User talk:Travis in travisland

Question

Welcome to Wikipedia! Although you've only begun editing today, all of your edits have been strongly critical of administrative actions that happened before you began. Is this your first account, or have you edited under a different ip or username? Everyone is welcome to edit Wikipedia, but we prefer that people use the same account consistently. Also, note that you are incorrect in saying that debate has been blocked- after all, you're still participating in the discussion. All that has been blocked is active changes of the article- when people disagree, it's better to come to a consensus about what changes should be made, rather than just repeatedly changing the article in ways that might be confusing for readers. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

And you think its a coincidence that since the edit block has been put into place the controversy section was removed, references to LGBT marriage were changed to slant it like she was in favor of it, and the reference to that fact that she is her self a descendant from immigrants was removed. Clearly, this was an attempt to make the article right-wing baised. There is no consense here at all. These changes were made with little too no discussion and no admin stopped it. If everyone is welcome to edit it, why cant I? Face it, this is an example of free debate being ended by brute force. Tell you what, have the article reverted back to what it was before the ban an I will believe that it was done for the common good and not for making some right-wing types happy. Travis in travisland (talk) 16:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really familiar with this article. I reviewed your two comments, but neither of them suggested any specific changes to the article. You forgot to answer my question: what was your previous username or ip? Or is there another way that you developed such strong opinions about past actions on a rather obscure article, on your first day at Wikipedia? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Since you asked, I reviewed the difference between the day the article was protected and today. The two versions are not very different; most of the changes, as you can see, make the article more neutral, not more biased. Maybe you were thinking of a different article, or thought changes had been made that haven't been? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The entire controversy section was erased, in the Edit before that involved her ancestor was also erased, the LGBT issues were changed to the weasel worded version of domestic partners, and the cost per taxpayer was erased. For pete's sake if i didnt know any better I would assume she did it herself. I have no previous username. Travis in travisland (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, the 'controversy' section was just one trivial comment, not any real controversy- it didn't seem important enough that an encyclopedia article would even mention it. The law affects all domestic partners, not just gay people, so it isn't 'weasel-wording' to use the header that most accurately reflects the law. The cost per taxpayer was pretty clearly an attempt to make a point. All of those changes are very much in accordance with Wikipedia's requirement that we stay as neutral as possible, which means that we can't even write in a bias toward the correct point of view, but simply present the facts. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

She made a false claim about her father's death. That is worth mentioning. Do a 5 minute google search and you can see how many other people think so. However, that isnt the point. The point is that there was absolutely no debate about it. You really think that wasnt an LGBT issue? As for the cost per taxpayer, why bother listing anything about a budget then? It doesnt matter anyhow. The admin is always right becuase they can ban and block. Travis in travisland (talk) 16:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

But of course, if you think there's a verifiable fact missing that belongs there, all you need to do is say so on the talk page, and persuade others to agree with you. So far, you've complained, but not suggested any specific changes, on the talk page. Think hard before making your suggestion- in a subject where you have strong opinions, you have to work even harder to make sure you're being entirely neutral. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

yes of course. If you agree with the right-wing political slant you can edit the page. If you disagree all you can do is suggest. Argue too much and you get banned. We are all equal just some are more equal than others.

The article is protected so that no new or unregistered editors can edit it- only people who've been active here long enough to understand the rules. It isn't blocked based on political perspective; I'm not aware of any technical way that could be done. If you are interested in making the article better, more factual and neutral, you know what to do now. If, as it seems, you're mostly interested in whining about it rather than making any useful suggestions, you can feel free to continue doing that, for a while, anyway. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The article was "protected" in order to kill debate. Notice how no one is debating on the talk page. Travis in travisland (talk) 14:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Jan Brewer

I re-added (and tweaked a bit) a section on her lying about her dad dying fighting Nazis. Might want to keep an eye in case it's removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.38.59.163 (talk) 21:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thankx. Dont worry it wont be removed until the page is blocked from editing by a neo-con admin. So it should be safe for a little while. It is standard policy on wikipedia that admins halt editing to end debate and freeze the page according to their political bent. However, they often try to hide this policy. Travis in travisland (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

*cough*

I understand that the anon (166) is pissing you off, and understandably so, using "carpetbegging liberals" again. That individual has a way of prancing their arrogance around like a Christmas-peacock -- but shooting back by telling someone to go write for stormfront.org isn't really a cool-headed way of handling the provocations. Just saying. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You are right. I should have gone out for a rare smoke first. I will edit it. "There is no way to peace, peace is the way"Travis in travisland (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Good call. General hint about dealing with anons: Numbers don't have a reputation to lose, will never get an indefinite block, and are more difficult to ban -- and they know it. Draw your own conclusions. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we disagree about this bill, but you are a decent guy. If you are ever in the liberal "carpetbagging" state of ny let me know, I will buy you a beer. Travis in travisland (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the Copyeditor's Barnstar, Travis. Dj22g (talk) 04:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)