User talk:Polarscribe/Archive 6

FairTax has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

BOT - Regarding your recent protection of CLT:

You recently protected[1] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 04:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

delete

why did you delete my article? Harlot

Fascism and Nazism as representative forms of socialism

I am sorry to bother you, but I really need some help. There is an ongoing campaign by a few editors to portray Fascism and Nazism as representative forms of socialism. As part of this effort (a debate that stretches back to 2004), there are a tiny handful of editors who revert and redirect National Socialism to Nazism. I believe a majority of editors support redirecting National Socialism to National Socialism (disambiguation). I realize we just had a poll on the Nazism page where I thought this issue was settled, but apparently the struggle is not over. Please consider voting in the new poll, or adding a comment at: Talk:Nazism#Survey:_redirecting_National_Socialism. Also consider notifying other editors with an interest in this matter. I am doing the best I can, but need assistance. Thanks.--Cberlet 19:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Question

Why are you removing external references to books on Amazon, without replacing them with a generic link to the ISBN? Also, why no edit summaries? Bastun 09:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Daz Sampson

Please help me understand. If I were link to articles published in the London Times and Washington Post which claimed that Daz Sampson looks like Ian Huntley, would that be legitimate? Is the issue about the quality of the source? Thanks. Brine Pepaz 12:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Roads Inactivity notification

You have been declared an inactive user and your name will be removed from the newsletter distribution and the projects you were a member of. If this is in error, please contact me on my talk page. Do not restore your name to the list. Regards, Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Barbara Bauer

MCB and Karen have posted extensive comments in the DRV since you commented. Could you please read them. I think they may affect your opinion. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: OTRS #2007032810002347

Can you kindly refer me to where I can find more information on this rather cryptic edit note? The information in question has been the subject of previous edit wars and to my eye seems to be fairly well supported by the citations in the article. -- Upholder 04:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Montreal

Stop reverting proper information. the city has ways of spelling, one in english, one in french. considering this is english wikipedia, Montreal stays as it is.

You've been told why you're wrong. MoS says if a city name is in the Latin alphabet, we use the native language title, diacritics included. FCYTravis 08:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Your logic is sound

Your logic about Obama and the IACP is sound. Your suggestion and edit makes sense. There are some there who seem to want to delete all mention of the IACP. This is wrong because its censorship. Any more suggestions about wording?KMCtoday 01:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

RfC

Letting you know that I have opened a RfC on DPeterson [2]. --Mihai cartoaje 18:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that you were online. It's not to stress you, but DorisH hasn't edited since 30 march and I can't think of anyone else for the two-person threshold. Please let me know what you think. --Mihai cartoaje 23:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Bernard Lewis

Hi FCYTravis,

It seems that some editors are removing sourced material on this page without discussing it on the talk page [3], [4], [5]. --Aminz 21:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Todd Goldman

It is reliably sourced. The fact is that the accusation was made, and we have reliable sources supporting that. We have reliable secondary sources linked and cited, and then we also have the original primary source (straight from his own post). There's no reason to waffle and say "it was reported that..." when there's no doubt whatsoever about whether the reports are true. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I've responded on Talk:Todd Goldman, please take this there. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Nathaniel Branden Article

Hi, I saw your revert on the School and wanted to give the History on this. There are currently 12 schools in California that the state recognizes as valid. They call them "approved" and recognize their degrees as valid, they recognize them for licensing of all of the different psychology licenses the state offers. The people who are saying that it is an "unaccredited" school are referring to the Western States Regional Accreditation. That requires things like gymnasiums, large libraries, etc. CGI is not a diploma mill. It is recognized - even called "accredited" by psychological associations. The people that keep putting "unaccredited" in the text are doing it because they have a strong dislike for Ayn Rand and/or Objectivism and therefore for Nathaniel Branden because he was associated with Rand and her philosophy until 1968. If someone puts "unaccredited" there they are creating a number of false impressions. They are implying that the degrees from this school are questionable - they aren't. They are implying that it is a diploma mill - its not. They are implying that Branden has questionable credentials - he doesn't - he has taught at UCLA and his books are in 11 languages and he has defined self-esteem. I fought over this issue (because it libels the school, Branden, and everyone who has ever graduated from the school) for a long time. A compromise was reached which was to put he information in the footnote. It was still wrong, but it I was tired of fighting it. Then after a month or so people decided screw the compromise. They pretend it is about "fairness" or "it is a fact" but they are choosing to put something there because it will be MISUNDERSTOOD - that is their intention. I've changed it to read "approved" instead of "unaccredited" but they change it back. Those are the facts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SteveWolfer (talk • contribs) 08:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

The fact is that the institute is unaccredited but state-approved. We can let readers decide for themselves how to interpret that set of facts - with a handy Wikilink to the article on the institute - which has a rather over-detailed pile of information about the "unaccredited, state-approved" status and how it came to be. In fact, that institute really needs to have its article expanded... FCYTravis 08:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Attachment Therapy

H. I'm attempting to rewrite the Attachment Therapy article from credible and verified sources. Thought you might be interested to take a look. Fainites 10:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Purported Attack

I think that you need to look beyond the obvious here and consider the veracity of the comment. If I've been too blunt for WP, I'd like to know specifically which policy I've broken, so that I can understand the rules that govern future conduct. This editor has been specifically and dishonestly accusing me of misdeeds at many places for many weeks and been absolutely unwilling to back down from his deceitful gamesmanship. He hides in the subtlety of the rules of civility. If that behavior is more acceptable than a blunt but true statement, it is sad state at WP. Thanks. --Kevin Murray 21:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA is clear. I often disagree with badlydrawnjeff but calling him an "unscrupulous liar" is beyond the bounds of propriety and good taste and is unbecoming of a Wikipedia editor. Nor does he deserve such blatant attacks - he is a good faith contributor to whom WP:AGF applies. Argue against his positions, not his personal attributes. It's that simple and that easy. FCYTravis 21:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes Travis, the point is well made at WP:NPA. I appreciate you taking the time to point that out to me. I was wrong. However, please consider that this action by me was in response to a growing but more subtle incivility and hostility by Jeff. Please address my complaint against him as well. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 21:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I am also an alumnus of Contra Costa College. And a former resident of Richmond, where I still own rental property. I did most of my CC work at DVC where I was president of the AS, went to Cal, and then prior to heading to Notre Dame for my MBA, I took several classes at CCC, including C programming and Auto Cad. I was very impressed with the instructors. --Kevin Murray 21:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

DRV

Can the speedy sign in the category be removed? Will administrators help re-populate it like before its deletion? Michael G. Davis 22:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't notice that it was tagged - for future reference, you can remove the tag yourself, though, it's just an edited-in thing. I don't know about repopulating it. FCYTravis 22:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

All the entries were removed and relocated pretending the category was empty. Do DRV closing administrators re-populate re-born categories? Michael G. Davis 22:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Tiffany Adler

Thanks for knocking back the FA suggestion. The author had actually listed it at WP:FA and I reverted the addition, pointing out that it had only been written yesterday. Now only WP:BLP issues remain, as the woman in question is innocent until found guilty! --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 08:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

And I see you had a purge of those BLP violations too. Thanks. --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 08:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

tiffany adler

She is not notable for her job working at a groecery store, we dont know much about that korean dude who shot up virginia tech we dont know if he was guilty either, as he hasnt been tried and cant due to his death, so we cant really say he did it, can we? sure because all the news coverage consists of that, which made her famous, no one writes about that little boy who swam from alcatraz to san francisco except for that fact that he has the record for the youngest no one cares what his favorite color is nor how well hes doing in school, Adler has been involved in noteworthy events and again youre arguement about "oh but theres so many crimes" well i dont care and wp policy doesnt care, that is a straw man arguement, and it is irrelvant, theres lots of murders but the ones that make the papers and get plenty of coverage make the cut here on wp. and yes we can write a neutral article on this woman, the article is neutral it states what she admits to doing, throwing asparagus and apples, and it states that shes being accused of doing so homophobically and it also says that she denies that and she claimes to not have known they were gay and also confusing them for someone else. we are not making any judgements such as homophobic or hate crime, the article deals with accusations of homophobia and hate crime and its helpful to have a link to those and category etc. it does not say she is a homophobe nor that is was indeed a hate crime, it just categorises it due to the content which makes it relevant. please tell me where those judgements are being make in the article and i will remove them myself, as i want this article to be great! pehaps the wording may be altered to make it very clear it was alleged and pending, my original final version of this article used to word alleged/allegedly repeatedly buy other editors removed that term in later edits.^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 20:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

cat

are you sure about that, that it asserts she committed one, what is the criteria for that category, i thought that the category was for any article related or largely involving hate crime, regardless if it is an article on an incident, victim, accused, or acquitted or convicted.^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 21:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

response

You wrote: Tiffany Adler is not a "Famous Pacifican." I know you have a POV to push, and I'm quite sympathetic, but Wikipedia is not "Every-person-who-ever-did-something-bad-pedia." There's no evidence of broader, non-local interest in this issue beyond a couple blog posts. We have a responsibility to be judicious in what we publish, and she doesn't belong linked in the city article along with truly notable figures. FCYTravis 20:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your interest. I see your objections as subjective. I am unaware of an official WP policy definition of "Every-person-who-ever-did-something-bad-pedia." or even WP:Famous, but as you wrote, 'truly notable figures', this indeed I see defined in WP:Notability. I am not pushing a POV, I am just reading the policy and trying to follow it. Are you? If yes, you should be able to restate your concern while pointing to objective WP:Policy. Instead, I see you making personal subjective complaints. SaltyBoatr 21:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

BLP is clear. FCYTravis 21:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Which BLP issues presently exist? Four attributions to mainstream media accounts qualify a person as notable. SaltyBoatr 21:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

"Notable," even if true, is not a synonym for "famous" or "notorious." FCYTravis 21:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

confused vs. unaware of gayness

you left something out thought, that there are conflicting reports on this, some sources say that she had problems with them before while one source says she claims to have confused them, this should be codyfied not merged. i.e. the varying estimates from differant death tolls of the vtech murders were all cited not averaged out. but thank you again for improving the article again and again its great how perfect itll end up now.^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 22:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On April 20, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 2007 Rolex 24 At Daytona, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks Travis. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Antisemitism

Please look carefully at Category:Antisemitism, particularly at the header. I've explained your misunderstanding on the Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Am I in the wrong here? I really can see no reason for Atzmon's inclusion in the antisemitism ategory except the contested accusations against him. None of the other category inclusions are for such contested (and defamatory) reasons, as far as I can see. At the risk of sounding like a stuck record, Atzmon's alive and contests the accusations. He's not involved in any other activities to do with antisemitism, like he other included people. And if that's so, surely BLP trumps a category description.FelixFelix ^talk 06:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

deletion

was the article deleted? is there anywhere where i can see the discussion, and rationale?^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 06:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

hey

thanks for telling me, and also for making me look up remiss, cool word. i like loutish personally. so how's contra costa college? i go to berkeley city college and ccc kinda scares me.^{T ALK}•^QR_C2006•¢ʘñ†®¡ß§ 06:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk: Casey Serin

I've added a section to Talk:Casey_Serin to point new editors to the Wikipedia policies on verifiability, etc. If you have the time, could you look it over and add links to any other policies that might be applicable to this article? Thanks for your time. Saranary 17:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for your views

Regarding your comments about the Israeli military relations article, I agree. I've just created Israel-United States military relations partly as a merge of that article, partly as a content fork of Israel-United States relations (which it's intended to parallel) and partly as a chunk of new content sourced largely from Jane's. The format is intended to be usable as a standard template across multiple articles of this type - see the explanation on Talk:Israel-United States military relations. I've not announced it widely yet because I want to get some views from sensible (!) editors first; could you take a look and let me know what you think? -- ChrisO 00:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Ralph Yarro

As a Wikipedia admin, you should know better. Why are you removing links to the official court documents in the yarro case? These are the documents themselves. Meaning primary sources for the subject in question. Isn't that abuse of power? Thanks == Cleo == 00:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

In what way are transcripts on Groklaw unreliable? You have removed links to a copy of the original documents (retrieved from Pacer) and the text as transcribed on Groklaw. How are these unreliable? Captain Nemo III 05:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC) Also, how about being constructive with this article -- instead of just deleting stuff, find some other sources? Add some useful information? Captain Nemo III 05:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

FCYTravis, I feel youmay have missunderstood my intentions, I was merely trying to show the worldwide view of the problem, nd how that country in particular reacts to it. I will in future, however, post in the discussion first before making changes to the article itself.

(Respectful) Reply to Your Comment

Per your request, I removed your name from my user page. My admittedly rashly written point was that I think a better approach is to guide people with positive words of encouragement and explanation. Instead of calling the offending phrase "drivel", why not indicate what you told me on my talk page -- that the request came through OTRS? You're absolutely right; there was no source for that sentence -- that particular phrase had been anonymously blanked several times, and then removed again with a new user account. Smelled like vandalism to me. I've been routinely working on that particular article for quite a while, so clearly I have an interest in the subject, as well as making the article the best it can be. WP:AGF I don't feel like the last three admins that have helped me have done that. Patrick925 05:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Cory Williams

At Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cory_Williams, you claim to have received a WP:OTRS request to delete Williams's page from Williams himself. A few questions:

• Are you sure he sent you this? For the past few weeks, editors for the article have weathered dogged attempts at discrediting its subject. I'm almost positive sock puppet accounts played a role. If you have the time, investigate his more vocal detractors, especially the ones at the bottom of this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review&oldid=125702519 Plus, though his plea might not have been altogether kosher, Williams himself recently put out a call for fans to edit his article here. Why would he change his mind? For the record, I didn't edit the article for Williams's sake.

• Can you somehow send me the contents of the article? There's a piece in it I might want to include elsewhere on Wikipedia.

• What would it take to restart the article against the subject's wishes?

Thanks. Ichormosquito 08:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Wait, sorry. I just read a new message he posted. He really did ask you. I'd still like to copy a portion of the article, however.Ichormosquito 10:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The section I want is under the "As One" heading. Ichormosquito 10:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

IRC cloak request

I am FCYTravis on freenode and I would like the cloak wikipedia/FCYTravis. Thanks. --FCYTravis 19:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Matrixism Deletion Review

Matrixism is covered in depth in The Joy of Sects by Sam Jordison. This is a reference book on cults and new religious movements. It treats Matrixism equally alongside Kaballah, Scientology and Freemasonry. Matrixism is also discussed at length in Phil Johnson's blog Circle of Pneuma. Phil Johnson is the author of several books including; Jesus and the gods of the New Age Clifford & Johnson Victor Books 2003 and Riding the Rollercoaster: How the Risen Christ Empowers Life Clifford & Johnson Strand 1998. Therefore the blog Circle of Pneuma is a reliable and citable source as defined by Wikipedia policy. The arguments for deletion have been made without considering these facts.

I am hoping that you will want to revisit your decision to "delete" the article in light of this. D166ER 03:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No, sorry, the deletion arguments still stand, because we still don't have any evidence that anyone actually believes this. Without believers, it's not a religion, just a bad joke. FCYTravis 04:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure if you are aware but your analysis of the research methods of the authors of the sources used for the Matrixism article is what is independent reaserch. This is not allowed in evaluating sources according to Wikipedia policy. For the record though Phil Johnson, Sam Jordison and Adan Possamai use some of the other research methods which you have suggested. D166ER 15:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Accusations of bias

Hi FCYTravis, regarding your slightly wild accusation I suggest you have a look at my editing record. For example on the James I article, I'm currently arguing against the removal of all suggestion he was gay. I'm not homophobic and if you or any other rational person was to trawl through my edits that would be reasonably clear. Addhoc 20:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Jose Padilla

If Jose Padilla is not a convicted criminal, then please explain to me, why was he in prison when he converted? -- Karl Meier 21:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Grand Am and Rolex

I figured I'd come to this since your concentration is mostly on the Grand Am series. Recently, the International Motor Sports Association article has been completely rewritten to be about the sanctioning body and all the series that IMSA has run. Almost all of the IMSA GTP stuff was moved to IMSA GT Championship. I believe Grand Am page requires a similar clean-up. Seperate pages detailing the Rolex Sports Car Championship and Koni Challenge while rewriting the Grand Am page to detail their sanctioning of Rolex and Koni, as well as Ferrari Challenge, Shell Historic Challenge, SunTrust Moto-ST Series, and defunct Formula Renault series.

If you think this would be a good idea, any help and advice would be appreciated, and I can get to work on it soon. The359 06:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's a great idea and I'd be glad to help! FCYTravis 06:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Ambiguous link

Thank you for your recent edit to Hadouken! (band). Your edit included one or more links to the page British, which is a disambiguation page. This type of page is intended to direct users to more specific topics. Ordinarily we try to avoid creating links to disambiguation pages, since it is preferable to link directly to the specific topic relevant to the context. You can help Wikipedia by revising the links you added to Hadouken! (band) to refer directly to the most relevant topic. (This message was generated by an automatic process; if you believe it to be in error, please accept our apologies and report the error to help us improve this feature.) --Russ (talk) 20:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

MKU

Actually, you're the one being biased. I levelled the playing field by making MKU it's own disambiguation, you on the other hand insist on making MKU redirect to that University. I'm willing to bet, that more people know of MK Unchained, by MKU, then people know of that University by MKU. But still, I equalled it out. And yes, you are arrogant. Arrogant toward all the Mortal Kombat fans out there, because you don't think that they even deserve equal treatment. ^---SilentRAGE! 21:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't know that Google was the almighty God of Wikipedia. But hey, notice how you didn't address anything else I said? ^---SilentRAGE! 21:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

NNDB

Just saw your comment regarding the NNDB (originally posted on another user's talk page, but now on the Talk:Paul Wolfowitz page. Jimbo Wales has made it clear that the NNDB should not ever be used as a source. Why should we allow it on the links section if it isn't good enough to be listed as a source? If the concern that the information on the site is dubious, then it would seem to be a backdoor way to direct users to information that otherwise wouldn't make it into the article. Notmyrealname 23:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Dpeterson RfC

Hi,

If you have time, would you mind weighing in on this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/DPeterson Thanks. StokerAce 17:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Homosexuality

You might want to be careful of the 3 revert rule. I agree with your additions, but regardless, the 3 revert rule is there for a reason. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 18:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I took it right up to the three-revert rule and no more. Another editor stepped in at that point. Thanks for the reminder, though :) FCYTravis 18:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. I think, however, you should be aware of this, though, and the thread on my talk page - Alison ☺ 02:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

List of secret agents

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on List of secret agents, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because List of secret agents fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

no article to link to

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting List of secret agents, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 01:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

arbcom

Just to let you know that the subject of the article, Qian Zhijun, has actually been an internet meme for about 4 years - just in case you didn't know, because your comment in your statement struck me as odd (if in a year he is still around). Viridae^Talk 15:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about this being above the bot edit - but when i edit that, it sends me to another page. Viridae^Talk 15:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm uttelry confused now. I edited the section above the bot edit! Viridae^Talk 15:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Out

I notice that in your review you left that Cornsilk is openly gay. Did you find a reliable source for this? Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Or that he was the one who perform[ed] a same-sex marriage ceremony? Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Great Job

Thanks for helping clean up that article rather then just trying to nuke it. David admits to being gay in several Muskogee Phoenix Articles. We all know he is, but we love him anyway cause he's Cherokee. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

That makes it sound like you think being gay is a bad thing. That's a smart thing to tell a gay person... FCYTravis 17:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Take that chip off your shoulder. Not everyone is against you. Some of us just bumble with our words. Sorry if you took it the wrong way. It's good to have an experienced editor clean that up. Consider this, I wrote that article to give David the recogniztion he has earned. If I am anti-gay, I would have tried to suppress it. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Take care with your words - I'm a writer, and they mean all. FCYTravis 17:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I am nearing breakthrough here in mutual understanding. Please continue and explain to me what you mean. I very much would like to be able to collaborate with everyone. Pray continue and explain this last statement. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the Internet is that there's no tone, no inflection, no face-to-face communication - only the words on a screen. Thus, it's exponentially easier to misspeak - I've run afoul of that myself. FCYTravis 17:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a more general issue for me to consider. I am a scientist and a prolific writer as well, though most of my writings are about machines, code, and non-human subjects. This is a helpul perspective. Computers tend to not take offense. People do. I think I'll go sit in the sweat lodge and consider some of this today. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

very irregular deletion of C.W. Jefferys Collegiate Institute shooting

Hello,

You deleted C.W. Jefferys Collegiate Institute shooting in order to move it to your personal userspace. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and if you want to work on an article, you should share. If I weren't lazy I'd report you for this... deleting that page was pointless and *not* what your admin privileges are for.

On second look... you participated in the deletion discussion and then took things into your own hands when it turned out to be an irregularity. That is VERY uncool. Potatoswatter 20:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I moved it into userspace to allow appropriately encyclopedic information to be merged into a contextualized, broader article on the school itself. We otherwise are not going to have an article on a single murder that happened to take place in a school in Toronto. We are not Wikinews. We don't need an AfD result to tell us that. FCYTravis 21:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews is original reporting and this article had sources. Your userspace is for your personal use and it is never OK to move public articles to it. WP:SPEEDY is the policy saying when it's OK to do what you did, and specifically forbids this kind of decision. I don't know how you were made an admin without knowing these policies. Potatoswatter 00:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how you get around on Wikipedia thinking that nothing can be done without filling out Form 208X-NOT-EZ-YA-RLY and submitting it in triplicate along with Attachment Q9295-29OMGWTFBBQ. FCYTravis 00:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Mmph. I'm relatively mild. *You* took the extra bureaucratic step of moving it to userspace recognizing it wasn't really deletion material. If you don't have a mind for bureaucracy you probably shouldn't be an admin because that's what WP:ADMINs handle. For my part every single time I try to short circuit AfD in the most minor way it ends up like this too. But my advice is if you want to remain an admin don't do things like this. I'm not one myself. Potatoswatter 06:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is clearly expressed policy that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Admins are editors with mops, buckets and a couple extra buttons. Trust me - the less you worry about what the rules and policies say and the more you think about what makes a good encyclopedia, the better a Wikipedian you'll be. :) FCYTravis 07:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Camille Gottlieb

Could you please explain the deletion of Camille Gottlieb. You have not specified a reason in the edit summary and it has not gone through any due process. violet/riga (t) 08:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You can read the deleted history just as well as I can. There is absolutely nothing encyclopedic about her. All necessary information is in her mother's article. FCYTravis 08:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed I can, but please remember to properly justify deletions in the edit summary. violet/riga (t) 08:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd enjoy a lecture too - about the importance of making Wikipedia an ethical and just encyclopedia rather than a compendium of tabloid sensationalism. FCYTravis 08:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I hate everything tabloid and always make "ethical and just" contributions. I just think that you are deleting things that you believe are not worthy of inclusion while many others might. Note "might". You should always use edit summaries, especially on such significant edits. To delete things without a trace is a very bad thing... [6]. violet/riga (t) 09:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

By you believe, you actually mean sane Wikipedians believe. :) I direct you to the major recent DRV/ANI/RFC battles over several articles speedily deleted because their subjects are of dubious encyclopedicity or cannot possibly have true biographies written about them, because they are only famous for a single specific incident. All those deletions (Crystal Gail Mangum, Robin Dawkins, et al.) have been sustained. There exists clear policy support (please see Jimbo's addition to WP:NOT) for the idea that not everyone who was in the news for 15 minutes should have a biographical article about them on Wikipedia. FCYTravis 09:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You yourself have used the content of one of these articles to create a new one (mixed twins) and it therefore shows that the content can be used appropriately. Just deleting the article without trying to place any of the content elsewhere is wrong and an insult to those that have worked on them. That is why we have processes: to allow people to make use of the content before a deletion occurs. violet/riga (t) 09:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yah... lets take policy changes one step at a time. Maybe it was too hard to delete articles before, but bytes are cheap... Potatoswatter 22:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I am against the deletion of this article. If you want to have a discussion about it, please organize an Afd. Hektor 08:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

kill hannah edits

Can you provide more info about the OTRS ticket that caused you to edit the Kill_Hannah article? The text you removed also appears on Giant_Records_(Warner_Bros._subsidiary_label) so it appears somebody is targeting the Kill Hannah article specifically in order to rewrite their own history. The previous OTRS that we discussed confirms this theory. Patrick925 15:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I added citations for Giant Records demise, and added requests for citations on unsourced material. Please explain why you removed previously sourced and verifiable statements concerning the discography of Kill_Hannah Patrick925 05:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no source for the assertion that she's "commonly believed to have co-written early songs." Thus, there's no reason to mention whether she did or did not write them. FCYTravis 05:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I just added citations from ASCAP, where the publishing rights to the songs are officially recorded, and stripped the "commonly believed" weasel words. Patrick925 05:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Travis: Thank you for your decorum on this article, given our past exchanges. One question; Is an OTRS ticket citation considered a verifiable source? After all, how does one know that it was actually Finerty that submitted the OTRS ticket? Patrick925 06:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Follow up: Admin J.Smith ruled that your OTRS edit was invalid with "OTRS tickets do not satisfy "verifiable" and/or "reliable"" Patrick925 02:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Meh, either way, the article as it stands is fine, IMO. FCYTravis 02:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Providing deleted content to interested parties

Interesting, there was no objection when I called up the Shawn Hornbeck foundation on the phone and talked to them about reading the deleted article. In fact, most people in that DRV seemed to like the idea. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

also, this is directly in response to your invitation to email her and ask for her opinion. I simply feel that she'll be able to make a better judgment on the content itself, rather than a biased interpretation or restatement of it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You should probably be less rabid

You should probably be less rabid about BLP issues. You're hardly credible as an advocate for decency when you yourself contribute to crude remarks about some high schooler and encourage other editors to engage in sexual harassment. I don't know what dog you have in this fight, but I for one cannot believe your intentions are what you say they are, in the face of such inappropriate comments. Friday (talk) 20:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Anna Halman deletion

Would you mind to explain that to me why Nicole Brown Simpson, a wife of a football star, and Romek Strzałkowski, just a Polish kid fourteen years old (full name), who both were the victims of famous and widely reported violent crimes, but other than that not notable whatsoever, can be kept in English wikipedia, while Anna Halman can not? What makes them so distinguishable? Besides, I'm not so sure, but I think that we have rules here and an article which survived AfD less than four weeks ago shouldn't be so unceremoniously and singlehandedly removed. It's a little offensive to the participants in the discussion, like having been slapped in the face, isn't it. If you don't like changes done after closing AfD, which by the way I don't like either, you can always remove these, not the whole article, I guess. Please, correct your mistake and undelete it back to its original version and its original name "Anna Halman", not "Suicide of Anna Halman". It was about a person, not of an incident. I don't know who changed that; there is no record now. greg park avenue 14:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Information about the crime has been merged into school violence. FCYTravis 18:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Then why don't we dump Nicole Brown Simpson into Domestic violence hideaway for battered (ex-)wives? greg park avenue 19:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

thoughts on an article

Any opinion on Tori Anthony? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

OTRS ticket request

Hi, I need to get the OTRS ticket number for an image permission email that I sent last night. The image in question is Commons:Image:Synchronized swimming - legs.jpg. Either let me know the ticket number or you can add it to the image description page yourself. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 17:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, one second. FCYTravis 18:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Done! Great work in getting the photo. FCYTravis 18:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that. howcheng {chat} 18:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For cleaning up the vandalism on my user page. Much appreciated! --Kbdank71 14:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Peter Openshaw

The speedy tag was taken down for me after I did it since someone had voted keep I was told. So it's a keep, then? Should I readd him to the tubes article? Cornea 17:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I !voted speedy delete, but that boils down to a delete with extreme prejudice, as it's an active AfD. What "tubes" article? FCYTravis 17:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

series of tubes. I took his name off the see also there. Cornea 17:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I readded it, since there isn't yet clear consensus that Openshaw will be removed.--SarekOfVulcan 17:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Now that it's not a biography, it can probably stay. FCYTravis 17:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Monckton

Sorry, I had no intention of causing trouble; just wanted to point out that he is capable of filing suit in the U.S. Raymond Arritt 00:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply -- I see now. I'm not familiar with legal subtleties and wasn't aware that the term had such negative connotations. Probably best if I just stay out of such things. I'll gladly issue an apology on the noticeboard, but my intuition is that it's better to let the matter drop. Raymond Arritt 00:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

DRV

please just delete my comment--a three way point by point critique is too confusing , as if DRV wasn't confusing enough & I'm not up to figuring it out properly tonight. DGG 05:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

BLP edits to various articles

Hi FCYTravis. Thanks for letting me know about the "serious and major edits" to several articles relating to the Christian Brothers sex scandal. BTW, I was clear in your message - no need to repeat phrases in writing(e.g. "For example, Joseph Burke cannot, repeat cannot, be described..."). Thank you, Hu Gadarn 15:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

reqeust

Richmond, California id like to make a request for comment in the 80 image section please. Cholga saYS THANKS!^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 01:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?

What did I miss? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=San_Luis_County_Regional_Airport&diff=69540590&oldid=68661282 — Alex^(U|C|E) 07:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I know there isn't, I've been to that airport many times. But the airport is called "San Luis County Regional", I don't know why. Check the airport diagram: Image:KSBP diagram.png. The most recent FAA diagram has exactly the same name. — Alex^(U|C|E) 22:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

And please be cool about it, I've been on Wikipedia for a while, which means I wouldn't make rash changes. — Alex^(U|C|E) 22:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You may be right, but I believe the FAA is a credible source. Maybe they just abbreviated it. — Alex^(U|C|E) 22:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I would have checked the airport's own official site before making any changes. Just because the FAA fucks up something on a data sheet doesn't mean that's what the airport is called :) FCYTravis 00:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't really mean they screwed it up either. Let's say you were flying and you were talking to ATC. What would you find easier to say, "San Luis Obispo Tower" or "San Luis Tower"? That's why I think they call it "San Luis County Regional". — Alex^(U|C|E) 07:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

As for being certain about one way or the other, I can call the airport up, and if they tell me it is SLOCRA, I'll stick to the way you have it. If they tell me it is SLCRA, I'll look for a source on the internet. — Alex^(U|C|E) 07:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, Google calls it San Luis County Regional Airport. — Alex^(U|C|E) 03:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Same with AirNav. — Alex^(U|C|E) 03:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm moving it back, too many sources used by pilots list it as "San Luis County Regional Airport". Therefore, it is its official name. — Alex^(U|C|E) 03:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

And if you plan on reverting me yet again, read this disclaimer and look at the bottom of the airport website. It says "©2001" which probably means that the last time it was updated was back in 2001. — Alex^(U|C|E) 03:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

What on Earth does SLO County's Web site disclaimer have to do with anything? As for the airport's Web site, you're dead wrong. If you had bothered to spend 10 seconds looking at the Web site instead of blindly trying to prove your case right, you'd see that front and center is a news article about the launch of new Delta Connection service this month. FCYTravis 03:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

And AirNav doesn't get any credibility whatsoever? — Alex^(U|C|E) 04:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

AirNav pulls their stuff from FAA, which means if the FAA is screwed up, so are they. Please, just stop and think and use common sense here. FCYTravis 05:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

---

You know, it would really help a WHOLE LOT if you actually BOTHERED replying to my messages instead of treating me like a worthless piece of shit with no credibility. I gave you my sources, got no reply. And then you blame me for using Google, WHICH WAS NOT MY ONLY OR PRIMARY SOURCE. Sheesh. Maybe if you even BOTHERED replying to me and discussing this I wouldn't be trying to prove my case so aggressively. Ever consider that? Block me, I don't care. Do whatever you want if you don't bother looking at my sources or even replying ot my comments. And FYI, I KNOW THERE IS NO SAN LUIS COUNTY IN CALIFORNIA. — Alex^(U|C|E) 04:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I have looked at your sources. All of them trace back to an apparent fuckup by the FAA or whoever filed data to them. What you're lacking is not worth, but common sense - stop and think about this for a minute and use your head. Why on Earth would the airport be called "San Luis County?" As we both agree, there's no such thing as San Luis County. So, that name makes absolutely no sense. Given that the name used by the FAA on their data sheets makes no sense and that everything available from the airport, county government, local media and airlines call it San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport... FCYTravis 05:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave this issue alone for now, but my guess about it being registered as "San Luis County Regional Airport" is probably because it is easier saying "San Luis" instead of "San Luis Obispo" over the radio. I haven't flown there in a while, but I would guess you refer to ground/tower as San Luis Ground/Tower. So it is not necesarily an FAA mess-up. — Alex^(U|C|E) 05:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for my previous outburst, but Wikipedia is beginning to stress me out. Look at my contributions to the Wikipedia namespace if you want to know the specifics. — Alex^(U|C|E) 05:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

OTRS

Travis, if you deal with an issue as the result of an OTRS message, could you please remember to close the message afterwards so that others don't find it 5 days later and assume it's been getting worse? DS 04:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Direct Flights

Why does there appear to be no firm rule on this. You wrote on my talk page that these flights were only allowed as one-stop, same plane/flight number international service. Now it is only intercontinental? If this keeps changing, why do we include these? I included Montréal for conformity, but I am strongly against the idea of having Ho Chi Minh City, for example, listed on the SFO page, when it is not a destination of that airport. It is a destination from Chek Lap Kok. NW036 19:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

speedies on elementary schools

Travis, I don't think that WP:CSD a7 really covers this. People have deleted one-sentence entries as A3, empty, which possibly is a bit of a stretch but I think opinion of WP:CSD is divided about it, and I do not decline to delete them. But what I suggest is trying prod--it usually works for such articles, as the person doing the article isn't paying attention--they get deleted in 5 days as an expired prod. Just my 2cents. DGG (talk) 17:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Race - saw you on TV

Hey, I'm pretty sure I saw your picture on here before, and I noticed you on TV yesterday at the end of the race when you shook the team owner's hand. Good to see a fellow Wikipedian in real life, even if it's just on TV. :P I'm surprised it took me this long to spot you, actually, since I watch the Rolex Series each week, and your team's been really strong this year. Good luck with the rest of the season! -- SonicAD (talk) 23:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Trans States @ STL

LOL I have no idea! Sox23 15:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Olutosin Oduwole

Your redirection has been undone. I think the creator has slight WP:OWNership issues, as he wrote the original article which was moved to an article about the incident. I'm not convinced of this guy's notability. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 04:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I am writing this article. When more news comes about i'll add it. Until that time I'd the content that you just deleted to be placed in a sandbox on my account. UnclePaco 04:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello? Olutosin Oduwole userspace? soapbox? UnclePaco 10:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

My contribs to this article

Hi Travis. I noticed here that some of my edits to the Oduwole article are now edits recorded in Uncle Paco's user space. I dont know what the GFDL considerations are but I am unhappy about this. Please can you advise or delete the edits I made, otherwise I'll go to WP:RFO. I have speedied the page so an admin may anyway choose to delete it. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Your user page

Nice opening, I heartily concur. Happy deleting! SqueakBox 23:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Auto Racing

Haha, I saw that you reverted my edit on the auto racing page. Admittedly, I added the first citation needed tag in jest; however, don't you think that the second one was appropriate? The fact that auto racing began in 1895 in France and has since grown to become one of the world's most popular sports is not common knowledge--at least not to those unfamiliar with the sport. I looked down in the article to see if that fact was cited in the history section only to find that it wasn't. I am going to add the second "citation needed" tag back because I think it should be there. If you disagree, comment on the article's talk page. Thanks. Wikipediarules2221 02:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice job. :) Wikipediarules2221 20:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Apple Vacations

I linked it to the website so it would have a link like the other airlines...there is no page for Apple Vacations and I don't know enough about it to write a page on it so I just linked to their website so the red link wouldn't show and it would still look like the other airlines. Why is it a prob to have it linked? Sox23 00:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

re difi poll stats

i agree. i posted about it on the difi talk page, apparently just as you were leaving your comments. Anastrophe 02:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

User:RyanHoliday

I got caught up in an edit conflict trying to warn RyanHoliday about 3RR. Should he have been blocked without a warning? Corvus cornix 17:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, not a big deal, I guess. Thanks.  :) Corvus cornix 18:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Romila Thapar

Hi FCYTravis, can you explain exactly why you think the comment should be removed? I don't see anything in it that necessitates removal, and I believe that editors need to be able to frankly discuss the pros and cons of using particular sources. It's a plain fact that some sources people try to stick into articles are by political ideologues and contain mudslinging. Given the conflict that Romila Thapar has seen I have very little doubt that some of the sources people have cited are complete trash--and this is something that people should be able to say on talk pages. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

However, I'm not at all sure that people should be able to say this on my user talk page, since this does not seem to be a discussion about sources to use for an article, but rather a personal attack against a fellow editor. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

We can say sources are "complete trash" politely and without unnecessary and provocative ad-hominem commentary. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Behavior that is unacceptable. No evidence was presented to support the assertion that Ms. Jain's writing is in any way unacceptable - instead, random insults, innuendo, below-the-belt attacks and stylistic criticism substituted for actual proof of claim. Wikipedia can be and should be above that now. We don't have to settle for Internet trash. FCYTravis 04:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That quote is from a section about comments directed towards other editors. I just directed you to a comment saying that I was acting like a "maladroit hack", and accuses me of religious bias; what's your opinion of that? In any case, the page you linked to doesn't provide support for removing talk page posts, and in fact says "many editors do not feel it is acceptable" to do so. If you find the comment unacceptable, I think a better course of action would be to ask the original poster, User:Rudrasharman to rephrase the comment. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That quote sums up what talk pages should be, and nowhere in that page does it say it only refers to other editors. Discussion zones, not insult zones. He may rephrase the comment if he wishes, but as it stood, it shouldn't have been there. You, and many other Wikipedians, need to understand that we are not a free-speech zone where anyone may say anything they like about anyone else. I have not examined your talk page, but yes, you should feel free to remove the comment. It's your talk page, and you may do with it as you wish. FCYTravis 05:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Sandhya Jain has written for many mainstream papers in India, with most of her work in the pioneer. Rudrasharman is obviously not a supporter of the Indian right, and the pioneer is mainstream but conservative (a bit like the Wall Street Journal in that regard). Rudra knows perfectly well what he is doing by making political statements. I would call Hanlon's razor, however Akhilleus has proved to be a partisan whenever he edits India related articles.Bakaman 05:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'd appreciate it if you examined Bakaman's comment on my talk page a little more closely, because I think it's a fine example of incivility, and if you are of the same opinion, you could perhaps caution him to avoid such comments in the future. Somehow, I don't think he'll listen to me. (By the way, I think the link to Hanlon's Razor is also the sort of discourse we're supposed to avoid, yes? --Akhilleus (talk) 05:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

As akhilleus knows, I'm not the one with the admin tools. Editors of India related articles are always incivil, rudrasharman included. As a result you see constructive editors of india-related articles brush off minor jabs while "Concerned editors" pretend like incivility is the biggest issue on wikipedia. Willfully misapplying policy as an admin is obviously a worse crime than the use of some rhetoric.Bakaman 05:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

So Baka, are you acknowledging that your above comments contain some incivility? --Akhilleus (talk) 05:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

No, its rhetoric. At least I'm not the one abusing admin powers and lying to arbcom.Bakaman 05:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, where did I lie to arbcom? --Akhilleus (talk) 05:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me rephrase that. Perjury on ANI. I suppose you'll go call moreschi (talk · contribs) to do the honors? Bakaman 05:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This word "perjury"...I don't think it means what you think it means. If you have more to say to me, why don't you say it on my talk page? I think FCYTravis isn't interested in this. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Willfully making false statements.Bakaman 05:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the word means that, but you're misapplying it--there are no "false statements" in the post you link to. Let's continue this discssion on my talk page, please, or drop it. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Incivility is never acceptable. On India-related pages or otherwise. All editors do not 'shrug off' such concerns. Bakasuprman can hardly say that, as earlier today I left a note [7] asking him to tone it down. As the note implies, the request is made for the nth time. Further, the point was made to him at ArbCom that it is unacceptable (about the only point that ArbCom bothered to make in that instance), but he seems to continue to repeat it. Baksuprman, point me to the page where it says that WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are suspended for anything wikilinked to India. If you can't, stop saying it is. And FCYTravis, I apologise for leaving a note like this, but this is partly addressed to you, as I would not wish you to believe that such "rhetoric" is so unproblematic on WP:India.

Further, I have some notes on BLP on the MW page. Personally, the deleted statement is hardly as bad as some of the stuff one actually sees on WP. I have stopped removing it since I removed some particularly bad ranting from (I think) the Ahmadenijad talkpage and a large number of people came down on me like a ton of bricks. Now, unless its a specific allegation, I let it stand. Hornplease 06:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I have posted to WP:WQA regarding Bakasuprman's comments here: Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Possible_incivility_by_User:Bakasuprman. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)