User talk:TravisTX/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

My (mistaken) edit to Montour High School

You were right to revert my revert. I saw "McKees Rocks" and assumed it was referring to some person. Clearly, I was anti-vandalizing a little too fast and I thank you for pointing out my mistake. —Travis CT 15:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem - I watch a lot of school district articles and most edits to them are vandalism (or unhelpful), so I understand the error. Keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch 15:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, TravisTX! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Prodego talk 16:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Houston

Thank you for becoming a participant! Please feel free to discuss anything related to the project at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Houston and add/update the collaboration items at Wikipedia:WikiProject Houston. Also, please add the project banner/article assessment template for every new project-related article you create. The templates are found here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Houston/Resources. Thanks again, Postoak 02:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Operation Stub Attack! - see WikiProject Houston, for report and mission details. Postoak 20:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Tower logo-sm.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Tower logo-sm.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Durin 12:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Trinity UBX

Hi. I noticed one of the fair-use goons zapped your userbox. I make college-related userboxes and other templates, and I might be able to help you come up with something that can pass fair-use muster. If you'd like any help in restoring the Trinity UBX to its former glory, just drop me a line. --Dynaflow 08:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Hey cool, I'm a fair use "goon" now! --Durin 04:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
No offense meant. If it weren't for the fair-use goons and their rampant fair-use goonage, I'd get much less template-space work. (Full disclosure: I also moonlight as a fair-use goon when it suits my purposes, but no one knows this. ... Wait... Damn.) --Dynaflow 04:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the offer, but I think I'm going to just forget about it and have the ubx deleted. —Travis C/T\U 15:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Before Duchesne

For reference, I have copied my comments to WhisperToMe from his talk page. —Travistalk 15:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention to the Duchesne article. I, too, have been doing some work on it and intend to expand it. I think, however, that the section that you just added, "Before Duchesne", is largely irrelevant. The same could be said about nearly every other school. Also, a sizable percentage of the students attend Duchesne all the way from Pre-K through 12th grade. I feel that the section should be removed, but I'd like to hear your viewpoint.

For disclosure: I'm a Duchesne and Regis dad. —Travis C/T\U 12:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't exactly call it irrelevant, as the point of the section is to list some of the private schools that are known to matriculate students into Duchesne. Often they are the same ones as for various other private schools, but not all private schools state on their websites that they have students go on to Duchesne. I only listed private schools that explicitly state that they have kids go on to Duchesne. This is a similar section as the ones in the public schools explaining which elementary and middle schools feed into which high schools via attendance boundaries. WhisperToMe 14:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, maybe "irrelevant" wasn't the right word to use. I understand your point, but since that information is actually garnered from other schools' websites, wouldn't it be more appropriately located in those schools' articles? As for the comparison to public schools, I don't think that really applies in this case. For public schools, it is a predetermined path from elementary to junior/middle to high school. A more appropriate comparison would be to a university where students come from multiple high schools around the world. —Travis C/T\U 14:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The information also is in the articles of the private schools affected if they have articles; i.e. this can be found in Presbyterian's, etc.

Now, the deal is that the promotions affect both campuses: A girl leaves her private school, say, Pope John Paul II, and and enters, say, Duchesne.

WhisperToMe 14:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This type of information may be useful in articles of high schools such as Episcopal, Saint Thomas (both of them), or Houston Christian. Many, if not most, of Duchesne upper school students are from Duchesne middle school, which, in turn, are from Duchesne lower school. The same progression, I imagine, also applies to Kinkaid, Saint John, and Second Baptist.

In any case, the statement, "Some Duchesne students initially attend other schools and transfer to Duchesne," can be applied to any school. I don't think that the section adds useful Duchesne-related material to the article. —Travis C/T\U 18:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

But are the schools that matriculate into all three exactly the same?

  • Duchesne: females from Presbyterian, River Oaks Baptist, Village, and John Paul II
  • St. John's: Presbyterian, River Oaks Baptist, Village (I see we are missing John Paul II from this list)

Kinkaid's list is identical to St. John's.

So, in a word, yes, the scenarios of Duchesne, St. John's, and Kinkaid sound similar, but the individual schools feeding into the high school programs are not exactly the same! WhisperToMe 19:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

If you must leave the information in the article, why don't you at least move it to the student body section and get rid of this section header? I just don't like the way it looks. "Before Duchesne" sounds like something to do with the history of the school. —Travis C/T\U 20:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I moved the information :) WhisperToMe 21:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you —Travis C/T\U 01:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my usertalk page! I really appreciate it. Mkdwtalk 09:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm always looking for vandals to squish! —Travistalk 13:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Rock Pigeon

That is not vandalism. It was in more than one kind of English. I was just making it all in one format. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.149.110.220 (talk) 17:18, 1 June 2007

Sacred Heart School

Iknow it changed the meaning, I realized that after my edit to the talk page but you beat me to the revert Adam McCormick 20:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Followup located at User_talk:Alanbly. —Travistalk 20:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Codelyoko193

Original at User talk:Codelyoko193#Talk:Trinity University (Texas):

I can easily see how you might have taken that comment for vandalism. Thanks, anyway, for the effort! —Travistalk 05:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I had thought that it was an actual article, so I reverted it; I hadn't seen the (talk) next to it. Then I noticed my mistake. Codelyoko193 Talk 14:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

However, it was proably just some dumb IP vandalising a talk page. Codelyoko193 Talk 14:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. —Travistalk 14:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

RE: Whole Foods, John Mackey edits

I appreciate you coming in to intervene, however I don't quite get the harsher admonishment than Philwelch.

I edited it with additional info. He blanked it. I reverted and in the comment explained for him to rewrite. He blanked it. I went to his talk page.

I've done exactly as one should do in this case. I don't believe my version is the correct one, but the information needs to be there in some format with an ongoing controversy.

Again, I do appreciate you coming in to assist in the matter, but I feel that IP address accounts are unfairly picked on over logged in users, and I can see no other reason when I took good faith measures in a few respects, and he has only blanked with no information.

Thanks. 72.208.194.253 18:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You're probably right about IP editors. There are a few dedicated, but steadfastly anonymous, IP editors around, but one can't ignore the fact that a large percentage if IP edits are of a mischievous nature. That being said, I'm sorry if you're unhappy about the unequal notes I left. Looking at Philwelch's edits leads me to believe that he knows what he's doing and, therefore, doesn't really need as much of an admonishment. In your case, I have very little to go on so I assume inexperience and comment with that in mind. If I have misjudged the situation, I apologize. I do, however, stand by my contention that you should present your case on the articles' talk pages. Thanks, and I hope that you'll continue to contribute. —Travistalk 19:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I strongly suggest that, if you wish to avoid the bias against IP editors, you create an account.

The IP just left a charming little parting shot on my talk page. I don't really care, but he probably merits a warning if he makes more PAs. Philwelch 00:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that yesterday, but decided that it would probably be best to ignore it. WP:CIVIL and all, you know... —Travistalk 00:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

For background, see this and that.

I love it when my instincts are right! I saw you erased a duplicate vote. Hmmmm. Bearian 01:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured that it had to go. Each time I check that AfD it seems to get weirder. —Travistalk 13:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Escats

You commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Escats. I have re-listed this for further discussion, and you might want to look at the issue again. DES (talk) 16:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD cleanup

Thanks for keeping the Chidiac afd all clean and pretty! -- Ben 00:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Ha - well the !vote I struck looked different than the !vote you struck, so I made them look the same. —Travistalk 00:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and after looking at it for a couple of minutes, your user name now makes sense! —Travistalk 00:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

RE:Are you implying that I am a sockpuppet?

For the beginning of this, please see Boricuaeddie's talk page.

Very curious, indeed..... ;-) --Boricuaeddie 02:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I'll be taking further action if/when his editing gets disruptive. He also left you a message on my talk page ;-) --Boricuaeddie 02:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

To you from the boricuaeddie talk page

For the beginning of this, please see Boricuaeddie's talk page.

Although all edits are important (I made a few to the James Coonan article), AfDs seem to be the most fun and interesting. (Forgive me for sounding evil (and a little odd) but the fate of an article may rest in your hands...MUAHAHA. Just kidding.). I like them because they are a major cleanup - and sometimes funny. On the subject of check users: I lurked around the wikipages for a few days to make sure nothing changed and I still remember it(checkuser also has to do with sockpuppetry). James Luftan 02:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I was just making an observation on an obvious enigma. —Travistalk 02:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay Travis, I hope there wasn't any friction between us.

Are we cool?

unus diligo, James Luftan 03:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Firearms

Welcome to the WikiProject Firearms. I hope you enjoy being a member.--LWF 19:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! —Travistalk 19:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Katiki Point Lighthouse

This started over at User talk:Reginmund#Katiki Point Lighthouse AfD.

I assumed per nom was per nomination but thanks for the info. I didn't think that I was voting twice... oops. Reginmund 01:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD comments aren't votes, per se, but personally, I count a nomination as a de facto delete !vote. It's a good idea, I suppose, to make things as clear as possible to avoid any conflicts of issues. —Travistalk 01:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi

It was very nice of you to welcome me thank you very much. The pages I have edited have mostly been quiet so it was a nice surprise thanks again Delighted eyes 03:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Message box on your user page

Is there a template to produce the notice box “If you leave a message for me...” at the top of your page? I have a similar notice on my page, but I created it myself and it is not as nice as yours. ●DanMS • Talk 22:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Ha! Well, as you can see from the edit summary of this diff, I didn't create it. It's pretty simple, though, just made with the {{Notice}} template. Feel free to copy it if you want. Cheers! —Travistalk 23:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
{{Notice|<center>'''If you leave a message for me''': I will respond here. Either add this page to your watchlist or ask me to notify you of a response on your talk page.
----
'''If I leave a message for you''': <u>Respond on your talk page</u>. I will add it to my watchlist, so you don't need to notify me.
<br> 
This prevents the same discussion occurring in multiple stages on multiple pages.
----
Don't forget to [[WP:SIG|sign]] your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).}}
Now that you have raised the subject, I think I will make it into a proper template. As soon as I get a chance, that is. —Travistalk 23:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Not a bad idea. However, everyone may want to word the template differently. I revised and reduced yours slightly before I put it on my page. What you could do would be to put some default wording in the template as parameters, but leave it so that users could supply their own parameters if desired. ●DanMS • Talk 03:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I had something just like that in mind. Thanks —Travistalk 03:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Reinstating the AfD for Consensus decision-making

This conversation starts on Sunray's talk page.

You have reinstated the AfD on the Consensus decision-making article with a note to me that you do not think that this is the proper way to deal with this. I'm not sure whether the establishment of an AfD on the consensus decision-making article was the act of a willful, but inexperienced, user, or an act of vandalism. In my book, such willful disregard for policy should not allow a bogus AfD to stand. To put it another way: Can any user simply decide at any time, without resort to policy or discussion, initiate an AfD on any article? What if that same user had a number of friends who then voted for deletion. Would the article simply be deleted. Does this make any sense?

If you think that the action that I took—reverting the AfD tag, blanking the article's entry on the AfD page, listing that page for speedy delete—is incorrect, then you should have a pretty good idea what the correct course of action is. Would you be able to enlighten me on that score? I will await your advice on this. Sunray 08:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Considering what you've written, I suggest that you enter a Speedy keep !vote in the AfD discussion page and air the concerns that you have presented here and on the article's talk page. That way, everyone has the opportunity to comment. Also, if this is a malicious AfD as you say, it's easier to check the nominating user's actions in the case of future nominations. I also expect that, before deleting an article, the closing admin will take the comments and available evidence into consideration. In the end, if an article is deleted through malicious action, deletion review is always available.
Looking at this from another point of view, your actions could also be seen as vandalism, although in this case, your edits were clearly made in good faith. It's not obvious, looking at only edit summaries, whether reverting an AfD is or isn't vandalism. Consider a scenario where an article with a clear-cut case for deletion exists and the article's author or supporters takes your actions.
Now, I certainly don't claim to be an expert, but it seems to me that keeping things in the open is usually the best action on Wikipedia. If I'm wrong about any of this, I will welcome corrections. —Travistalk 12:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
After looking at this apparently well-sourced article, I note that, as Wikipedia is a consensus-driven community, this article should be of particular interest to Wikipedians. —Travistalk 12:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. I wasn't familiar with the speedy keep guideline. However, reading it through, it does not apply in this case. The person who listed the AfD, by the way, is a very new account and had previously requested that his user account be deleted (!). It could be a vandal or a troll, but I cannot be sure without more research of his edits. Meanwhile the AfD stands. I guess one has to trust to the good sense of Wikipedia editors (and hope that some of the less reputable of their brethren do not take this on as a cause célèbre). As you say, there is always a deletion review. However, I must say, I still do not think that a well-established, and sourced article (and its many authors) should be required to go through this. Sunray 15:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm... Like I said, I'm not an expert, so I'll setup a request for comment on the article talk page. Maybe we can get some guidance from someone who is an expert, or at least more knowledgeable about policy concerns. —Travistalk 17:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I've learned some useful things as a result of this. Thanks! Sunray 17:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:CVU status

The Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to {{inactive}} and/or {{historical}} status. Another proposal is to delete or redirect the project. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU#Inactive.3F and at the deletion debate. Thank you! Delivered on behalf of xaosflux 17:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar of diligence

The Barnstar of Diligence
I award you this barnstar for you patience and diligence in helping sort out the best actions to be taken with respect to the listing of Consensus decision-making as an AfD Sunray 17:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:Signature

Oh, sorry. I occasionally do that by mistake. LOZ: OOT 22:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to say a quick thanks for closing my erroneous AfD for Svensk. --Tkynerd 01:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm just helping out where I can. —Travistalk 01:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

SSP

I added a July 2007 comment you made to the bottom of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Achidiac. Good catch. -- Jreferee t/c 16:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, I was wondering why a comment from July would have current relevance, but alas, I see that they(?) have returned. —Travistalk 21:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Bodegisel II

I am here based on your substantial edits to Arnulf of Metz‎. I have just put up Bodegisel II, (a poorly attested person connected with Arnulf), for deletion and would welcome anything you might add to the discussion. Thanks. Mdbrownmsw 15:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Laura Whitehorn

Travis - you placed a quick delete on Laura Whitehorn. Please be aware that I'm working with a user who is putting up a full article on Wikipedia but is experiencing some technical difficulties with her browser. I'd appreciate if you remove the quick delete notification. Thanks. -ubothell1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubothell1 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

  • If you believe that the tag was placed in error, add {{hangon}} to the page and explain your reasoning on the article's talk page. Thanks. —Travistalk 19:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Travis-

The user I was helping (a student) had created the article in Word and then copied and pasted it into Wikipedia. Wikipedia didn't recognize the ref tags from Word, which is why only a part of the article showed. If you had looked at the edit page, you would have seen the entire page. It's taken me an hour to figure out the problem. I removed all the ref tags and cleaned up the text and the user will be going in again to put in the citations. I'm sorry I removed the delete tag, but I couldn't find, so removed everything to start over again. Please be patient. This is a new user and I think it would be useful to follow Wikipedia's fourth pillar of advice to "assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming." Thanks - ubothell1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubothell1 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

what can i help with?

--Alaop (talk) 23:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Tis good to see you, too! --Mhking (talk) 03:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Caldwell (programmer)

I notice you tagged Christopher Caldwell (programmer) for CSD A7 deletion. After deleting it, I restored it based on the original editor's comments on the talk page. It might still fail WP:BIO but I feel at least a slight assertion of notability now exists in the article. If you still wish to request its deletion, please use AfD instead. Thanks! Pegasus «C¦T» 01:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the heads-up. I’ll watch to see where this goes. —Travistalk 01:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

don't say anything about my articles

I just got my account I don't need any critics thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadow rocks101 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 1 December 2007

sorry

sorry for getting mad at u hope you forget that I just had a bad day. see ya --Shadow rocks101 15:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

  • No problem... —Travistalk 15:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

how do you

how do you get adopted I can't seem to figure it out?--Shadow rocks101 15:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I added a little something to your user page that should help you. —Travistalk 15:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Stoneman and Volk

An article that you have been involved in editing, Stoneman and Volk, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stoneman and Volk. Thank you. Edcolins (talk) 20:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Petezza AfD

Thanks for your persistent attention to this article. I have launched an AfD for it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Petezza. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Good catch on the two spellings -- I completely missed it! —Travistalk 02:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Tinhorn

Howdy TravisTX. I hope you won't mind that I removed the db-tag from this article. I googled the band, and I (a huge deletionist) was actually convinced that it was notable. It was mentioned on sites which are not merely blogs. It does not seem to be the article of a guy's garage band.

All the best. MKoltnow (talk) 05:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I saw no assertion of notability in the article, but if you have found something to suggest otherwise, I’ll defer. —Travistalk 05:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I do agree that nothing is cited, but I think that this article refers to a real band, so it will eventually evolve into a useful article. One can hope. We can always prod it later if there is no improvement. MKoltnow (talk) 05:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: User:Epeabody

Hi! I can see what's happening here. He doesn't understand how to make the text of a wikilink different from the article title. You're right to flag those pages for deletion, but this user needs help, not blocking. Philip Trueman (talk) 17:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

  • He/she does need help, but there is more to it than not understanding wikilinks. At least four different copyrighted news articles were uploaded by the user. Anyway, I guess with all the flurry of inappropriate edits, I may have bared my teeth too quickly. —Travistalk 17:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Bresnan Communications

Hi. Thanks for catching the copyright violation -- I just deleted that version of the article.

It would be good to have an article on that company, however, since it's definitely notable. I left a note for the article's creator, Elbfeig, explaining the deletion. He's brand-new and I hate to discourage a new editor -- if you have him on your watchlist, can you watch out for him a little bit.

I also set him up a user subpage at User:Elbfeig/Bresnan Communications‎ where he can start a draft if he wants. --A. B. (talk) 20:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I typically flag any coypvio issues I notice very quickly. Sometimes, however, I probably pull the trigger on suspected averts too quickly. I've welcomed the user with a bunch of useful links. Thanks. —Travistalk 20:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! By the way, that was my first deletion as a new admin. I had Bresnan on my watchlist as I knew we needed an article on them. I'm just glad a I cut my teeth on a copyvio and not the Main Page today. --A. B. (talk) 20:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, and congrats on becoming an admin! I just noticed a couple of minutes ago when reading your talk page - I didn't participate in your RfA, but it seems to me that you’ll use the extra buttons wisely. —Travistalk 20:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Archives

Im not sure. Ive created 2 Archives and linked them to my Archive box. Thats all I want to do anything else was a mistake. Realist2 (talk) 21:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

So I HaveUser talk:Realist2/Archive1 and /Archive1. I`ll ashume this will be the same for my second archive? . Realist2 (talk) 21:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah I think its sorted. This archive stuff is so confusing. Realist2 (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

How?

Hey,

Could you just quickly tell me how to do that.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandlerjoeyross (talk • contribs) 00:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Great work!

I've noticed you tagging a lot of new pages for deletion, and I just felt like I should give you a message of encouragement. That and ask you how your Twinkle is so much faster than mine... :P Cheers and keep it up, Master of Puppets Care to share? 00:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the kind words! As for my Twinkles-per-hour, I don't know. I'm on a rather clean cable connection running Firefox 2.x on OS X Leopard, but other than that... —Travistalk 01:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Lies. I say AzaToth rigged your copy. Cheater. Just kidding, I'm happy as long as all that vandalism and nonsense goes away! :) Cheers, Master of Puppets Care to share? 01:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Now if I could just beat CorenSearchBot at tagging a page... :P —Travistalk 01:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Sean Mehgan

I agree that Sean Mehgan does not meet G1 and I probably shouldn't have tagged it as such. However, it does seem to assert notability, meaning it does not meet A7. The article seems to evade all CSD requirements; perhaps an AfD? While it probably should be speedied, it doesn't qualify for any of the criteria. Thanks. Paiev (talk) 04:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

  • You may be right about that. If the article is still around in the morning (it's 10:28pm here) I'll prod it. —Travistalk 04:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
It's been deleted now. While I do disagree slightly with the admin's application of the CSD, I suppose he can just ignore the criteria as the article deserved to be deleted. Cheers, Paiev (talk) 04:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

RE: AWB

  • Initial comment on Phoenix-wiki’s talk page

Thanks for the note. Someone pointed that out to me on irc, and I've fixed them for the next run, thanks again--Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 16:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting my RFA


<font=3> Thanks for your support, my request for adminship passed 62/0/0 yesterday!

I want to thank Snowolf and Dincher for nominating me, those who updated the RfA tally, and everyone for their support and many kind words. I will do my best to use the new tools carefully and responsibly (and since you are reading this, I haven't yet deleted your talk page by accident!). Please let me know if there is anything I can do to be of assistance, and keep an eye out for a little green fish with a mop on the road to an even better encyclopedia.

Thanks again and take care, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

User talk:You know who dis is

I blocked this vandalism-only account. Bearian (talk) 21:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Thank you —Travistalk 21:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

List of restaurants

Please take another look and examine some of the entries--it is not what you assumed it is. DGG (talk) 10:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I nominated the article from Special:newpages, so I probably didn't spend as much time reviewing it as I should've. I agree with your assessment, but what to do now? Withdraw the nomination? Thank you —Travistalk 12:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:User:Willburgeo

That was my mistake. I apologise for that. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

However there seems to is no purpose of this User:Willburgeo's account other than vandalism. See what this user is doing in William burge page. See also the talk page of the article William burge. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Copyright permission obtained

You nominated for deletion my article posted yesterday 12/20 -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PearsonWidrig_DanceTheater -- for copyright violation. This morning I obtained copyright permission and submitted it to permission-en@wikimedia.org. Can you help get the article posted? Many thanks--Jonwiener (talk) 03:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Hello Jonwiener. I'm glad that you have taken the first steps to correcting the copyright problems with your article. I am not familiar with the process of obtaining approval of copyrighted materials, so I'd like to direct you to the help desk for more assistance. Thanks. —Travistalk 14:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Chisolm Ski Club

Would it be a good idea to make a new encyclopedia entry on the Chisolm Ski Club? I don't want to make another mistake. Thanks, Inde. Please reply on my talk page. Independent147 (talk) 18:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Davis

The box is for records and awards, not for something he was the 7th player to do. It's fine in the article, but not enough for the infobox. Pats1 T/C 15:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

M-1 Carbine Article

The M1 carbine article is currently on lock down. An administrator has requested some discussion from memeber of the Firearms Wikiproject. Can you take a look?Sf46 (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I fixed my afd script to add that to the template it generates for me.--Crossmr (talk) 02:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Ha! I was just leaving a message to you about missing afd2 templates. Cheers —Travistalk 02:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ingrid Casares

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:ivU73NdSgbkJ:nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/features/3347/index3.html+sandra+bernhard+madonna&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&client=firefox-a —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catherine Huebscher (talk • contribs) 08:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Interesting article, but it still appears that Ms. Casares’s only claim to fame is that she has had relationships with famous people. Respectfully —Travistalk 11:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction on CIA

I see the error of my naming ways. I do wish, however, that would-be deleters would inquire why a questionable article was created, rather than the traditional shoot 3 times before crying halt. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

  • You’re welcome! —Travistalk 01:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Now That's What I Call Music! 70 (U.K. series)

Thanks for fixing this up - not quite sure what happened with the nomination text. I might have got the subst bit wrong, or something. Kinitawowi (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

  • There was certainly something wrong with the template, whether it was subst’d incorrectly or what, I don’t know. Anyway, you’re welcome! —Travistalk 16:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the suggestion. Well, Virgin Island related those articles do not cite anything and they are all single line articles. It is pretty difficult to understand whether they are really notable or not. I checked newly created articles and tagged only those that I felt non-notable, such as article on a village, on a pharmacy chain or so on. Nominating article for deletion doesn't imply deletion of an article. If respective author can provide concrete and sustainable arguments, those article won't be deleted. So I don't think it will hamper the sprite of Wikipedia. Thanks once again. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 15:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I showed my arguments on the respective deletion debate pages. By the way, it is possible to nominate 40 such (without having a single reference) articles in 20 min, I just nominated 13, moreover using tools. We should concentrate on WP policies and try to follow them before creating any article. Cheers. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 15:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply on Niaz’s talk page
  • Below from Niaz’s talk page as well, but from a different section
Thanks for standing beside me. And about the burning issue, I actually don't have any intention to attach any particular article or author. I nominated them from the newly created page using Twinkle. Twinkle actually asks for a reason and I usually put a core/key reason. Then I express manually my views in the debate page. Still thanks for your suggestion and next time I will add request for citation tag instead of selecting for deletion. I think that will be more appropriate. Cheers. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 16:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:TravisTX/monobook old.js

Use {{db-author}} for a page you made that you want deleted. An admin will probably get to it quicker than using MFD on it. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Abbey Ales

That was my mistake; since I saw one of the redirects had been CSD'ed, I assumed the move was going in the opposite direction and figured I'd try to help out. I'll move it back, sorry about the confusion! ~Eliz81(C) 21:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

  • No problem and someone already moved it back, anyway. Cheers! —Travistalk 21:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I moved Abbey Ales to Abbey Ales (brewery) following the AfD discussion when I saw the redirect was going the wrong way. Have I done something wrong?— Rod talk 22:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
No, I moved it, then Eliz81 mistakenly moved it back. Your move was correct and it looks as if all is well now. Cheers! —Travistalk 22:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:AFD Domino (2nd Nomination)

I am withdrawing it, there was no tag on the Domino article so I figured that with TW i could add one but I didnt know it would create a separate nomination. So basically it was an accidental creation.--TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 16:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

yeah..that's what I was meaning to tell you. But thanks.--TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 17:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikidelete 2008

Seeing you seem to be fairly active on AFD discussions, what do you think about [[1]] Wikidelete 2008? -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 04:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Interesting idea, but I envision major problems with it. Sorry —Travistalk 14:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you please explain more fully?

Could you please explain more fully? You stated, on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Qaida facilitator, that you are concerned that the article doesn't comply with WP:NPOV.

I take compliance with WP:NPOV very seriously. I write on controversial topics. I bend over backwards to comply with this policy. There have been occasions when I can tell that another contributor has accused me of being a partisan on the other side of a controversy from the view I hold personally. A sign that, at least in those cases, I kept my POV out of those articles.

I ask everyone who hints, or states, that they are concerned my contributions have not complied with WP:NPOV to take the time to be specific. I'd appreciate it if you could draw my attention to a few specific passages, or even one specific passage, you are concerned lapses from NPOV.

Candidly, Geo Swan (talk) 03:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Neutral wording doesn’t hide the fact that the article focuses on one specific class of detainee. Due to that, and the lack of any introductory or explanatory text, I can see no purpose for the article than to attract attention to these people. —Travistalk 03:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • noted.
  • I am not a regular patroller of the deletion fora. I adopted the style then current when I first participated in my first {{afd}} in 2005. You seem to be telling me that the style has changed. Has it? If so I haven't noticed.
  • Having made the comment that my style is out of synch are you able to direct my attention to a style guide?
  • Sorry, frankly I don't understand your comment immediately above. Geo Swan (talk) 16:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply: First, I’m not aware of any change in style, but if you take a look at any almost any other user’s comments on any AfD discussion, you should be able to see how different yours look. Second, I’m not aware of any style guide, per se, but the style I mentioned is what is in common use in AfD discussions. I note that your commenting style is also unusual on talk pages; your first note to me is much more readable and easier to format a reply to than your latest one. And third, my concerns seem to have been adequately addressed by myself and others on the AfD discussion page. Regards —Travistalk 17:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • You expressed a concern that my contributions showed a lack of compliance with WP:NPOV.
  • When someone can't offer a serious, specific example of bias in my contributions, in spite of being asked politely to help me understand their concerns, I feel justified in discounting their accusations.
  • I'll bear in mind your other comment, about {{afd}} style.
  • However, I think I need to make clear that I find your unexplained unwillingness to substantiate your accusations deeply contrary to the atmosphere of cooperation and collegiality we should all be working towards here. Geo Swan (talk) 22:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply: I’m sorry that you are having difficulty understanding my comments, so I’ll go over them again.
  1. Not written from a neutral point-of-view. The article does not define “Al Qaida facilitator” in any way. It is simply a list of people who may or may not be Al Qaida facilitators, whatever that is. As such, I can see no other purpose for the article than to attract attention to these people, which brings me to my second comment...
  2. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. As it stands, the article appears to me to have been created as advocacy for the people listed.
I have done my best to continue to assume good faith on your part and would hope that you would afford me the same courtesy. I also hope that this will clarify my position for you because I don’t know how to make it any more clear. Regards —Travistalk 23:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply.
I don't think the wikipedia should shrink from covering topics that can not be completely explained. Fermat's last theorem and the four color theorem could still have been covered, even prior to the brute force techniques that solved them. We cover the Loch Ness monster and Sasquatch, even though barring the unlikely discovery of an actual specimen, those articles will remain incomplete. We cover the Tunguska explosion, even though the cause of the explosion has not been definitively established.
That an article is incomplete, cannot be made complete, given the current state of our knowledge, should not be, IMO, grounds for deletion. Including a previously published speculation of what counter-terrorism analysts might mean by the term -- now that would violate WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR, and WP:RS. But the article didn't do that. Even if someone had inserted this kind of speculation, I think the proper response would be to excise the POV speculation, not delete the whole article.
So, what are interested people, who come across a newspaper article, or DoD document that refers to someone as an "al Qaida facilitator" going to do? Some of them are going to go to the wikipedia, and look up al Qaida facilitator. Ideally they would find a neutrally written article, that cites proper references, that includes a reference to the definitions offered by the DoD counter-terrorism analysts, or other nations analysts, or the speculative definitions offered by recognized, distinguished, Academic experts in security and counter-terrorism. Ideally they would find a definition. We haven't yet found references to that kind of definition. That does not make the article a violation of WP:NPOV.
Wikipedia policy says we don't have to, shouldn't in fact, make judgments like, "Saddam was evil", or "Hitler was evil". The policy recommends laying out what is known, in neutral terms, with references, and leaving it up to the readers as to whether they will draw the conclusion that Saddam or Hitler were "evil" -- or where dangerous lunatics who put world peace at risk. Hitler and Saddam are extreme examples. Almost everyone is going to look at those facts, and disapprove of them. May I point out that some extremists look at those same facts about Hitler, and conclude he was a great man who was misunderstood.
Lay out the facts and let the readers draw their own conclusion. If that is what was done with this article some readers might conclude: "Damn straight. We think his brother might have known someone from al Qaida? I have no problem locking him up too. Good job guys. Get to the bottom of this. A few innocent guys enduring uncomfortable interrogations is small price to pay for protecting us from another 9-11."
Readers get to reach their own conclusion.
If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that merely covering material, even if the way that material is covered is written in neutral terms, is advocacy, is a violation of WP:NPOV. Are you suggesting this because you believe that the authorities' arguments for the current policy are so weak they can not withstand the public having access to a neutral presentation of the facts? Obviously presenting a biased presentation of facts is a violation of WP:NPOV.
But you are not accusing my contributions of containing a biased presentation of the facts.
No offense, but if a biased presentation of facts is a violation of WP:NPOV, isn't the opposite also a violation of WP:NPOV? Specifically, I suggest, the selective suppression of material on an important topic, that was neutrally expressed, and cited reliable sources, merely so the public wouldn't be tempted to reach the "wrong conclusions", would also be a big time violation of WP:NPOV.
Is this really what you are arguing for? I don't know. No offense, but it seems to be what you are arguing for.
Maybe this last note of mine will trigger you to take a close look at my contributions, and maybe in them you will find passages you think you can hold up as an instance of biased writing. I'd welcome this. It is my goal to make contributins that are as unbiased as possible. Provided my correspondent is civil I want to be ready to welcome having any real lapses pointed out to me, so I can fix them.
Sometimes, after a meaningful discussion, my correspondent concludes their initial impression that my contribution was biased was based on a misconception. Sometimes it wasn't the passage that was the problem, but that one of the refernces should have been added to the questionable passages.
I welcome civil, specific concerns.
Your concern remains vague, and, as I have tried to explain, seems to be based on a misconception.
Specifically, I remain unconvinced that contributions which do not advocate a point of view should be accused of "advocacy".
Candidly, Geo Swan (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully decline to be drawn any deeper into this discussion. My opinion has been clearly stated and, not coincidentally, was in line with the consensus which led to the deletion of the article. I do, however, appreciate the non-bulleted reply above. Thanks —Travistalk 19:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Nikki Catsouras

I believe you wrongly placed the CSD A7 tag on this article. If you read the article, it clearly does assert some kind of significance. Can you remove the CSD template and put it to Articles for deletion instead?--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 01:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I was just about to respond on the article talk page. I’ll pull the tag if you’ll point out the assertion of significance. A friend of mine was a cop and I’ve heard, tragically, of dozens of crashes similar to this one. —Travistalk 01:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • But in this case, it asserts significance because of the unique fact that the pictures were leaked to the internet, and because this prompted a change in California Highway Patrol's policies after legal action was taken. It's definitely not an A7.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 01:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy deletion tag was removed by another editor. Feel free to create an Articles for deletion debate for it if you want though.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 01:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I was going to say, “Okay, as you’re a much more experienced Wikipedian than I am, I’ll take your word for it and remove the tag. Cheers!” —Travistalk 02:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Alright, thanks. I just don't want to wake up tomorrow and see the article gone entirely without any kind of a discussion.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 02:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Frankly, if I’d paid closer attention to the article history, i.e. it wasn’t written by some random newbie, I wouldn’t have tagged it at all. Sorry for the trouble. —Travistalk 02:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Landmark Land Company

I'm not finding the copyvio on the front page or on the any of the other pages. Can you narrow what page this infringes onso I can delete this as a G12 cleanly? hbdragon88 (talk) 01:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Hmm, looking at it again, I don’t know what I thought was a copyvio. I’ll revert the tag back to the db-spam I originally applied. Cheers —Travistalk 02:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


Admin coaching

You currently have a request for admin coaching on the Requests for coaching page. I would be willing to be your coach, on the condition that you don't accept a nomination for adminship before I think you're ready. If you agree, just notify me on my talk page. Hope to hear from you soon, Malinaccier (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC).

O.K. I have created your page at User:TravisTX/Admin coaching. Malinaccier (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which was unsuccessful with 19 support, 18 oppose, and 5 neutral. I have signed up for admin coaching and will retry later on in a couple more months.

I'm sorry you felt I am inexperienced to become an admin. I hope that by performing more edits on Wikipedia in the next few months that I could possibly change your mind by my next RfA, possibly around May 2008. Oh yeah, thanks for the moral support. I hope you got a chance to review my answers to question #8 on my RfA. I hope your concerns regarding my knowledge of WP:CSD were covered. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 05:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Hello Jameson. Your answers to #8 went a long way to addressing my concern and I will likely support your next RfA. Cheers! —Travistalk 13:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look

Hi, I just wanted to thank you for taking a look at helping out with that stupid, stubborn template (ok, maybe a bit harsh... :) ) {{Infobox Paris metro}}. One of these days we'll figure it out....Incidentally, I did get it to center once, but that threw off the pointer, which would be fine but would've required going through all 275 Paris Metro stations and realigning the coords...which would have been difficult as they would have not matched the French wikis coordinates. Anyway, I appreciate the look-see. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  • You’re welcome. I’m at a near-complete loss when it comes to css and template programming, but I figured I would take a stab at it anyway. Good luck! —Travistalk 18:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


wow

  • This is in reference to a note I left on ElisaEXPLOSiON’s sandbox

thank you so much, that helped alot! :D ElisaEXPLOSiONtalk. 18:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

  • You’re welcome…I’m glad I could help! —Travistalk 19:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

"Resolved"

You're too kind... BencherliteTalk 03:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL, but shouldn’t it read “Rouge” admin? —Travistalk 04:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I can come up with anything witty about vandalism on that particular topic (the pressure, the pressure!) BencherliteTalk 02:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Glass Nickel

Glass Nickel

I'm trying to write this article on a regionally distinctive pizza restaurant and i keep getting flagged, can you help me write it neutrally? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielmeter (talk • contribs) 19:46, 5 February 2008

  • I hope this helps. If you have any further questions, feel free to leave me another message. —Travistalk 19:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome aboard

They're out in force tonight, with vandalism and page-move vandalism too - do you want some semi-protection on your userpage / move protection? BencherliteTalk 02:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think it’ll be okay. I think. (off to NPP…) —Travistalk 02:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Good luck! BencherliteTalk 02:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Fukka

This is not vandalism. Fukka is a true norwegian word. Plz. bear with me, I'm still working on the article, doing research, expanding, adding reliable sources, etc. Thanks! Discharging P (talk) 03:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of "vaccine video"

An article that you have been involved in editing, "vaccine video", has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"vaccine video". Thank you. Roleplayer (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Editing? Well, tagging maybe. Thanks for the heads-up, though. —Travistalk 23:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

RFA thanks

Look

Couldn't help but show you this picture, and I didn't want to clutter up our coaching page any more. Malinaccier (talk) 23:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Ha! I don’t think a mop would suffice for that mess… maybe one of these would work! —Travistalk 23:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:76.171.233.89

Hi TravisTX. Apologies for my edit to the above page - I didn't realise that there had been multiple malicious edits so just reverted one! --Capitana (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

  • No apologies necessary - you were right to try to de-vandalize the page but the mess was just a lot bigger than you thought. Thanks! —Travistalk 15:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Friendly hello

I don't think we've edited in the same articles or at least not at the same times, but your comment here [2] suggests otherwise. Am I forgetting something? Anyway, thanks for commenting at ANI. --Veritas (talk) 04:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Hello Veritas! No, I’m sure we haven’t crossed paths before. I’ve just been reading and commenting on AN/I for a while and your name has appeared once or twice ;). Cheers! —Travistalk 04:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Ahh, okay. Good to meet you. Keep in mind that there's another user with a similar name: Viriditas. --Veritas (talk) 04:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

multiple re-creation of speedy deleted pages

looking at the history of honkyDory tal page [3]. He appears to have re-created the Simply Sindicated multiple times after having it deleted multiple times by different admins. Should he be warned and/or blocked? --Enric Naval (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Hmmm… That page, under two different titles, was deleted 9 times by 7 different admins,[4] [5] but both titles have been protected against further creation. The user hasn’t made any edits in a while, so it looks like the problem has been solved, at least for now. I’ll drop a warning on the user’s talk page just to reinforce the message, though. Thanks —Travistalk 01:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for participating in my RfA! It was closed as successful with 58 supporting, 0 opposing, and 2 neutral. I hope to demonstrate that your trust in me is rightly placed and am always open to critiques and suggestions. Cheers. MBisanz talk 04:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Best pic I've seen

I can has thankspam?

closing

suggestion on my talk page. DGG (talk) 00:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Texas

You might want this userbox: {{Template:User from Texas}}. It creates this:
This user is a native of the U.S. State of Texas.




Cheers (please use talkback on my talk page), Basketball110 :) 00:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I like it! Thanks —Travistalk 00:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
    • So do I, that's why I posted it on your talk page. Basketball110 :) 00:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TravisTX/Archive_1&oldid=1145848298"