User talk:Polarscribe/Archive 2

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Jtkiefer's RFA

Thank you very much for your support on my RFA. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 05:19, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Star destroyed

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

Another Request

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

Wikipedia: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)[reply]

Kudos on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hellatight Site

The Wiki Wiffle Bat: For Attempting To Pound Logic To The Thickest Of Skulls While Still Being Polite

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)[reply]

Thanks

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

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 Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sensory_Integration_Dysfunction for deletion calling it "psuedoscience". Double ug :(. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 19:10, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage protection

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

You would also be probably be within policy to unlock it yourself since it was a simple vprotect to deal with vandalism. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 01:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Re: Thank you!

No problem :) --2mcm^Gespräch 00:02, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

List of California State Routes

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

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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Systemwars.com (second version). Please take a look. - Tεx τ urε 15:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Road stubs

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

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

a heads-up on the List of Guantanamo Bay detainees

Greetings,

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]

Thanks!

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- That's what you and I are here for: to do the math! ;-) Seriously, the presentation and arrangement of information is an art, not a science. Our job as Wikipedia volunteers is to make things as clear as possible to the reader. Uncle Ed 11:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Violation

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

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

No big thing

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

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 [1]. Do you have an idea what I can do? Onefortyone 14:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Wilkes has now also deleted all of your edits to the Gavin Lambert, Nick Adams and James Dean pages. See [2], [3] and [4]. I think this behavior is unacceptable. Onefortyone 16:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [5] and [6]. Onefortyone 20:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Why don't Fred Bauder and you read the talk page archive and focus on scholastic sourcing principles along with Wikipedia citation policy instead of trying to improvise writing a tabloid and threatening other editors with sanctions? Wyss 22:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has no requirement that sources be "peer-reviewed." Examine Wikipedia:Reliable sources. If that were the case, the sourcing of 99 percent of the articles on the encyclopedia would be deemed deletable. There is not a single peer-reviewed source in the entire James Dean article, which under your standards suggests the entire thing needs to be deleted? I quote - "An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group holds a certain opinion is a fact, and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group holds the opinion." There are a plethora of verifiable sources who hold the opinion that James Dean and Nick Adams could have been gay. Therefore, that fact can and should be included in the article. FCYTravis 02:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Karmafist

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

Wiki bat

Thanks! I'll try my best to help him. Hopefully he starts to listen. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 09:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis Presley's sex life

I have now added to the Talk:Elvis Presley page references to some further sources concerning Elvis's sexuality. See Talk:Elvis_Presley#Elvis_Presley_bad_in_bed.3F. Perhaps you may have a look at it. This material may also be used for the Nick Adams article. I have not yet included new passages in the articles, as we should first discuss its relevance. In my opinion, it seems as if there are many more sources suggesting a homosexual relationship between Elvis and Nick Adams. What do you think? Onefortyone 21:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wha?

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

Auto racing

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

Nick Adams and the Memphis Mafia

I would like to include the following passage in the "Rumors" section of the Nick Adams article:

According to David Bret, Dee Presley, Earl Greenwood, Byron Raphael and Alanna Nash there were even some claims that Elvis Presley had an affair with Adams.

It is a fact that the claims really exist. As for the Memphis Mafia article, a short note that Natalie Wood and some other people were of the opinion that Elvis and the guys from the Memphis Mafia were homosexual may also be added. What do you think? See also related talk pages. Onefortyone 23:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I saw they removed some of your staff at the "homosexuality" page. I added a suggestion for criticism of homosexuality.

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

Homelessness in Women

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

Question

You deleted the article on grasshopper cannon I created because someone vandalized it. Why could you simply not have reverted the article back to the pre-vandalized version? I'd do it myself, but only the administrators have access to the text. sophysduckling

Wow! That is going back a ways, back to July. One of the occupational hazards of being on recent changes patrol is deleting stuff that looks like complete crap but isn't - just vandalized. I've restored the article to its unvandalized configuration. Thanks for bringing it to my attention! FCYTravis 05:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for fixing it! I like to go back and look at my edits from time to time, and I noticed that the one on cannon was missing, so I wondered. Thanks for restoring it. :) sophysudkcling

No problem, and my apologies :) FCYTravis 23:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Bootcamp

Hi Travis,

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

Islamonazism

Where is the source to the page you deleted? How are we to restore the page upon deletion review OK if the source is not available?--CltFn 19:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All "deleted" edits are retained in the database and can be restored by any administrator. They're only "deleted" from public view. Should a Deletion Review decision overturn the AfD, the page will be restored. FCYTravis 19:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but still you took unilateral action by deleting it today. So you should reverse this and follow due wikipedia process.--CltFn 19:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unilateral action that is allowed by policy. FCYTravis 19:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

America West - US Airways

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

Florida State Road 678

I disagree that the sources were credible in that they contain no text, but that's my opinion. I look forward to the day when wikipedia is swamped with every dot on a map. Maybe a map would be a better place for dots on a map rather than an encyclopaedia?? redstucco 09:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How is an official document from the State of Florida not credible? As for the dot on a map issue... we're already swamped with every elementary school that ever had a kid. Preschools are probably next. The war's over, we deletionists lost. I'm not going to allow a perfectly interesting road to get deleted as long as every fucking school ever in history gets kept "because it's a school." There are fewer state highways than there are schools - if we can have an article on every damn fool school in the world, we can have an article on every designated state, federal and Interstate route in the country. FCYTravis 09:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Afd is a place to discuss deletion and I will bring up issues I feel important. Three sources have been added to the article where there were none so in that sense I am happy. That is probably three more than most elem schools have, but the "mob" are never bothered by anything as petty as policy ;) redstucco 09:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Adams

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

Wogsland has given us an award

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

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

Your userpage

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

Homelessness in women NPoV tag

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

BDAbramson's RFA

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

Question

I'm a little confused as to what's going on here [7]. Can you break it down in layman's terms? Was the article actually deleted in '04? If so, why is there a redirect now? Peace, BYT 14:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There was an ancient VfD on the article, and it was voted to delete and redirect, along with Islamonazi to the List of political epithets. However, that redirect was not protected, so someone later recreated the article. It was speedily reverted and redirected - so the person took it to Deletion Review, where someone dug out the old VfD decision. FCYTravis 20:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. BYT 15:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your cooperation on the Nick Adams article. I didn't link Bill Kelly because I still don't think his writing on Adams is encyclopedic because it is unreferenced just as I don't agree on Hadleigh or other gossip writing as being a proper source. Anyhow, as I said, we can sort that out later. I'll look at Gavin Lambert maybe tomorrow and then James Dean. Hopefully we can sort out this stuff and get back to doing something more interesting. Thanks. - Ted Wilkes 01:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought there would be an article... I was wrong! lol... might as well nuke the Wikilink because there's no Bill Kelly article. FCYTravis 02:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Freeconservatives

FCYTravis,

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

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

Thanks for considering my time, -Teenager

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

Re User:Onefotyone probation

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

Got a fan, eh?

heh, I reverted his stuff offa your page twice now ;]

Looks like he's getting distracted with me now hehe. I love it when they get upset that we caught them ;] --негіднийлють ^{(Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS)} 08:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked his grill ;) FCYTravis 08:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

heh, I was waiting for one more before taking the AIV road ;] --негіднийлють ^{(Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS)} 08:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J. Moncrief

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

Blocking IPs

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