Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:05, 14 November 2005

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

• Archives: User talk:FCYTravis/Archive 1

Regarding the Warbucket Article

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

WP Truncheon

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

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

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

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

Moved from your user page

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

A request

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

Jtkiefer's RFA

Thank you very much for your support on my RFA. Jtkiefer ----- 05:19, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Star destroyed

Thanks for getting rid of that mess. Radiant_>|< 10:25, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Another Request

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

Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Maureen Faibish

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

Kudos on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Hellatight Site

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

Thanks

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

Camp Mario

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

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

thanks

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

Userpage protection

I have protected your user page, on the last version by you, on September 5th. It was being vandalised pretty heavily, go look at the history. :) Anyway, leave a note on WP:RFPP when you want it unprotected, or contact me. --Phroziac 23:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

You would also be probably be within policy to unlock it yourself since it was a simple vprotect to deal with vandalism. Jtkiefer ----- 01:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

No prob on the reversions just part of the job. Btw, who'd you piss off badly enough that they decided to use an IP to vandalize your page that much. Jtkiefer ----- 01:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Thank you!

No problem :) --2mcm 00:02, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Ladying

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

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

--N

Ladying again

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

--B

US Airways/America West

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

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

List of California State Routes

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

Systemwars.com

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

Road stubs

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

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

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

a heads-up on the List of Guantanamo Bay detainees

Greetings,

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks

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

Dope Dope

Why did you delete the page? It doesn't meet the criteria for deletion, and you didn't list any reason which is contrary to protocol.

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

Thanks!

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

Teaching evolution

Did you read all the PFAW poll info at their web site? I think it's higher than the 66% you put into the PFAW poll on creationism and evolution article: it's an overwhelming 83 percent! Not just 4 out of 6, but 5 out of 6. Uncle Ed 02:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• They rather poorly (well, they are POV) broke it out into "evolution-oriented" 66 percent... which I guess fits their POV, but doesn't really help anyone determine what the poll means... certainly didn't help me ;) FCYTravis 02:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • That's what you and I are here for: to do the math! ;-) Seriously, the presentation and arrangement of information is an art, not a science. Our job as Misplaced Pages volunteers is to make things as clear as possible to the reader. Uncle Ed 11:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Judicial activism

Could you better explain this revert to the Judicial activism Talk: page? It's clearly not vandalism, and it's on a talk page, so it's not clear that the comment should have been removed. --Interiot 18:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• That was an inadvertent revert that I thought I had unreverted moments after. Apparently, my unrevert didn't take. Unreverted now. Thanks! FCYTravis 19:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Violation

In deleting my Wikiracist article as "utter crap", you violated several tenets of[REDACTED] - "Don't bite the newbies", "Assume good faith" and the 'utter crap' is a "Personal Attack". You also failed to let the deletion process take it's course and achieve consensus. How do you justify this? 84.68.19.88 13:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• Because there is no good faith in an article which is prima facie POV flamebait. FCYTravis 16:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

No big thing

I fixed up an AfD snafoo for you...({subst:afd3|pg=Society for the Transmundane And Gifted (STAG)}}. —Gaff 07:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

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

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

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

Thank you for your opinion. Peter Guralnick clearly says that Elvis and the men from the Memphis Mafia used drugs and spent the whole night together. This should be mentioned in the article. I am sure there are some further sources supporting my view. As for the Elvis and Me page, the following passage included by Ted Wilkes is still in the article:

She says Presley was a very passionate man, however, because of attitudes at the time, strongly reinforced by his Pentecostal upbringing, he told her that her virginity was a scared thing to him. Presley's generation still had a double standard that cheered men for their sexual prowess with women, but insisted a girl should remain a virgin until married and if she did not, she was labeled a slut.

The words "Pentecostal" and "virginity" nowhere appear in Priscilla's book, as an Amazon research proves. See and . Onefortyone 20:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 Hours

Hi. I've blocked you for 24 hours for violating the 3RR on Nick Adams. This is not a comment on whether I think you're "right" or "wrong" (and in fact, I probably slot firmly into "don't care") but you should know better than to get into this sort of revert war. Next time, just find some other editors to join in and review the article, and then there won't even be the slightest danger of coming near a 3RR violation. Nandesuka 23:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• In the immortal words of Paul DeBolt, thank you for letting me know how you feel. :) --FCYTravis 01:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Sorry you got into a mess over this. It is difficult to evaluate whether any particular thing Onefortyone things ought to be in an article. Certainly though the rule is not as strict as Ted Wilkes would have it. Fred Bauder 03:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)