User talk:TravisBernard

Welcome!

Hello, TravisBernard, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 20:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style


 * Thanks! I look forward to helping! --TravisBernard (talk) 20:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Film Invitation

 * Check out WT:FILM especially. We tend to be busier than other WikiProjects with quite a few discussions. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 20:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thanks. I just added some information about the Inception discussion.  --TravisBernard (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Film
 Welcome! Hey, welcome to WikiProject Film! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of films, awards, festivals, filmmaking, and film characters. If you haven't already, please add User WikiProject Film to your user page.

A few features that you might find helpful:
 * Most of our important discussions about the project itself and its related articles take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you [ watchlist it].


 * The project has a monthly newsletter. The newsletter for January has been published.  February's issue is currently in production; it will be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There is a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:


 * Want to jump right into editing? The style guidelines show things you should include.
 * Want to assist in some current backlogs within the project? Visit the Announcements template to see how you can help.
 * Want to see some great film article examples? Head on over to the spotlight department.
 * Want to know how good our articles are? Our assessment department has rated the quality of the majority of film article in Wikipedia.  Check it out!

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 21:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM February 2011 Newsletter
The February 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --TravisBernard (talk) 16:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM March 2011 Newsletter
The March 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thank you. --TravisBernard (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM April 2011 Newsletter
The April 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --TravisBernard (talk) 00:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Feedback reply
. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM May 2011 Newsletter
The May 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM June 2011 Newsletter
The June 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. We are also seeking new members to assist in writing the newsletter, if interested please leave a note on the Outreach department's talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM July 2011 Newsletter
The July 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. We are also seeking new members to assist in writing the newsletter, if interested please leave a note on the Outreach department's talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Air bud
See my edit on the talk page under yours at Treasure Buddies here1archie99 (talk) 19:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

TPS and page deletions
For future reference, you can either place a or  (depending on if they are in articlespace or userspace), or just blank the page if you are the only editor to it. :) Syrthiss (talk) 16:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

NFLPA
At first glance, the sources appear very reliable and all pertinent information is available. There will need to be some wording changes and re-arranging to make it a bit more reader friendly and formatting will also be necessary for things such as references and a few redirects but otherwise, it is shaping up to be quite a nice article. I'll have more time tomorrow afternoon and will be more than happy to start making changes. -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 22:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks for the quick response. I look forward to hearing your feedback. --TravisBernard (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * See Bert Bell for previous information to 1956. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.33.8 (talk) 08:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It would help me alot if you created an NFLPA page on wikipedia. I then can delete boatloads of off topic on the Bell page. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, my bad. It's already created. Well I put the edits on your sandbox page. I guess that's okay. I really dont want to start editing that article although it will help me if I can delete some stuff from the Bell page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.33.8 (talk) 08:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am really hoping you press on with this. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 09:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And if you press on, then you can give me input what I can remove in the Bell article since it will be covered by the nflpa article. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 09:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The Bell article has a giant hole of several years between the Radovich (1945) and the decision (1957). If the nflpa article properly handles its inception I can delete some too detailed stuff in the Bell article, i.e. Zimmerman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.33.8 (talk) 09:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The biggest mistake in your sandbox was the use of the word demand. Staudohar, or Berry, are extremely explicit that the NFLPA at its beginnings made requests and not demands. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 09:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I just modified your sandbox. Obviously, I expect you to undo my edits. Hopefully you will read it and note the books, citations, and corrections I put in. Where and when to break up the headings is a matter of persepective of each author. I gave you a glimpse of my perspective :) 66.234.33.8 (talk) 09:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I wrote "Depending on sources, the first concrete..." a full reading of the sources show Gibron and Lavelli to be responsible. There's holes in what I wrote. The Paul Brown citation is really pointing to the fact that Brown discovered the nflpa in its infancy but not at its birth. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 10:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * To read and download the .pdf of the 1957 congressional hearings. Go to your library, logon to the library's wireless, if it has one. Then click on the link. If your library subscribes to whatever U.S. goverment organization that provides the service, then you can either read or download it to your laptop. There are 3 hearings in 1957 (iow, 3 different downloadable files). The 3rd is about the nfl. The 1st is baseball. I forget what the 2nd is. Inside the 3rd is the entire NFL constitution, as it existed in 1957, and an entire book/brouchure written by Bell, the Radovich case, et. al. Also see the reserve clause on Wikipedia and the notes distinguishing the option and reserve clause and how the names bounced around between 1945 and 1957 which I wrote about in the article. The contemporary media uses the term reserve clause although the NFL referred to it as an option clause.66.234.33.8 (talk) 10:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Generally speaking, Bell faced a "4th and long" when he appeared before Congress because they were coming after him over the NFL draft. That's why he recognized the nflpa. Then he went back to the nfl owner's meetings and Rooney said if we do not recognize the NFLPA then we have to fire Bell. George Preston Marshall and Tim Mara were the big holdouts. You have to remember this was the 1950s and there was a lot of anti-communist rhetoric, but unions were very powerful and very popular in the 1950s also. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 10:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, generally speaking, I am very knowledgeable about the nflpa up until the point the NFL recognizes it. Once they recognize it. I know practically nothing. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 10:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for the help. I really appreciate you taking the time to give me some feedback.  I'm working through the edits now, and I am making a few minor changes. Thanks again. --TravisBernard (talk) 16:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am kind of hoping that the nflpa contributors, the Radovich article contributor, and I can work together because those 2 articles and the Bert Bell article are so closely connected. I really want the appropiate content to go in the appropiate article. Right now the Bell article has way too much off topic stuff with respect to those two articles. The Bell article, as you can see, is cited to the teeth. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 20:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a religious holiday for some folks today. So I have to chill and see if anyone complains about my merge requests. Basically I will be pushing everything out of Bell and bringing back what is essential to Bell. The fact that Zimmerman got traded in 1943 to the Steagles is way off topic for Bell. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 20:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * If you get a chance, read that congressional link. It's 3,000 pages long...but not really. The stuff associated with the NFL is probably like reading 80pages in a book. Be careful not to cite it. You might be surprised to find out, but politicians sometimes posture and grandstand. Letting a published author analyze it and citing him is best. But its fun stuff :) 66.234.33.8 (talk) 20:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * After I finish working on the NFLPA article, I'd be happy to help out with the other article. --TravisBernard (talk) 20:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, you should really consider making a username. --TravisBernard (talk) 21:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Also bear in mind, those 20 books...most of them only have 5-10 pages on the NFLPA. You really can't make a move without reading Lyons' book though. And it is pretty much mandatory you read:


 * Davis, Jeff (2008). Rozelle: Czar of the NFL. New York: McGraw-Hill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.33.8 (talk) 20:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Rozelle, I do not think this is listed on Wikipedia, was voted 1 of the 100 most influential persons in the world of the 20th Century(i think by Time Magazine). Not most influential sports figures...influential persons. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 20:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Remember, I know nothing what happened after the NFL regcognized the NFLPA. So be careful with my titles of sections. :) Although, they are good faith drafts and you should keep in mind your own section heading as you see fit. I guess people like to stress what they feel is important and section headings are on the top of the list. :) 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you can tell when I edit your article. So I will not advise you when I change it, if that's ok. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 14:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Dante Lavelli, why did I bring in Dante Lavelli in the article. Dante Lavelli o worked on the docks in New York with the longshoreman. And that's why and he when he got introduced to unions. ...I know nothing of Abe Gibron. 66.234.33.8 (talk)

Cross posted: Folks, can we go to the NFLPA and start editing that article. All three of us are hot on this topic. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 20:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

BTW, the NFLPA is a monumental article. Do not underestimate the difficulty in improving it. :)


 * Thanks again for all the help. I'd appreciate it if we waited to implement these edits.  I've been working on this draft for the past week or so, and there's no reason to make these changes right now.  I'm still working on this article on my talk page, so please hold off.  Thanks. --TravisBernard (talk) 00:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As you wish. I am just going to write on your draft discussion page henceforth. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not want to come back here. But all internet sources used as a citation that I have checked so far in that article do not substantiate the statements they are attributed to.
 * On a lighter note, whats the matter w the word But :) 66.234.33.8 (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Merge Requests
Oh, you are involved with the NFL Draft also I see on the talk page. The draft, Radovich, Bell, and the NFLPA are all very closely intertwined. As you can see I have merge requests on all four pages. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 13:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I am not involved with that page. Give me some time to go over the edits, and I'll get back to you. Thanks. --TravisBernard (talk) 13:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I had 3 wikipedia articles open at the same time; I got confused, oops. Good job bro on the edits. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 20:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM September 2011 Newsletter
The September 2011 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 16:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Bert Bell
Can you please archive the web pages I use as citations. I do not know how to archive web pages. Or if my formatting confuses you can you please point to a link to tell me how to do it. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * actually, if you point me to a link, then maybe I can learn how to do it myself. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've never messed around with archiving myself, but you can read more here. --TravisBernard (talk) 21:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * thanks for all your help 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

2011 WikiProject Film coordinator election
Voting for WikiProject Film's October 2011 project coordinator election has started. We are aiming to select five coordinators to serve for the next year; please take a moment from editing to vote here by October 29! Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 12:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM October 2011 Newsletter
The October 2011 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 15:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Film November 2011 Newsletter
The  2011 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —Peppage (talk &#124; contribs) 22:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Film December 2011 Newsletter
The December 2011 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —Peppage (talk &#124; contribs) 22:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Decertification of NFLPA
In a recent edit] you made to the National Football League article you removed a statement that the NFLPA had decertified in 2011. Your edit states instead that the players "renounced collective bargaining rights". I'm curious what distinction you are making between these two terms. The union's action was widely reported as "decertification" at the time and your edit is the first time I've heard that the union did not actually decertify. Did the media goof in reporting this action? If so, can you please cite some reference that explains your point of view? Thanks. &mdash; DeeJayK (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the question. This USA Today article clarifies it a bit.
 * Unlike the lengthy decertification process through the National Labor Relations Board — which requires a petition signed by 30% of union members upon filing, then an election that would need a majority vote to decertify — the NFLPA would renounce bargaining rights with letters to the NFL, its 32 teams and U.S. District Court Judge David Doty several hours before the CBA expires.
 * Decertification is a process that requires a majority vote. This did not happen. As noted above, the NFLPA's process is "unlike decertfication" because there's no voting. Instead, they renounced or disclaimed their collective bargaining rights. The word decertify only implies to a situation in which the NLRB conducts an election after either the employer or a group of employees challenges whether a union still has majority support of the employees it is certified to represent. Multiple media outlets incorrectly reported that they decertified because it is similar. There is a difference, and some reporters pointed this out. Does that makes sense? --TravisBernard (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. However, I'm still not 100% convinced that the union never decertified in 2011. This article states that the union intended to notify management (and other involved parties) that they were "renouncing their negotiating rights" in the interest of time at the point when negotiations broke down (my interpretation), but it doesn't necessarily state that the union didn't later complete the decertification process. Further in the "ABCs of decertification" section the same USA Today article states "if it renounces its role to collectively bargain, the NFL Players Association would cease to be a certified union and become a trade association." I don't see the distinction nor the difference between "cease to be a certified union" and "decertification". If there exists some legal distinction between these terms, I'm not sure it's germane to the general audience of this article. Also, as I recall that the eventual ratification of the CBA was held up for a few days or weeks so that the players could go through the voting process necessary to "re-certify" their union. Since the action was widely and (from my recollection) exclusively reported as "decertification", it seems like that should be the term WP uses to describe it barring a definitive reference stating that was not the actual case. I've done a bit of searching without uncovering such a definitive source, if you have something beyond this USA Today article, I'd love to see it. BTW, I'm really not trying to be argumentative here, I just want to make sure that the information presented in this article is as complete and accurate as possible. I appreciate your efforts in editing this article and your willingness to discuss my concerns. Thanks. &mdash; DeeJayK (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. I definitely see where you're coming from on this one, and it is a tricky issue. The key here is that decertification occurs when the NLRB holds an election. Renunciation does not require the NLRB election. There was no election here, so technically there's no decertfication. It's essentially the difference between a legal term and how it was reported. Technically the union didn't decertify, but news outlets were using the word "decertify" as a blanket statement to cover both the renunciation or disclaiming of CBA rights and decertification. I think this is a healthy argument, and maybe we should post it on WP:NFL. Thoughts? --TravisBernard (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'd be interested in getting opinion from a wider audience. &mdash; DeeJayK (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * At the very least I think it's fair to say that the players "voted to decertify" their union. All the the articles I have found regarding this point to the fact that the decertification needed to be upheld by the NLRB, but that it was likely the NLRB would do so. What's not clear to me is whether the NLRB ever actually got around to approving the decertification action before the dispute was resolved. &mdash; DeeJayK (talk) 23:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, they didn't vote on it, but it wasn't reported on as heavily. Let's keep the conversation going on WP:NFL. --TravisBernard (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Just added my capitulation on the the WP:NFL talk page. Thanks for your patience in addressing my concerns. &mdash; DeeJayK (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

John Carter (film)
Since several reviews have begun to come out, should we start a Critical Reception section in the article? Or should we wait until the film releases? ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 13:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We can go ahead and add the review section before the film is released, but I think it's a good practice to wait until reviews from reliable reviewers are released. I just checked Rotten Tomatoes, and there are definitely individuals that have released reviews that would qualitfy as reliable. I'd recommend using the reviews from IGN (very reliable), HitFix, or Digital Spy. Let me know if you need any help. --TravisBernard (talk) 13:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure, and thanks :) ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 07:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I've added the three reviews; however, there is a strong possibility that some agenda-based editors will complain of a lack of negative reviews. Are you sure that all reviews on RT are not reliable? ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 07:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I never said that the other sources were unreliable. You can definitely use the other reviews on RT. Some sources are just better than others. Typically using "top critics" is better than using some random film reviewer. More reviews should be posted in the coming days, so you can always just wait a day or two for more sources. Thanks. --TravisBernard (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That clears it. Thanks! ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Film's January–February Newsletter
The January 2012 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

To unsubscribe, please remove your name from the distribution list. GRAPPLE  X  00:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

COI+ certification proposal
I've thought of an idea that might break our current logjam with paid editing. I'd love your sincere feedback and opinion.


 * WP:COI certification

Feel free to circulate this to anyone you think should know about it, but please recognize that it hasn't agreed upon by either PR organizations or WikiProjects or the wider community. It's also just a draft, so any/many changes can still be made. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Join the Months of African Cinema Global Contest!
Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

The Months of African Cinema Contest Continues in November!
You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Welcome to the Months of African Cinema Global Contest!
Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

The Months of African Cinema Contest Continues in November!
You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

File:Cars2 FinnMaterLightningMcQueen.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Cars2 FinnMaterLightningMcQueen.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 21:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)