of WillOakland (talk · contribs) and 24.22.217.110 (talk · contribs) ? Not to mention the inappropriate edit summary... Thank you, Cirt (talk) 00:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Living people

I notice you have transcluded User:Doc glasgow/BLP watch to your user space. Given that the page has been deleted, I instead created Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Living people. This works slightly differently, and should not be transcluded, but rather watched. But you all look to be old hands so I figure you'll get the hang of it. I hope you find it useful. All the best, Hiding T 16:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Soros

With all due respect, your removing of information wholesale without instead adding is destructive of information, not creative. Moreover, it's apparent you didn't reference the site or its supporting docs before you started removing things. I hope you do so in the future. --Kallahan (talk) 02:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Contentious information sourced only to a polemic right-wing Web site run by someone who has a history of making stuff up is to be removed and not replaced until it can be adequately sourced. FCYTravis (talk) 02:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Disputed. {Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#List_of_projects_supported_by_George_Soros} --Kallahan (talk) 02:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, a massively premature RfAr that is bound to be rejected. Fun. Might I suggest that you try the requests for comment process first? FCYTravis (talk) 02:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

discoverthenetworks

God job. It's high time all these polemical blogs masquerading as sources were nuked from the project. Guy (Help!) 11:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Rainbow/PUSH

WP:NPOV does not say remove one extreme point of view and describe it as unreliable. It says include all sides. Meet me at Talk:Rainbow/PUSH--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I generally stay out of the fray on political issues by sourcing from Time, Newsweek, U. S. News & World Report, New York Times, etc. (see Jack Kemp or Jesse Jackson, Jr. for example). I don't know who is right wing that counts as right wing and an WP:RS and who right wing and considered a nutjob. Regardless, your edit seems haphazard to me. Can you confirm that in places where you merely removed the citation and not the fact, you thought it through. I am going to trust that if you say you did the remaining stuff is not going to be challenged as failing WP:ATT.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The Burke Group

Travis, I can see your point, but I really do think you're mistaken on the political information of Mr Burke. If it were a big public company where you have many directors on the board, and many shareholders, pointing out the political affiliations of the CEO might be irrelevant, and belong on a separate article dedicated to her/him. But, here we have a private company whose control is in the hands of its founder, and one whose business is distinctly political. That's why I think it's relevant. I've no objection, of course, to you starting up an additional page on Mr Burke himself (though I wish it were possible to find more information on him, which is sadly unavailable). Wikidea 23:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Robert J. Marks II

Please see discussion before reverting again. You are replacing material that must be deleted per WP:BLP. As for the specific reference you claim to be returning to the article, it has a link to a source showing that there used to be a link to the source. Now BOTH links don't work. It's absurd to replace that reference. Please read before reverting. ThomHImself (talk) 06:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

3RR

It looks to me like you have violated the 3-revert rule on Rosalind Picard. Please revert your last edit there. Guettarda (talk) 06:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate this

When I do reverts, I use Twinkle because frankly it's easy to push a button, it never means anything but good faith to me. Except for vandals. I don't give good faith to vandals. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Heads-up on Robert J. Marks II

Talk:Robert J. Marks II#Major restructure of Baylor Engineering/Computer Science website makes some sense of, but in no way justifies, ThomHImself's recent edit-war on Robert J. Marks II. He was edit-warring over a bunch of easily replacable broken links. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

3RR

Count the number of your reversion here and compare to the daily limit set forth at WP:3RR. See what I'm getting at? Odd nature (talk) 17:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Happy happy joy joy. Read. Be enlightened. Stop trying to smear people. You'll be a happier person. FCYTravis (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Re the Virgin Killer image

(Cross-posted from the IfD) I think you've misunderstood me. Firstly, I was never going to speedy-delete this image myself in the middle of a contentious deletion discussion, and I agree that it would be an abuse of admin tools under the circumstances. I do think it would be the best thing if it were speedy deleted, but that is my personal opinion and I will abide by consensus, as I always do. Secondly, I agree that we should not censor Wikipedia as a knee-jerk response to external attacks. However, when material is highly controversial and ethically dubious, we should consider very carefully whether it is necessary to keep it in order to ensure balanced encyclopedic coverage of the topic, and should weigh this against the ethical implications. In this case, whether or not this image fits the legal definition of pornography, it is highly controversial and has serious ethical problems, which IMO outweigh any encyclopedic value it may have. WP:NOTCENSORED doesn't mean that we need to go out of our way to keep unnecessary offensive content just so we can thumb our noses at the "moralizing right-wing censors". I should also add that, given that you are one of the more vocal advocates of strict enforcement of the BLP policy and have argued for greater awareness of the impact that Wikipedia coverage can have upon real people's lives (as reflected in the quote at the top of your userpage), I would have thought that you would be willing to recognise that Wikipedia has social and ethical responsibilities which sometimes oblige us to remove content which we might not otherwise remove. Walton^One 20:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

(One more thing, sorry for the lengthy post) I also don't think it's pertinent that I haven't personally looked at the image; the discussion has been fairly clear on what the image actually depicts (a semi-naked underage girl) and I wasn't relying solely on WND's assessment of it as pornographic. Like I said, I don't think it matters whether or not it meets the legal definition of pornography. (Just like we don't stop caring about the accuracy and fairness of our BLPs just because they may not be legally libellous/defamatory. We have a social as well as a legal responsibility, and this is part of it.) Walton^One 21:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone who appeared on the cover of a mass-produced record album undoubtedly gave full and informed consent for their image to be reproduced and republished in such a manner. There is no evidence that the subject of the photograph has objected to its reproduction and distribution. Indeed, that particular album is still produced and sold with that very same objectionable album cover. For God's sake, it's even on Amazon.com. There's no BLP issue here.

Once again you misunderstand me. I didn't say there was a BLP issue. There isn't. I was drawing an analogy between this and BLP. The point is, you accept that we must sometimes remove valid encyclopedic content for the ethical reason that it might hurt a living person. Therefore, why don't you accept that we must sometimes remove valid encyclopedic content (if this even qualifies as such, which I doubt) on the grounds that indecent images of children are inherently unethical, and seen as such by most of society? WP:NOTCENSORED is fine - I don't disagree with it in principle - but we shouldn't sacrifice our fundamental ethical standards just to show how "uncensored" we are. Walton^One 21:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

We're not sacrificing our fundamental ethical standards to show how uncensored we are. If someone wants something removed, the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate why it violates our fundamental ethical standards. If this was some explicit hardcore depiction of child molestation, we wouldn't be having this argument. It would be baleeted instantly and without question. Nobody's arguing for child porn here.

But how many times do I have to say it? A friggin' mass market heavy metal album cover is not child pornography. You can make every single rationalization you want, but the image is not child porn. The rationale for deletion is nonexistent. It does not violate our fundamental ethical standards - and the motives behind the wingnut-created moral panic are clear. They want to demonize Wikipedia. If it wasn't this shot, they'd find something else. And something else. Until we wound up with Conservapedia - and guess what? That's not what we are. If it becomes that, that's the stop where I and thousands of other editors and admins get off the train. FCYTravis (talk) 21:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The image is clearly not child pornography. The "FBI investigation" is a crock. If there was truly a legal issue with the picture, $1,000 says Mike Godwin would have deleted it already, and nobody would object. But there's not, and it hasn't, so that's a red herring. It's A FREAKING MASS-MARKET ALBUM COVER OF WHICH HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS, OR MILLIONS, HAVE BEEN MADE.

If this image is deleted at the behest of moralizing Christian conservative wingnuts, I will immediately speedy-delete all the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons and depictions of Muhammad, then depart the project permanently. I will not give my time to an "encyclopedia" willing to give in to World Net Daily's nutjob Christian conservative sensationalism and their downright evil moral panic. FCYTravis (talk) 21:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

(Sorry for the multiple replies - edit conflicted) I think it's a bit dangerous to assume that the FBI investigation is a "crock", but even if there is no legal issue, there is still an ethical issue. FWIW, I don't think we should have the depictions of Muhammad either. While I do agree that Wikipedia should not generally be censored - in that we shouldn't remove necessary encyclopedic content on the grounds of good taste and decency - we shouldn't keep unnecessary offensive content simply in order to thumb our noses at the world and make the point that we oppose censorship. It's perfectly possible to explain the controversy over images of Muhammad without showing such images, and perfectly possible to explain the controversy over this album cover without actually showing it. These things are not necessary for the encyclopedia. I am also mildly concerned that your antipathy to "moralizing Christian conservative wingnuts" and "nutjob Christian conservative sensationalism" may be clouding your neutrality and judgment here. Walton^One 21:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no ethical issue nor is there a legal issue. I don't think it's dangerous to assume that the so-called "investigation" is a crock, and I will lay $100 on the line that says nothing will ever be heard from them.

My antipathy to them is well-founded. World Net Daily and its right-wing fundamentalist ilk are intent on turning back this nation's clock 50 years to the time when birth control was illegal and gays were thrown in prison. I am a journalist and a free-speech advocate. Moralizing censors are anathema to me, and millions of others. They are my sworn enemies, end of story.

We are an unbiased, comprehensive encyclopedia that fears and favors no one. Not Muslims who want Muhammad cartoons deleted and not Christians who want heavy metal album covers deleted. There's no debate to be had here. FCYTravis (talk) 21:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I find it slightly incongruous that in the first paragraph, you describe right-wing fundamentalists as your "sworn enemies", and then begin the second paragraph using the word "unbiased". I have very strong political beliefs (see my userpage) but I try to keep them separate from my Wikipedia editing. Surely you ought to do the same? In the end, I'm not here to have a political debate with you about the merits and demerits of censorship in the real world. But Wikipedia is not here for the purpose of being a thorn in the side of the establishment; it's here for the purpose of providing a comprehensive, detailed and educational reference work on all topics. While we shouldn't ignore legitimate issues in order to shy away from public controversy, I also don't think we should needlessly court public controversy in order to piss off censorship advocates. It would be so easy if this image had just been deleted at the start. Readers would not notice any difference in the quality of the encyclopedia, and a big public furore would have been avoided. Walton^One 21:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hang on, it's been deleted. (And not by me, I might add. The closing admin cited WP:NFCC.) Walton^One 21:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

And I just undeleted it. I don't give a damn if they pull my admin bit. That's a crock. FCYTravis (talk) 21:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a feeling this is going to end up at ArbCom. The difference between you and me is that I am not willing to risk my sysop bit over this particular issue, so I won't revert you; however, I suspect someone will before long. Ah, the joys of wikidrama... Walton^One 21:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not willing to donate my time to an encyclopedia project which is willing to cave to a wingnut Christian conservative "news" site spreading a moral panic over a friggin' heavy metal album cover. Therefore, there's no risk involved. If they pull my bit over this image, I'll be gone anyway. FCYTravis (talk) 21:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You wouldn't be the only one leaving... Iunaw (talk) 00:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Quick note to say thanks, I fully support your stance on this. I was dismayed when it was deleted, you've restored my faith in due process. Great stuff. --  Chzz  ►  21:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Just a (probably unneeded) heads up that this is at ANI. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for standing up to "dictatorship of the closer" and restoring consensus. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I also fully support you on your stance Acer (talk) 21:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Ditto that. Good job mate. Ford MF (talk) 21:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It is now at DRV, but I think we can save a lot of needless time and drama if you and Angus agree to a speedy relisting of the image at IfD (keeping it undeleted for now). Then we can actually attempt to build consensus on this issue, including the fair use concerns. Walton^One 21:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Continuing the previous discussion from above (since the ethical concerns will doubtless continue to be an issue as and when this gets relisted): Believe it or not, I do respect your view on this (and the fact that you were willing to risk your sysop bit to stand up for what you believe in). I also fully understand the argument of principle that we should not cave to any external pressure in determining what belongs in the encyclopedia. But let's face it - in reality, we do so all the time. As you're an OTRS volunteer, surely you've removed material in the past as a result of correspondence from an article's subject? The Wikipedia community does have a sense of social responsibility, and rightly so. Here, there is no BLP issue, but there is a different ethical issue - and it does offend my sense of decency to keep indecent images of children (I won't say "pornography", because I'm not qualified to make that particular judgment) on Wikipedia for any reason whatsoever.

As regards your political opinion and vehement dislike of the Christian right, you are entitled to that opinion, but you should really try and separate your political views from your use of the sysop tools. As I said above, I have very strong political opinions myself (which are radically different from yours). But I try to keep them out of my editing as far as possible. The only question here should be whether the ethical issues (and I don't think you can seriously argue that there is no ethical controversy surrounding a nude image of a child in these circumstances) are outweighed by the encyclopedic value of keeping the album cover. Differences of opinion on that are, of course, perfectly legitimate, but that's what the IfD is designed to resolve. (Sorry to fill your talkpage with lengthy posts. Unfortunately, brevity is not my strong point.) Walton^One 22:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

And had the IfD continued to a legitimate closure, you would be right. The community would speak. (And I note that the community was overwhelmingly speaking with the opinion that the image should be kept, by a 4-to-1 margin.) But it did not. Instead, it was illegitimately closed early and deleted with an entirely spurious and un-discussed rationale. That is calculated to inflame Wikidrama and will not resolve the differences of opinion. FCYTravis (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I can certainly understand that viewpoint. Though since the image is now at DRV anyway and set to be relisted on IfD (and the DRV was actually being opened by Equazcion at the time when you undeleted the image) I don't get why you undeleted straight away. But I agree that we need a full deletion discussion and a closure which is in line with consensus, whatever that turns out to be. I will continue to argue that the page should be deleted, but I'll abide by the will of the community.

Bear in mind, though, that this is really not going to be good for Wikipedia's reputation in the long run, except among radical libertarians. (Personally, since I am an editor on both Wikipedia and Conservapedia, I have always wanted to see a reconciliation between the two encyclopedias, since I think we waste a lot of editorial energy maintaining two separate sites. This, unfortunately, makes that far less likely to happen, and increases the liberal-conservative Wikipedia-Conservapedia polarisation. But that's a side issue.) Walton^One 22:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but there will never be a reconciliation between Wikipedia and an encyclopedia which has a specific, defined, right-wing (or left-wing) point of view to push. Ever. End of story. You might as well stop trying.

Conservapedia is a right-wing fringe site which views the entire world through red-tinted glasses. That is its right. I do not deny you that right. That's what free speech is about.

But the whole world uses Wikipedia, and they do so because they have confidence that what they will get is a relatively unbiased, generally accurate and neutrally-written article on a given subject.

Very few people use Conservapedia, and that's because when most people want to find out the meaning of gay, they don't expect to, and don't want to, find this: "Gay life consists of immoral sexual activity, particularly homosexual or bisexual. The gay lifestyle, written about as early as the Victorian Era, is contrary to established morality, usually consisting of flagrant promiscuity."

That's offensive, hateful Christian fundamentalist right-wing propaganda trash masquerading as an "encyclopedia article." You can't "reconcile" that with the writing of a neutral, unbiased encyclopedia at all. That's why nobody cares about Conservapedia, except as a punchline to jokes about right-wing buffoonery. FCYTravis (talk) 23:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree, FWIW, that many articles on Conservapedia are absolute crap (particularly those about sexuality, creationism or religious topics) and that it isn't much use as a resource at present. But a large part of the reason for that is that it doesn't have very many active editors. Consequently, those with genuinely extremist viewpoints on these matters tend to control the articles. I know a reconciliation between the two is probably a pipe dream; I just feel like I'm wasting my time creating Conservapedia articles on non-controversial topics (like military ranks and Oxford colleges) when very similar articles exist over here. Maybe I should give up on Conservapedia, but I do hold out some hope that it might become a half-decent resource one day.

The other problem is that pro-intelligent design editors (of which I am not one, personally) tend to get driven away from Wikipedia and accused of being "anti-science", with the result that our articles on the evolution-ID controversy are one step away from saying "evolution is the only valid viewpoint, ID is religious insanity", which doesn't seem to me to be NPOV. Conversely, the Conservapedia articles on the same topics are dominated by fervent young earth creationists and equally biased in the opposite direction. But we've gone a long way off-topic here (apologies for going off on a tangent). Walton^One 23:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course nobody with non-extremist viewpoints will come edit it. Why would they waste their time on it? It's an "encyclopedia" explicitly designed around the idea that the whole world has a liberal bias, and that "no other encyclopedic resource on the internet is free of corruption by liberal untruths." If the whole point of the exercise is to create an "encyclopedia" that views the world through a right-wing frame of reference, why on Earth would anyone with opposing ideas consider it a valuable use of their time to somehow "balance" an "encyclopedia" which explicitly does not ever intend to be balanced.

What, will they allow me to write that "some people think that gay sex is OK" then append "These people are perverts, hate Baby Jesus and use the American flag for toilet paper" to it, and call it "balance?" Hopeless and pointless.

What makes Wikipedia work is that we are open to (almost) all comers, and we specifically and overtly strive for neutrality and balance, rejecting either a liberal or a conservative bias. Is it perfect? Hell no. But that's our goal, and 97% of Wikipedians are working in good faith toward that goal. That's what makes us a useful reference source, and that's why we're one of the 10 most popular Web sites on Earth. FCYTravis (talk) 23:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

As for evolution/ID... well, yes, ID is not science and it is religious. That is not a point of view, that is simple fact. In Dover v. Kitzmiller, the court system of the United States explicitly said as much. ID postulates the existence of an unknowable, non-scientific creative force or being, the existence of which cannot be tested scientifically. Thus, it's not science, it's religion. Is evolution the only possibility? No. But it is the overwhelmingly mainstream scientific explanation for the development of life on this planet. It's not POV to say that. I agree that some of the pro-science forces have gone overboard (Rosalind Picard, for example). FCYTravis (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Concerning the Gay article at Conservapedia, I hadn't seen it before and agree that it is utter nonsense (not to mention completely unsourced). I have requested one of the sysops to unprotect it so I can completely rewrite the article, but it remains to be seen whether my request will be granted. Unfortunately, I've made little headway with editing controversial articles over there; I'm not really trusted by the Conservapedia elite (many of them seem to think I'm a closet liberal because I at least try to make neutral and sourced edits; this is particularly funny given that all my friends in RL think I'm a deranged right-winger). I may be wasting my time over there. We can continue this discussion at another time, however, since I need to go to bed (it's 0030 where I am, and I need to go to the gym tomorrow morning). Walton^One 23:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, such is my point... they're not interested in neutrality. :) Good discussion, good thoughts and while we disagree on several major things, I don't think you're being unfair or unreasonable. I just disagree with you on where we should draw the line. Let's say this image was not in the context of being an album cover - it just existed completely on its own. I'd say delete, and speedily at that - there's no reason for us to have it. Let's say we're talking about an explicit image of children engaging in sexual intercourse. Delete, instantly, no question about it. That would be child porn and that would be unacceptable on the encyclopedia. FCYTravis (talk) 23:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

To be fair to Conservapedians, in my experience many of them are reasonable people, including Andrew Schafly (the founder) and I have worked productively with a number of Conservapedia editors to make articles more accurate. (For instance, I persuaded Schafly to unlock the Fred Phelps article so that I could rewrite the lead, which used to describe Phelps, bizarrely, as a "liberal leftist". The Phelps article is now quite balanced and well-sourced.) But there are a few POV warriors who, because of the small community and lack of effective participatory processes, are able to control articles in a way that they can't over here. Walton^One 23:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Virgin Killer.jpg

Hi. [8] -- did you mean to restore all versions of this image? Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

If there are versions that shouldn't be in the history, I'll delete/selective restore. I didn't bother to look, I was so angry. FCYTravis (talk) 21:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you restore the talk page as well? (just a housekeeping thing) Kelly ^hi! 22:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Fertamole

Obviously I think Fertamole needed to be deleted since I prodded it, but I'm curious why you deleted the article less than a minute after I prodded it?--Fabrictramp (talk) 19:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I saw your prod pop up on Special:Recentchanges, took one look, one quick Google and decided that you were absolutely right to tag it :) Good work. FCYTravis (talk) 19:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit war

My suggestion to discuss your dispute with me on the relevant talk page is a serious one. Please avoid edit warring if possible. Skoojal (talk) 06:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Says the other person engaged in an edit war. It takes two to make an edit war. FCYTravis (talk) 06:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Please take this issue to pursue dispute resolution. I have blocked Skoojal to bring a temporary stop to this issue. Best, --Kukini ^{háblame aquí} 06:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Skoojal

In regard to your concerns about POVpushing by Skoojal see their contributions to Talk:Judith Butler (here) and talk:Michel Foucault (here). Both of these people are (were in Foucault's case) gay philosophers. Skoojal is pushing to add rumours that Foucault deliberately spread HIV and to include undue criticism of Butler. There is also a meatpuppet concern with an IP[9] in the discussion of Foucault--Cailil ^talk 12:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC) In particular this edit is interesting[[10]--Cailil ^talk 15:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Cailil, your opinions about me are drastically wrong. You are mis-reporting what happened on the Butler page, and appear to have misunderstood my motives. I do not share Crews's point of view. If anything, I happen to think that what Butler wrote about Crews reflects rather well on her. Also, for the record, I don't use meatpuppets. Skoojal (talk) 05:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No opinion about you was or has been expressed. You are pushing to include rumours at Talk:Michel Foucault and were pushing for undue criticism at Talk:Judith Butler. The IP has also acted like a meatpuppet as is clear from their post - whether you intended that or not that's how they behaved-Cailil ^talk 11:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Herbert Schildt

I asked for further input at WP:ANI#Edward G. Nilges edit warring on Herbert Schildt, but I think nobody noticed. Nilges' account User:Spinoza1111 has been blocked indefinitely in October 2006, so I think we can safely assume he is banned. You protected the article on his version, with a standard comment about seeking consensus on the talk page. How does this work in practice when one side of a dispute is actively represented only by a banned user who is not even the subject of the BLP article in question?

I don't think an entire "criticism" section for his books is necessary; but since he seems to be notable mainly for being the author of best-selling books with many technical errors, we only have the choice between mentioning the errors and deleting the article altogether. I might think about a concrete example to put some criticism of the books back in the article, but I have no doubt that I will be rewarded with learning even more details about the great conspiracy in which I am obviously taking part. I am not going to bother before I understand the rules of the game. Is Nilges a party to the dispute and must be included in a consensus? Or can I just revert all his comments on the talk page, so we can have a structured discussion? --Hans Adler (talk) 19:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The fascinating wrinkle of blocked versus banned is now discussed in a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Edward G. Nilges edit warring on Herbert Schildt. Based on my own arguments there, I think it would be logical to reduce the protection on Herbert Schildt to semi. The dispute is between regular editors and an IP representing block evasion by an indef blocked user. EdJohnston (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for unprotection of Gabrielle Giffords

Could you please un-protect the Gabrielle Giffords article? It's been over a month, and I don't think BobHeath will immediately reappear and cause an edit war. johnpseudo 19:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

JzG RFAR merged with Cla68-FM-SV case

Per the arb vote here the RFAR on User:JzG is now merged with this case and he is a named party. Also see my case disposition notes there. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The Lumberjack (Northern Arizona University)

An article that you have been involved in editing, The Lumberjack (Northern Arizona University), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lumberjack (Northern Arizona University). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? --Icarus ^(Hi!) 09:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Bobby Farrell

Hi, unfortunately this page is once again under attack from the "pay-for-gay guy". Could you please intervene? Thanks a lot, Jvhertum (talk) 20:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Harassment from Nwwaew

Nwwaew has an axe to grind. I think he is unfairly biased against me and I don't feel comfortable with him dealing with me as an admin. He is Wikistalking me. He was not asked to get involved in this article and I feel that he is incredible biased against my contributions. He just undid all the verifiable work that I put unto that article. If his harassment continues I might be tempted to leave Wikipedia or create a new account to get away from his harassment. --8bitJake (talk) 08:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Nwwaew is wikistalking me. He followed me here un did all my edits and shut down the article. --8bitJake (talk) 17:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I've started an ANI discussion about his harassment of me [11]. --8bitJake (talk) 17:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Polarscribe. You have new messages at Toddst1's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Airport articles

Hey thanks for setting me str8 (no pun intended) on the guidelines for editing airport articles. I LOVE your userpage by the way. I think I'm about to start some lists of my own as I work for US Airways and have been EVERYWHERE! Anyways, hope to see you around! Carter | Talk to me 18:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh OK, sorry about that. I was misreading the Alaska Airlines website. It appeared to have a nonstop flight but it turns out there's a stop in Anchorage. My apologies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bud08 (talk • contribs) 09:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

TMZ.com

Hi, I remember when you were repeatedly reverting to remove this on the article before - there's a note on the talk page. I'll go dig through the archives of BLPN to see if there was any consensus. Is there any previous case that has come up before when the info has been unreliable? Kelly ^hi! 07:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I thought you were disputing the referencing for the birth name. Birth date is no big deal, really, but I may look around sometime for a backup source. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Kelly ^hi! 07:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I found the old discussion at BLPN here. Apparently USA Today, Time, and Newsweek have profiled the website - the USA Today article specifically discusses that the info at TMZ.com is professionally vetted by journalists, despite its tabloidy nature. Kelly ^hi! 07:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Glenn Beck

Travis, you do good work with BLPs - could you take a look at the recent edits on this article by JCDenton2052 (talk · contribs)? I think there's some coatracking going on there with out-of-context quotes but another opinion would definitely be welcome. Kelly ^hi! 07:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Sinclair

I replied at the DRV re: the link to OTRS being broken. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 01:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

RE: Star Wars kid

The video in question is copyrighted, not public domain. I have speedily deleted the screenshot on this basis. FCYTravis (talk) 18:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Just curious, who exactly holds the copyright? I don't really see how anyone could considering it was put on the internet by a couple of people who had no right to copyright it, and the kid himself apparently has no desire to. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Fine, then a suitable "fair-use" tag could be used. I don't think it was necessary to delete the image entirely. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Consensus from whom? I thought Wikipedia was not censored? Besides, you really think having a small, blurry, screen capture of a video which can be found at literally thousands of other places on the internet is going to "sensationalize" it anymore than it already has been? How ridiculous. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Fine, maybe I will. --Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Star wars kid

Why was Star Wars kid full protected? RC-0722 ^361.0/1 04:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Pretty obvious, isn't it? Enforcing BLP isn't the easiest or the most fun job, but someone has to do it. That happens to be me, today. FCYTravis (talk) 06:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

But the editor that added the info was an IP. You could have semi-protected just as easily and gotten the same affect. So why stop users with accounts from making good faith edits? RC-0722 ^361.0/1 14:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No Sex Scandal....maybe

Yeah, I was on the fence with that categorization title as well and I was in the process of looking for a better one that I THOUGHT I saw someplace else. --Hourick (talk) 21:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The more I think about it, it IS a scandal since it involves a tape that is stolen. Paris Hilton is listed under the same category as well. While it isn't the person that is the scandal (or as a friend says, "ew"), but how it has come to light. BTW: thank you for being civil about the matter.--Hourick (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)