Talk:Green Tortoise/Archive 1

message: removed irrelevant discussion, see old version if you must. ∴ here…♠ 22:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: unintentionally deleted remarks

message: I edited this page to add proper footnotes instead of the numbered links which were present before. Also I removed a 'see also' comment from the body of the text and added it to a See also section. I think this page probably needs some more editing and maybe a bit of NPOV work still. Kit 22:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am suggesting, then, that some further research should be done and viewpoints such as the one suggested in the source I added to 'See Also' should be incorporated into the article. I think you did a good job on this page and it has been greatly improved. I am not sure why you think my work to improve this article is 'payback' or what exactly you see me needing to pay you back for. Although I agree that the anonymous editor (currently editing from 65.182.172.92) and I are engaged in a dispute on Talk:Burning Man I see nothing in my actions here that is vindictive. If you feel otherwise, please point it out so the article can be improved -- in fact, I congratulated you for your work here on Talk:Burning Man and came here to improve upon your already good work. Wikipedia is an ongoing process, and articles rarely remain static as I am sure you know. Kit 21:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I did some more research and positive reports are hard to come by, most are like this one: http://www.channel4.com/4car/gallery/gallery/green-tortoise/route-1966.html which talks about the reporter being ankle deep in beer cans and muddly clothes. Yum. It seems like making the article reflect a balance of both positive and negative would be difficult. Kit 22:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes & NPOV 

message: I tried to improve the NPOV status of this article. While nearly all reports on the 'net I've dug up seem to be negative, Wikipedia shouldn't be seen as taking a stance on the topic. Does it seem better now? Kit 04:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still NPOV? 

message: Former conversation unwieldly at best, new section started. 
It is still overwhelmingly negative.  Further sources sought.  ∴ here…♠ 20:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV, part 2

message: All this activity leads me to add a few thoughts about the company I worked for in Seattle over the summer of 2004.
The company is really made up of three independant ventures:
*The San Francisco hostel, since early 90s, run by Gardner Kent.  
*The Seattle hostel, since 1993, run by Rex Baldwin.
*The bus company, started by Gardner (1974), now operated by Gardner's son Lyle. (information corrected by Gtwebmaster. See http://www.greentortoise.com/gkent.driver.html, http://www.greentortoise.com/adventure.bus.drivers.html)
The three ventures should each have their own sections, without necessary overlap in experience reports.  While a certain character is maintained across the branches, they are essentially independent.
Looking for sources, particularly historical. ∴ here…♠ 18:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Added a bunch, still looking for sources.  Will likely contact Rex and Gardner after this gets cleaned up and neutralized a bit to see if they have anything to add.  How are 1st person (owner/operator) sources treated? ∴ here…♠ 20:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

text: (Kit: I'll assume you deleted the following on accident?) Why are you complaining about my reworking of the article when it still reads as strongly biased /against/ the company? All I did was clean up the divisions of the company that belong in this article. Be specific about changes you dispute, or sections you'd like to change.  I think the organization is a wonderfully dysfunctional counterculture (adj) travel company, of which there should be more. I do think they deserve an article. I don't have any intention of it being positively biased. Please do jump in and help make sure it isn't. Best ∴ here…♠ 22:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Please see my comment below at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Green_Tortoise#here.27s_pro-tortoise_link
I don't have any axe to grind or any investment in this article reflecting either viewpoint: I have no relation to the Tortoise beyond what I've already mentioned. I think you did an excellent job in fleshing this article out, 65.*, and I hope you'll help us continue to improve it. Kit 04:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanding the article, npov or not 

message: The bus line is /not/ the hostels.  The name green tortoise means 'hostels' to many who know it and have no idea that it even has a bus line.
Please do not delete Table of Contents categories (bus line, etc).  Please discuss variations on introductory statement including both aspects of the business.  removed all disputable language. ∴ here…♠ 22:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bus Line vs Hostels and Intro

message: The following has been copied from Talk:Burning Man as being relevant here:
:*Green Tortoise, remove.  The green tortoise is not a burning man organization.  They happen to run two busses there once a year, but otherwise are focused on running their hostels and busses.
:∴ here…♠ 21:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and removed Green Tortoise. We can use Category_talk:Burning Man for further discussion of what should or should not be included. I'd love your thoughts on the Pictures discussion above and my most recent thoughts in the second Links discussion, too. Thanks for jumping in. Kit 21:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I strongly disagree with this categorization.  The green tortoise's involvement in burning man is a miniscule part of it's operations.  Furthermore, the impact the Green Tortoise has /on/ burning man is miniscule, a medium to small sized theme camp of somewhat ramdon assembly (bus riders need not even bring their own food!)  I find this somewhat akin to putting the article for porta-potties in the burningman category.  Should the Green Tortoise also be in a category for the Oregon County Fair?  How about Alaska?  Perhaps Yosemite?  They do run busses to all of those places.  This conversation should be moved to GT.  ∴ here…♠ 22:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I'll take these responses as enough to keep GT in the category.  I feel like I'm arguing 65.* 's side about it being advertising, but we'll leave it alone for now.  I suppose if theme camps will be in this category, the GT counts. ∴ here…♠ 02:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Burning Man]] and GT 

message: By moving them, you tear them out of the context in which they were made, rendering them unreadable. This is no different from deleting them.
:From Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines, can we start with these two?
:*Answer a post underneath it
:*Sign your posts with ~~~~
:∴ here…♠ 14:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mike, leave my comments where they are 

message: I removed a paragraph that was pure OR. We do not allow 1st person accounts (i.e. "I went by the Seattle hostel and it's closed"). If you have a source, use it. But you simply cannot give first person testimonials in a Wikipedia article. --Woohookitty(meow) 10:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Btw