Maybe I can liveblog a game from the seats or even tightwad hill

The top of a tree seems like it’s too far from a router to work.

I understand better now. Although I’m not sure I understand all the intricacies here, here are some areas that caught my eye:

Goons

User:71.112.10.248, please stop changing arborist to goon. It is blatantly POV, unsupported, counter to every single citation in that section of the article (every news article on the subject calls them arborists), and frankly boarding on vandalism. While I appreciate your attempt to help clean up the POV, these edits make your above argument seem a little hypocritical. —Falcorian (talk) 22:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

i looked up the definition of arborist and these guys aren't it. arborists don't go and forcibly remove people from trees, that isn't part of their training or part of any description i've read of an arborist. these "arborists" cut the ropes one of the protestors was supporting herself with (they caught her with a bucket truck). i guess we could call them "security forces" or something like that if you insist. i'm just describing them in the best term i can find. i'm pretty sure the university calls them "arborists" and the citations are just parroting that. 71.112.10.248 (talk) 23:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

User:71.112.10.248 has reverted back to goons, apparently believing this word falls somewhere close to the meaning of NPOV. It has been removed and contractor inserted instead. Clearly the person contracted to perform this job by UC is a ‘contractor’ so hopefully nobody should be able to complain about this change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.2.134 (talk) 03:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, User:71.112.10.248, there is a 3 revert rule. Your blatant POV changes keep popping up over and over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.2.134 (talk) 07:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Is the new “center”, if built, going to be used by anyone other than football? AFAIK only football players train at memorial and the “center” is supposed to house those endangered souls now training in memorial. 71.112.10.248 (talk) 14:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Q: Besides the football team, which Cal athletes will benefit from the center?
A. More than 400 student-athletes from 13 different teams — 7 women’s and 6 men’s — will use the new facility. While public attention has focused on football, the new center will be a tremendous improvement for other teams — like women’s field hockey and softball, and soccer — that train and play on fields adjacent to the stadium. Without locker rooms of their own, many of the women on these teams currently change clothes in their cars to prepare for games and practice. The student-athlete center will support gender equity and ensure that all Cal teams have safe, adequate facilities. —Falcorian (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC) hmmm, a pretty biased site there falcorian. i guess i’ll accept it, but we have to accept the pro-sitter sites too then. i happen to know that UCB site is false , the teams all have facilities already down at harmon. female athletes don’t have to change in their cars. their language is pretty slippery there—they lament the lack of girls locker rooms, but don’t come out and say the girls will have lockers at the new place… 71.112.10.248 (talk) 04:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding whether to put the names of the sitters in:

But mere mention of their presence in the trees is not reflective of them having some substantial effect on the controversy. Sure, these people participated in the tree-sit, but what did these people do to distinguish themselves from the others who partcipated as well. As an analogy, should we list the names of the cops acting as barriers between the grove and the protesters? They are participating just as much into the controversy as the above mentioned tree-sitters.
This to me sounds more like patting oneself on the back rather than any helpful information. It definitely strikes me as trying to ensure you get your ‘15 minutes.’
Given that, I’ll let it stay for now and ask others what they feel and maybe we can come to a consensus. I don’t think distinguishing yourself in such a small group is a requirement for mention. In the Kent State massacre article, all the victims were mentioned11. Not all the sitters are mentioned, just those written about in “reliable” sources. Listing is just a jumping off point. Details can be filled in from there. My namesake, Dumpster Muffin, had a very memorable standoff with the “contractors”. It has been compared to the man who stood in front of the tank at Tianenmen square. [12] Dumpster muffin (talk) 16:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC) I completely disagree with pseudo-dumpter muffin on this. First of all, the article you reference makes no mention of dumpster muffin and tiananmen square. Second, any such analogy is ridiculous. I saw the whole affair, and she was visibly shaking her own perch while screaming that the arborists were shaking her down. Third, don’t compare the tree-sitters to the Kent State massacre. None of the tree-sitters have been killed or even injured. It smacks of conceit and self-righteousness to make either comparison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.2.134 (talk) 01:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

OH SNAP!

Maybe it was actually their weekly follow the leader practice, you know how important those practices can be.