NOTICE: Unsigned postings may be removed at any time for any reason.
Archives:
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)
Hey, how come you removed the Red Side/Blue Side airline listings at TPA? -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 22:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?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)
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 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 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)
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 MESSED
OCKER
(TALK)
02:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. — Mi r a 04:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
Sorry for editing your userpage, but I thought it's better than leaving you with a redlink. Conscious 13:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
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 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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. howch e ng { chat} 06:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
-- 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.
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)
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)
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)
Thank you for protecting those two article... — Cliffb 00:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
-- 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
16:53, 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)
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)
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.
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)
Please see Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not change links to redirects that are not broken; thank you. -- NE2 16:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Just a hello from a fellow Fairbanksan and journalist. JKBrooks85 ( talk) 10:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Is that really allowed procedure? It prevents non-admins from being able to view previous discussions. Kirkburn ( talk) 00:02, 3 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)
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)
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)
Per your feedback, I've condensed it (at least visually). Thoughts? — BQZip01 — talk 23:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
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) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Thanks for the help! I've unprotected -- hopefully they've gotten bored. NawlinWiki ( talk) 01:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() |
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 Fun Pika 19:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
With all due respect, your removing of information wholesale without instead adding citation needed 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)
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)
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)
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). Wik idea 23:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
Thanks for standing up to "dictatorship of the closer" and restoring consensus. WAS 4.250 ( talk) 21:46, 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)
Hi. [8] -- did you mean to restore all versions of this image? Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I replied at the DRV re: the link to OTRS being broken. Cheers, Daniel ( talk) 01:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Fine, maybe I will. -- Grandpafootsoldier ( talk) 20:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Why was Star Wars kid full protected? RC-0722 361.0/ 1 04:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
NOTICE: Unsigned postings may be removed at any time for any reason.
Archives:
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)
Hey, how come you removed the Red Side/Blue Side airline listings at TPA? -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 22:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?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)
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 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 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)
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 MESSED
OCKER
(TALK)
02:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. — Mi r a 04:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
Sorry for editing your userpage, but I thought it's better than leaving you with a redlink. Conscious 13:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
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 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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. howch e ng { chat} 06:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
-- 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.
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)
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)
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)
Thank you for protecting those two article... — Cliffb 00:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
-- 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
16:53, 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)
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)
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.
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)
Please see Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not change links to redirects that are not broken; thank you. -- NE2 16:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Just a hello from a fellow Fairbanksan and journalist. JKBrooks85 ( talk) 10:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Is that really allowed procedure? It prevents non-admins from being able to view previous discussions. Kirkburn ( talk) 00:02, 3 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)
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)
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)
Per your feedback, I've condensed it (at least visually). Thoughts? — BQZip01 — talk 23:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
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) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Thanks for the help! I've unprotected -- hopefully they've gotten bored. NawlinWiki ( talk) 01:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() |
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 Fun Pika 19:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
With all due respect, your removing of information wholesale without instead adding citation needed 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)
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)
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)
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). Wik idea 23:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
Thanks for standing up to "dictatorship of the closer" and restoring consensus. WAS 4.250 ( talk) 21:46, 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)
Hi. [8] -- did you mean to restore all versions of this image? Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I replied at the DRV re: the link to OTRS being broken. Cheers, Daniel ( talk) 01:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Fine, maybe I will. -- Grandpafootsoldier ( talk) 20:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Why was Star Wars kid full protected? RC-0722 361.0/ 1 04:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
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)