User talk:Polarscribe/Archive 6

A talk page.

Merry Christmas

Wishing you the very best for the season - Guettarda 05:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Redirects

Please see Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not change links to redirects that are not broken; thank you. --NE2 16:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

At least one link - US 40 (CA) - might redirect somewhere other than U.S. Route 40 in the future. As for the rest, can you offer any sort of reason as to why we shouldn't use them? Did you read the link I provided above? --NE2 20:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

So then we can change the redirect link in US 40 (CA) and point it to U.S. Route 40 in California once the article is created. AL2TB Gab or Tab 21:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly - but if we replace the redirect with a direct link to U.S. Route 40, we can't. --NE2 21:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

What you are saying contradicts Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not change links to redirects that are not broken. Also, according to Wikipedia:Piped link, avoiding redirects is not a reason to pipe a link; piped links are for when the text actually appearing is not the only meaning (like town names). --NE2 20:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It's an unnecessary edit that makes the page longer for no good reason. Is that good enough, or am I still being "an insensate policy wonk"? --NE2 20:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Why would one of these redirects be broken? You're not making any sense. --NE2 20:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Now who's being "an insensate policy wonk"? Both pages are pretty clear that there's no problem with linking to a redirect. --NE2 20:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

What helps the reader about your edits? The reader clicks the link and gets to the right place either way. --NE2 20:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Why does it matter if "they're bounced through the redirect title system"? The link works the same as a direct link. --NE2 20:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

So readers who hover over the link can see a complete preview title of the article they would jump into if they were to click on the link, rather than an abbreviation. Honestly, would all readers be able to interpret SR 42 (CA) ? They might go, what is an "SR" and what is "CA"? With the piped link, they do not actually have to click on the link, or possibly be misled by a potential malicious redirect. AL2TB Gab or Tab 02:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Clementine

Hi there! I saw some of the activity over on Clementine regarding the quotations. I and other editors have been trying to discuss this with User:CarolSpears, but she has not yet responded to requests to discuss before reverting. She's getting awfully close to violating the 3RR and other edits have been disruptive as well. Well, anyway, I just wanted to give you a heads up and let you know there are some other people concerned about her editing. I took a read through WP:QUOTE, too (though it doesn't identify itself as an essay, policy, or guideline... curious) and it seems to indicate that quotations like these should be sources of information for paraphrasing, not quotations. They're not unique quotes, not poetry about the subjects, and they are of low importance and would be better off as references for paraphrased info. Well anyway, have a happy new year! Best, Rkitko ^(talk) 20:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thomas de Waal

Hi. Could you please have a look at the above article that you previously edited? We need an involvement of a third party user, such as yourself, to keep the article complaint with WP:NPOV. Thanks. Regards, Grandmaster (talk) 07:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Fairbanksans R US

Just a hello from a fellow Fairbanksan and journalist. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Layout and copyediting. Just moved up here a week ago. JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

UCFD

If you are going to go through with that, you need to expand it, otherwise it will be seen as excruciatingly pointy. You also need to tag the categories. I'm likely not to involve myself in the upcoming bloodbath, but I'll have the popcorn ready. Horologium (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thought you should be aware

Your good name has been dragged through the mud. [1]. You've been falsely accused of blocking User:CarsGm5 because we have "a relationship." As this is my first ever contacting with you or even being on the same page as you, I thought you should be aware that you are being disparaged and because you were unaware of the issue and haven't responded you are being further accused of deceptive behavior. Sorry your good name has been smeared. I never would have contacted you had things not gone so far with User:DJS24. KellyAna (talk) 02:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Hey, Travis. I'm sure you already know, but all homeopathy-related articles are on article probation now; please familiarize yourself with Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation. Hope that you understand that this is just a formality I'm going through with all editors there. east.718 at 21:22, February 2, 2008

Deleting talk pages to archive them

Is that really allowed procedure? It prevents non-admins from being able to view previous discussions. Kirkburn (talk) 00:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If you wish a particular thread to be resurrected for good reason, let me know. FCYTravis (talk) 00:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not that, it's just feels ... wrong. An admin especially should be accountable for all his dealings, so why delete the history? Kirkburn (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk pages are not permanent records of "all someone's dealings." FCYTravis (talk) 09:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

That is not what I said, I said "should be accountable for all his dealings". Deleting your talk page removes some of your dealings. Kirkburn (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Other admins can see it, and if someone has a good reason for me to dig up and repost a particular thread, I'll be happy to provide relevant information. I surmise that you're looking for, in particular, our past discussion about the Pete Doherty article. If you'd like me to repost it in an archive, let me know. There's way too much tripe vandalism in there for me to simply undelete it. FCYTravis (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I'm not bothered about the Pete Doherty thingy. It was just that since we chatted on here I noticed you did the delete thing, so I just wanted to enquire about that, one wiki admin to another (I admin on the WoWWiki). Kirkburn (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI, you actually are not supposed to delete your talk page, and many admins have been forced to restored their talk histories. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Caltrop's talk page: Forced merge and restoration appropriate? for the most recent case. Also, it really shouldn't be semi-protected. - auburnpilot talk 21:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know how you feel. FCYTravis (talk) 08:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not how I feel it's policy. I'm not going to run off to AN/I and complain over your talk page history, but the protection must be removed. - auburnpilot talk 18:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Not going to happen unless ArbCom tells me to - and if that happens, I quit the project. I don't have the time to waste babysitting this page from vandalism. FCYTravis (talk) 19:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

So you are refusing to follow the protection policy unless the ArbCom tells you to? That's absurd. - auburnpilot talk 19:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You want to babysit this page from anon IP crap? Thought not. Thank you, come again. FCYTravis (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This page is already on my watchlist. It is specifically against policy to preemptively semi-protect your talk page, as well as to protect it indefinitely. Please remove the protection. - auburnpilot talk 19:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't care if it's on your watchlist. I do not want anon IP crap on this page.

Every time I get anon IP shite here, I have to delete the page and start from scratch again. There's no way I'm going to go through and individually select eleventy squillion good edits to undelete. So the semi-protection that you're complaining about, keeps the talk page history problem that you're complaining about from being worse. Choose one to be annoyed about.

This place is not worth me wasting my time, and if I have to babysit this page again, I'm just going to quit. So go ahead and get worked up about it - either way is fine with me. FCYTravis (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I can view your deleted history, and going back 2 years there are maybe 25 edits from IP editors. From what I can tell, only once were those edits reverted. I don't want to see any contributor quit, but if you think threating to quit the project will allow you to violate policy, think again. This place isn't your personal play thing, and everyone, including admins, must follow policy. Also, maybe give Wikipedia:Civility a read. - auburnpilot talk 19:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

They weren't reverted because I just deleted the page. And the obligatory "ZOMG UNCIVIL" reference. How condescending. Please go away. FCYTravis (talk) 19:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#FCYTravis. - auburnpilot talk 19:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Per AuburnPilot and my comment at AN/I [2] I feel you should unprotect your talk page, until a legitimate reason is needed, and undelete so non-administrators can review the history of your talk page. — Save_Us † 20:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Pete Doherty

What compromise? It must have been a secret one, as I didn't see any evidence of a discussion. And yes, I will be filing with DRV. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 03:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks like deletion won't be overturned. Would you mind e-mailing the text to me through my Wiki-linked e-mail? I'd like to have it for myself. I won't repost it or anything. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 04:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy to. FCYTravis (talk) 18:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Salon.com

I just posted this edit to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard mentioning Talk:Salon.com/as a source for Wikipedia. I feel there is some possibility that you may wish to continue the discussion. If so I would ask that we take the conversation someplace other then Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Question_regarding_Orson_Scott_Card I think we can both agree that in any case that argument needs at least one good reference beyond the one at Salon.com and our discussion will not be helpful to the involved parties at the notice board on Card. Jeepday (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Feedback action

Per your feedback, I've condensed it (at least visually). Thoughts? — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Award of a Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		The Barnstar of Diligence is hereby awarded in recognition of extraordinary scrutiny, precision, and community service, especially with regard to biographies of living persons. Awarded by Addhoc (talk) 17:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Graphic Request

I love the graphic you use of US States you have visited and would like to politely ask your permission to copy and modify it as applicable for use on my user page, with credit to you of course. Thank you. Civilengtiger (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Vicki Iseman

Is this a decision by an administrator or an editor interrupting the attempt at consensus on the discussion page? ∴ Therefore | talk 19:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I apologize -- I spoke too soon. You did the right thing. ∴ Therefore | talk 19:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Category:Rouge admins

Hi Polarscribe,

I noticed that you still use the Category:Rouge admins on your userpage/usertalk page. Please consider removing it, as it has now been deleted as of this discussion. Have a nice day!

The Helpful One ^(Review) 13:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of John McCain lobbyist controversy

An editor has nominated John McCain lobbyist controversy, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John McCain lobbyist controversy and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice job at United States journalism scandals

Thanks for your help, you can probably now see what I've been up against and it's nice to have another interested and civil editor watching the topic even if we disagree...you could tell I was becoming fatigued...thanks again. WNDL42 (talk) 20:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk page protection

Thanks for the help! I've unprotected -- hopefully they've gotten bored. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Picture removed for having no source

Hi Travis. I don't know you but I saw that you removed an image from Tony Rezko because it had no source. I have dealt with image disputes in the past but always thought that the image's validity/source should be debated at the image and not articles that it is contained in. I ask only because I noticed you are an administrator. Where can I learn when and where to take action on/defend images? Thanks Corey Salzano (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Article Washington University Student Union

Hello FCYTravis, since you have been involved in editing the article Washington University Student Union, you may want to look here: Talk:Washington_University_in_St._Louis#Student_Union_merge_proposal. I am concerned that these articles are being removed out of personal ideolgies and without proper debate/concensus. Many thanks, --Lmbstl (talk) 05:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

SU WikiProject

I'm starting a WikiProject for students' unions and thought you might be interested in seeing the proposal. GreenJoe 16:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

State flags

Hi. I noticed that, in the state flags box on your page, New Mexico is neither listed as a place you've been, nor as a missing state. The District of Columbia makes the total come out to 50, which had me confused for a minute, but sure enough, one is missing!

I was also dropping by to thank you for your comments at the RfC. I have no wish to vilify Guy, and I appreciate the balance that you're bringing to that thread. Sometimes, I get a bit high on my horse, and pay insufficient attention to the fact that the people representing the ideas I'm against are still people. It's helpful to be reminded of other parts of the picture. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Vanessa Angel

In regards to your edit summary on the Vanessa Angel article, what follow up email are you talking about? Did someone request the birthdate be taken down? Pinkadelica (talk) 08:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick clarification. Pinkadelica (talk) 09:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Travis, just wanted to say "thanks" for helping to keep things straight on Ashley Alexandra Dupré from a BLP perspective. It really can be a chore trying to distill down a bunch of tabloidy trash into a neutrally-written biography. I'm trying hard to stay on the right side of the line and use only reliable sources. I've noticed that you've had some issues with certain citations when you believe that a publication (normally believed to be a good source) itself uses sources which you believe to be questionable. I've tried to walk the line by using phrases such as "So-and-so reported" and "Such-and-such claimed" (backed by citations), but BLP is about as clear as mud when it comes to these situations. This is my first time tackling a controversial bio like this, and I welcome any advice you can provide. Cheers - Nesodak (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Quick question - can you explain your removal of the birthdate? Nesodak (talk) 21:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and restored it - the source says it was released by her attorney.[3] Nesodak (talk) 22:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

TMZ.com

I don't know if you checked out TMZ - it's run by AOL/Time Warner and they claim their information is vetted for accuracy. Do you still feel it's unreliable? I can't speak to The Post Chronicle. Nesodak (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting to get that you won't reply to questions on your talk page, but could you please comment here? Thanks. Nesodak (talk) 01:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I do reply, but I don't necessarily reply within 10 seconds. It's still work hours up here in Alaska ;) FCYTravis (talk) 01:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Tina Tinio

Travis, thanks for protecting that article! I originally noticed it because it came up really high on Wikirage when it was being vandalized, and have tried to keep an eye on it. Anyway, would you take a look at deleting Image:SexyTina.jpg? It has no source and has been inserted several times in the article, I think in a vandalism attempt. Thanks! Nesodak (talk) 17:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast - you rock! I've found the BLP stuff more and more interesting since I got involved with the Dupre article...I understand now how Wikipedia keeps from being buried in garbage by people with axes to grind. Is there a place or project for people who like to help with this stuff, aside from the BLP noticeboard? Nesodak (talk) 18:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Duck!

When a certain type of bird calls, 'though it be the proudest mallard drake, if--it--quacks--like--a...well a duck, it's STILL a

Would WP'dians discussing prostitution only be allowed to say "sex work"? (Those talking about gambling, "gaming"? . . . ) So why on God's green earth <takes deep breath> wouldn't WP'dians discussing self-acknowledged post-pubescent pornography be allowed to say, in the most encyclopedically succinct way possible----(you tell me what term to use)? As to censor WP here would denigrate its ability to, in NPOV fashion, concisely term this genre using the industries' own accepted jargon, while embeddedly linking the scholarly term likewise denoting softcore teen-porn. And would not possibly expose WP to lawsuit. What jury in the world (OK, reasonable adults within Wikipedia's home jurisdiction of---ironic, ¿no?---Florida) would but giggle and shake heads at the idea WP is liable for slandar by its saying, let's see----a center-position graphic on GGW's homepage of a flushly blushing young'un with a CLICK HERE banner pixeled across her bosom----etc., um, ahem, quite legally yet self-awarely catering to ephebophilia?--Justmeherenow (talk) 05:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The question isn't whether we're exposed to a lawsuit. The question is whether or not we are being responsible, tasteful and restrained when writing the biography of a living person. Using loaded terminology such as "Lolita" and "ephebophilia" is not in keeping with that policy.

If you are here with the aim of penning a tabloid-driven tell-all exposé of Ms. Dupré's life, I suggest that you cease editing her Wikipedia biography and go find somewhere else to do it, because that sort of agenda is not acceptable here. FCYTravis (talk) 05:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The Tao of Wikipedia. A riddle. What's the difference between England's massive atrocities during the Boer War and hazing and taunting at Abu Graib? (Please wait for the solution printed after my post.)

<clears throat> Ah the Boer War! This was, for example, before the Progressive reforms at turn of the American century, when, believe it or not, prostitution was actually widely legal throughout the U.S.of A.

But what Victorian propriety was all about was Place and Time--- That is, when there is an elephant in the room, one must dance around the beast as though it's not REALL there! His Grace has a private little affair or indulges in a bit of an indiscretion? Remain discreet and keep the issue perfectly private, or at least only mention the fact in hushed tones and to those who in proper society correctly assumed to disapprove. A great system, really! As, in society, yes, you have got to be diplomatically adept at such byways, for sure--- Nonetheless, when it does come time when proper circumstances actually require us to talk about the proverbial elephant (say, in an encyclopedia), the modus must change. Then it's best to say something simply and directly at the first blush. (Like, you know... "An elephant stood in the corner of the room, eating some straw." <shrugs>) <whispers> The solution to the riddle is telegraphs-versus-camera phones. Openness. --Justmeherenow (talk) 06:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about "openness." Wikipedia is about reporting what other reliable sources have reported. Unless you have reliable sources which call what GGW does, "ephebophilic" or "lolita," to call it such is prohibited original research and synthesis. Furthermore, the place for reporting on any debate as to what GGW is or is not, is the Girls Gone Wild encyclopedia article - absolutely not the biography of a model/prostitute who happens to have been caught in a political scandal. FCYTravis (talk) 06:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Dawn Wells

It looks like User:Proxy User is back to his old tricks, reinstating his "Marijuana Incidents" section [4] and his POV version. He seems to be edit warring on the page with another user he's had conflicts with in the past. Would you mind taking a look? I'd like to try and avoid contact with User:Proxy User, as I find interaction with this user to be very unpleasant. Cleo123 (talk) 04:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Cleo is at odds with the facts. I am NOT in an "edit war" with anyone. Cleo conveniently ignores her own part in reverting valid sections of the Dawn Wells Article. She may politely try to suggest she has no part in it, yet edit records show that again and again she has removed valid content that she finds personally objectionable. Personal feelings are not valid reasons to remove content. The fact is, a short concise paragraph concerning The Incident are well within guidelines for appropriate content.

Point of fact: the content is relevent and appropriate. If you remove it, I will revert it. If you revert it more than 3 times, I will file a complaint against you. Proxy User (talk) 02:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)