User talk:Polarscribe/Archive 2

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


 * Archives: User talk:FCYTravis/Archive 1

Julie Janssen Article
Thanks for the speedy delete. A little quick for my tastes, but no real quarrel here. Cheers. ALC 6:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the Warbucket Article
I suggest you protect the warbucket article from vandalism, as the members of the forums at warbucket.com enjoy vandalizing the article. -Grumm, warbucket.com administrator. Scottfarrar 23:51, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

WP Truncheon
Dear Travis, I hereby award you the WikiPolice Truncheon for your tireless efforts in censorship and suppression of free speech. You really are a fine member of the force. Wield your truncheon with pride WikiPoliceman, go forth and suppress. --WikiPoliceman 11:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Take your award like a man, wear it with pride dude. --WikiPoliceman 20:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


 * C'Mon dude, Be Bold, this is an important historical record of events. Protecting your archive pages is puerile and underhand.  Hell, there's a shit load of worse things said in that archive about you than this mild, soft furry kitten entry.  Lighten up dude, let the record speak - look what happened to Nixon when he foolishly tried to suppress things.  I want you to have more time to enjoy your car racing hobby than spending your days censoring and suppressing the record.  I beseech you as a young man and a fellow citizen to let the historical record speak.


 * If the 'delete button' or other references were the problem, I have discreetly removed them. If you disagree with this, respond appropriately, do not be the 'Asshole Administrator' and delete or revert without cause or warning - discuss. I am your friend, best wishes dude. --WikiPoliceman 18:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Moved from your user page
How do I contact you?? And why did you delete me page in the first place?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CommanderCool (talk • contribs) 00:18, August 24, 2005

A request
I am disgusted by the fact that the Stardestroyer.net article was deleted, but I will not contest that. However, I have put work into that article and I was not expecting it to get deleted. I want a copy of the article prior to its deletion for my own records. Since you've already deleted it and I can't find any trace of it, I am asking you to provide me that copy. Alyeska 05:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Jtkiefer's RFA
Thank you very much for your support on my RFA. Jtkiefer T - 05:19, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Star destroyed
Thanks for getting rid of that mess. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 10:25, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Another Request
A member of SD.net who voted in the poll (also vandalized one of the delete voters from a previous VFD) was blocked from Wikipedia. The stated time has expired, but he is still blocked. From what I can determine, he was blocked as being a sockpuppet. I can tell you this is not the case. He might be a meatpuppet, but he certainly isn't a sockpuppet. He is interested in trying to become a Wikipedia member and that is difficult when he is blocked from Wikipedia. I am sending you this message on his behalf. His name is Chardok. Alyeska 22:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Votes for deletion/Maureen Faibish
Hi, I was going through still tagged VfD's and came across this. You summed up as 'delete after transwiki', but it is still there. I'm not sure what happens to it now? --Doc (?) 18:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Kudos on Articles for deletion/Hellatight Site
If anyone deserves this, it's you. Someday i'll be at your level, but i'm still at aluminum bats with people like those sock/meatpuppets. Sigh, I need Wiki Anger Management classes... Karmafist 20:55, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for reverting the vandalism to my user page.--Isotope23 13:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Camp Mario
Please undelete this article so that the deletion discussion can continue. The article clearly didn't meet any WP:CSD, and the criteria you stated are not valid CSD. Furthermore, the article had already received a keep vote before you summarily deleted it, which should have suggested that there could be a difference of opinions regarding this article.

In my opinion, it is inappropriate for an admin to simultaneously nominate an article for speedy deletion and to delete the article. This eliminates an important safeguard. Admins should nominate articles for speedy deletion just like any other editor and allow another admin to pull the trigger. Pburka 17:13, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

thanks
Thanks for help fighting the "Neanderthal theory of the autism spectrum" mess. Ug... I guess monday is troll day :). The same guy pushing that listed Articles_for_deletion/Sensory_Integration_Dysfunction for deletion calling it "psuedoscience". Double ug :(. Ryan Norton T 19:10, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Userpage protection
I have protected your user page, on the last version by you, on September 5th. It was being vandalised pretty heavily, go look at the history. :) Anyway, leave a note on WP:RFPP when you want it unprotected, or contact me. -- Phroziac (talk) 23:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You would also be probably be within policy to unlock it yourself since it was a simple vprotect to deal with vandalism. Jtkiefer  T - 01:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

No prob on the reversions just part of the job. Btw, who'd you piss off badly enough that they decided to use an IP to vandalize your page that much. Jtkiefer T - 01:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Thank you!
No problem :) --2mcmGespräch 00:02, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Ladying
This is not nonsense! It is a serious thing that many young men go through! I was putting a lot of work into it, and I was taking it seriously! You didn'y even give it a chance!

what if I delete everything I ever created, or fixed?

--N

Ladying again
ladying is serious buisness, please leave it alone or contribute, dont destroy it.

--B

US Airways/America West
I noticed on the DTW Airport page, you moved America West flights to "US Airways dba America West Airlines". That's incorrect, and I've reverted it. Right now, they are two separate airlines. Beginning October 5, the America West flights will be "America West Airlines dba US Airways", definitely not the other way around. RingMaruf 18:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I was simply following precedent that someone else had established over on WikiProject: Airports - you might want to mention that they were wrong over on that talk page. FCYTravis 19:17, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

List of California State Routes
Someone wants to convert this to a template so it wound up at Articles for deletion/List of California State Routes --Rschen7754 05:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Systemwars.com
Hi. You voted to delete Systemwars.com and it was deleted. However, Tony Sidaway has decided that your vote and the consensus that agreed with you was insufficient. He has recreated the article in violation of policy and relisted it for deletion at Articles for deletion/Systemwars.com (second version). Please take a look. - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  15:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Road stubs
All of the following made their way to WP:SFD:


 * Arizona State Route Stub
 * Kentucky State Highway Stub
 * Maryland-State-Highway-Stub
 * Massachusetts-State-Highway-Stub
 * Michigan-State-Highway-Stub
 * Missouri-State-Highway-Stub
 * Nevada-State-Highway-Stub
 * New-Hampshire-State-Highway-Stub
 * Nhroute
 * Washington-State-Highway-Stub

--Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

a heads-up on the List of Guantanamo Bay detainees
Greetings,

Since you voted to keep the article List of Guantanamo Bay detainees I thought I would give you a "heads-up". A copyright violation was filed against the article, on October 11th. It was filed by someone who had voted to delete the article on October 5th.

I believe that the copyright violation is entirely bogus. I believe it is bogus because, as explained in Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, lists of facts, like lists of names, cannot be copyright. This Feist v. Rural case went all the way to the US Supreme Court, which made the possibly counter-intuitive ruling that the amount of effort someone put in to compiling a list plays no role in determining whether that list is eligible for copyright protection.

Even if alphabetic lists of names could be copyright, I believe the wikipedia list would not be violating copyright since the list was compiled from various sources.

Yes, I have considered that this user invoked a bogus copyright violation to achieve a result that failed in the {AfD}. Yes, I asked them to terminate the copyright violation process, in light of Feist v Rural. They declined. The backlog in the administrators dealing with copyright violations seems to be on the order of a month long.

Anyhow, I wanted the people who had shown interest in the article to not freak out, or feel betrayed, by seeing the copyright violation tag. -- Geo Swan 11:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Yep, thanks for the delete. If I'm not horribly mistaken, one of the instructions on the Cleanup Taskforce new member page states to use "Username:" instead of "User:". Avery W. Krouse 05:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Dope Dope
Why did you delete the page? It doesn't meet the criteria for deletion, and you didn't list any reason which is contrary to protocol.
 * The page met CSD A7, a vanity article. The page failed to make any assertions of notability - simply saying "this guy's a nerdcore artist" is not a substantive assertion of notability. Absent any evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC criteria (albums, tours, media coverage), the article is deletable. FCYTravis 04:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm... It doesn't really make sense that individual articles on super-obscure anime characters are ok, while musicians have to be on Billboard or in the news...
 * Anime characters, pretty much by definition, have reached mass audiences by way of being produced in television programs - thus ensuring their notability. An artist doesn't have to be in Billboard - even local notability suffices. A tour, an album or two sold, it's not that high of a threshold. But a musician whose only product is one free-for-download mp3... is not encyclopedic. FCYTravis 05:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page! - C HAIRBOY (☎) 14:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Teaching evolution
Did you read all the PFAW poll info at their web site? I think it's higher than the 66% you put into the PFAW poll on creationism and evolution article: it's an overwhelming 83 percent! Not just 4 out of 6, but 5 out of 6. Uncle Ed 02:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * They rather poorly (well, they are POV) broke it out into "evolution-oriented" 66 percent... which I guess fits their POV, but doesn't really help anyone determine what the poll means... certainly didn't help me ;) FCYTravis 02:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * That's what you and I are here for: to do the math! ;-) Seriously, the presentation and arrangement of information is an art, not a science. Our job as Wikipedia volunteers is to make things as clear as possible to the reader. Uncle Ed 11:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Judicial activism
Could you better explain this revert to the Judicial activism Talk: page? It's clearly not vandalism, and it's on a talk page, so it's not clear that the comment should have been removed. --Interiot 18:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * That was an inadvertent revert that I thought I had unreverted moments after. Apparently, my unrevert didn't take. Unreverted now. Thanks! FCYTravis 19:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Violation
In deleting my Wikiracist article as "utter crap", you violated several tenets of wikipedia - "Don't bite the newbies", "Assume good faith" and the 'utter crap' is a "Personal Attack". You also failed to let the deletion process take it's course and achieve consensus. How do you justify this? 84.68.19.88 13:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Because there is no good faith in an article which is prima facie POV flamebait. FCYTravis 16:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

No big thing
I fixed up an AfD snafoo for you...({subst:afd3|pg=Society for the Transmundane And Gifted (STAG)}}. &mdash; Gaff ταλκ 07:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you very much for your contributions to the Nick Adams, Gavin Lambert and James Dean pages. I have still some problems with the Memphis Mafia article. In my opinion, User:Ted Wilkes is trying to suppress any critical voice on that page. I have added some passages to this article. For the sources I have used, see my remarks on the Talk:Memphis Mafia page. These contributions have now been reverted by Ted Wilkes without further commentary. See. Do you have an idea what I can do? Onefortyone 14:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Ted Wilkes has now also deleted all of your edits to the Gavin Lambert, Nick Adams and James Dean pages. See, and . I think this behavior is unacceptable.  Onefortyone 16:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I don't believe the Memphis Mafia additions are well-sourced enough. A defunct former potentially official home page doesn't really say enough. If you could find some more sources (quotes from the autobiographies the Memphis Mafia wrote?) I could support it. But right now I don't think there's enough there. However, the other articles have plenty of sourcing and should be allowed to remain. FCYTravis 18:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your opinion. Peter Guralnick clearly says that Elvis and the men from the Memphis Mafia used drugs and spent the whole night together. This should be mentioned in the article. I am sure there are some further sources supporting my view. As for the Elvis and Me page, the following passage included by Ted Wilkes is still in the article:
 * She says Presley was a very passionate man, however, because of attitudes at the time, strongly reinforced by his Pentecostal upbringing, he told her that her virginity was a scared thing to him. Presley's generation still had a double standard that cheered men for their sexual prowess with women, but insisted a girl should remain a virgin until married and if she did not, she was labeled a slut.
 * The words "Pentecostal" and "virginity" nowhere appear in Priscilla's book, as an Amazon research proves. See and . Onefortyone 20:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 Hours
Hi. I've blocked you for 24 hours for violating the 3RR on Nick Adams. This is not a comment on whether I think you're "right" or "wrong" (and in fact, I probably slot firmly into "don't care") but you should know better than to get into this sort of revert war. Next time, just find some other editors to join in and review the article, and then there won't even be the slightest danger of coming near a 3RR violation. Nandesuka 23:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * In the immortal words of Paul DeBolt, thank you for letting me know how you feel. :) --FCYTravis 01:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry you got into a mess over this. It is difficult to evaluate whether any particular thing Onefortyone thinks ought to be in an article. Certainly though the rule is not as strict as Ted Wilkes would have it. Fred Bauder 03:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Why don't Fred Bauder and you read the talk page archive and focus on scholastic sourcing principles along with Wikipedia citation policy instead of trying to improvise writing a tabloid and threatening other editors with sanctions? Wyss 22:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has no requirement that sources be "peer-reviewed." Examine Reliable sources. If that were the case, the sourcing of 99 percent of the articles on the encyclopedia would be deemed deletable. There is not a single peer-reviewed source in the entire James Dean article, which under your standards suggests the entire thing needs to be deleted? I quote - "An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group holds a certain opinion is a fact, and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group holds the opinion." There are a plethora of verifiable sources who hold the opinion that James Dean and Nick Adams could have been gay. Therefore, that fact can and should be included in the article. FCYTravis 02:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It is very interesting that users Ted Wilkes and Wyss, who frequently worked together in deleting my contributions to Wikipedia articles, are now working together in denigrating a member of the arbitration committee, simply because his opinion was not in line with their personal view. See Requests_for_arbitration and Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration. Onefortyone 01:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Karmafist
You're featured on User:Karmafist/users to watch; recently described by another editor as a "hate page". Andy Mabbett 11:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Wiki bat
Thanks! I'll try my best to help him. Hopefully he starts to listen. NSLE ( 讨论 + extra ) 09:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Elvis Presley's sex life
I have now added to the Talk:Elvis Presley page references to some further sources concerning Elvis's sexuality. See Talk:Elvis_Presley. Perhaps you may have a look at it. This material may also be used for the Nick Adams article. I have not yet included new passages in the articles, as we should first discuss its relevance. In my opinion, it seems as if there are many more sources suggesting a homosexual relationship between Elvis and Nick Adams. What do you think? Onefortyone 21:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Wha?
What are you talking about? I don't get it, please clarify yourself. Эрон Кинней  01:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Auto racing
LOL. I thought hobby was a strange word to use to describe auto racing. I should have been bold and reverted it myself. --TantalumTelluride 06:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Nick Adams and the Memphis Mafia
I would like to include the following passage in the "Rumors" section of the Nick Adams article:
 * According to David Bret, Dee Presley, Earl Greenwood, Byron Raphael and Alanna Nash there were even some claims that Elvis Presley had an affair with Adams.

It is a fact that the claims really exist. As for the Memphis Mafia article, a short note that Natalie Wood and some other people were of the opinion that Elvis and the guys from the Memphis Mafia were homosexual may also be added. What do you think? See also related talk pages. Onefortyone 23:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I saw they removed some of your staff at the "homosexuality" page. I added a suggestion for criticism of homosexuality.


 * Please note this is a Personal Attack (unsigned) by Anonymous 168.210.90.180. - Ted Wilkes 19:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Homelessness in Women
I need to know what else I need to fix on my page There was no discussion on how I could make the page better. I did a revision I need to know what else there is I need to doGlentoria

Question
You deleted the article on grasshopper cannon I created because someone vandalized it. Why could you simply not have reverted the article back to the pre-vandalized version? I'd do it myself, but only the administrators have access to the text. sophysduckling
 * Wow! That is going back a ways, back to July. One of the occupational hazards of being on recent changes patrol is deleting stuff that looks like complete crap but isn't - just vandalized. I've restored the article to its unvandalized configuration. Thanks for bringing it to my attention! FCYTravis 05:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for fixing it! I like to go back and look at my edits from time to time, and I noticed that the one on cannon was missing, so I wondered. Thanks for restoring it. :) sophysudkcling
 * No problem, and my apologies :) FCYTravis 23:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:Bootcamp
Hi Travis,

The above page has been nominated for deletion at MfD by someone. Since you were listed as a "new recruit", dated this summer, I thought you might want to poke your head over there and give your view of the page and its value, or lack thereof. As yet, no else else really knows what it's for. Best wishes, Xoloz 07:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Islamonazism
Where is the source to the page you deleted? How are we to restore the page upon deletion review OK if the source is not available?--CltFn 19:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * All "deleted" edits are retained in the database and can be restored by any administrator. They're only "deleted" from public view. Should a Deletion Review decision overturn the AfD, the page will be restored. FCYTravis 19:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, but still you took unilateral action by deleting it today. So you should reverse this and follow due wikipedia process.--CltFn 19:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Unilateral action that is allowed by policy. FCYTravis 19:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

America West - US Airways
I meant to say that these flights were still being operated under the America West banner, but you are correct. America West is doing business as US Airways.

Florida State Road 678
I disagree that the sources were credible in that they contain no text, but that's my opinion. I look forward to the day when wikipedia is swamped with every dot on a map. Maybe a map would be a better place for dots on a map rather than an encyclopaedia?? red stucco 09:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * How is an official document from the State of Florida not credible? As for the dot on a map issue... we're already swamped with every elementary school that ever had a kid. Preschools are probably next. The war's over, we deletionists lost. I'm not going to allow a perfectly interesting road to get deleted as long as every fucking school ever in history gets kept "because it's a school." There are fewer state highways than there are schools - if we can have an article on every damn fool school in the world, we can have an article on every designated state, federal and Interstate route in the country. FCYTravis 09:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Afd is a place to discuss deletion and I will bring up issues I feel important. Three sources have been added to the article where there were none so in that sense I am happy. That is probably three more than most elem schools have, but the "mob" are never bothered by anything as petty as policy ;) red stucco  09:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Nick Adams
Please note I have removed text from the Nick Adams article that you worked on and I thank you for removing some of the other improper statements by User:Onefortyone in this article plus that of Gavin Lambert, Elvis and Me, Memphis Mafia. Because Arbitration Committee member Fred Bauder stated to you here that: "It is difficult to evaluate whether any particular thing Onefortyone thinks ought to be in an article," I have provided complete line-by-line details for my text removal at Talk:Nick Adams. If you have any comments with repect to my deletions please insert them. Thank you for your help. - Ted Wilkes 20:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Wogsland has given us an award
You, I, and Enochlau are now on Wogsland's talk page as his "official list of assholes".

I'm taking it as a compliment. --YixilTesiphon Say hello Consider my Wikiproject idea 02:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Your userpage
One of these days I'm going to accidentally revert one of your own edits to your userpage: it's so unusual for someone other than a vandal to be fiddling with it. Joyous | Talk 12:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Homelessness in women NPoV tag
Hi, I was running through newpages today and doing some random acts of wikification when I came upon Homelessness in women and the NPoV tag you put on it. I definitely see some tone issues in the first paragraph, but I was wondering if you'd swing by the the talk page and describe the NPoV issue so that the current author has some guidance. I'd be bold and make changes myself, but I want to be sure the right issues are addressed, and this (homelessness) really isn't my field of expertise anyway. Thanks much. --FreelanceWizard 03:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

BD2412's RFA
Although my RfA is not over yet, I figured that since so many people voted before it had been posted, I may as well start thanking people before it wraps up. It'll take me that long to thank everyone who voted anyway! Summa cum thank you, FCYTravis :-D - I'll do my best as an admin to make the reality rise to the level of the dream. BD2412 T 05:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Question
I'm a little confused as to what's going on here. Can you break it down in layman's terms? Was the article actually deleted in '04? If so, why is there a redirect now? Peace, BYT 14:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * There was an ancient VfD on the article, and it was voted to delete and redirect, along with Islamonazi to the List of political epithets. However, that redirect was not protected, so someone later recreated the article. It was speedily reverted and redirected - so the person took it to Deletion Review, where someone dug out the old VfD decision. FCYTravis 20:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Many thanks. BYT 15:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again for your cooperation on the Nick Adams article. I didn't link Bill Kelly because I still don't think his writing on Adams is encyclopedic because it is unreferenced just as I don't agree on Hadleigh or other gossip writing as being a proper source. Anyhow, as I said, we can sort that out later. I'll look at Gavin Lambert maybe tomorrow and then James Dean. Hopefully we can sort out this stuff and get back to doing something more interesting. Thanks. - Ted Wilkes 01:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I thought there would be an article... I was wrong! lol... might as well nuke the Wikilink because there's no Bill Kelly article. FCYTravis 02:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Freeconservatives
FCYTravis,

Hi! I was recently trying to create a wiki resource about freeconservatives, a forum which has recieved much attention all over the internet since it's inception in 2001. I started it, but not 10 minutes later it was deleted. So, I searched around to try and find out the reason. The only logical conclusion I could come to is this- you deemed it an advertisement. However, I am not trying to advertise, as we don't need it nor want it.

I thought that it was merely time to have it posted on Wiki, as the size and attention it has received has merited a spot on Wiki.

Thanks for considering my time, -Teenager
 * Hi, and sorry for the rather abrupt introduction to Wikipedia ;) - I deleted it because I felt it failed to properly explain itself encyclopedically as more than, as you said, an advertisement in passing. My Google search turned up very few hits outside its own forum. However, please feel free to recreate the article, and I will tag it for peer review in due course. If I, or another editor, still holds the opinion that it's not a proper encyclopedic subject, I will tag it for Articles for deletion, rather than just deleting it. There, you will have the opportunity to present a case to the broader community that the subject is worthy of inclusion. Thanks for editing! FCYTravis 04:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Teenager 68.85.206.68 21:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for the welcoming. Right now the article is not complete, but I will continue to work on it. Thanks for bringing it back.

Re User:Onefotyone probation
User:Onefortyone is back at it on the Nick Adams article, reinserting text that both you and I told him was non-encyclopedic. Given his refusal to accept your mentorship and with a continuation of the same behaviour patterns as he was placed on probation for, I have notified the two other mentors from the Mentorship Committee, User:Marudubshinki and User: NicholasTurnbull of the situation and requested they examine the matter and proceed with the appropriate action. Thanks. - Ted Wilkes 07:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Got a fan, eh?
heh, I reverted his stuff offa your page twice now ;]

Looks like he's getting distracted with me now hehe. I love it when they get upset that we caught them ;] -- негідний  лють  ( Reply  08:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I blocked his grill ;) FCYTravis 08:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * heh, I was waiting for one more before taking the AIV road ;] -- негідний  лють  ( Reply  08:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Michael J. Moncrief
I checked the source for the above mentioned article and it seems that it is a cut-paste from the cited source. Whould it still be a COPYVIO if the source is a local government website and does not display a copyright notice? I wanted check with the last person who touched it before I continue. I will have time to work on it more in a few days. --Robert Harrisontalk contrib 05:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Blocking IPs
IPs really shouldn't be permanently blocked, because they can and do get reassigned. Unless there is a compelling reason to, I'm going to unblock and block for some duration which I'll consider. Please let me know if there is a reason not to do that. --Nlu (talk) 06:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the wonchi article
The article titled wonch was erroneously deleted. I believe the 'nonsense' code was used to describe it. The wonch movent is very real and has an online presence on the deviant art website. This existence remains undisputed and can be found at http://wonch.deviantart.com. Please take the time to review my disposition and contact me at iluftehwonch at psyint.cjb.net --Steven Pound (Steven Pound) 01:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Boze Hadleigh
I did some further research. Author Boze Hadleigh, frequently denigrated by Ted Wilkes, is a linguist with the ability to converse in five languages. He has an M.A. in journalism. According to Midwest Book Review, his book, Conversations With My Elders (republished as Celluloid Gaze)
 * is a ground breaking collection of interviews with six men who share a common and unusual trait relevant to their success in the movie-making industry: they were gay, and during their lifetimes, they concealed their sexual orientation from the public. Yet these interviews are remarkably open and candid about how these men's sexuality affected their lives and careers. ... Celluloid Gaze is an informed and informative contribution to Film History and Gay Studies academic reference collections and supplemental reading lists, as well as highly recommended reading for fans of the film work of Sal Mineo, Luchino Visconti, Cecil Beaton, George Cukor, Rainer Werner Fassbinder, and Rock Hudson.

So much for the reliability of this source. Onefortyone 11:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Tempus (band)
On the AfD page you said, "The result of the debate was speedily deleted per Cyde's astute observation." I wouldn't exactly call clicking on one of the links and getting a faceful of cock an "astute observation" :-P  --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 01:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

HUGE thanks!!
Trav, thank you so much for the support. The admin at PJ realized the press release was a mistake. He was rather polite and friendly about the whole matter. What a relief! You need it, I got it. Just ask. :) - Lucky 6.9 01:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Quit deleting my pages
What's with you deleting stuff on LBJ and the kennedy assassination? have you ever heard of Freee Speech. Moreover, my page states information that while not fact, is certainly not proven to be false. You are abusing your discretion, you fascist jerk. &mdash;the preceding unsigned comment is by Steven Rollins (talk &bull; contribs)

Shitfun and others
When you removed the nonsense tag from Shitfun, your edit was tagged "Apparently its an album". Well Severed Survival, an article with identicle text to Shitfun, is the name of the album, Shitfun is a name of the track. Does this mean I should make an article Can't By Me Love, which has exactly the same content as A Hard Day's Night? --Nathan (Talk) 00:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * They don't have identical text. Check out the Autopsy (band) page. Shitfun is another album by the same band that did Severed Survival. Read both articles. They aren't the same. The band appears to pass WP:MUSIC. Hey, it's no big deal - I was expecting it to be crap too. Definitely surprised to see that, yeah, it's a legit article. FCYTravis 00:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok. It's just it says at the top of both Shitfun and Severed Survival that "Severed Survival is the debut album...", so I thought they were both about Severed Survival. --Nathan (Talk) 00:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Mixed
Either is proper so long as it is consistent. I didn't change it against policy. I will now revert your edits thank you. Chooserr 04:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Nic Lott
Why did you tag this for delete? You even said the bio was flimsy. 143.231.249.141 14:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Because it was unsourced and sounded like biovanity to me. The AfD got it properly sourced, so all is well. FCYTravis 18:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

RAP
I removed the excess wikilinks following Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). I didn't have the time nor inclination to go through and completely improve the style at that time. When I do apply the MoS I will remove all excess wikilinks and excess bolding. Having "(IATA: RAP, ICAO: KRAP)" is not necessary, since this info can be accessed from the Rapid City Regional Airport article.--Commander Keane 03:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you!
'''Thanks for voting on my RfA! The final result was (36/1/2), so I'm now an administrator! Contrary to what the picture on your userpage says, I think you do a really good job at knowing exactly what you're doing. Keep it up! Mo0 [ talk ] 06:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)'''

New reverts by Ted Wilkes
Would you please have a look at the Elvis Presley page. User:Ted Wilkes continues edit warring and has again reverted one of my contributions. See. Onefortyone 17:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Another anonymous user has now also reverted my contribution and falsely claimed that I am "banned from editing this article by the Wikipedian Supreme Court". I do not understand what is going on there. See . Onefortyone 00:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View
The NPOV is a foundation issue and "essentially beyond debate", note. Uncle G 05:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know, I just wanted him to go off and make himself look even stupider trying to debate the undebatable ;) FCYTravis 05:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
After blocking the @(#*@ for vandalism (he also changed about a dozen blank user pages to say they were involved with Neo-Nazi parties) I was just coming back to do that myself. =)  --Dvyost 08:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
You mightn't be such a bad guy after all. I recognize all involved have strong beliefs and will try to work towards a compromise. It just that one thing that agravates me the most is when things are settled and one randomly changes the dating system...anyway thanks and I'll work toward upholding my promise Chooserr 00:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

History of Albania
Hello mate! I'm not sure if you know at least where Kosova is located. However, it seems like you heard that there are some Muslims and you want to confuse the struggle for freedom of a European people with the Islamic wars in the Middle East. Just to let you know that Kosova always belonged to the Albanians, and therefore they shall be free there. If you are curious to know what religion means to the Albanians just go my talk page User_talk:Getoar and read my answers to HolyRomanEmperor. I agree that the article on Hamëz Jashari is not of a high quality, but I will be working on it and improve it. But, no need to mark the information disputed.--Albanian since Stone Age 06:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I marked it disputed because of the POV language - "freedom fighter," "heroic exploits," "massacred," etc. I've replaced it with a "not verified" tag because there are no sources in the article. FCYTravis 06:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

You don't have to worry about that. This article needs improvements, but the information is true. Hamëz's brother Adem Jashari was honored by the president of Kosova as "Hero of Kosova". And, his family was massacred. Check these links:

   

What do you actually think about the other articles I have written? Check Isa Boletini, Adem Jashari and the Albanian exodus. I will be expanding the latter one.--Albanian since Stone Age 07:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The page University of Prishtina is locked for no reason. Can you please help move the information from University of Priština to University of Prishtina?--Albanian since Stone Age 07:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your help on the Othro Evra page...Chooserr 07:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Could you list your statement about the how to guide thing on the Condom's talk page...Thanks again, Chooserr 08:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge of The Blue Streak (Newspaper)
A week ago, you recommended that The Blue Streak (Newspaper) be merged with The Charter School of Wilmington. Could you post your reasoning here so that others can read it. I can take care of the move, but I'd like to not be the only supporter before I do it. Thanks.--R6MaY89 04:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

i bet you like your WikiWiffle bat, don't ya buddy. Psychomonkey 04:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Sturmgrenadier
The frustrating thing about email or comments typed on a page is that you can't hear the tone of voice with which they are delivered, but your edit comments about the Sturmgrenadier page come off as extremely condescending. Several editors agreed with the text in question going in over a month or two and only two (Eskog and you) feel they don't belong. I know Wikipedia is not a democracy, but shouldn't it tell you something the majority feels one way? --Habap 13:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * A majority of anyone cannot override Wikipedia's basic principles of encyclopedicity. As you noted, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Look below your edit box - "Content must be based on verifiable sources." As there are no verifiable sources provided for the section in question, it doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. The section in question reads like a personal essay. "Sturmgrenadier gaming participants have a variety of opinions of the group, ranging from great respect to serious distaste. Most of the general gaming public have a good opinion of Sturmgrenadier based on the behavior and conduct of its members and are not concerned with the politics within the organization or those who disagree with it." - Who says the general gaming public has a good opinion of Sturmgrenadier? "However, views of Sturmgrenadier as elitist (as opposed to elite, as in highly competent) are compounded by the fact that SG members stick closely together and tend to participate only with other SG members wherever possible. This may make SG seem isolationist and elitist in the eyes of those on the outside." - Who views them as elitist? Who says those views are "compounded by" a "fact" not in evidence? Who says SG may seem isolationist? As it stands, the entire section is original research which isn't acceptable on Wikipedia. Beyond that, I apologize if it came off as condescending but the minor details of X online gamer thinking that Y online gaming group is "elitist" are not encyclopedic. They may seem like the most important thing in the world to a few people but I guarantee you that in 5 years nobody will care. FCYTravis 20:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. The way your edit comments and notes on the AfD were written was very condescending. I made a knee-jerk reaction. While that section of the article was worked on by multiple editors, it is original research, as no such general analysis has been written elsewhere. I concur that no one is likely to care about this in five years. I also expect Sturmgrenadier to be around five years from now, since it is not a kiddie-clan of a half-dozen 12-year-olds, but several hundred dues-paying adults who are organized and committed to the group. --Habap 20:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Right, I make no general assertion about the group - as I noted, coverage in USA Today certainly makes the group itself encyclopedic. It's just all the unsourced "DRAMA!" ramblings that I see in all sorts of these types of articles that tends to GRIND MY GEARS! FCYTravis 20:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Spam filter problem with Fortune Lounge Group
Hi! Thanks for your help with the article! I don't want to get in to an "edit war" over something that is just a little understanding so I thought that I would explain this to you. The words "on line casino" (mash on and line together) are prohibited by Wikipedia's anti-spam filter. This is the correct link for 3 of the links in the article, however Wikipedia won't allow them to be displayed. As such, I separated on and line and then put in a nowiki tag to fix the problem. If you know of some way that they can be displayed better, then it would be appreciated. However, your "fix" is if anything worse than mine, since it gives an incomplete web address and then links to http://www.on which of course goes nowhere. The ideal solution is for those 3 web links to be taken out of the Wikipedia spam filter, although I don't know how to do this. Alternatively, we could perhaps find a mirror of the 3 pages, one which isn't filtered by Wikipedia. As I said in the talk pages, if we get rid of the links, it is an incomplete article. Anyway, thanks for your help. Do you think that the article is okay? Took me quite a few hours to write that one. I admit I got tired of wading through google spam to get the good bits. Finding the spam controversy was a godsend I think. I just stumbled upon it. It was the first bit of "real" journalism about them that I found, and led me to finding lots of other stuff about them. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 09:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * DUH! I didn't even know there WAS a spam filter! :p Thanks for cleaning up after my mess. I had to clean up a bunch of stuff that the corporate PR guy inserted that was peacock, and notice that he removed the bit about being shut down and restarted, replaced it with PR fluff... basically, gonna just have to keep an eye on that page and that person. FCYTravis 09:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah sorry. I guess this happens sometimes.  I am all for "protect the little guy" especially the newbie, but every now and then I get one who perhaps didn't deserve the help.  Not saying that this guy necessarily is, but you're definitely right about the POV stuff.  He completely deleted the stuff about what happened on 21 December.  I mean that is a pretty big claim to notoriety.  Oh, I was also tempted to includes the masses of forums that talked about what they did, with approx 90% of forum users on forums dedicating to supporting online casinos badmouthing them.  Wasn't sure if that was Wikipedic tho, and, since we have actual news stories, I thought that that was better.  But it is a massive controversy.  Go check out the people who gave them awards, including Casinomeister's forums.  Masses and masses of people attacking them. Methinks that's why he doesn't want the awards listed... Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 09:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It's good that it has an article, it just now has to be watched. I agree it's encyclopedic - did a good job there. Just gotta remember that these corporate people wanting to get their articles in don't give a fig about our policies. FCYTravis 09:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * By the way, I will support you to give him an official warning then a 24 hour block for 3RR reversion. Sometimes such things actually help a new user to be productive.  And, in spite of the spamming, some of the contributions have been helpful. For example, he helped by letting us know that 1999 is the date that they started. Anyway, this is why I wrote my User:Zordrac/experts section.  I think in such situations, we should have a little spot where we ask him questions and then we put in accurate info.  The bit about what the company said is correct (its basically in the sources).  And for what it's worth, the evidence I unsurfaced is that they are not guilty of the spamming.  But then again, we'll have to see what happens.  Could end up in a court of law.  Now I think that we know why they wanted a Wikipedia article.  It wasn't to advertise them - they are already hugely popular.  The reason was to draw attention away from the spamming controversy...  Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 09:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually the only reason why I tried to delete the information under the spam section of the article as it is inaccurate and providing time-sensitive false information is neither in the best interests of the wiki or the page. the case actually occured in May 2005, and the problems are still trying to be resolved with our affiliates.

When Zordrac created this new article, some of his links were incorrect and that has led us to believe that his keywords research for our site came up with a www.fortuneloungegroup.com web address that does not in fact exist.

www.online-casinos.com is under the maintenance of Jan Balslev, and the site is part of the InterCasino/Casino Tropaz online operators. I do not know where they got their information from or what game they're trying to play at, but their article is unsubstantiated and alleged rumor by the look of things. This in reference to the fact that we were shut down yesterday, which is untrue and false.

We're not looking to cause a stir, but do not want this wiki page to be the start of a smear campaign either as it does add significant encyclopedic and research value to this entry. Apologies for giving you the impression that we were trying to cover up some negative press, but we are actually about transparency and like to be held accountable for our decisionsUser:Fortunelounge

Illegal moves
If you move Alexander, Crown Prince of Yugoslavia one more time without following WP rules it will be reported on the Administrator incidents page. There are clear rules that are followed both in terms of naming and in terms of moving. Follow them like everyone else. Your breaking all the rules on that page has already led to complaints by various users on user pages. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 20:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Illegal? Excuse me? It's called being WP:BOLD. I don't see any consensus either for or against the move on the talk page for the article - but I certainly don't see "various users" complaining. I see all of one person opposed to the move. Join the discussion, don't accuse people of "illegal" acts. Ever heard of WP:AGF? Guess not. FCYTravis 20:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Min Zhu
Moved from User Talk:FeloniousMonk-- If you want to get into a rollback war, be my guest. Or you could actually discuss the issue of completely unfounded criminal allegations. But it's up to you. FCYTravis 06:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I've read the evidence, far beyond what is presented at Wikipedia, and the allegations are well-founded in public record. The content is relevant and necessary. FeloniousMonk 06:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Your mere assurances are not sufficient to support an encyclopedic entry. Especially not an entry which accuses someone of sex crimes. There have been no criminal charges filed in any court of law, nor has there been any evidence presented that this person has admitted to such conduct. Verifiability is key.FCYTravis 06:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The sworn testimony establishing the allegations is available as a matter of public record. You're free to read it for yourself, but not free to deny it's value and relevancy here. FeloniousMonk 07:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * FeloniusMonk, the burden is on you to present a reference to a reliable source for this allegation. Provide a link, don't just say 'it's in the public record'. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 07:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Here's the link,, you'll have to order your own copies. FeloniousMonk 08:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * C'mon. That's not gonna fly.  Find something that you can use to prove your case without making people purchase something.  If the charges are as serious as you state, then they should be in more than one place, right?  They're not mentioned ANYWHERE else? - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 16:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You won't get an answer to that, because they aren't. Just try a Google or Lexis-Nexis news search - there have been ZERO third-party reports of this. The only place this is reported is... Wikipedia or this guy's blog. FCYTravis 20:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents of linked court reports: Michael Zeleny 	1-02-CV-809286 	Zeleny -Vs-Zhu 	Breach Of Contract/Warranty - Unlimited Michael Zeleny 	1-02-CV-810705 	Zelyony -Vs-Zhu 	Fraud - Unlimited Michael Zeleny 	1-04-CV-024062 	Webex Communication Inc. Vs M. Zeleny 	Business Tort, Unfair Practice - Unlimited

Nothing about abuse anywhere. The only reports of abuse appear to originate with Zeleny, who clearly has an axe to grind. Thus far he has failed to cite a single reputable source to substantiate his allegations: I think by this stage if he had them he'd have cited them. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Warning
Please stop removing content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. FeloniousMonk 06:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't you know to subst: templates left on user talk pages by now? Throwing about accusations of vandalism is hardly going to get anyone anywhere. FCYTravis 08:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No less so than a sterile edit war waged because of a lack of relevant knowledge... FeloniousMonk 08:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Or an unfounded and inappropriate threat to block... FCYTravis 09:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

2nd warning: If you continue to remove well-cited content from articles, I will block you for vandalism. FeloniousMonk 08:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * If you want to get into a block war, be my guest. I am following procedure in my attempts to resolve this dispute. You are threatening to use admin powers to terminate it. That doesn't sounds like a very smart move to me. It is hardly vandalism to remove material I believe to be unsourced and libelous. I have not and will not violate WP:3RR. Other than that, I expect you'll have a very tough time justifying the good faith removal of material as "vandalism." FCYTravis 09:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It's vandalism to remove material that is well-sourced for no good reason, as you've done at WebEx. That content was extremely well-sourced with many credible citations. I'll continue to maintain well-supported and established content, even it is distasteful. You've already shown yourself to not be knowledgable on the subject and you've made it clear you're intent on deleting content at Erin Zhu and WebEx for personal reasons. It's the apparent absence of good faith in deleting well-supported content (such as that at WebEx) that makes it vandalism, so I don't foresee any difficulty in justifying identifying it thus. FeloniousMonk 09:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Personal reasons? Please, O Great and Psychic Monk, explain to me what personal reasons I could possibly have for caring about this. Compared to, say, someone who was involved in lawsuits with the above mentioned persons and companies. Now THERE'S someone with personal reasons to be interested in the article. I suppose I could, by your logic, make a claim that you're vandalously adding libelous material to articles, and block you for that. But I haven't and I won't, because I'm not interested in a block war. I'm interested in fomenting policy debate and discussion through the proper channels. I suggest you do the same. FCYTravis 09:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Musicianforums
Thanks form changing it to sprotect; I was thinking of doing that, but I wan't sure if it was the right thing to do, so I did vprotect just to be safe--Shanel 22:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks again. And Merry Christmas. :}--Shanel 23:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Elvis Presley
I have now added some further details to the "Relationships" section of the Elvis Presley article (see ) and some related pages. You may have a look at it. Merry Christmas! Onefortyone 02:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Cleaning up my userpage...
FCYTravis, could you please help me clean up my userpage? I got reintroduced to userboxes, and now they are all over the place. Please help

Bkissin 14:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Biffeche
Hi, I've done a complete rewrite with references and am requesting people who voted to have a look at the new version. Thanks. Dl yo ns 493  Ta lk  16:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Mona edit
With all due respect, the Mona Simpson article read better before the edit. And there was no insult there. She does indeed use people she knows "as grist for her creative endeavors" as she says in her talks and many interviews. And yes, it is often to an uncomfortable degree - as she has also addressed. See also article written by Lisa Brennan-Jobs (http://www.theharvardadvocate.com/archives/driving.html). Ditto for "unusually revealing warts & all" portrait. She is a very intelligent writer and she believes very much in "warts & all" - and has the literary kudos to prove it. So it seems a shame to emasculate a very good summing up. ChumleyK
 * It's not about how well it reads, it's about WP:NPOV. The wording used was POV unless specifically sourced. We cannot say "Her writing is revealing, warts and all." We can say "Lisa Brennan-Jobs says her writing is revealing, warts and all." Any opinion expressed about anything must be specifically sourced to the person who said it. For example, I didn't change this quote - "Mona exploited her personal experiences for the material in her fiction. After publishing books about the emotional struggles of growing up with a demanding mother and an absent father, it wasn't surprising that she should decide to write about her brother," because it was specifically sourced to another author. If you can rewrite those sections to talk about who said it, by all means go ahead. FCYTravis 20:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your courtesy. As a newspaper reporter and editor for the past 30 years, my automatic response to a story tends to be based on its accuracy and readability. And of course your point is well taken and I bow to your superior knowledge of Wikipedia convention. (Even if it does hurt to know that readability doesn't count)

Unfortunately, to give full quotes and background in each of these cases would be unwieldy and ruin the article as it stands. (“As the author said at the xx coffee shop in Palo Alto during the reception for the publication of her latest book in March 1997..” “ In her talk after accepting the Evil Companions literary award at Colorado State University on April 10, 1997, the writer said …” etc. etc)   And the story by Lisa Brennan-Jobs is so well written that it deserves to be read in its entirety - not requoted in one or two sentences.

But the writer of the piece itself, if still around, might take up the challenge. Many of the points were made by several reviewers each time one of her books was published - so it should be possible. As for me, I stand corrected and thank you again. ChumleyK

ps Could you do something about her discussion page? It seems to be in a state of permanent stasis.

Articles for deletion/RebelForums.org
Thanks for seeing to Articles for deletion/RebelForums.org. I am usually weary of discounting probable meatpuppet votes and the guidelines say when in doubt, don't delete. However, I must say that it is pretty likely that those were meatpuppet votes, as it was an article on a web forum. Anyway, thanks again for the pointer - I'll know what to do next time. Izehar 11:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration accepted
Requests for arbitration/WebEx and Min Zhu has been accepted. Please place evidence at Requests for arbitration/WebEx and Min Zhu/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed at Requests for arbitration/WebEx and Min Zhu/Workshop. Fred Bauder 01:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Will Bardwell
FCYTravis, what do you think about this article?205.188.116.136 04:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Planet of the Apes
I noticed you did an unexplained revert. My edit was valid. The book made no distinction between ape and monkey. The movies did. DyslexicEditor 09:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Your edit makes absolutely no sense in context. That's why I removed it. "In contrast" with *what* exactly? FCYTravis 09:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Have you seen the movies? The apes are offended by being called monkies.  This is known by anyone who watched them.  Yet the book due to language issues does not distinguish between the two.  DyslexicEditor 09:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That's rather interesting, but doesn't make sense in the context of the introduction, and it's not really an important enough point to be in the first line of the article. FCYTravis 09:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

template for partial protection
Is there a template that says partial protected because of edit wars? Or does that have to be done manually? --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  01:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, it has to be done manually, hehe. FCYTravis 01:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

SSM
I'm working on it. I realise the picture doesn't work well, and am going to remedy that. Thanks for the concern about my template though. You gay template is a bit off (I feel) for I saw that pink triang on the "Straight but not Narrow" bit. Might wanna change that. Chooserr 06:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I would, but maybe I wouldn't. You're free to give it ago. If you feel so strongly though you can argue to the users who have a picture of president bush along with "this user hates president bush and wishes they didn't have to revert vandalism there" or something about being ignorant and white depending on the version. As I said the triangle in your box is misplaced for the template because that pink triagle stands for "straight but not narrow" or "I'm straight but being gay is fine" not for actual gays. Chooserr 06:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Pop quiz, Chooserr: when the Nazis were putting gays in concentration camps, what symbol did they make them wear?  The prize for the correct answer is that you will learn something that you don't, evidently, know. Nandesuka 06:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't create a userbox like the one I mentioned because 1. I don't believe it (I'm not either for or against religion. I think it just is) and 2. I think it would be offensive to people, and being offensive doesn't help create a better encyclopedia. As for the pink triangle, it most certainly is a gay symbol - read Pink triangle, we even have a Wikipedia article about it. Amazing what you can find out when you're writing an encyclopedia. FCYTravis 06:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Nandesuka, I know it was used for that purpose, but I hardly consider it a homosexual symbol today mainly because they use the rainbow flag and the pink triangle is used by gay supporters. Next time could you reply to my talk page? Chooserr 07:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Chooserr
I see at you had an agreement with Chooserr that he would not change any more articals with AD or A.D. or the like... Well he has been at it again. [] [] [] []

Not sure if you want to act on this or not, but he has been a pain lately. Jwissick (t) (c) 06:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for being a man about it Jwissick. I said I wouldn't do anything for a week maybe two but wouldn't hold my peace forever. And all those articles were BC/AD already. I just switched around the dates like 19 AD -> AD 19 or added it infront of other numbers so as they are consistent. Chooserr 06:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm going to shock the world and agree with Chooserr here, you're not changing BCE/CE/BC/AD articles and I want to thank you for holding the line on that... I'm not sure what the policy is whether AD is supposed to be before or after, but I don't really see it as disruptive. I can't disagree on the "been a pain lately," but I'm going to assume good faith and give you the benefit of the doubt on this one. FCYTravis 07:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well that's nice, and I won't knock it, but if you blocked me I'd fight it tooth and nail because I've already kept the "week or two" which I promised and am nolong obligated to refrain from making CE/AD changes. Chooserr 07:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Chooserr, that's really not a good idea. I think you have some great contributions to make but you seem to be inordinately drawn into these POV wars on highly contentious issues. Why don't you try editing some non-controversial stuff for awhile? Surely you can't be enjoying these endless battles. I certainly don't. FCYTravis 07:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I don't enjoy endless battles, but being limited from editing on articles like Xenophon upset me more. I'd have no problem going up to the 3rvt line everyday to keep BC/AD up on this article. I oughtn't be limited, but feel I am for while I kept my promise I think it likely that you'll block me anyway. Chooserr 06:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You were right
...about List of Netflix distribution centers. Thank you for criticising me when I made a mistake, and encouraging me to fix it. I'm glad we have people like you around to make sure people like me don't screw things up. Thank you again.--Sean|Bla ck 02:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

New deleting tactics?
User Lochdale is now taking over the role of Ted Wilkes in deleting my contributions to the Elvis Presley article. See, for instance,, , and. Lochdale also uses different IPs for his contributions, for instance, 24.148.51.62 and 83.71.77.27. Could it be that this user is somehow related to Wilkes and Wyss? You may have a look at the Elvis page. See also Talk:Elvis Presley. Thank you. Onefortyone 16:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Why did you remove what I had contributed to the SYR page?
Tell me this...

Pussy City Pimps
I hope you're not offended, but I have undeleted Pussy City Pimps. See explanation on WP:DRV and I'm going to explain on the Afd page also. Friday (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * PS. I'm sympathetic to the common-sense speedy, I really am. But, when people object, there's little harm done by letting the Afd run its course.  Friday (talk) 05:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * There's even less harm done by nuking the article speedily, except when people who care more about bureaucracy, process and policy than writing an encyclopedia get involved. FCYTravis 05:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think verifiability and OR concerns are very important- those two policies are pretty much all that stands between the encyclopedia and a mountain of junk. But, just in the interest of transparency and people getting along, I think it's sometimes reasonable to undelete a contested speedy.  As it stands, the article now needs Afd to determine if it's an encyclopedic topic.  The answer will surely be no (and I'll find another way to get rid of it, even if the Afd doesn't), but people had legitimate concerns and wanted Afd instead of a speedy.  I'm as big a believer in IAR as you can find, believe me, I'll pick product over process every time.  Anyway, hope you understand why I did what I did, and no hard feelings.  Friday (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Check your email
Hello, please check your email. Sent information re: WebEX and Min Zhu case. --FloNight 04:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

RfC Comments on Meatpuppets
FCYTravis- Regarding your claim that that I don't understand Wikipedia terminology and that you feel that that shows bad faith on my part, I have clarified my statement to highlight why I feel that the usuage of that term (with Veganism topically involved, et. al.) in that RfC is inflamitory. I try not to jump to conlcusions, I mearly express my opinions. OnceBitten 22:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)