User talk:Polarscribe/Archive 6

Erb?

Hi, Could you explain what just happened with the article we were discussing and your talk page? Hobit (talk) 21:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Yes, that is predictable. You have my support. Nandesuka (talk) 00:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Your talkpage

Travis, enjoy your break, and hopefully you are less stressed when you return. When you do come back, could you please undelete the history of your talk page? With respect - Kelly ^hi! 02:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Historical pederastic couples

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Historical pederastic couples. Since you were involved in the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Alaska Airlines and SeaTac

"(cur) (last) 20:19, 12 July 2008 FCYTravis (Talk | contribs | block) (22,630 bytes) (this is WP:OR, the Web site says Seattle.) (undo)"

Alright, let me tell you something. Just because a city has a United States Postal Service designation of "Seattle, Washington" doesn't mean that the place is in Seattle. The USPS is strange that way.

The address is the citation. Plug it into Yahoo Maps, and it will be within the boundary of SeaTac. Plus I found a SeaTac page stating that AS is headquartered there.

Next time, for USA addresses, when someone says "I plugged this and this address into Yahoo Maps and it is in the City of Y," double-check (Either with Yahoo Maps or with maps from city websites) and check to see whether she is right or wrong. Just because an address has "Houston, Texas" or "Baltimore, Maryland" doesn't mean the place is within these particular cities. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject San Francisco Bay Area roll call

Hello from WikiProject San Francisco Bay Area!

As part of a recent update to our project main page we are conducting a roll call to check which members are still active and interested in working on bay area related content. If you are still interested in participating, simply move your username from the inactive section of the participant list to the active section. I hope you will find the redesigned project pages helpful, and I wanted to welcome you back to the project. If you want you can take a look at the newly redesigned:

• Main Page
  
• Talk page
  
• Cleanup listing
  
• Template list
  

As well as the existing pages:

• Assessment
  
• Article Worklist
  
• Watchlist
  
• Deletion sorting (California)
  

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page, and add it to your watchlist, if it isn't already.

Again, hi!  -Optigan13 (talk) 07:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Alana Austin

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Alana Austin. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Cenarium ^Talk 17:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject California roll call

Hello from WikiProject California!

As part of a recent update to our project main page we are conducting a roll call to check which members are still active and interested in working on California related content. If you are still interested in participating, simply move your username from the inactive section of the participant list to the active section. I hope you will find the redesigned project pages helpful, and I wanted to welcome you back to the project. If you want you can take a look at the newly redesigned:

• Main Page
  
• Talk page
  
• Cleanup listing
  
• Template list
  

As well as the existing pages:

• Assessment
  
• Article Worklist
  
• Deletion sorting
  

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page, and add it to your watchlist, if it isn't already.

Again, hi! Optigan13 (talk) 00:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Article nominated for deletion

I've just nominated List of United States journalism scandals for deletion. I don't see the point of two articles giving the same information. Redddogg (talk) 19:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 06:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD which might be of interest to you

You contributed to the article so I'm letting you know: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John McCain lobbyist controversy, February 2008 Borock (talk) 10:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Joel C. Rosenberg

FYI: [1]. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 05:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

San Francisco International Airport GAR notice

San Francisco International Airport has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

An exciting opportunity to get involved!

As a member of the Aviation WikiProject or one of its subprojects, you may be interested in testing your skills in the Aviation Contest! I created this contest, not to pit editor against editor, but to promote article improvement and project participation and camraderie. Hopefully you will agree with its usefulness. Sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the contest may not start until September 1st-unless a large number of editors signup and are ready to compete immediately! Since this contest is just beginning, please give feedback here, or let me know what you think on my talkpage. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 00:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Gabrielle Giffords

• 03:09, 1 April 2008 FCYTravis protected Gabrielle Giffords ‎ ([edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed]) (hist)
• 03:15, 1 April 2008 FCYTravis changed protection level for "Gabrielle Giffords" ‎ (edit war [edit=sysop:move=sysop]) (hist)
• 21:44, 19 May 2008 FCYTravis changed protection level for "Gabrielle Giffords" ‎ (reduce to semi-prot [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed]) (hist)

That was well over a year ago so I'd like to review this to see if semiprotection is still considered necessary. This is part of my large scale review of longstanding indefinite semiprotections. Please see the discussion I started at talk:Gabrielle Giffords. --TS 16:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Family Guy FAC

Hello. You had previously reviewed Family Guy for FAC. The article has been nominated again, and the review page can be found here. Thanks. Ωphois 14:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello FCYTravis! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 872 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Norm Silverstein - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Mark Wilkins (racing driver) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Chicago Midway International Airport

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the referencing which you can see at Talk:Chicago Midway International Airport/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Star Wars Kid

If you could comment at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_June_11#Ghyslain_Raza it would be greatly appreciated. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Portal of Evil was deleted

I'm not sure if you are still around, but I would like to bring to your attention the deletion of Portal of Evil. It has been noted by many that the nomination of deletion was done with COI (Conflict of Interest) involved. Thank you! --67.184.48.221 (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Norm Silverstein for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Norm Silverstein is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norm Silverstein until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Physics is all gnomes (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Suspension of admin privileges due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative privileges of users who have been inactive for one year, meaning administrators who have made neither any edits nor any logged actions in over one year. As a result of this discussion, your administrative privileges have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these privileges reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. RL0919 (talk) 21:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:FCYTravis/C.W. Jefferys Collegiate Institute shooting

User:FCYTravis/C.W. Jefferys Collegiate Institute shooting, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:FCYTravis/C.W. Jefferys Collegiate Institute shooting and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:FCYTravis/C.W. Jefferys Collegiate Institute shooting during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. — ξ^xplicit 02:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Alcatraz

Genuinely, I was open to discussion on whatever concerned you, but the way you addressed it I found most objectionable. OWN or not I put several days of hard work into writing this article which was strangely missing from wikipedia so naturally I find the plastering of tags and removal of verifiable content most unsettling. Had you approached me warmly originally none of this would have happened as if you actually check the article now most of the changes have actually been made. But you assumed the article was trash and that the editor writing it was equally incompetent. What's gone from bad to worse here is that you've decided to return to wikipedia in this context and have demanded your tools be restored despite not having done anything for us in 4 years, The context in which you have returned and the way you addressed this issue, sorry but you must be able to see why I'm miffed about this. If you edit for us for a month during which time I can see your editing skills and demeanour in general, I'd probably be more likely to support you having your tools restored. But I question why now you return and why at this moment you want editing power on here. I'm actually a very reasonable person if you work with me not against you but I'm pretty pissed off at the moment with how this has panned out.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I am certainly interested in working together to improve the article, and I highly disagree that I "assumed the article was trash." The vast, overwhelming majority of it is great! I didn't delete the whole thing and start over from scratch, did I?

I have one specific disagreement with the way the article is written, and that's with the weight given to speculative claims of "paranormal activities." That's it! That's the only disagreement. I made several efforts to discuss changes that I thought should be made to the presentation of "paranormal" stuff, but you blindly reverted all of them. I You even blindly reverted edits that did nothing more than insert the "disputed" tag into the article, which is a standard measure taken by editors who feel there are significant issues with an article. That's simply not kosher, and, I feel, not acting in good faith.

Whether I work "with you" or "against you" is not the issue. My goal is to work for a better encyclopedia. My reasons for returning are of no consequence - I don't need a "reason" to take issue with the presentation of material in an article. Nor do I need a reason for requesting the return of administrative tools which I earned many years ago. polarscribe (talk) 22:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it's worth mentioning that administrative tools are granted because the granting of them is believed to be beneficial to the project of building an encyclopedia, not because an individual has "earned" them or is entitled to them as a form of privilege or reward.

Or at least, that's how it supposed to work these days. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

That's more than a little nitpicky of word choice. Would you like me to put it another way? I was granted the tools by a community consensus process. polarscribe (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I am much happier with that wording. The RfA certainly makes interesting reading. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

When I said "earned," I meant it not in any sense of entitlement at all, but in the sense that through my work, I earned the support of fellow Wikipedians, who handed me a mop and bucket. And yes, that's kind of a flashback. polarscribe (talk) 09:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:BN

I think, instead of editing Iraqi footballer articles, it may be more useful for you prioritise your edits at BN for the time being? Just a suggestion, particularly as there are outstanding questions and comments for you to respond to there. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Fine, but you didn't need to be an admin to make edits to articles. Or did you? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about pitch forks, consensus to demote you or anything. I just suggested a new RFA would clear out all the cobwebs. If only "five" people are "after you" then you should have no worries, and as I said at BN, it's a good opportunity for you to demonstrate that you are up to date with all the changes here that have happened over the past four years. It's nothing to do with assuming good faith at all, it's to do with the community confidence in your ability to demonstrate that you understand the differences between what happened in 2008 and what happens now. Believe me, the changes are significant. If you have nothing to hide, requesting a new RFA is the only way ahead. And you really don't need to be an admin to edit articles, do you? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

reverting changes in pardis

a construction company is advertising here for the new city of pardis. the meaning of word pardis has nothing to do with the new city of pardis the word is originally an ancient word and has nothing to do with this city that has been built less than 15 years ago.don't interfere without enough knowledge please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roxn (talk • contribs) 07:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken. :) It is not "advertising" to have an article about a city in Iran - that article is the very definition of what an encyclopedia should contain. The meaning of a word (its definition) belongs on Wiktionary. Also, there is a page called Pardis (disambiguation) which provides information and links on the various uses of the word. polarscribe (talk) 07:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

ys polar people come here to find the meaning or the right definition for something not for advertisements.your action is totally biased.even in wiki persian there's a difference between pardis (city) and the word pardis.i dont think you are iranian or even know anything about iran polar.so dont interfere here.

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. On the English Wikipedia, the first priority is not providing definitions for the translation of foreign language words. There is a separate project called Wiktionary which provides a multilingual dictionary. Please cease reverting the article, or it will have to be semi-protected to prevent blanking. polarscribe (talk) 08:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

so if the english wikipedia is an advertising site we will introduce our products later is it?!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roxn (talk • contribs) 08:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Having an article about a city is not advertising - it is, in fact, the purpose of this project, to develop a comprehensive encyclopedia. polarscribe (talk) 08:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

the problem is that the city is a new city that is still being built and has less than 15 years history!!!!its a subarb city around tehran and its supposed to absorb people from tehran.thats all but the companies are using the name to advertise and it doesnt suit wikipedia.!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Roxn (talk • contribs) 08:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that Roxn/2.145.33.17 does have a point. The National Geospatial Intelligence Agency has the name of this city rendered as Shahr-e Jadīd-e Pardīs and (yes I know you can't use WP to ref itself) the map used in the article itself refers to 'Pardis city'. I think a name change should be considered, I'm not sure that calling an article about a place without the country is proper according to Wikipedia place-name conventions. For instance, all the place-names for 'Paradise' are rendered as 'Paradise, (Country or State)'. Maybe the title of this article should be changed to something along the lines of New City of Pardis, Iran or Pardis, Iran or Pardis (city), Iran or whatever. The Pardis disambiguation page lists 'Pardis, Khuzestan' as one of the possibilities, why does 'Pardis, Iran' not get its country name? Even the 'New York, New York' article gets named 'New York City'. (I also posted about this at the article's talk page.) Shearonink (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

What about Roxn/2.145.33.17's contention (not expressed in Wikispeak I agree) that the article is mis-named? I am posting on Talk:Pardis proposing that the article be re-named. Shearonink (talk) 18:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to that discussion taking place. polarscribe (talk) 18:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Protection of Pardis

I don't see why you protected it (albeit for an extremely short period of time) which made it unavailable to all non-autoconfirmed editors & IPs even though there was only one problematic editor. WP:SEMI says: Subject to significant but temporary vandalism or disruption (for example, due to media attention) when blocking individual users is not a feasible option. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 08:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The article is such a low-traffic situation with relatively few edits, I felt that a very brief semi-protection would hopefully allow the user in question to reconsider his/her situation without resorting to the heavy-handed drop of the block-hammer. lf you would prefer, I would be happy to undo the sprot immediately and simply block if the reversions continue. polarscribe (talk) 08:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Protecting an article in your preferred version when you are in a content dispute? Oh, very well done! DuncanHill (talk) 13:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)?

Reverting a page-blanking is a content dispute now? Are you serious? polarscribe (talk) 17:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

When someone removes content while commenting that they believe it is inappropriate for Wikipedia, then yes, I don't think it's too much od a stretch to say it's a content dispute. DuncanHill (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's not. That's all there is to it - it's a textbook example of administrative action under WP:INVOLVED. If you really think I violated policy there, you're free to file an RfAR over the matter. polarscribe (talk) 17:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you take another look at the protection policy, as it's always been preferred to block a user rather than protect a page. "Subject to significant but temporary vandalism or disruption (for example, due to media attention) when blocking individual users is not a feasible option.". I suggest you remove the protection you placed and block the user instead, if that's necessary. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 13:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I noticed the protection has since expired, so I simply advise you to go back and read policies you're no longer familiar with. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 13:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, in cases like this where the user is trying to contribute, even if they make a total mash of it, then I ignore that specific wording and protect the page. It seems common sense to me to lock the page briefly and give the editor time to stop and think. With that said; polarscribe you probably should have reached out a little more to them in that situation (i.e. you were allowing them the opportunity to continue to edit rather than blocking them). So sorry, I took on good faith what other editors had said & missed the section above. So struck some of my comment. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

If their editing is being disruptive (in any sense of the term, vandalism, a good-faith editor failing to edit the page correctly, etc) shouldn't they be the only ones prevented from editing the article? I would suppose its picking which is the lesser of two evils: preventing a set of editors not able to edit a page (semi-protection) vs. preventing one editor from editing all of our pages (blocking). I would think in a place like this, it would be better (or less bad) to block the editor until it can be communicated to them and their understanding that their actions were not appropriate. Legoktm (talk) 15:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

My thinking was that the article was so infrequently edited (I mean, look at its edit history, a total of 12 edits in the last three years before this issue) that a very brief semi-protection would likely not inconvenience any editors. If the page had been even slightly more active, I would have simply issued a block. polarscribe (talk) 18:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I note that the editor in question has settled down, is apparently engaging in discussions on the talk page as to Pardis' content and is participating in the consensus-driven process relating to the article's future. I believe that using the sprot tool rather than a banhammer encouraged that positive outcome. polarscribe (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Sort it out!

"Seriously? Now you show up here, too? Perhaps I should suggest a sockpuppet investigation on you and Dr. Blofeld, seeing as you "just happened" to show up to the same edit war" - make that three then. I am firmly on the side of my two colleagues Schrodinger's cat is alive and Dr. Blofeld whom I know and have worked with on many, many things. I most certainly am not a sock puppet. I think you need to take stock of the situation and appreciate where we are all coming from. -- Cassianto^Talk 16:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that was an unwarranted and inappropriate statement made in the heat of a moment, and I have apologized and struck it. polarscribe (talk) 17:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Cassianto^Talk 21:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Ninja'd

I was deciding if I should speedy delete or XfD a page until I went to look at the talk page and find it deleted. As always, I never get credit for patrolling. I guess I should thank you. Longbyte1 (talk) 02:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hah, trust me, it happens to all of us. Which article was it? polarscribe (talk) 02:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)