Misplaced Pages

User talk:Polarscribe/Archive 4

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< User talk:Polarscribe

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DPeterson (talk | contribs) at 18:21, 3 September 2006 (→Warning). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:21, 3 September 2006 by DPeterson (talk | contribs) (→Warning)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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

Archives:

Image copyright problem with Image:Midohio fcy.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Midohio fcy.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Misplaced Pages because of copyright law (see Misplaced Pages's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Misplaced Pages are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Shyam 14:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Tampa International Airport

Hey, how come you removed the Red Side/Blue Side airline listings at TPA? -- SmthManly / / 22:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

You're right, but it still felt more organized that way. I feel like the article just seems lacking now. Oh well. -- SmthManly / /

America West Express

The Game (game)

Please do not replace Misplaced Pages pages or sections with blank content. It is usually considered vandalism, even when you are arguing about proper application of WP:V. Thanks Ashibaka tock 15:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I took a look and it's a clear content dispute. So please don't suggest or imply those on the other side of your edit war are engaging in vandalism. Let's keep things civil, alright? --Chan-Ho (Talk) 16:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Oops, sorry... diffs looked like he was blanking the whole thing. Ashibaka tock 16:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
However, this is not a good use of edit summaries. Please try to refrain from making personal attacks. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

US Airways

I thought I had reverted out that call sign change. Apparently I still don't know exactly how rollback works since it stayed there. Vegaswikian 18:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

from thewolfstar

Hi FCYTravis, I've been involved in editing the Democratic Party (United States) article quite a bit for a few weeks. I went there just now and couldn't help but notice that there is a page protection on the article, and you put it there. Why did you do that? Can you get back to me when you get the chance and let me know? Thanks. thewolfstar 18:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Xeni Jardin

Probably removing content from a protected page is not going to be at all helpful for us to resolve this dispute. --Kickstart70-T-C 06:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I am not interested in involving myself in the dispute. I am interested in immediately upholding WP:BLP, which states that we are to err on the side of caution at all times when dealing with articles about living people. There is no obvious reason why we should include a random bit of defamatory bloggerel written by an unknown person which cites no sources at all whatsoever. It is up to those who wish to include such material to demonstrate why Misplaced Pages should care that "the temple of me blog" wrote something nasty about Ms. Jardin. What makes "the temple of me blog" an authoritative source on such matters? Until such has been satisfactorily explained, it may not be included. I invite you to examine our policies and guidelines relating to biographies of living people. FCYTravis 06:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
    The problem is that you are seeing the messy result of an edit war, which left the page in even worse disarray. The phrase you removed "allegedly irresponsible journalistic practices" referred to a section that was ripped out earlier, which was about XJ mixing photos from the Minuteman Project with unrelated anti-immigrant posters, and not telling her audience they were from two-plus different sets of people. I have no problem whatsoever with you removing parts that violate WP policy or guidelines (though...just a thought...since it's protected, maybe that should be limited to policy temporarily), but those edits should probably not be based on the current, mangled due to edit war, revision. In any case, it appears that you did involve yourself in the dispute on the talk page, and not in the RfC where this issue is really going to be resolved. That, itself, doesn't help move this along. --Kickstart70-T-C 16:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello. You'll note my name signed below. I have a website. You've mentioned or alluded to my website twice seemingly without researching the facts for yourself. You wrote above: "There is no obvious reason why we should include a random bit of defamatory bloggerel (1) written by an unknown person (2) which cites no sources at all whatsoever. (3) It is up to those who wish to include such material to demonstrate why Misplaced Pages should care that "the temple of me blog" wrote something nasty about Ms. Jardin. (4) What makes "the temple of me blog" an authoritative source on such matters?" (5)

(1) What "defamatory bloggerel" have I written on Ms Jardin? Can you point to the "harmful and often untrue" information about Ms Jardin you claim I have posted?

(2) I am not unknown. Many people know and use my full name. Because I don't use it to sign my editorials does not mean they are anonymous. As a journalist I am sure you could find me to get your information directly from a source if that is your goal.

(3) In my editorial on the actions of Ms Jardin (and others) I cited every point I discussed. Did you read the editorial?

(4) "Something nasty" about Ms Jardin? Exactly what did I write that you consider "nasty?"

(5) The Temple of Me is not an "authoritive source" by Misplaced Pages standards. If you read the Talk page on Ms Jardin's article you would have seen the numerous times where I argued such. As soon as I realized someone had cited (and misquoted) my editorial I joined the Talk and posted that websites are not notible. Note that I "joined the talk." I never edited the article itself.

I would welcome any questions you have about my site, my editorial, or my posts on the Talk page. domoni 03:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

"Many people know and use my full name. Because I don't use it to sign my editorials does not mean they are anonymous." - this is nonsense, and you are not a journalist, you are a computer programmer or office worker who writes a blog for a hobby. If a writer chooses to use a pseudonym he absolves himself of personal responsibility for his work. If a writer does not have the courage to use his or her real name then that writer's words have very little weight or authority. Christopher Hitchens does not use a fake name for the sake of convenience, and neither does Noam Chomsky. Ashley Pomeroy 16:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Ashley Pomeroy? Isn't this the talk page for user FCYTravis? I have watched the past week as someone followed searches to my site. If that was your research I applaud your effort. If so, as I am neither a computer programmer nor an office worker it is obvious your research failed you. If you did no research then on what evidence do you base your claims? I am sure you would have learned a great deal more simply by reading my website or writing me directly.
You display a lack of understanding about identity, anononymity and pseudonymity. I'd suggest you start your research with Pseudonym. You wrote: "If a writer chooses to use a pseudonym he absolves himself of personal responsibility for his work." shows a misunderstanding between anonymity and pseudonymity. Your mention of Hitchens and Chomsky is merely Hasty_generalization. For a better understanding of identify in this era you might want to look into the concepts of informational self-determination and the work of Coyne and Wiszniewski.
FCYTravis is who I addressed and he has not answered for himself. I have no impetus to discuss my life with you. Your words don't give me the idea that you are acting to achieve understanding, but are merely arguing a point. And I happen to agree with Shaw's view on arguing. (Don't you find it odd that so many Southern Americans think that idiom is a regional construct?) I do wish you continued peace and happiness. domoni 21:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

DRV Review

An editor has nominated the closure or deletion of the article Sports betting forum for deletion review. Since you closed the deletion discussion for, or speedy-deleted this article, your opinions on this will be greatly appreciated. Regards, MartinRe 11:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for voting in my RfA!

Thanks for your comment, and for voting in my RfA! Much appreciated. The nomination did not gain consensus, but I'm really glad I accepted. - Amgine 20:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Pretenders Ernst August

Please see Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Ernest Aug. and constibute to the discussion there. I look forward to people assessing UE:should English be used in all these cases and how; would any sort of numeral be acceptable; what are the correct ordinals anyway; and Is there any other sustainable way to disambiguate these systematically. Shilkanni 11:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

KP article RFC

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Pansophia You showed an interest in Kaiser Permanente this RFC is mainly about that. Midgley 16:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

No posting of results of AfD

There is currently a second AfD for Prisonplanet.com. However, there is no notice on the article's talk page with the results of the previous one, shouldn't there be? I address this to you since you summed up the first one. __meco 09:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I put up the notice myself. __meco 10:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Les Aspin history deletion

I note that you deleted two revisions from the history of Les Aspin. However, you apparently missed the fact that the libellous information persisted in the article over several subsequent edits in a span of two months, from 28 March to 28 May. The current history of the article makes it look like an innocent editor added the information. Either the two versions should be restored, or all the subsequent edits need to be deleted as well. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the deleted revisions — there's nothing there that isn't found in later revisions as well. Feel free to re-delete, but please get them all this time if you do. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 03:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Dude

I swear I've seen your name before online. It's freaky. I'm thinking AXA, but then again I think a lot of things. I thought it would be important that I tell you this for some reason. --24.223.144.215 07:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Relevant Label Group, Richard Hardin

I saw the article at http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:tfBmnbIy0IsJ:www.wrcbtv.com/news/index.cfm%3Fsid%3D1778+%22Richard+Hardin%22+%22con+artist%22&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a about Richard Hardin being arrested as a con artist. I would be inclined to keep both articles Relevant Label Group (which was deleted earlier today) and Richard Hardin but rewrite both to indicate that a scam is involved. At the same time, it might be worthwhile to create an article on Relevant Media Group http://www.relevantmediagroup.com/ , the real company whose identity Richard Hardin apparently appropriated. TruthbringerToronto 14:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  • IMO there's not enough information available to write articles. The only verifiable and reliable source out there is that single WRCB-TV news brief. That's not enough to base an article on. Even if it was, I don't think Misplaced Pages needs articles on every person ever accused of fraud or who is alleged to be a con artist. He's just genuinely non-notable. FCYTravis 19:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Hi, I'm a first time Misplaced Pages user and am here on account of a search for Richard Hardin. I may be a second verifiable and reliable source to the allegation that Richard Hardin is a con-artist. I am very interested in learning more about what might be known about him and his alleged con-artist status: I can be reached at ylenkj@hotmail.com . I appreciate you bringing this article to the attention of the public, it is important that stories like this are exposed. Thank you.

Louisiana flag on your user page

Can you please replace instances of ] with ] on your user page? My bot was not capable of doing this automatically, since your user page is protected. Thank you! —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 02:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


Your comments at User_talk:Pschemp

I see that you corrected my mistake at User_talk:Pschemp. At no point have the "sock" you pointed out and this account edited the same article, participated in the same vote, etc. Thus, I have never violated the wikipedia sockpuppet policy with these two accounts. Given that it is completely legitimate to have multple accounts if used appropriately, I wonder what purpose your pointing out this mistakes makes. I honestly do not want any trouble and made a seincere commitment to user:Pschemp not to cause any trouble. Why would you want to cause problems for me? Interestingstuffadder 12:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Matthvm

Can you elaborate on your decision to unblock this user? Let us accept that I chose the incorrect template for recommending deletion of the article Lawtons? Despite that, the user's behavior (as determined by two other admins) amounted to vandalism there. After having that page Speedy Deleted in large part because at the time the page contained only numerous hangon tags, the user then vandalized my userpage and then his own. After having a short two-day ban on main page edits applied, during that very window, in direct contradiction to warnings from administrators, the user proceeded to vandalize his own page multiple times. This led to a week long ban and the protection of his talk page. Yes, the user absolutely failed to grasp the dispute resolution process, but the process was clearly explained through the normal channels of talk pages and edit summaries. Examination of the history at Lawtons, the history at User talk:Matthvm and at my own main page should clearly demonstrate this. Kershner 21:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

  • It is highly understandable that someone not familiar with the arcane ins and outs of our policies, and not familiar in the least with how we do things, should lash out in frustration. Blocks are not designed to be punitive, but are designed to stop someone from damaging the encyclopedia. This user has never demonstrated any intent to damage the encyclopedia - only an extreme frustration with being prevented from making a good contribution to the encyclopedia. We must not be too hasty with extreme measures when users have demonstrated good faith and Matthvm's contribution was not vandalous but was an attempt to improve our encyclopedia. Blocking is a last resort and results in escalation and frustration, as we have seen here today. In my judgement, the causative factor of the user's behaviour was an overzealous use of the delete button and a failure to assume good faith on the part of established Misplaced Pages users. FCYTravis 21:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Matthvm has had a history of this, however. It is not about the Lawtons article (which I agree is notable), it is about his total disregard for WP:CIVIL, his repeated removal of warnings and his blanking of his talk page. I have been insulted and threatened with admin action by him before over a simple content dispute (when I produced 3 sources proving him wrong, he still called me a vandal). He may assume good faith, but is incapable of resolving disputes without drastic measures like this. He has had ample time to clean up his act, but still refuses to do so. Kirjtc2 21:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

FCYTravis, I have to support Kershner here. Matthvm has been removing templates from his talk page, and after being told to cut it out several times, he keeps on doing it. We weren't warning him to be punitive. By unblocking this user, you've completely undermined King of Hearts, AmiDaniel, Kershner, and me. Do you think it's a good thing for administrators to have an edit war? - Richardcavell 22:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

He removed templates from his talk page because an article he created was inappropriately deleted, and when he did something about it, he was rewarded with the template "blatantvandal," placed there by Kershner - is that how we respond to people who complain about an article they wrote being deleted? Matthvm was completely correct when he removed the db-repost template, because it was an inappropriate use of that template. An article that is speedily deleted may be recreated, and anyone then wishing to delete it should then use a non-speedy process such as PROD or AfD.
From WP:CSD: "In case of a speedily-deleted page (before invoking CSD-G4) they must also determine that it met a criterion for speedy deletion in the first place." The article in question met zero speedy deletion criteria. The author contested Kershner's claim that it was a vanity article, and per Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion, "If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead."
I think it is a good thing for administrators to make the right decisions, and if an administrator makes a bad decision it is incumbent upon other administrators to correct them. No administrator is infallible - we all make mistakes and that includes me. It is hardly an "edit war" to unblock a user who I believe was wrongfully and excessively blocked. FCYTravis 22:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Please excuse my ignorance if the following point is incorrect, but it was my understanding that the original creator of an article may not remove a speedy delete flag even if he feels that the tag was placed in error. Instead the correct procedure is to apply a hangon flag and explain the circumstances on talk at which point an administrator will make a decision. Additionally, it should be noted that Matthvm would not have received any kind of warning for adding a hangon, but repeatedly adding a dozen hangons is vandalism. At no point did I remove the hangon tag from his article, all I did was reduce them to one at which point he reverted to a state with many. Even had that been the only behavior, it was only when the individual began to take out his frustration on my userpage and on his own talk page that I sought administrative assistance. That should have been the end of the process, but instead, the very next day, Matthvm vandalized his own talk page in spite of multiple warnings and through multiple reverts. Your objection appears to be that this issue arose over an eventually valid article. It should be noted that the article was speedy deleted at least once with identical content before this issue arose at which point it was immediately reposted by Matthvm with no changes to content. It was for this reason that I mistakenly used the db-repost template. The article was functionally identical to the 10-sec earlier deleted version. This user deserved a block not exclusively because of his conduct at Lawtons but instead because of his conduct as a whole. Kershner 22:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I hate to continue this discussion further, but now that Matthvm has been unblocked, he seems to believe that his behavior is appropriate. As such he is going through my talk page and adding comments critisizing long ended discussions on deletions and urging others to report my behavior. This is in spite of a concerted effort on my part (see his talk page under Dispute Resolution) to make good and explain the process. Kershner 22:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
      • And he has agreed to stop (admittedly after testing my patience!) If he does it again, I'll personally block him. Here's the thing - I recognize where you're coming from, but this all has its roots in a mistake by us. Put yourself in his shoes - you've just written an article in good faith and it winds up deleted for what appears to be no particular reason. Ya know what? I'd be pretty pissed off too. If this had been a junk spam vanity article, then absolutely the actions here would have been correct. However, it wasn't - it was about a perfectly valid, important and encyclopedic article that was deleted out of ignorance or haste or whatever. Everything that happened here resulted from an inappropriate deletion action. If we had not failed there, none of this would have happened in this particular case. FCYTravis 23:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure how to proceed here. Is it appropriate for me to revert his comments saying "rv - Removed comments by Matthvm posted in bad faith." I don't want to cross the line, but I'd prefer if his aggression against me didn't spill over onto my talk page in every topic. While he has stopped for the moment, the uncivil remarks remain. Kershner 22:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

PHL page external links

The problem with those links that I removed, and which you reverted, is that one is commercial, and the other is opinionated and nonencyclopedic. I don't want to get in to a revert war, but think hard about Misplaced Pages standards, and hopefully you'll revert back to my revisions. Thanks. Trevormartin227 13:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Neither page is commercial, and there is absolutely nothing in our external links policy which says we don't link to "opinionated" sites. The PHL Citizens Watch site is an example of something we should link to per "On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link." We have a prominent discussion of the capacity and expansion issues affecting PHL. We have links to the airport's point of view, expressed on their Web site, while the Citizens Watch link gives readers a chance to explore the point of view of those opposed to noise, expansion, etc. The "Wings Over Philadelphia" page offers "neutral and accurate material not already in the article... (with) a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Misplaced Pages article." The link exchange banners, etc. are hardly an "objectionable amount of advertising." FCYTravis 14:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Userbox

Hello. A userbox you are using (Template:User gay) has been moved to user space per WP:GUS. The new link is User:MiraLuka/Userboxes/User gay. The link currently being used on your page is a cross-namespace redirect and will not last. If you wish to keep your userbox, it is advisable to change to the new link. I would do this for you, however, your user page is protected and I cannot edit it. Thank you. —Mira 04:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Tom Van Flandern

Heh, I like it! Less is more and all that. I hope you do likewise with Jack Sarfatti, but I can predict that a sane appraisal of how many electrons these guys are worth will not stand. WP's processes tend to encourage growth over pruning. Tant pis, since as all real editors know, excision is their most essential task, not insertion. :-/ ---CH 02:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:Disambiguation Quote

Good find there in WP:Disambiguation in regards to Talk:Georgia (country). I think disambiguation pages are so much more useful than endless "battles of the continents" or whether, page hits, Google, etc. count! Another wonderful example is Talk:Syracuse that I'm involved in right now as well. This kind of endless WikiWarfare is ultimately going to cause a major rift in the cooperation and effectiveness in the Misplaced Pages community. -newkai | talk | contribs 20:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


British Isles

Just curious about that litany of citations on Talk:British Isles. Do you have a particular interest in the issue over terminology?--Shtove 19:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Apologies - I mistook you for another user who's already well involved. Thanks.--Shtove 19:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Georgia Move

As a past participant in the discussion on how to handle the Georgia pages, I thought you might be interested to know that there's a new attempt to reach consensus on the matter being addressed at Talk:Georgia (country)#Requested_Move_-_July_2006. Please come by and share your thoughts to help form a consensus. --Vengeful Cynic 04:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Forum links

I am just wondering why there is a personal attack on my links and you keep the other fan sites??? You remove my MediumTV.com site and keep the Medium-TV.com site that was created far after mine. My MediumTV.com and 2andaHalfMen.com were created before any other forums on the subject. They have the right to stay. If you remove my sites, you must remove ALL fan sites. That is only fair. The more I read the Wiki web notability rules the more I wonder how you are in administrator here. I went ahead and removed all the spam that you missed from the Medium page.

--EmmSeeMusic 11:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for updating Reform Party USA page

I apologize for inadvertantly participating in a revert war. I tried to keep my comments neutral, but it is dificult when I am somewhat partisan on this.

Your edits made the page more NPOV while retaining some of the elements I added. Much appreciated.

Please see my comments in the Discussion section of the RPUSA page for more background/info.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Reform_Party_of_the_United_States_of_America#First_Person_POV_of_current_RPUSA_situation:__Not_wholly_neutral

  • No problem, I don't consider it a revert war at all - just two people working in good faith to improve the encyclopedia. The fact that you have a bias is OK - everyone has a bias on something. The fact that you acknowledge it and respect the idea of NPOV when editing articles you have an interest in is what's important. That marks you as someone I have great respect for, because it can be very difficult to juggle the desire to put what one "knows" is right, vs. the knowledge that we have to uphold NPOV. Myself included in that statement! Incidentally I just stumbled on the article through some other links, I'm not involved in the Reform Party. Your efforts to improve the encyclopedia are quite appreciated. Thank you for the kind words! FCYTravis 03:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

FairTax study

I noticed that you placed Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy under the section Revenue-neutral rate studies. Do you have a source for this? Was this a study by them or just a statement? If it is a statement, it does not belong in this section. If it was a study, was it based on the FairTax plan as written or did it include exemptions. Also, all of the studies presented are using the legislative framework as a basis for the rate calculation.. is this figure presented "exclusively"? The idea of phantom (government cost) taxation might warrant its own section. However, the calculation of these taxes is misleading as the current system calculates them. It is a wash but to calculate a revenue neutrality, you have to add it in. Though this may be a good discussion for the article. :-) Morphh 18:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed this entry as it was not an analysis of the FairTax but their own made up plan. If we exclude this, this, and this then the FairTax rate would be this. I don't think this is a fair piece to put in this section as it does not show the plan as written. If a section was written on "phantom taxes", perhaps it would fit there but even then I'm not sure what the point is... If we modify the plan to exclude the Government, the rate would be this. The plan does not exclude the Government, or churches or vets - so the point is moot. I think it is ok to criticize the plan for not excluding these things but we don't exclude them today from income taxes so I'm not sure what the point would be. Morphh 19:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Excluding government purchases is a must for rational discussion, because the government paying taxes to itself is just shifting money around. Can you tell me where the revenue is gained when the Department of Defense pays a 23-percent sales tax to the Treasury Department when they buy a new fighter jet? You don't get to exclude criticism just because it fails to fit your predefined notion of what the FairTax is. FCYTravis 19:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not excluding the criticism. I'm just saying that it is not how the bill is written. The bill says it is going to tax X,Y, & Z. The statement says "If you don't tax Z, the rate is this!". Let's just exclude Y too, and the rate is this. You can't make up your own plan and then critize it claiming that it is the FairTax plan. However, to critize that Z is taxed in the plan is an argument. Now to your question about the fighter jet (taxing Z)... The government currently pays employee income and payroll taxes just like any other business. You could say today that they are paying themselves. You are correct - it is a wash, they get nothing from paying themselves (today or under the FairTax). It's a big money shuffle. The problem comes when you try to do revenue neutral factoring. If I collect $100 today and $20 is the government paying itself. In reality, I would only need $80 to fund the government. So, the FairTax also collects from the government to get $100. Now the IETP screems and says that $20 is just paying itself (buying a jet) and if you remove the $20 you are only collect $80. Then they boost the FairTax rate (as now we're only collect $80) to collect $100. Nice shell game. $80 is all that is needed under the current system and the FairTax, however, they use Government when caclulating the current revenue collected but then don't count it when they want to calculate the FairTax. Morphh 19:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Clearly, you are excluding the criticism. It doesn't matter how the "bill is written" - the ITEP claims this, and you cannot exclude it just because you disagree with their conclusions. You may introduce a cited criticism of their criticism but you may not remove this citation simply because you don't like it. FCYTravis 20:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with their criticism. I also don't have a problem with them making statements based on their criticisms. They can claim all day that Government and Church services should not be taxed but it does not mean that get to make up FairTax rates based on excluding them. You are not introducing their criticisms in that sentence. What you are doing is just presenting the "what if" factoring. Where does it end? Exclude health care, food, government, etc and you get a 100% tax rate! Should we include this? No - it is not the FairTax plan! It's a made up national sales tax that does not exist. Your including a made up NSRT and presenting the tax rate for it. Yes they are criticizing the FairTax with taxing government but they are presenting a "what if" when discussing that rate. What if we change the FairTax plan so that they do not receive revenue from the Government, Church service, vets, etc. At that point, it stops being a study of the FairTax plan and becomes a comparison plan. It's not a matter of if I like it or not. I don't like the Gale studies, however, he presents a rate that is of the FairTax plan as written. In his articles he includes numbers up to rates of 60% when he starts excluding things. They are not included as they are not the FairTax plan. Morphh 20:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Read my talk please - your change does not flow logical. I think your doing what you accused me of.. moving it up for the reason of making it look bad. While I am moving it for the logical flow of the page. You are including an analysis to make it look bad. No other analysis is present in this section and their is no rebuttal. Morphh 21:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you know how hard I worked to get that GA? I spent many nights working on sources - look at the history. You just removed it because of a simple dispute. Not cool! Morphh 21:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

This article should be able to go straight to Featured Article Candidates once we resolve these disputes. It's plenty comprehensive, has some good illustrations (perhaps we can find a photo of a FairTax rally somewhere to illustrate the political movement?) and is fairly well-written - but I object to what I perceive is a POV. The Good Article requirements state that the article should be stable and not have an ongoing edit war. Well, we've got an ongoing (but civil) edit war/dispute, and thus it really shouldn't be listed thereunder. FCYTravis 23:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good - Just wanted to let you know that I replied to you on my talk page. I still think this is a GA. We had a couple reverts but I was making changes to it trying to compromise. There was little discussion on what we could do to make it better and work together on it. The article had very little changes in content for quite a while until your additions this week. I wouldn't call that unstable but ongoing improvement. Most of my changes were copyedits with exception of two points - the ITEP, which I compromised on, and the Tax panel quote in the rate section. My next thought was to keep the quote but address it in the next paragraph as critiques of the rate studies. I think this would have satisfied my desire for legislative flow and your desire to include the quote. The section will then grow as a counter point is included but I'm willing to do so if you think it would read better. I think you jumped the gun with removing the GA. Morphh 00:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thought I would toss this out to you since you identify as gay and might understand it better. Would it be accurate and or benificial to include a statement in the FairTax article that gay couples, for the first time, would be treated equally, from a tax stand point, as heterosexual couples? I don't have a source for it. Just information based on the rebates and such. Morphh 20:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Ionized bracelet#Ionization

Could you help me with this section? I see you removed the template I put there because I apparently wasn't using it properly. I feel that the entire section should be removed, actually, but I already deleted a similar contribution once, and I really don't like doing that. The section in question is poorly written, references no sources, and exists only to label QT Inc. as charlatans selling worthless hunks of solid steel. QT Inc. says they have a secretive ionization process, but from everything we know about ionization, this seems highly unlikely. However, it is not our place to call them liars in an encyclopedic entry. At least not without reputable sources.

What should I do? Should I just post the above argument in the discussion page and strong-arm any contributors who come along crying shenanigans? –Gunslinger47 07:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Remove my template then don't reply to me when I ask for suggestions? *sob* (:p) After searching endlessly though the Misplaced Pages namespace, I found the recommendation that moving the text of a contribution to the talk page is less harsh than a complete revert. I'll try that. –Gunslinger47 23:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been slightly busy of late and forgot about it! I think you're right, it just needs to be rewritten... we can't call people liars but we can mention that mainstream science says it's impossible to ionize metal and let readers decide whether they believe mainstream science... or QT Inc. I'll get to it later... for now removing it to talk is fine with me! FCYTravis 23:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Edited your userpage

Sorry for editing your userpage, but I thought it's better than leaving you with a redlink. Conscious 13:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Heh heh, DVC, eh?

Oooh, cool. So many people from all over the place, and here we are in each other's backyards. :) Luna Santin 20:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Why the Changes to RDU page?

Why all the drastic changes to the RDU page? I found it was easier to just list the regional partners than to have to constantly go in whenever an airline decide to change partners on a certain route. It also looked more organized and more informative. I just don't get it.

Also, why add the "Renovation" header if it is already covered under "Terminals". That seems very redundant.

I reorganized the regionals and destinations because it's generally our goal to list the mainline and contract carrier destinations as correctly as we possibly can - as is done on all the other airport pages. Every other airport article has them broken down by carrier. See Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Airports for our style guide to airport articles. If you think that styleguide should be changed, feel free to start a conversation at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Airports and bring up your point of view. I spend quite a bit of time trying to keep the USAir destinations up to date... As for the renovations section, I didn't notice that it was already covered, my bad! Also, a tip: you can sign your posts by typing ~~~~ - it will post a signature. FCYTravis 03:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

RLDS

You rightly pointed out an overzealous comment on my part, and I removed the phrase you objected to on Talk:RLDS (disambiguation). I am not a lawyer and I do not speak on behalf of any organization with respect to Misplaced Pages. I am a veteran WP editor and fully agree that we operate through discussion and consensus. However, trademark law should be respected here just as much as copyright law. Think about this: if Company X claimed that Coca-Cola had changed its formula and Company X then marketed its own product as "Coke", I don't think WP would allow Company X to use "Coke" as the name of its product in an article. We would cite Coca-Cola's ownership of the trademark as the legal basis for our prohibition. --Blainster 22:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Coke is, as you may notice, a disambiguation page. We do not cite any legal basis for anything - our sole disambiguation policy is "What are the readers looking for?" A quick Google search confirms that the top several dozen results for "RLDS" are all related to the "Community of Christ" church - hence it makes sense that most are probably looking for said entity. That's why I redirected. However, Misplaced Pages cannot make any judgement as to the validity of claims to the term "RLDS," nor can we take sides in what appears to be a religious schism. If the initialism is applied to other groups, we must respect that situation and help our readers find those groups as well. That's why I created the disambiguation page. Remember, trademarks can vary from nation to nation - see Budweiser for an excellent example. FCYTravis 22:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

False semiprotect notices

Quote (from my talk page): Your placement of false semi-protection notices on Cilcain and Lores of Halkyn is not permitted. Please refrain from such behavior in the future, or you may face sanctions against your ability to edit Misplaced Pages. FCYTravis 23:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


Acknowledged comrade. I was unaware, that with 'Lores of Halkyn' not being a published work (more really a story that appears in a section of the local paper occasionally) it was not eligible for having a Misplaced Pages article written about it. I would not object, therefore to the articles deletion, and I can assure you that my 'behaviour' as you so boldly put it, will not be repeated on Misplaced Pages in the future. Indeed, my humble contributions to the project, I can assure you, have hitherto been well received.

The false semi-protection notice was put up following vandalism on the guestbook to the website whose link I used as a 'source' for the article. I was afraid the vandal would 'strike again' on Misplaced Pages, and being a fairly recently registered user, was unaware that I was falsely 'semi-protecting'.

No offence taken,
Chris CTwells 23:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

While CTwells may not take offense at this notice, I do. Such an authoritarian and threatening tone is certainly not an appropriate or kind way to address what appears to be a mistake by a new user who does not appear to have ever had a conversation with another editor, has never been welcomed, has never been pointed toward relevant policies, and does not appear to have a good understanding of policy, as easily evidenced by the creation of these articles. Please try to be more civil, polite, and welcoming in such cases. Such a cold welcome could easily drive away an editor who, while confused and misguided, could have helped with editing articles on areas in Wales. --Philosophus 05:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection notices are not something a newbie generally places on an article. I was factual, to the point and non-judgemental - all I said was, what you're doing is wrong and don't do it again, or someone might block you. There was nothing uncivil or impolite about what I said and no offense was intended. The message was gotten across clearly, firmly and respectfully. FCYTravis 05:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

richmond

hahha i thought i was the only person from our crappy town on wikipedia hahha Richmond, California was so crappy i like fixed it and shit, wanna help? Qrc2006 03:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Editing of comments on Talk:Yoshiaki Omura

I can understand, at least partially, the justification for your removal of what amounted to an unfounded personal attack on the editors of Yoshiaki Omura, but removing parts of a signed comment without adding a note of this is not an honest remedy. Not only does it represent User:Icaet as saying something other than what he actually said, it also makes Arcsincostan seem to falsely accuse Icaet of possible libel and personal attack. While NPA does allow for refactoring of comments, would you mind adding notification that you have done so (as I have now done on that page)? --Philosophus 05:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Auto racing pic

There are a bunch of pics in the subcategories of Commons:Category:Touring car racing. Perhaps you can find a good replacement there? Since I don't know squat about auto racing (except a little F1 because it's on the Fox Sports World report which I watch for soccer news), I'll let you pick something. But you should be able to find an adequate replacement. Remember that WP:FAIR#Policy requires us to use a free image when one is available. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 06:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


Richard Norton matter

I would welcome your input at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Block of Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

User:WILLIAM DAKOTA

Since you were involved in the contentious editing history of Nick Adams, would you please look at this editor's contributions? He might be a sockpuppet. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

A River Runs Through It

That blew my mind when I noticed the lack of an article. It's even got Oscars! I want to expand this one out a fair deal (if I can)... rootology (T) 06:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

My Userpage

Logos for Airports

--Golich17 02:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Logos do not "Gork" Up The Page

I'm trying to make Misplaced Pages easier to see and use. Logos show the paticular airline and help people to know which airline. They do not "Gork" up the page. I can't believe you said that. Gork is an inappropriate word to use. Thanks for taking my work away. By the way, I fly many times and paticullary from Detroit which you removed the logos from.

images

What do you think of a small additional images section at the bottom of the article, as the last section? I saw Padme_Amidala#Costumes this and thought of--perhaps 3-4 screen shots, in very small form visibly, that can be clicked on. It should fall under the banner of "fair use" but I've never seen something like this on a movie article. What do you think? Almost would seem to make sense for just about every movie article, as they're articles about a visual thing/medium. EDIT: talking about A River Runs Through It specifically, and others as well... rootology (T) 07:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Breaca2

Breaca2 appealed to unblock-en-l. Could you provide more information regarding this indef block? An indef block for a single contribution seems counter to WP policy, even if it's a vandalistic or libelous contribution. The block review was turned down on grounds that Sasquatch thinks they are a sock, but didn't say who of or who they're socking as.

We need some context here. I can't respond to the unblock-en-l email without some context... Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 18:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

NASCAR-bio-stub

I don't understand the basis of your objection (or reversion). The 'bot made those edits on the basis of double-stubbing, in one case, and on permanent category membership in the other, both of which seem very clear-cut. I'd have done the same by hand in both of those cases. The autoracing bios were significantly oversized until recently, and there was approval at WP:WSS/P to split along those lines, if the whole stub-type is what you have objection to. Alai 21:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

  • That's right, the 'bot's a big NASCAR fan (unlike me). As I said, in one case, the article already had a {{NASCAR-stub}} on it, and you reverted to that version, so I assume you think that wasn't misplaced. I'm missing how a article can merit both {{autoracingbio-stub}} and {{NASCAR-stub}}, but not {{NASCAR-bio-stub}}, and I've no idea how to adjust the bot's basis of operation to reflect such a belief (other than not running on the particular category again any time soon). Alai 21:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Correction: they were all based on double-stubbing on {{autoracingbio-stub}} and {{NASCAR-stub}}: I was just confused by the fact that in one case you'd done a straight revert, and in the other, you'd also removed the latter stub type. Perhaps the problem (if any) here is over-liberal application of the NASCAR stub type in the first instance. Alai 22:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

United Airlines and Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport

Thank you for protecting those two article... —Cliffb 00:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

BOT - Regarding your recent protection of United Airlines:

You recently protected 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 01:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

US Airways

-- We're getting a bunch of articles numbers all mixed in. There are three separate but related companies -- US Airways and America West Airlines, and US Airways Group each should only have information on its specific company.. —Cliffb 05:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

-- I think that the US Airways written annual report is more accurate than a route map. Plus it didn't say LAS was a primary hub; it said LAS was a secondary hub (like Pittsburgh), and the info box in the article is listing the secondary hubs along with the focus cities. So yes, LAS is a hub, but it is a secondary hub, not a primary hub.70.58.112.77 18:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

On another note...

Okay, so I'm enjoying the productive disagreement on the US Airways articles... But I also stopped and read your userpage, and well I'd like to get to know you a bit more personally.. So what do you think? —Cliffb 06:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

New anti-Semitism

Greetings FCYTravis, I noticed you editing there (and reverting :-) and I was wondering if you might take a look discussion surrounding the poster image at the top? Thanks (→Netscott) 19:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

sprotection on Comair Flight 5191

We need it again. An anon insists that Misplaced Pages is the ideal place to list every victim of disasters.--chris.lawson 02:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

LCC A321s

Travis, I'm confused as to what the correct number of A321 orders are. The press release said that they ordered eight new planes, plus converted 7 previous (A319 and A320) orders to A321s. For a total of 15 new A321 orders. I took the 13 that were already listed, and thats how I got the 28 A321s on order. Like I said on the USAirways talk page, I've got an email out to investor relations as to what the exact order count is.. —Cliffb 08:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Kyra Phillips

You have made an edit that could be regarded as defamatory. Please do not restore this material to the article or its talk page. If you do, you may be blocked for disruption. See Blocking policy: Biographies of living people. GRBerry 20:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not leave false and misleading warnings on my talk page. I know perfectly well what WP:BLP says. I suggest that you re-read it. FCYTravis 20:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I stand by my actions. I have read WP:BLP back before it was policy, and have had it open and been referring to it throughout my RFC respionse. Please do not attempt to restore any of this material to the article without discussing it on the talk page for the article and getting consensus from other editors that it adheres to the required standard. GRBerry 20:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Please do not remove any well-sourced, cited material from a page unless you can prove that Southern Voice should be considered unreliable. I am filing a request for mediation in this case. FCYTravis 20:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Go ahead. I note that you continue to not go to Talk:Kyra Phillips and offer any justification for the claim that it is a reliable source or to offer an explanation as to why other editors and I are incorrect about the evidence to the contrary that we have presented. GRBerry 20:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, you might get a faster response at Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard if you want to try that in addition/instead. I don't know how fast either cycles. (Though this may be moot given the response below.) GRBerry 20:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

the Kyra Phillips article

Hey, As you know, I'm more or less on your "side" in this in that I don't see the need to do away with a criticism section. Even more specifically, one particular editor's assertion that a GLBT newspaper is inherently unreliable and biased struck me as ridiculous and a misreading of policy. His methods for changing the article were fairly disingenuous (changing the section title from "Criticism" to "Objectivity" and then attacking it for lack of peer criticism), and that didn't sit well with me either.

GRBerry's comments, however, seem to be pretty forthright, and he does make a good point regarding the fact that Sovo seems to lack a factchecking system (and if they have one, we can find out soon enough). GRBerry left a lot of the criticism section intact, and frankly at first glance it comes off as more balanced and neutral than some of the versions in the past 24 hours. Maybe his version would be a good compromise while other editors try to establish the high quality of the sources that were deleted.

Maybe I'm mistaken in my new assessment of the situation. All I know is that I have a newfound appreciation for how tricky editing bio articles is.--Birdmessenger 20:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean they don't have fact-checking? All one has to do is contact them - their contact information is here. That took all of 90 seconds. FCYTravis 20:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm referring to a system of checks and balances common at weekly papers by which someone (often an intern) gets copy from an editor, reads it, highlights every fact (names, dates, biographical details, whatever) with a marker, corroborates them all via phone or internet, and hands it back to the editor to make necessary corrections.
The fact that they do not list such a staff responsible for this in their masthead is what gives me pause.
Then again, maybe the fact that they don't have a factchecking staff has nothing at all to do with WP:BLP. If not, it would probably be good to explain why. --Birdmessenger 21:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
That's called an editorial staff. They have an editorial staff, again as demonstrated in the masthead. Of course they don't have one person called "factchecker" - 90 percent of small/medium papers don't have a dedicated person to this because they do not have the funding for a huge staff and an ombudsman like The New York Times does. The newspaper I work for doesn't have a "factchecker" either - our editorial staff does it as part of their responsibility for editing the stories submitted by staffers. This doesn't mean we aren't a reliable source - it simply means we don't have a huge staff! I bet you the Point Reyes Light doesn't have a "factchecker" - and they won a Pulitzer! FCYTravis 21:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
If you feel like doing so, you should argue that on the article talk page. That would refute the one decent reason given so far for Sovo not being the high quality source required for bio articles. Just a suggestion. (You all should get some interns. You can force them to work for free, you know.)--Birdmessenger 21:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I have done so. It's just so stupidly simple - could GRBerry not have spent 30 seconds to find the MASTHEAD or ABOUT US links prominently displayed on the front page, listing their address, phone number and staff? It's not like it's rocket science here. Oh, and we all work for free. It's a student newspaper. :) Besides, as editor in chief, the last person I want to do fact-checking is someone who's inexperienced and unpaid. I'd rather do it myself, and do a better job. FCYTravis 21:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

US Airways Hubs

You can't just change an article because you "disagree." Your only "proof" of LAS being a PRIMARY hub is that the route map calls it a "hub." However the company's annual report further defines it as a SECONDARY hub, which it also does to PIT. Please stop reverting this article when I have cited proof.149.169.115.145 22:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Note that my IP address is different because I am at a different computer, but I'm the same person who's been citing the annual report.149.169.115.145 22:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Invite to Misplaced Pages:Libel-Protection Unit

Biographies of Living Persons WP:BLP requires a higher wikipedia standard since the Siegenthaler Controversy in December 2005. Articles like these involve WP:LIBEL and WP:NPOV It has been 6 months, and wikipedia still has hundreds of potentially libelious articles.

Many editors and even administrators are generally unaware of potential defamation either direct or via WP:NPOV. To help protect wikipedia, I feel a large working group of historians, lawyers, journalists, administrators and everyday editors is needed to rapidly enforce policies.

I would like to invite you to join and particpate in a new working group, tenatively named Misplaced Pages:Libel-Protection Unit, a group devoted to WP:BLP, WP:LIBEL and WP:NPOV and active enforcement. From your experience and/or writings on talk pages, I look forward to seeing you there. Electrawn 17:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Advocates for Children in Therapy

The material added is not original research and reflects material on the cited websites and the lack of material on same sites. regards. DPeterson 18:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The groups in question do not cite ACT but do cite other groups in their work. DPeterson 03:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

'You are misrepresenting the statement'. DPeterson 14:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC) The information you are adding is clearly original research and an attempt to establish uncited, unsourced connections. Wikipedians are specifically prohibited from creating any new interpretations of evidence or drawing conclusions that have not been reached by other reliable sources. As such, your additions have been reverted. Please do not add them until you have reliable sources to cite which support your theory. FCYTravis 17:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The material added is not original research and reflects material on the cited websites and the lack of material on same sites. regards. DPetersontalk 18:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC) The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If you can specifically cite a report on one of those organization Web sites that explicitly rejects the group, do so. Otherwise, you're engaging in original research. FCYTravis 18:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC) I disagree. The groups in question do not cite ACT but do cite other groups in their work. DPetersontalk 02:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC) Sorry, that's prima facie original research. Please present sourced evidence that these groups refuse to recognize ACT, such as a position paper from the APA which says "We do not recognize the ACT." If you have no such evidence, cease inserting your unsourced original research allegations which could be construed as libelous. FCYTravis 04:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC) You are wrong on this point. The do not have to say they refuse to recognize ACT as that is not the point, the point is that they just don't recognize ACT use it's materials. DPetersontalk 14:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:DPeterson"

What is being stated is that the professional groups in question do not mention ACT in any of their material in support of the professional group's positions. This is despite the fact that ACT seeks to influence such groups and has clearly not been successful in it's efforts. The citations provided support this.

Please stop reverting this article. As you have found out many of what your had thought were improper elements of the article turned out to be correct (for example, the term is AT not attachment therapy or Attachment therapy; and the Manual of Style does not prohibit links to other Misplaced Pages articles as this is done in that article)...Please do some research if you need more information about ACT and it's work. This will help you understand that the lines your object to are factually correct. DPeterson 14:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The Manual of Style says that terms should not be repeatedly Wikilinked and that See Also sections should only contain articles which are not Wikilinked in the article itself. If the term is AT then you don't need to repeat the abbreviation over and over and over again - choose AT or Attachment Therapy and stick with it. All the parenthesed abbreviations are ugly. You cannot say that the group has not been successful in their efforts unless you have a reliable source which says so. What you are doing is clearly original research by claiming that you've looked at every single thing available ever done by these groups and that none of it mentions ACT. You cannot draw that conclusion from your own studies - you must cite a reliable source which has done it already. Otherwise, you're out of bounds on Misplaced Pages and you should take it to Wikinfo or Wikinews where POV and original research is allowed. FCYTravis 16:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Please stop deleting the Also see section. I think your actions might actually be becoming 'vandalism'. Other points:
  1. The style manual does not say that terms should not be repeatedly Wikilinked...The Wikilinks do not constitute 10% of the article and meet the standards of the style manual.
  2. The quote uses AT and so to be accurte must include the actual words used.
  3. The group has not been successful in it's efforts. The websites and articles speak for themselves.
  4. What the other editor wrote is NOT original research and should remain. Reliable sources (the websites of the organizations themselves!!!!) are cited.

16:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not vandalism to remove a See also section which should not be there. It's not vandalism because our manual of style says that articles which are ALREADY LINKED IN THE ARTICLE should not be put in a see also section. Misplaced Pages is not a link page. That's what wikification is for. The style manual at WP:CONTEXT specifically says under "What should not be linked" - "The same link multiple times, because redundant links clutter up the page and make future maintenance harder. However, do link the first occurrence of a term." The Web sites and articles do not speak for themselves, you are creating an original research synthesis conclusion, which is not permitted. Cite sources which say XYZ, or don't say it at all. FCYTravis 17:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Show me where the MOS states that, I believe you are incorrect in your assessment. OK on the multiple links, I see you are correct on that. DPeterson 17:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Warning

I believe your continued reverts to Attachment Therapy and Advocates for Children in Therapy may constitute violations of Misplaced Pages policy and maybe vandalism....please stop. In addition, I think you may have abused your admin priviledges when you put a block the page. Please stop your actions. Consider this a first gentle reminder/warning. But do continue to offer suggestions of improve the articles. regards. DPeterson 17:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

This user subpage is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you might try contacting the user in question or seeking broader input via a forum such as the village pump.
Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/OpenNote is deprecated. Please see User:MediationBot/Opened message instead.
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Example. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you,