User talk:Ckatz/Archive 6
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
Vacuum Modified Gravity
Dear Sir,
Please explain why you delete my contributions (on vacuum modifed gravity).
Best Regards,
Rudi
10:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.36.45.121 (talk)
John Cleese Bio
Western Australia
Refinements today by other editors built on your last change and I think its in good shape now (at least with respect to the lead-in and the short Geography section); the issue seems to be resolved. I'm glad to see a clean and issue-free lead-in as you would have gathered from my last post on the talk page. Thanks for your contributions to an important article about a place a long way from where you live. Cheers. GlenDillon 17:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
You might consider joining WikiProject Friesland for we allways need more participants. We can always use someone to help us to cope with vandalism on our articles or to create templates, upload images. No real knowledge is required. Just more members is what we need and a more international participant list would be great. -The Bold Guy- (talk) 18:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Re: FYI
I didn't think he was established, as he had been blocked, and there were other warnings on the page.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 02:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
MERLIN
Are You A Fan Of The New TV Show MERLIN On BBC One If So A New Wikia Has Just Started On www.merlin.wikia.com and it desperatly needs pages editing and adminastrators so if you would like to edit or be a part of the community start editing and drop me a message. Thanks. Michael-Downey (talk) 11:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Question
Hi I have a question. The reason I'm asking you is because, being an administrator, you would know far more than myself or most editors. If you go to the King Kong vs Godzilla page and look under the "Legacy" section, the last paragraph talks about a script for sale (including a website link). Is it OK to leave that in there? It seems to me script solicitation on a Wikipedia page would violate some sort of policy or rule since it seems to be a form of advertsing. Is that the case?Giantdevilfish (talk) 16:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Water Fluoridation
Hi, I just found the water fluoridation page and in my opinion it is terribly biased in favor of the anti-fluoridation side. There is too much about the history which seems to be mostly from a Dr. Meier. In general, the benefits of fluoridation are minimized and the possible detriments are overblown. Are you interested in coming back to help this article? --—CynRN (Talk) 21:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey
Please note that the website is back up and there is no longer anything about Wikipedia mentioned on it: [1]. What do you think? BTW please reply on my talk page. Khoikhoi 05:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Merge proposal
Please see WT:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_the_context#Break 1 for the current discussion. I'm letting everyone know who has a comment on the relevant talk pages. Obviously, we're not going to push anything through without a full discussion of every issue, including whether to merge at all. My sense is that there's wide agreement on all the big points, but the devil is in the details. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
How about "list of spherical objects in the Solar System"?
I created the list via the merger of another article called "list of planetary bodies", but I suppose the title is misleading. Serendipodous 08:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
capilano
raw figures from the wiki crawler:
capilano_university has been viewed 1439 times in 200809. capilano_college has been viewed 810 times in 200809. cap_college has been viewed 17 times in 200809. cap_university has been viewed 4 times in 200809. CapU has been viewed 87 times in 200809.
for a total of 2357 page views for capilano university to date
which is greater than Capilano_Suspension_Bridge has been viewed 1816 times in 200809.
and greater than Capilano_River has been viewed 389 times in 200809.
and greater than Capilano_Mall has been viewed 210 times in 200809.
and greater than Capilano_Lake has been viewed 364 times in 200809.
and greater than Capilano_Mall,_Edmonton has been viewed 105 times in 200809.
and greater than Capilano,_Edmonton has been viewed 171 times in 200809.
and greater than Joe_Capilano has been viewed 218 times in 200809.
and greater than Capilano_Herald_Extraordinary has been viewed 82 times in 200809.
and greater than Capilano—Howe_Sound has been viewed 117 times in 200809.
and greater than West_Vancouver-Capilano has been viewed 71 times in 200809.
and greater than Capilano_(electoral_district) has been viewed 67 times in 200809.
and greater than Coast—Capilano has been viewed 68 times in 200809.
and greater than North_Vancouver-Capilano has been viewed 69 times in 200809.
As per WP:Disambiguation, the statistics clearly show that Capilano University is the most requested. Incoming wikilinks show the same. Keitherson (talk) 07:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- I am curious as to what you mean by constituting "an overwhelming majority" of traffic. It should make sense, then, that schools such as Kwantlen thus fill such criteria to not have a disambiguation page. Keitherson (talk) 08:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- No response? Keitherson (talk) 04:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- You are incorrect, because the majority of hits from the disambiguation page go to the Kwantlen school. The other use for "Kwantlen", in reference to the Kwantlen First Nations, does not even have a wikipedia page! Keitherson (talk) 04:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- No response? Keitherson (talk) 04:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Concerning the link to the ALF episodes on Hulu
You recently removed a link the where episodes of the show can be viewed: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ALF_%28TV_series%29&diff=243234205&oldid=243210943
You are aware that unlike video sites such as YouTube and Google, that copyright material on hulu.com are legally loaded, therefore there was no violation of copyright laws in this case. Antiyonder (talk) 10:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hulu links aren't typically added, plus the content is often restricted to certain geographic regions, making it unsuitable. --Ckatzchatspy 17:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Catlow was on Heroes!!
You know you sound like a decent person-so why not help me with the entry instead of taking it down? I do not consider it to be non-notable 9 if i understand that right).. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bananarchymusic (talk • contribs) 03:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC) Bananarchymusic (talk) 03:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Spamming Question
Got a warning from you about spamming. While I was adding a forum website to several pages, the intent was not to advertise. It was to provide a content avenue for people that are interested in the vehicle pages that I added the external link to. Several of the pages have links to similar forums without issue. This is not a commercial endeavor, it is meant to bring the community together that might be interested in these vehicles. I hope you understand and allow the links to stand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.236.32 (talk) 04:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Anon user, please see WP:EL. In particular, forums should not be linked. RJaguar3 | u | t 04:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Why are other forums linked on many of the pages that I added to? 68.5.236.32 (talk) 04:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC) In particular, the Charger section has at least 4 forums listed 68.5.236.32 (talk) 04:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC) I'm hoping you don't take the others down, just allow mine to stand. 68.5.236.32 (talk) 04:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Repeated links
Although I've reverted your recent edit to MOSLINK on this issue, I agree that the wording wasn't entirely right. I am hopeful that we can work out a better wording that is acceptable to both you and me, and others who have a stake here. Above all, I'm very keen not to give the impression to editors who casually visit the page that it's fine to repeat-link without exercising a degree of discipline about this. I don't disagree with the need for a minimal occurrence of repeat links, if the advice can be worded to convey this. The MOSLINK wording is mostly right, I believe, except for the opening sentence, which is a little cut-and-dried.
More broadly, I hope to gain your support for moving the do-link and don't-link generally sections across from CONTEXT, while leaving unchanged the substantive balance between them and what is currently in MOSLINK on the matter. I hope you agree that it's in no one's interests to fracture this material into two separate pages.
This is part of a move to rationalise MoS and its ancillary pages, since they are so vulnerable to a lack of coordination and require very high maintenance when information is divided among them unnecessarily. Tony (talk) 05:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Re: the revert, fair enough. Thanks for the note, and let the discussions begin... --Ckatzchatspy 09:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. Before I propose this solution on the MOSLINK talk page, since you were the editor I reverted, would you be so kind as to let me know whether you can agree to the proposed wording below, and otherwise to provide feedback? It's shorter, which is an advantage in a style guide that is still long-winded and repetitious.
PROPOSED: This would be part of a new section called "What generally should not be linked" (from WP:CONTEXT, but merged with relevant points at MOSLINK). This section would come after "What generally should be linked", again from CONTEXT and merged with relevant MOSLINK points. There would be no section lead for "What generally should not be linked"—just straight into the points. I envisage that the point in question would not be near the top of the list:
Unnecessary repetitions of the same link in an article. Typically, the linking of an item on its first occurrence is sufficient, although the subsequent linking of an important item distant from its previous occurrence in an article may occasionally be appropriate in a table or in a subsection to which readers may arrive directly via a section-link from another article. (Table entries are an exception to this: each row of a table should be considered to stand on its own with respect to linking).
EXISTING: It's part of the section "Overlinking and underlinking", the title and lead for which I propose we dispense with as a little negative and redolent of the dispute that led to the creation of CONTEXT and BTW in the first place. The lead ends with "... An article may be overlinked if any of the following is true:..."
A link for any single term is excessively repeated in the same article. "Excessive" typically means more than once for the same term in an article. The purpose of links is to direct the reader to a new spot at a point where the reader is most likely to take a temporary detour due to a need for more information; this is usually on the first occurrence of the term, although the subsequent linking of an important item distant from its previous occurrence in an article may occasionally be appropriate in a table or in a subsection to which readers may jump directly, either within the article or via a section-link from another article.
Please note that:
- it softens the sentence you'd removed ("Excessive" typically means more than once for the same term in an article."), which I think you felt, justifiably, didn't quite fit logically with the rest; the new opening runs it on into an "although" rider more directly.
- it removes the statement "The purpose of links is to direct the reader to a new spot at a point where the reader is most likely to take a temporary detour due to a need for more information", which pre-empts the more specific explanation later in the point, and may be more appropriate in the lead of MOSLINK, since it's a broad statement of the purpose and advantage of linking, and is bloating what should be a shorter point.
I've watchlisted this page for your response. Tony (talk) 05:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll try to review this tomorrow and give some feedback. However, it is probably best to present the ideas at the talk page, so that everyone can provide input. --Ckatzchatspy 08:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
appropriate welcome templates for "W B"
Hi; just saw your restoration of the issues template on Whistler Blackcomb. I don't know the proper welcome templates for situations like this, and don't really know the welcome templates at all; usually I blunder in with my usual flashy style :D and don't come off "welcoming". There's a welcome template that includes COI and AUTO notices, isn't there? Was wondering if you'd maybe care to do the honours at User talk:Whistler Blackcomb.Skookum1 (talk) 03:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Done, and thanks for the suggestion. Good to see you around, by the way. How was the trip? --Ckatzchatspy 03:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Munax
The "unknown edits" as you saw before was not done by "anonymous". They were done by me, Rick Nolan. However, the wikipedia system was unable to recognize me to beaing logged on. I have talked with Cobaltbluetony about it. Todays edits are done by me as well and there are no "reverts". You should at least take a look at the new content before you put your comments on top of it. All the things required are now there, so let it be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick.nolan (talk • contribs) 16:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
danny rampling
Part of the Danny Rampling wiki is now in acurate. He has returned to being a dj and has launched a new website http://www.dannyrampling.com which should be reflected in the page. Please see dates on the site and recent press to confirm this you can also find his pr contact or email him on the site for verification of the facts.
Thanks for a wonderful site —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.149.159 (talk) 22:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Why?
Why did you edit my change to the video search engine page? It's inaccurate, and wrong as it stands. Visual search works, and the page should reflect that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.99.14.51 (talk) 23:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- You need to provide verifiable references that support the text. This guideline on sourcing and this one on verifiability may help explain what is needed. Please feel free to ask if you have more questions. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 23:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Hatnotes
I'm just wondering why you added the hatnotes pointing to the creation myth article back into the articles I removed them from? It seems odd to have them since just about every scientific article will disagree with various religions in one way or another, but we don't add a hatnote pointing to "religious friendly" material in all scientific articles. Ben (talk) 23:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think that is a legitimate reason for using a hatnote. Like I said, many articles could be rewritten using a religious perspective, but we have WP:WEIGHT to deal with that, not hatnotes. The way I read WP:HATNOTES is that they're designed to disambiguate, not discourage readers from editing. Ben (talk) 23:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- What are you doing? Why wouldn't you reply to this message instead of waiting for me to give you 24 hours to respond, then just reverting again for the same reason I've addressed above? Ben (talk) 00:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Template:Sp
Hello... FYI, I'll need to revert your move to Template:Sp, then move it to a new name in the "Template" space, as that name was used earlier in a now-deleted template. If you could please suggest an alternate name - perhaps something that better indicates what the template is for - I can then make the move. Thanks. --Ckatzchatspy 23:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- I didn' know you couldn't use deleted names for new templates :-P Anyway, please move it to template:Fp. The point of it is to offer {{partial}} with a note/footnote/source in a very small space, so that it can be used in a matrix with {{yes}}, {{no}} and {{n/a}}. So, it is pretty much limited to 2 characters (it also needs parameters). I was mixing "p" with n/f/s (note/footnote/source/small). However, it appears that fp is the only remaining option from other than sp. I will create the docs to clarify what the template is fore, I just left for dinner, so I didn't have a chance. ~ 10nitro (talk) 00:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Re: Possum Observatory
I closed it as "delete" because there wasn't much content to be moved to a new article as was suggested, and even those in favor of moving the article felt as though the observatory wasn't notable enough for an article. I'm open to restoring any content people want to use for an article on Drummond, but I didn't see that there was a consensus to keep the article on the observatory. Does that help explain it at all? Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Wallcrawling
You removed the wallcrawling again and said to wait until discussion is complete. However, the discussion I started has been up for a couple days now, and neither you nor Padillah have responded to it. A discussion can't really happen if you don't say why you keep reverting it. Ophois (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks Ckatz, Really appreaciate it :)
If you in the mood of removing grawp's trophies, see the history of User:Promethean User:Prom3th3an and User_talk:Prom3th3an. «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 10:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Companion (Doctor Who) fair use montage
This fair use montage of 38 fair use images dramatically violates our policy on fair use images being used minimally (WP:NFCC #3a) and significance (WP:NFCC #8). An image per character on that character's article is warranted if the character is notable. Otherwise, this is major overkill and is in violation of our policies. Furthermore, it is in violation of our guideline on the use of such images in lists at Wikipedia:NFC#Non-free_image_use_in_list_articles. Your contention that this article is not primarily a list is disputed by the fact it is present in Category:Lists of Doctor Who characters and Category:Lists of fictional sidekicks. Furthermore, that it is a list is actually rather irrelevant. Having 38 fair use images in ANY article is well in excess of what our policies would allow. I've reverted your reinsertion of the violating content. If you dispute this removal, please take it up at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- There's a big difference between something that is just a list and something that can serve as a list. -- Ned Scott 04:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. Furthermore, Companion in this context refers to a well-established fictional role; not simply a group of characters.
- I'm also in favor of including this image as fair use. There are others like it on Wikipedia, and as a linked image map it's inclusion is hardly gratuitous. —Clarknova (talk) 15:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Why was my contribution removed?
I don't understand your edit. WordHustler is one of the biggest, best resources on the net for literary agents... And since it's free, I fail to understand how it is commercial. This article cites Writers' Market, which makes you pay a hefty price to access their data. If you are going to edit, please be consistent and remove all external resources
Judygrimes (talk) 20:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Jessica Lowndes update changes
Hi Ckatz,
Just wondering why the Myspace link and Youtube interview link (that I used as a reference) were zapped from the Jessica Lowndes page. Reading the wiki usage page, Official Myspaces should be fine, and quite a few listed celebs here have such links on their pages. If you went to the link you would see it is in fact the official site and not one claiming to be.
I realize Youtube links are a no-no should they violate intellectual property rights but in this case it was an official Hollywood411 interview put out by TV guide broadband in their Youtube channel of videos. I used the video as a reference to the career section of the bio and it verifies many of the uncited points there. I also give credit to all parties involved. A TV guide interview of a TV actress SHOULD be allowable irregardless of the media but if I further specified in the titling of the reference that the link leads to a TV Guide Broadband channel video hosted by Youtube and not say a transcript of the interview, would that be enough to keep it?
Thanks Jjwikijj (talk) 20:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering since you and Dajorca are the only other significant contributors to this article, would you be interested in being listed as a co-nominator if it goes to FLC? Also, I'm pretty sure you used NASA planet factsheets and NASA Solar System exploration factsheets for the planets and Pluto, but I was wondering which sources you used for Ceres and Eris. Thanks. Serendipodous 14:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- In my contrib checker, you're listed as having made 14 revisions, which places you second after me. Serendipodous 21:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Hiya.. thanks for the reply. I've seen that before, but I have some sort of mental block about looking on the left for links, mostly; I guess it's b/c I'm used to hitting tabs at the top of the page for most basic functions. I may just try fiddling :D [ roux ] [x] 20:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Deletion of Cheetah Girls image
Ckatz, you've used your administrator privileges in a debate you have been involved in. This is highly inappropriate for an administrator. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tango#Use_of_administrative_tools_in_a_dispute, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Matthew_Hoffman#Administrators:_use_of_administrative_tools_in_a_dispute and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Dbachmann#Administrators:_use_of_administrative_tools_in_a_dispute, all of which were decided this year. With respect, you are out of line. I'm giving you an opportunity to reverse your actions. I strongly suggest you do so. Whether or not there is a WP:POINT violation is not for you to decide. Regardless, there has been no disruption and at least one other editor feels that the image met with the requirements of our policies. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, but you are completely mistaken. Removing the "Cheetah Girls" image is in no way whatsoever an "administrative action", does not involve any administrative tools, and is based entirely on reading the appropriate guideline and comments made by other editors at the Doctor Who image discussion. Any user, even including an anonymous IP, can make that edit. --Ckatzchatspy 20:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- I stand corrected. I presumed you had deleted the image, and mistakenly missed the image in my contributions. My apologies. Regardless, I have reverted your removal because at least one other editor feels this is an appropriate addition [2]. I fully intend on creating more of these montages should the companions image pass, and have no intention of creating more until this debate closes. Again, my apologies for the mistaken conclusion on my part. All the best, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
watchgossipgirl.com
Hi. I see you blacklisted this domain. We'll probably get a removal request eventually and it would help if we had some information for the record. Could leave something at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed additions? That would be very helpful in the future. Just use the {{UserSummary}}, {{IPSummary}}, and {{LinkSummary}} templates to list the accounts and domains. That will also flag us to look for other domains to blacklist as well as any cross-wiki spam.
Thanks! --A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Order of the Arrow COI Question
Hi. I noticed that you offered a much needed neutral point of view a few months ago in a debate similar to one I'm having now. If you have the time can you have a look at Talk:Order_of_the_Arrow#Inclusion_of_.22Safeguarded_Material.22. Thanks --Spirit76 (talk) 15:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
MP vs. DP
Since DP's, including Pluto, are given minor planet numbers, doesn't that make them minor planets? kwami (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
I knew that sooner or later someone who I had tagged for vandalism would do something about it. I am quite pleased actually that it took as long as it did. Thanks for catching it. --KenWalker | Talk 04:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Photo slideshow software
Ckatz, why do you remove my addition in Photo_slideshow_software article? CaptainDrony (talk) 10:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
MOSLINK
Yes, you're right. Sorry about that. Tony (talk) 10:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Reading material you provided to User:Bosniak Atheist
Hi!
Just to let you know, he's already been provided with some of that same reading material after he requested it but then he deleted it, along with some other discussions, on this edit.
Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Just trying to help
My understanding of Wikipedia is that it's a place for people to find information about a topic.
I would not expect WP to have EVERYTHING about a city, but a link to a free forum that focuses primarily on local information, news, and activities seemed appropriate.
My apologies for misunderstanding WP. It was not meant as advertising (as we don't get anything for the forum)...just meant for information for users of WP.
Agesaces (talk) 02:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)agesaces
bb
why do u keep deleting my victoria bathory page its not fair just stop it or i will report u —Preceding unsigned comment added by Missice62 (talk • contribs) 07:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Veveo, Picsearch and Munax should be treated the same way
Ckatz, I understand both your concerns about Single-purpose account. I cannot help that this is my first article. I will write more.
veveo and Picsearch are company articles. How come they may link to their search engines ?
The Picsearch company site is http://about.picsearch.com/ , nothing else. This site is located on a different server IP and is totally different from their search engine site http://www.picsearch.com/
The Veveo company article has 7 links to their search engine Vtap.com, including one in the info box and another under "External links". The company site URL is http://corporate.veveo.net/ , nothing else.
Please explain: Why don't you treat Veveo, Picsearch and Munax the same way ?
Rick.nolan (talk) 11:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Your recent removal of an external link from the NYMR article as 'spam'
Although not the originator of this link, having just followed it from the previous version of the article, I am puzzled as to why you consider it 'spam'. The ITV Local page seems to have been largly taken from the NYMR press release announcing the HLF grant award (which I have seen). Surely such information about immediate future developments on the NYMR could be considered fair comment and directly relevant to the article in question? I would certainly consider updating the NYMR and Pickering station articles as the mainly educational projects funded by this HLF grant come to fruition. I must own to having contributed to the paperwork for this successful HLF bid - which took some five years in development - so I do have a personal interest. XTOV (talk) 00:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hello... thanks for asking about this. The removal should not be taken as a comment on the NYMR in any way; apologies if my edit summary wasn't clear enough. Unfortunately, there has been an ongoing issue with spammed ITV links over the past year. This link was removed because it is one of many ITV links that were added en masse by single-purpose users and IPs tracing back to ITV itself. Please feel free to ask me if you have any other questions. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 18:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Photo gallery
I think we can make a Photo gallery section & add such interesting images. What do you think? --Googlean Results 11:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
GA sweeps: 4 Vesta
Hello, as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force, I have conducted a Good Article reassessment of 4 Vesta, to which you have been a major contributor. I have a few concerns that should be addressed if the article is to remain listed as a GA. If you are able to help out, the reassessment can be found here. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Law & Order
You do know that our verification policy reads: "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." (emph added) On what basis are you reinserted challenged, unsourced material? -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Was the inclusion of the term mulatto un-encyclopedic somehow, even though I even tried phrasing it in a neutral tone ("which is sometimes referred to as")? The fact is that he's simply not what's most commonly associated with the term African-American, and the only reason he's considered that is most like the one-drop rule, things I only heard about by checking out the talkpage to his main biography article. --77.184.4.129 (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
heeeey wtf???? pasta vision is real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.247.125 (talk) 01:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Edit war?
I'd say the edit war on the North America page has been going on long before I discovered it. The very first edit I made to the page was reverted (before I even had time to include a source) only 2 minutes later with the rude comment in the edit summary that my input was "patently false" by this wilyD person that so many other editors have had a problem with, according to the talk/history pages. Examining the talk page made it clear that challenging the issue (of whether Mexico is or is not commonly considered to be part of the popular usage of the term North America) would likely fall on deaf ears. I also tried to remove the Usage section entirely since consensus seemed futile and the section then didn't seem to be properly sourced. That got reverted. If other editors who have been stalking the page for a long time automatically undo my edits then I would say that it is obviously they not I who is engaging in an edit war. I never heard of the term edit war until I tried to clarify references to mexico per objective number 1 of the to-do list for the page and my edits were reverted in knee-jerk fashion minutes after I made them. I will give up trying to include Urban Dictionary, although I reread the description of "reliable sources" and fail to see how it is unreliable in this case. It may often be a humourous website with definitions added for the sake of comedy, it nonetheless is one of the more effective databases of slang available. Fundamentally Urban Dictionary is simply a poll of the public whether they agree with a definition of a term. The general online public votes about a term's usage rather than a selected team of academics. So since the issue of the "Usage" section was not what is the literal definition of the geological continent of N America, but rather how is the term used in popular speech by a majority of North Americans (an inherently subjective issue). I had no idea that Canadians used the phrase North America at times to refer to only Canada & the US despite having many Canadian relatives. Google searching various word combinations failed to clarify whether this was so or not. But when I checked Urban Dictionary on a whim, there is an entry right there identifying that there indeed is a noted divergence between American and Canadian speech on this point. To me, a source is unreliable when it provides misinformation, or inaccurate information. If the information is helpful or useful to people investigating a subject then what is the problem? Even if the information is delivered in a satirical manner? If someone was researching whether Donald Rumsfeld or Pastor Wright are well liked by the general public or not, then it would be helpful to watch segments of the Daily Show mocking them. For the time being I'll stick to commenting in the talk page since any edits I make to the article will probably just get undone anyhow. I notice you didn't change everything I added but I expect in the coming hours the section will get rewritten again in line with the usage defined by WillyD. I think the best solution is to present this issue to a survey of Americans and Canadians to determine what is the prevalent usage of the term North America amoung them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Walterego (talk • contribs) 09:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi; saw your reversion of his edits ot Lyell Island. He's pulled this kind of thing before - marking something as a minor edit when they're huge, sweeping and highly POV edits. He doesn't like seeing the names Canada or British CVolumbia in Haida articles, and yet for all of his resources he never bothers to make a citation - that Lyell's name in Haida is Athil Gwaii is something that should be in the article, there is no cite; for some reason it's not in BCGNIS so I can't add that cite btw. And he would be the one who conferred Svend R. with his honorary Haida name, you would have hoped he'd contribute that. He's gonna bear watching not just for POV but also Soapbox, it seems; I had high hopes, but even OldManRivers has his doubts about whether or not he'll be able to learn Wiki ways of doing things. Might be worth someone watching the Queen Charlotte papers to see if he mouths off about not getting his way on Wikipedia and how we're a bunch of stupid white people etc. (he's been known to say things like that in public....though not about wikipedia, so far). It's fairly discouraging that high-profile indigenous contributors don't try and help out; but they have a political agenda, just like an MP or an MLA or other politicians' article would be subject to similarly biased edits (his own Guujaaw bio has quite the history, and still looks like a resume). Anyway, good you caught that;; a regular patrol of his User contributions is probably a good thing to do....Skookum1 (talk) 15:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
As I predicted, the edit war was continued by WilyD
As I predicted he reverted the Usage section from the version you had made back to his unsourced version reflecting his personal opinion. He also made another rude insult in the edit summary, calling my input a "fringe POV" even though it is sourced and the version he reverted it to is unsourced by any relevant citation. Apparently he is convinced that his opinion is not a fringe opinion because it is his own. I am going to respect your request not to continue it by not reverting the page for the time being. I addressed the issue on the talk page yesterday but WilyD simply reverted the article without discussing it on the talk page. Based on the history of the page, this is common behavior in the edits to the article. Do you see why I was immediately drawn into an edit war? Responding to people through the edit summaries appears to be the only way to have a dialogue on the "North America" article. However, I would be interested in hearing whether (your fellow canadian) WilyD will also get a warning from you for edit warring or whether you plan to revert the entry to the edit you had made and I was fine with. If so I'd be interested in hearing why not. (Walterego (talk) 02:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC))
SportStar Relocation
Ckatz,
I am writing concerning the SportStar Relocation article that you tagged for speedy deletion. As the author of the article, I would like to acknowledge and apologize for the mistakes I made in writing the article. This is the first article I have submitted to wikipedia and I realize that it was written in a format that constituted advertising not a neutral viewpoint. After reviewing the wikipedia guidelines, I would like the opportunity to rewrite the article in a much briefer portion to share information on SportStar Relocation from a neutral viewpoint. Any suggestions on how to do this would be greatly appreciated and again I would like the opportunity to fix my error. Thank you very much for taking the time to read this and I look forward to hearing from you.
Best, Kingofthesea23 (talk) 04:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello! (Extends hand for handshake)
Hello Ckatz! I don't think we've met before either. I joined Wikipedia almost a couple years go, I think. As you'll know doubt see from my page and my edit history, I've been mostly adding content to articles related to indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast. Glad to meet you. I am also in need of a copyeditor so would you mind if I send you articles I'm working on to review? Thanks OldManRivers (talk) 21:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
This user is continuing to not heed warnings about the Georgia Moffett article and adding unsourced material that may be defamatory. --Lemming64 22:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
External links
I spent three hours adding my interview links to Wikipedia pages, knowing that people who visit those peoples' Wikipedia pages would enjoy reading interviews with them. So why did you delete them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.3.134 (talk) 03:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- External Links To Be Added Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.
- How does that not apply to my links? I wasn't spamming. People like to read interviews. I spent THREE HOURS on that -- why did you waste your time deleting my links? Does Wikipedia have limited web space? Mark Prindle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.3.134 (talk) 03:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Drat. Okay.
What was wrong with my links though? Was my real fault adding so many at the same time? Or do you just try not to link to extrenal interviews like the ones I added?
Mark —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.3.134 (talk) 04:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the support!
Thanks for supporting my successful Rfa! Hope to work with you more in the future!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 19:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Horror film links
Since you removed the cultfilm link, I was wondering if you think there are any other links that could be removed. A lot of them just seem to be generic horror fansites and not necessarily something that should be linked from on a horror website.--CyberGhostface (talk) 02:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note; I've trimmed the list, added a link to the Open Directory Project's "horror" category, and cleaned it up. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 03:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks! I appreciate it.--CyberGhostface (talk) 04:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- No problem. I've found that the Open Directory link (the template {{dmoz}}) can help resolve problem with excessive link build-up. It is Wikipedia-endorsed, and if editors want to add links, they can be directed to the ODP to submit the links there. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 04:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks! I appreciate it.--CyberGhostface (talk) 04:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
TUGS edits
Hi Ckatz,
first of all, thanks for finally removing the majority of the links in the external links section of the TUGS article, some of them were complete fansites which i'm happy we are rid of. Secondly, are you interested in the show at all? If so, take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject TUGS. And finally, you said in your edit summary "[...]; will try to locate Open Directory link per guidelines" - what does this mean exactly?
Thanks for your time! --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 01:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. The Open Directory Project is a volunteer project to create directories of Internet sites arranged by category. Given its volunteer nature, it has been deemed a suitable link for Wikipedia articles, and has become a useful tool in reducing excessive build-up of links. The template {{dmoz}} is used to provide a direct link to a category on the ODP; if editors want to add links to fan sites, they can be directed to the ODP to submit the links there. Hope this helps. --Ckatzchatspy 01:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Ok so is it like an archive of other websites, where the website itself is suitable use as a source? --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 01:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Not a source, in the reference sense, but it is a organized directory of links. URLs are submitted to the volunteers for possible inclusion, and (if accepted) are added to one or more categories. DMOZ is considered a preferred alternative to a long list of links in an article. --Ckatzchatspy 03:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Ok so is it like an archive of other websites, where the website itself is suitable use as a source? --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 01:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Ah ok. So how exactly could i "add" as such, the TUGS websites? Or did you say you planned to do it? --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 04:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Merlin (TV series)
You are mistaken. The article was about the internet release of an episode of Merlin. The article's purpose it to announce the release, discuss its quality, and discuss the episode itself. You are mistaken in interpreting it as a links database. Again, the link was not to a site hosting illegal content, but to one featuring an article regarding an episode. In the comments for the article, links to content of questionable legal status were posted. So, at best there are two degrees of separation between what I wrote in the talk page for Merlin and the content in question. My intent was not to advertise. I honestly wanted to illustrate what I meant by online excitement for the show. The editor that has attempted to dispute this does not understand my intentions despite multiple attempts to explain it to him or her. If you are in fact that same editor, then I thank you for finally signing in. XJeanLuc (talk) 12:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Just a quick reminder that this article is undergoing a GA reassessment as part of the GA sweeps. It has been on hold for over two weeks, but several concerns remain. If they are not addressed soon, I will have to delist the article. Because it is part of the Main asteroid belt Featured Topic, this would also mean that the Featured Topic would be delisted. There's not much left to do, so any help you can provide would be great. The reassessment page is here. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Your comment at the RfC
I've removed it again. You reverted my action about a minute later, as I was pasting the text in below where it is appropriate: the reasons are clearly set out in its own subsection. There, it can be discussed and more information provided to users. As a sudden addition to the lead of the RfC (without the courtesy of notifying me or anyone else first, I might add), it has the effect of changing the text on which a large number of users have already declared their opinions. This, I'm sure you'll agree, is not appropriate. Nor is changing the text of a referendum after some of the electorate has already voted on it. Tony (talk) 10:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- Tony, you know full well it is perfectly relevant to the discussion. Furthermore, it clearly indicates the time at which it was added, and there is also a mention in "meta-discussion" for, well, discussion. Finally, I might add that you did not extend the courtesy of notifying anyone about your RfC to begin with - despite its overlap with one that was already under development - so you can hardly complain about what is "appropriate". --Ckatzchatspy 10:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- I've reverted your removal again Tony. You may wish to read WP:OWN. There are also guidelines on talk page etiquette, and one of them is not to change other peoples comments (that would include moving them to suit your wishes). —Locke Cole • t • c 10:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Brothers and Sisters
I would need to disagree with putting that information [3] back onto the page. Is there some way we can set a time limit to source that info? That information has been on that page for months without sources. Even with sources, I would need to question its relevance to the article. Thanks DJS --DJS24 20:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. I see that Ohconfucious has, in good faith I believe, altered the link to go to MOSNUM talk, which it could be argued skews the notification the other way, since the pre-existing RfC is then in your face, with no mention of the other one below.
I wonder whether we can agree to modify this in two ways: (1) a change in the wording of the pipe at the notification template to make mention of two RfCs on dates and linking—one on three proposals to alter MOSNUM, the other seeking community input into more detailed issues. (2) A note (which I would insert) at the top of the pre-existing RfC, alerting users to the existence of the one below as well.
I'd appreciate it if you discussed this first before launching in with changes, given that there's a need to cooperate and diffuse the situation at MOSNUM talk. Tony (talk) 09:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Having said that, I've now done the opposite and implemented the changes; it seemed easier just to do it. Please let me know if you object. Tony (talk) 09:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- No objection, I've actually just built upon that and added a simple directory at the top of the page, as follows:
| Note to readers: There are two active requests for comment on this talk page. Please see: |
Daphne
Yes, I realize there is mostly plot as of right now. But instead of just deleting it, I say we should add more to the article until it has the same standards and any of the other Heroes characters with their own articles. Just making it a redirect is the eay way out, I don't mind putting in some effort to making a good article. --Piemanmoo (talk) 22:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, I see what you mean. Very well then, I'll get to work on adding that kind of info to the page, and the next time I change it it will contain all the parts you mentioned, properly sourced of course. Thanks for the help. --Piemanmoo (talk) 02:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Oops, sorry
Ckatz. I’m sorry for falsely accusing you of collaborating with Tznkai on deleting an entire RfC. Indeed, he managed to pull that one off all by his little lonesome and did not do so at your behest. I misunderstood what Tznkai meant when he said he jumped in at the request of “another admin.” Well, that “other admin” wasn’t you. I’ve publicly stated that I was wrong and apologized there. I have no problem with your behavior as an admin. I am sorry for thinking you put him up to it and for falsely stating as much on the ANI. My bad. Greg L (talk) 03:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- Greg, I'm uncertain as to how there could be any confusion leading to the AN post, given that I told you point-blank that I had not contacted anyone when we discussed this two days ago. However, I do appreciate the retraction here and at the AN board. In the spirit of putting this behind us, I have tweaked my post at AN accordingly, and am willing to consider this closed if you are. --Ckatzchatspy 05:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Indiana Jones & Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
I noticed you removed my additions to the this article. I wasn't list production/continuity errors (e.g. when a camera is visible or if something is out of place from one shot to the next). Rather, I was citing factual errors made in the film that are clearly obvious. Please provide further explanation.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC))
- Wikipedia also doesn't cover those sort of errors; virtually every film ever made has them, and they are really just a form of trivia. Generally speaking, we only note details such as those when someone else has made a note of it, such as if a film critic takes the producers to task for sloppy errors. --Ckatzchatspy 06:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oh well. I thought my additions were very informative. Anyway, thanks for clarifying this for me.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 06:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC))
- They are interesting, for sure, but unfortunately they are not notable in the context of an "encyclopaedic" treatment of the subject. (That is why I've had to remove it from the Iron Man film article as well.) Now, again, if some of these become notable through observations of third-party sources, they would then be suitable for inclusion. For example, there may be an Army official who comments on the errors in the war scenes. Alternatively, the producers might note (on a DVD commentary or similar medium) that they purposefully changed some aspect in order to achieve a certain dramatic effect. That would help to give the article a greater "real-world" context. Hope this helps; if I ever come across such observations, I'd be happy to pass them along to you. --Ckatzchatspy 06:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I appreciate your explaining this to me. By the way, I had made similar additions to the articles for the filmsStarship Troopers and The Black Hole, but I've already removed them. Please note the The Black Hole already contained an Error and a Trivia section before I came along. I have only removed the material I added.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC))
User page
Thanks for the reversions. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 16:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
buffalo wild wings
Why do you keep erasing my BWW Charity page? Do you work for BWW?
Doug —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddweatherholtz (talk • contribs) 00:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
North_End_Elite
Please leave our North_End_Elite page be.
We will be working on it next few days to expand it from what it is.
We will have various sections to it, including information on the displays we have done during games, regular chants, as well as NEE mentions in the media, including the feature Playstation has done on our group
Please acknowledge that we are a functional group that is recognized by Toronto FC as a Supporters Group (http://toronto.fc.mlsnet.com/t280/fans/supporters_clubs/), and also considering that our fellow groups mentioned on that page have been allowed to have wiki pages, and even a non TFC recognized Supporters group (Ultras 114) has been allowed to maintain their page.
We just ask to allow us to work on this page in a group effort, various people in different locations.
Thanks
—Preceding unsigned comment added by NEEGoodwin (talk • contribs) 00:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Ceres asteroid?!
You reverted my edit on Ceres in List of notable asteroids. Could you give a reference where the IAU says it is no longer an asteroid? As far as I know, the term asteroid has never been formally defined by the IAU.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Ireland and the Imperial Measurements System
I have noticed you have changed my entry on this page. What I included is correct and valid and reflects public feelings and opinions on the matter of metrification. I see no reason why my section should not be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.240.249 (talk) 15:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
hollywoodnorthreport.com spammer
Hi Ckatz, I noticed that you've been dealing with a persistent spammer in the Hollywood North article that I have just compiled a report on. If you would like to view it or have anything to add, please do so. This user has had dozens of warnings, and it appears you have previously blocked a sockpuppet IP address for the offenses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#User:Hollywoodnorthreport Spamicide (talk) 23:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I apologize
Sir, or Ma'am,
This IP address is at a high school and very few people know what they are doing. I, unlike most students, know what they are doing. This is southern IL and very few people can speak coherently, yet be able to type intelligent information on this.
sorry for any trouble. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.174.255.50 (talk) 17:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Random Chat (Dr Who)
As to my recent changes to the Doctor Who pages; the "Sixth Doctor" and "Tenth Doctor" pages, I will stop putting extra detail seeing any lookers should know the information any way and if they don't they could just look up the "List of Doctor Who serials" page. Sorry for wasting your time.
Fresh101 (talk) 11:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Exceptions to posting a link to a blog site?
I understand the policy against posting links to a blog, and the conflict of interest policy, but there have to be exceptions to those policies. I tried to post a link to a blog on the Sam & Dave, Samuel David Moore, and David Prater wiki sites and was reverted. But the blog I listed isn't about me or what I do everyday, it has legitimate information about Sam and Dave. Sure, it's basically my opinion, but I mainly use quotes and facts concerning both Sam and Dave. I seriously think the blog I tried to link has pertinent information that a Sam & Dave fan might find very interesting, useful, and relevant. Check out the blog - [4] - if you still think it's not an exception to wiki policies, then so be it. Thanks anyway. Dave Prater Fan (talk) 22:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Re: Request to restore images
I'm sorry, but I've deleted those two files since no source of origin has provided. Since en.wikipedia also requires to mention the source of origin, I think that you will be unable to reupload here.
BTW an user has found a alternate for File:Uranian moon montage.jpg and uploaded on the old filename with all informations required. 555 17:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Pushing Daisies
Why did you remove my edit? It was trivia, lots of articles have trivia. 76.200.161.227 (talk) 05:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Revision history of Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth
I might be missing something, but is there a reason why "Being disoriented by a nearby bolide" and "Being burnt by the burst of the gamma ray" are thought to be better examples than "Having possessions stolen" and "Death", in the table in the Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth article? (You reverted me when I made the change.) The source we're actually drawing from here uses "Your car is stolen" and "Death" for the two personal-level examples, and they seem much clearer than the obscure language of "bolide" and the unnecessarily repeated context of "gamma ray burst". --McGeddon (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Third Opinion
Greetings, pursuant to a request on the Third Opinion Noticeboard: I added my opinion to the article's talk page. I hope that my comments help to resolve the dispute. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Stifle, with regards to this site, I've been reviewing the user's contribution history, the site itself, and the quality of online references to the site. I'm not sure that we need to remove this one from the blacklist, as the article appears to be purely for promotional purposes. Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 17:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well, the addition wasn't logged in the first place so it's not clear why it was added to start with. Let's leave it for the moment and check if the article gets deleted or if there's spam refs added. Stifle (talk) 19:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Television program
Please see Talk:Television program and comment on the proposed move to Television show. Thank you. --Joshua Issac (talk) 16:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Removal of link
Please can you explain why you keep removing my external link from the Augmented Reality Page. My link points to my Masters Thesis (for which it received a distinction) and contains lots of useful resources for anyone wanting to learn how to implement an augmented reality application. I have checked the wikipedia guidelines and can see no issues!!!!
Dogends (talk) 08:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Merry Christmas from Promethean
Ckatz,
I wish you and your family all the best this Christmas and that you also have a Happy and safe new year.
Thankyou for all your contributions to Wikipedia this year and I look forward to seeing many more from you in the future.
Your work around Wikipedia has not gone un-noticed, this notice is testimony to that
Please feel free to drop by my talkpage any time to say Hi, as I will probably say Hi back :)
All the Best. «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk)
RE: Canadian broadcasters
Hello. Thanks for letting me know about this. If I may ask, where is it specifically written on Wikipedia that the US network shouldn't be included in the listing for "Canada" in the international broadcast section? Although CBS/FOX/NBC do not broadcast from within Canada, their broadcast is available within Canada. In fact, in certain Canadian areas, as with Ugly Betty, the program is only available via the US broadcaster, because Citytv is not available nationally. This is the case for me, as I live in Atlantic Canada and receive ABC via basic cable.
And as for The Big Bang Theory, where I see your edit was contested by another user, the show has been available in Canada through CBS ever since its inception, but it was only available through "A" and CTV sporadically throughout its run... so if a Canadian consumer wanted to watch the show last October, for example, CBS was the only option. So what I'm saying is, where is it written that we cannot include the US broadcaster in the international listing for Canada? Canada is unique in that the US broadcaster is available. We are not the CRTC, we're not "protecting" Canadian broadcasters, we simply report the facts. By the way please don't take this as confrontational, I just have a personal dislike for Canadian broadcasters as they are simply rebroadcasters of US programs (exclusively; they don't create any Cancon) that are already available through the US network. — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` 14:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hope you had an enjoyable Christmas. You compared ABC's availability on basic Canadian cable to Citytv's availability in the US via OTA. This is different, because with ABC on cable, the situation could arise (as with myself) where ABC is available but Citytv is not with a basic cable subscription. Canadian networks on the other hand are not available in the US other than terrestrially in border cities. And yes, I know all-too-much about simsub, and I really dislike it. This is the main reason I dislike Canadian broadcasters, particularly Global and CTV who live and breathe off simsub revenue.
- I just find it unfair to credit solely our lazy Canadian broadcasters where credit is not due—they simply simsub the US network that is already available to Canadians, thus receiving double exposure. If they didn't get this double exposure, they wouldn't make as much revenue, so you could say they're happy that we have access to the big US networks. Anyway, I won't argue this to the bone, and I understand your point, but my disgust with Canadian broadcasters is unwavering. I'm not saying we should remove reference to the Canadian networks—but I feel strongly that we should list the US network alongside the Canadian one if it is available on basic cable. The only time anyone really watches TV is in primetime, and during this period you wont find any Canadian programming on CTV, Global, E! Canada or "A". Even the Canadian cable specialty channels air few original programming—with exceptions—aside from "Canadianized" versions of international programs, like "Canada's Worst Driver" on Discovery Canada. — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` 08:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Talkpage
I just took a brief look at the Talk:Robert Dziekański Taser incident. Please make a good faith effort to understand where RomaC is coming from. Judging from a lot of your comments, you're more worried about how many people think something and bickering back and forth about that instead of addressing the intelligent points RomaC has made. I don't care if ten thousand people agree with you, it doesn't make you right. RomaC is correct about everything he's said on that page and you are wrong, so please stop antagonizing him. Coastme20 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC).
Simulated Wikipedia Interfaces
Hi there, I thought I would turn this little issue over to an admin and I know that you have had an interest in removing simulated Wikipedia interfaces on user pages in the past. I recently found this one (same on his talk page) and removed them both with the edit summary "Simulated Wikipedia interface removed in accordance with Wikipedia:User_page#Simulated_MediaWiki_interfaces)". He immediately reverted my removal saying "(Undid revision 260866290 by Ahunt (talk) Revert per WP:IAR, using the template solely within my userspace" and left me a moderately polite note on my user page basically telling me to mind my own business. As you can see his rationale for this is Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Given this reasoning, I thought that rather than pursuing a long discussion on this with him I would ask you to have a look at the issue and let me know what the best course of action is. - Ahunt (talk) 01:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. Just a note to inform you that I deleted MediaWiki:Editnotice-0-Doctor Who as I think we don't need it anymore now the 11th Doctor was confirmed. Hope you don't mind. 
Regards SoWhy 13:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note (and for taking care of the notice) - both are appreciated. --Ckatzchatspy 16:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
"quack"?
Poter99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Potrid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
-- Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- He's been strangely silent since his original postings. Maybe his computer has gone homeless. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Welcome back from Christmas
I just wanted to draw your attention to a note I left you that got archived while you were away User_talk:Ckatz/Archive_6#Simulated_Wikipedia_Interfaces - Ahunt (talk) 14:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for reposting this; I forgot to extend the archive time limit before the break. I'll try to take a look at the template over the next few days as I catch up on stuff. --Ckatzchatspy 16:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
65.31.103.28 and 65.31.103.40
The first one, especially, could stand to have his user page wiped and protected. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- My pet squirrel has had its fill of this nut, but you can do with it what you will. Seriously, I'm not so sure about .40 simply because it tracks to a different city some distance away. But that "geolocate" may not be foolproof, and the numbers do seem too close to be a coincidence. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. Just a note to inform you that I deleted MediaWiki:Editnotice-0-Doctor Who as I think we don't need it anymore now the 11th Doctor was confirmed. Hope you don't mind. Regards SoWhy 13:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note (and for taking care of the notice) - both are appreciated. --Ckatzchatspy 16:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
"quack"?
Poter99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Potrid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
-- Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- He's been strangely silent since his original postings. Maybe his computer has gone homeless. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Welcome back from Christmas
I just wanted to draw your attention to a note I left you that got archived while you were away User_talk:Ckatz/Archive_6#Simulated_Wikipedia_Interfaces - Ahunt (talk) 14:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for reposting this; I forgot to extend the archive time limit before the break. I'll try to take a look at the template over the next few days as I catch up on stuff. --Ckatzchatspy 16:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
65.31.103.28 and 65.31.103.40
The first one, especially, could stand to have his user page wiped and protected. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- My pet squirrel has had its fill of this nut, but you can do with it what you will. Seriously, I'm not so sure about .40 simply because it tracks to a different city some distance away. But that "geolocate" may not be foolproof, and the numbers do seem too close to be a coincidence. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. Just a note to inform you that I deleted MediaWiki:Editnotice-0-Doctor Who as I think we don't need it anymore now the 11th Doctor was confirmed. Hope you don't mind. Regards SoWhy 13:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note (and for taking care of the notice) - both are appreciated. --Ckatzchatspy 16:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
"quack"?
Poter99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Potrid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
-- Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- He's been strangely silent since his original postings. Maybe his computer has gone homeless. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Welcome back from Christmas
I just wanted to draw your attention to a note I left you that got archived while you were away User_talk:Ckatz/Archive_6#Simulated_Wikipedia_Interfaces - Ahunt (talk) 14:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for reposting this; I forgot to extend the archive time limit before the break. I'll try to take a look at the template over the next few days as I catch up on stuff. --Ckatzchatspy 16:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
65.31.103.28 and 65.31.103.40
The first one, especially, could stand to have his user page wiped and protected. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- My pet squirrel has had its fill of this nut, but you can do with it what you will. Seriously, I'm not so sure about .40 simply because it tracks to a different city some distance away. But that "geolocate" may not be foolproof, and the numbers do seem too close to be a coincidence. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Errors in the film - The Day after Tomorrow
I've added a section on "errors in the film" for The Day after Tomorrow. I know the last time I did this you stated that it wasn't acceptable because I didn't cite references. This time, I've cited two sources.
If this is wiki compliant, please let me know. Otherwise, I will delete this immediately. I figured I would run this by you first.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC))
Please reconsider your removal of GreenSetters,com
Hello Ckatz,
Can you please reconsider the removal of GreenSetters from the corporate socail responsibility and sustainable business pages? Perhaps if you looked at the page that I linked to you would see that this non-commercial resource provides over 200 resources focused on and closely related to csr and sustainable business. I realize that the site may not meet the external links guidelines, but if it does not then I would argue that several of the commercial sites that are linked from the page do not either. In any event, I realize that you make the call and I respect that, but perhaps you could review the link and reconsider. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, William Kelly wkelly@greensetters.com --Wikelly1 (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
This editor, blocked as a sock of EverybodyHatesChris (talk · contribs), is currently requesting an unblock, and appears to want your particular attention. Would you mind dropping by? GlassCobra 07:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Long edit summaries gadget
Why did you move the long edit summaries gadget to the "user interface" section? It doesn't really change the user interface. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's really more of an interface tweak than an editing tool; the "editing" gadgets are special-purpose tools such as Twinkle and WikEd that offer a lot of features. Not a big deal, of course, but it seems a better fit where it is now. --Ckatzchatspy 00:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
RE: Canadian broadcasters / Super Bowl
You have still not cited anywhere in the Wikipedia policies where it says that US networks cannot or should not be listed in "International distribution" under 'Canada'. NBC may not broadcast from within Canada, but it certainly broadcasts into Canada, throughout the entire country. As myself and many other Canadians do not have access to Citytv, it would be useful to know that NBC, for instance, carries Chuck within Canada.
As for your Super Bowl edit, you offer no reason for the removal of the information about the controversy of the Canadian simsubbing practices during that event. There are several sources I could cite that would provide evidence of a controversy, meriting mention of the issue in the article. Perhaps the paragraph can be retooled to clearly indicate that there is a controversy surrounding the simsub issue. I understand that you are an administrator and I respect that, but I also respectfully disagree with your edits in these cases. — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` 04:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Daily Mail/John Cleese
The claim that the Daily Mail is not a WP:RS is a sweeping statement. It is not prone to the wilder flights of fancy found in some UK tabloid newspapers, although it is hard to give an exact age for Ms Orr. The Mail says "Records obtained in the US suggest that she has knocked an impressive 18 years off her age and is in fact 45" but does not go into details . The problem here is not the Mail itself, but the way the information was presented in the Wikipedia John Cleese article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback. From what I could determine in past discussions about the Mail, it is considered to be semi-reliable - not "tabloidish", but also not entirely trustworthy when it comes to tabloid-style details about personal details. Given the vagueness of the text, it seems best not to use the information without a second source to verify. Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 19:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- As with the Fox News Channel, the Daily Mail has some strong critics. However, it is not prone to stories like the all-time classic "Freddie Starr ate my hamster", which appeared in The Sun in 1986. The news story about John Cleese in the Mail at [5] does not come across as deliberately false or sensational, and the Mail is careful to qualify the statement that Ms Orr is actually 45. I agree that this should not be in the John Cleese article without more confirmation, but do not think that the Mail has acted in bad faith over this issue. As a professional newspaper, it would have considered the possibility of a libel action if the information was blatantly false.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Re: Localize comments2
I usually respond on other talk pages but since the thread you responded to involves more than one person, I'll keep the discussion only on my talk page. Gary King (talk) 22:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Also, please put Wikipedia talk:Comments in Local Time on your watchlist; I will be forming discussions there related to the script. I've already posted a question there and would appreciate input. Gary King (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Editing Print culture
Dear Ckatz,
The Information that I'm trying to add in this topic is not Original research but sourced from actual articles and news-reports. I keep trying too add references but you keep deleting my additions. So much for Wikipedia being a free Encyclopedia. I guess you guys have an agenda of your own as in you want to certain topics to reflect the views of the Wiki foundation.
Cheers! Rags015 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rags015 (talk • contribs) 05:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Paddleboarding
Hi,
I'm new to this and am wondering why you have removed my addition of Ponce Inlet as a Notable Paddleboarding Spot. This is an East Coast sport as well as the other locations listed and if you look at the East Coast Archive that we built as the original paddleboards.com (that became paddleboard.com) you will see the Ponce Inlet connection. It is also the location of the Annual East Coast Paddleboard Championships. We are looking to make more additions to this page and hope that they will be accepted. Florida has a strong paddleboarding community and several notable races that we would like to add. Can you explain your removal of this information? Your help would be greatly appreciated. Paddleboards (talk) 04:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)paddleboards
Kiwibox
Trust me, I went to the link. Its legit. Plus I believe that is some important info. "Bad Girl" didn't pop out of thin air! IHelpWhenICan (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Srebrenica massacre → Srebrenica genocide
Hi. There has been some discussion on Talk:WP:RM about renaming the three sections on WP:RM, but the normal interpretation of the middle section is "moved here either because the request is incomplete or it had been in the uncontested section and I contest the move (or think that a reasonable person may contest it)", never, "moved here because it should be speedy closed", which appears to be what you have done. In other words everyone deserves their day in court, and if they want to propose a move, let the community vote on it, or just speedy close it. In this case my opinion would be that a move that was discussed a year or two ago can legitimately be brought up for discussion, particularly, for example if something has changed. Please note, that all of the proposed moves in the "Other" section are potentially "contested" - that is why they are there, and not in the "Uncontroversial" section. My suggestion is to move it back to "Other", and then politely speedy close it if that is warranted. In fact I will be happy to speedy close it on Monday if it shows no support. Cheers. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 15:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
NB - already moved back to other[6] by another admin. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Cactions
Sorry for another gadget-related message, but could you please follow up on Wikipedia:Gadget/proposals#Caction tool? Not sure whether that could be deemed "consensus"... but I leave it at your discretion. haz (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Edit to your monobook.js
Hi, I just edited your monobook.js page, to add commented nowiki tags so that the page wouldn't show up in Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. If there's any problem with this, please let me know. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 22:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Safety Glass poster
I am removing the poster from Wikipedia, because WE created it and it cannot be legally distributed or posted. We have never legally released it, and it was obtained and being used without our permission. Please feel free to contact me to discuss this urgent matter. Jhod Cardinal, Distribution Manager, Insight Film Studios 604.623.3369 ext 209 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.77.66.130 (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
What is your business with the project Safety Glass? The poster on the wikipedia site is an uncleared sales tool designed for internal company use only; It was a test page not cleared for distribution. We are doing our best to get it off the internet. Insight Film Studios —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.77.66.130 (talk) 01:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your note. Please keep in mind that the edits to remove the image were done without any proper explanation, which can often indicate vandalism. For future reference, it is very helpful if you provide a detailed edit summary when removing material from an article.In the case of a copyright issue, it is better still to add a note on the article's talk page so that other editors are aware of the problem. Otherwise, we have no way of knowing what your intentions are, or if you are even in a position to make such a judgement. (The comment "Poster is not approved by producers" by User:Grensel, who I assume in also connected to your company, does not provide any way of verifying who "Grensel" is.)
- As it turns out, your IP address (76.77.66.130) resolves back to Insight, so I'll take that as proof that you are connected to the company. The image in question - File:Safety Glass 2009.jpg - was uploaded on or around January 18th by User:Torigo, who listed the source as the website kinopoisk.ru. If it is not publicly available, it would probably fail our requirements for "fair use" and can thus be removed from the site if you wish. Please let me know and I will look into this matter further. --Ckatzchatspy 01:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Changes Reverted for Jack FM
Why were my changes to Jack FM rolled back? Csw134 (talk) 21:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- As per the edit comment in the article text, and per the external links guideline, "Only add web sites for radio stations that do not have existing Wikipedia articles". The stations that have Wikipedia articles already have those links in the respective articles; as we are not a directory service, we do not repeat the links in the list article. Hope this helps. --Ckatzchatspy 21:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Heroes change
The two actors I changed WERE main characters in the first season. They are also both listed as main characters in the second season yet they barely had a role in it. The other main character I added to the list Molly Walker was in all three seasons being one of the main characters in the 2nd and not a main character in the 1st and 3rd. The information that i added WAS correct and should not have been changed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevw731 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- Please read through the talk page archives, as it will help to explain this common misunderstanding. "Main character" status is decided by the network and the series producer, not by the opinions of fans or Wikipedia editors. The roles of Sylar and Ando were not considered "main" roles in the first season, but both actors were promoted to that status in the second season. --Ckatzchatspy 03:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Dexter TV series
I reverted it again and I think it should be left there and discussed on the article's talk page, since several editors have agreed that the show is extremely similar to the work of Brett Easton Ellis and references it on several episodes.TomCat4680 (talk) 08:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- Please discuss this further on the article's talk page.I refuse to talk to you directly until the matter is resolved with a consensus of other editors.TomCat4680 (talk) 08:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- I never said I owned the article. All I said was I started that section. Further posts on my page will be considered harrassment and reported to a moderator.TomCat4680 (talk) 08:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah well you may be a moderator that doesn't mean you don't have to follow the rules too. I created a discussion of the disputed content here and I strongly urge you and anyone else to contribute to it and reach a consensus of the disputed material before removing it again.TomCat4680 (talk) 08:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- No, you can't tell me what to do, so I'm going to leave the info up. I put a header on the section that says the content has been disputed and invited everyone to discuss and reach a consensus. Please assume good faith and stop making unsubstantiated claims against me and discuss the content at the above link like I asked, per Wiki policy.TomCat4680 (talk) 08:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- I moved the disputed section to the talk page. Thank you for reasoning with me and not 3RRing me. Have another cookie.TomCat4680 (talk) 09:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
TomCat4680 (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
TomCat4680 (talk) 09:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Review Submissions
Hi Ckatz,
I recently emailed the head of music at wikipedia and he confirmed it was perfectly acceptable for me to post links to reviews at Sun On The Sand, as they add to articles, especially in instances where an album has one or two reviews. With that in mind, please can you not undo the changes I make to album page articles.
Thank you, Ben Greenbank. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bengreenbank (talk • contribs) 21:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- Ben, thanks for your note. I would be curious to know who you emailed, as there is no "head of music" at Wikipedia. (The entire site is run as a collaborative effort.) Beyond that, the external links guideline generally suggests that we do not link to sites just because they mention a particular subject; there must be a specific benefit to the article. Many, many websites publish reviews, but that does not mean that every review site should be listed. Is there any particular reason why you feel "Sun on the Sand" is especially notable? (Keep in mind that this is not a comment on the quality of the site, only a question as to why it should be one of the few that do get listed.) --Ckatzchatspy 22:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I emailed the press link on the contact page and was contacted by Lodewijk Gelauff who gave me permission to submit my reviews to album pages. As for why I think we should be allowed to do so. First and foremost, not to come across as too arrogant, I feel we have talented writers who write great reviews. We are notable in that we have many contacts will significant record labels such as Sony and Universal. We are given pre-release copies of the albums they and many other record labels release. We have interviews will prominant artists and we have a very respectable Alexa traffic rank. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bengreenbank (talk • contribs) 23:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Spider-Man
Hello. :) Since you have been involved in editing the article Spider-Man, I wanted to let you know that we have nominated the article for "Good Article" status. You can view the review page, and if there is anything you can do to make the article better, please do so. :) There are a number of concerns to be addressed and some work to be done, so pitch in if you are able, make any suggestions that you think might be helpful, or at least just be there for moral support. :) BOZ (talk) 01:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Adding Links to "Literary Agent"
Hi CKatz,
I wanted to add a new link to the external links section of Literary Agent. What is the criteria for posting a link there? You removed my last contribution for some reason, even though my link was to a site with free literary agent listings, just like the other ones. What allows them to be present there? In the interest of full disclosure, I do in fact work with the site I'd like to post. That said, I think it's still notable, as we offer one of the largest databases of literary agents on the web. I think people looking to find out more about literary agents would be interested in that. What do you think?
Best,
JG —Preceding unsigned comment added by Judygrimes (talk • contribs) 08:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello -can u tell me why u r deleting my Reading Materials sections and links?
Seems like I'm doing it appropriately adn otheres are listed in various sections, please help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wadamja (talk • contribs) 19:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
one last article
Could you please userfy: James Wharton for me, thank you so much. Ikip (talk) 04:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- It's already at User:Ikip/James Wharton... –xeno (talk) 05:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
External link
I don't have any particular attachment to one link specifically but I thought the content was actually useful for the article and so I did not revert the edit when it was made. I would add the link back and am looking for you to provide a reason why that link specifically is not beneficial to the article. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 05:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Your deletion of an imbox image
Why did you delete File:Imbox deletion.png 
today? It is a public domain, high-use, high-risk image used in for instance {{imbox}}, thus locally uploaded and protected here. You used this deletion summary that makes no sense what so ever:
- "Deleted because "Apparent spam issue (see User:AndrewAntaro, User:A W Smith (attorney), User:382589454".)"
Most of the high-risk and system images I am responsible for is deleted about once a month, and I am not always around to undelete and reprotect them quickly. So please: What is going on?
(And you can respond here, I'll be watching this talk page.)
--David Göthberg (talk) 10:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for File:The Underwater Menace.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:The Underwater Menace.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 01:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for File:The Gunfighters.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:The Gunfighters.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 01:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Vancouver
A note regarding the issue of census for Vancouver that may interest you has been made at Talk:Vancouver#Census. Mkdwtalk 17:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Re: Nebula
Re your message: I requested that the two edits be oversighted. Typical phone number posted in invitation to call somebody. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
West Kelowna
Hi there. I noticed that you're both an admin and a member of WikiProject BC, so I was hoping you could help me out. Here's the scoop. At the end of January, the District Municipality of Westside, British Columbia became the District of West Kelowna. Shortly afterwards, a user created District of West Kelowna which was quite literally and exact duplicate of the District Municipality of Westside, British Columbia article. Anyways, thinking of course that the District of West Kelowna article was the only one that existed, I moved it to West Kelowna to follow proper article naming guidelines (as we don't usually have "District of" in the title). In reality though, I should have moved District Municipality of Westside, British Columbia to West Kelowna and turned the copy page into a redirect. Essentially, if there any chance you could delete the West Kelowna page to clear the way to move the District Municipality of Westside, British Columbia article there (as it has existed for far longer than this newly created article and I don't want to lose its edit history). Here's a news article indicating the name change, btw. Thanks! – Nurmsook! talk... 02:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- Arghh - I tried this as a non-admin and d-uhh it doesn't work. Ckatz, I'll go to AN for help now, so watch there for overlaps if you're trying to fix it. Don't know what I was thinking! Franamax (talk) 03:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- OK, I think I have it all in place, the parent article is now at District Municipality of West Kelowna, British Columbia and the redirect is at both of West Kelowna and District Municipality of Westside, British Columbia. Now I just have to clean up the primary article for the name change. Don't try this at home folks! :) (And a RM to plain old West Kelowna per WP:CANSTYLE is still in order) Franamax (talk) 03:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
More Naturoid links
Our 151.* friend has been adding back links without even joining the discussion on Talk. I've removed them twice... your turn? I think it's best to show that it's not just me.... --macrakis (talk) 14:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- Reverted; unfortunately this is a tough one to stop as the IP changes so frequently. Thanks. --Ckatzchatspy 18:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you!
I just wanted to thank you for blocking the very prolific vandal just now! Very helpful! FaerieInGrey (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I noticed you reverted a couple edits of this user adding that article to see also sections. If you might have guessed he created that article a couple days ago. I'm not going to argue the appropriateness of that article right now but if you look at his contributions you can see he's adding this link to a vast amount of articles, most of them not warranting the link. He's also making a whole lot of redirects. You might want to give him a message about this before it gets out of hand. Just thought I'd let you know because I just noticed this right before I was about to leave Wikipedia for the day so I can't deal with this right now. Thanks. LonelyMarble (talk) 09:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note... I've cleaned up the unnecessary ones, and also left a note for the editor. --Ckatzchatspy 21:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Removing redirects
Don't know how a redirect from 2012 doomsday to 2012 doomsday prediction is inappropriate. Could you please reinstate that or explain what the problem is? Thanks.filmspring (talk) 23:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
SX10
What is your rationale for keeping the article there? None of the A, G or SX models get articles. The only cameras that do have their own articles are the S line, but they should all probably be redirected, as they're basically just promo pieces that list the specs of the camera and nothing more. hbdragon88 (talk) 07:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Script problem
I saw that easyblock.js was giving you trouble. Was this problem fixed when Werdna tweaked the update, or does something still need to be done? —Animum (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Unblock request of 194.75.236.70
Hello Ckatz. 194.75.236.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, — Aitias // discussion 14:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: User seems to request unblock in good faith. Also, they have promised not to vandalise again, but to contribute constructively. — Aitias // discussion 14:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Gruvis Malt
Hey, Ckatz.
So I guess I just had some questions for you. I'm working on the Gruvis Malt article and attempting to show that the band is notable. Unfortunately, I haven't had a whole lot of experience with Wikipedia, so I'm not quite sure how I'm supposed to go about demonstrating that they're notable. I guess the best argument I have is that there are a lot of people who know about the band, despite the fact that they weren't huge when they were around. I can direct to pages such as their last.fm page, which shows that they have a good fan base at last.fm (which in itself is small part of their listeners, because only a small part of any listening population uses last.fm). I can direct you to videos on YouTube, such as this video, which shows that they have a fairly large number of followers who know their music.
I guess I'm a little confused about how to demonstrate they're notable. I don't see any clear way to show this through their Wikipedia page. Please help me out. I feel like this band, even though they no longer exist, are gaining a cult following (especially where I am, that I can attest to), and it certainly is helpful for people to have a Wikipedia page to get information about them.
Thanks so much for listening. --Ccomics88 (talk) 20:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Just a quick update. I was wondering if you'd allow me to put the Gruvis Malt article back up with a Notability flag. The problem is I don't know everything about Gruvis Malt, but there are people that do. However, by removing the article entirely, there's no way that anyone will be able to contribute what they know. Would you allow this? Thanks. Ccomics88 (talk) 00:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Hey, update number 3. I put the page back up on Gruvis Malt, but don't jump down my throat just let, hear me out. I want you to take it to AfD. I think it's only fair. This way, if people want to add stuff, they still have the opportunity to. I even put a notability tag on the top of the page. But I think with all the information that's in it right now, it's not a fair candidate for speedy deletion. Thanks. Ccomics88 (talk) 01:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Xilisoft =
Hi, I found you delete my article : Xilisoft Video Converter. I am the marketing director of Xilisoft. I believe Wikipedia is one best place to introduce our great products. I don't understand why my article was deleted but other vendor's article like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVS_Video_Converter can kept? Can you tell me how to do it?
Peter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.207.176.237 (talk) 05:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Hello, and thanks for the note. Unfortunately, what you have to remember is that Wikipedia is not a site for introducing products, or for any sort of promotional campaigns. In order to qualify for an article, a product has to demonstrate notability independently of the mere fact it exists. If you have any reviews from suitable sources (PC World, IGN etc.) that can support the product as being distinct or exceptional, that would help. --Ckatzchatspy 05:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Ckatz,
I get your information but I don't understand why AVS Video Converter can be created? Our products have been used by 10 millions users worldwide. I don't think it's reasonable to say it's not notable.
Peter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supervideofan (talk • contribs) 07:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Meatloaf
I am curious why did you reverted that kosher meatloaf recipe. It looked good to me, and why not have one kosher too?
Cheers
Warrington (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Cholent: removal of EL
You have removed an external link from Cholent identifying it as "linkspam". I do not see any difference between the removed link and the next remaining link, or other remaining external links on that page. The treatment of external links is a profound mystery to me. Could you explain your reasoning so that I can learn? Thank you. --Zlerman (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Is TGS's air date/time "trivia"?
Hi there. You recently reverted my edit on the 30 Rock article, deeming it "trivia."
I detest trivia sections and general non-encyclopedic, unnecessary cruft as much as anyone (see my recent drastic shortening of a film's plotline section, for example). However, in an article about a TV show that depicts the cast and crew of the show-within-a-show TGS with Tracy Jordan, is adding the day and time the fictional show airs really pointless? (Note that the sentence I modified already mentions the studio that TGS films in.) YLee (talk) 13:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Oops!
Sorry about the advertisements on The Planet Moon website. What I will do is recreate the website apart from the rest of my astronomy website, which also promotes Starry Starry Night and LifeScience. Then I will alter the links on my talk page and on the Solar system talk page. Thank you for bringing this to my attention!
Sincerely, Paine Ellsworth (talk) 21:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
The moon
Note my response to your question, on my talk page. - Shaheenjim (talk) 12:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Objection
I would state my objection to your repeated attempt to remove the fact that there are no specifications nor user survey. Kindly do not re-delete unless you can demonstrate the existence of same. I also note that this is the third time this content has been removed by you. Consider yourself warned per WP:3RR. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- I've repeatedly asked you to explain why you feel it is necessary to add that detail twice within close proximity. While we disagree on its validity in the RfC, I at least compromised and left one instance. I would ask the same courtesy in return. --Ckatzchatspy 17:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Please do not delete useful content. Education was a major omission from this page and the way forward is to list all the schools not to delete the first that has been added. TerriersFan (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, if you look at other pages, the standard is not to list individual schools as you did. I have expanded the section, but the individual schools are adequately listed on the linked "North Vancouver School District" article. --Ckatzchatspy 19:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Legitimate Theater is not a value judgment
"Legitimate Theater" refers to "live performance that relies entirely on diegetic elements, with actors performing through speech and natural movement,"[1] or professional acting/theater. This is in contrast to musical theater or other forms that rely on props, costumes, choreography, music, etc. as primary vehicles of the author's intent.
Since "Legitimate Theater" is a term-of-art employed in the New York/Broadway/Theater world, and the fact that many guest stars on Law & Order come from this world, the usage in this article is appropriate.
JayCor77 (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Fair enough. However, can you provide a reference that supports your assertion that L&O guest stars are primarily from that world, as opposed to the broader one? (That would alleviate my concerns.) --Ckatzchatspy 21:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- The Law & Order article does not state that its guest stars are "primarily" from legitimate theater, rather that "the series has access to a wide variety of regular and guest actors who perform in theater. Many times these actors are available for shooting during the day while performing on Broadway in the evening or between engagements."[2] The article also gives examples of both series regulars and guest stars with roots in the theater.
Hi,
you reverted http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Waco_Siege&diff=272605396&oldid=272602240 this change?
Who is "Rick Ross", when and where was he convicted of being a jewel thief? where has he "boasted of 200 deprogrammings" And what happened in the 1993 indictment?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Ross_(consultant) <- it would appear to be him, and if Wikipedia is to be believed, "In 1983, the Maricopa County Superior Court vacated both judgments of guilt in the absence of any opposition, dismissed the charges and restored Ross's civil rights."
I have no ulterior interest in the Waco Siege, I was reading the article, and I wondered who he was, at the time I didn't even search Google for him (the first hit yields that page), since I had assumed that if he was notable, he'd have been linked to...
(Oh, and what happened from the 1993 indictment? http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19940121&slug=1890837 )
This section would seem to be lacking in NPOV.
Kevin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.157.94 (talk) 08:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Robert Dziekański Taser incident
I've included a COI tag on User talk:209.52.45.84 - Whois indicated the IP belongs to the RCMP and the edit definitely is COI, hands down.--Cahk (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for looking into that. I'll keep an eye on them as well. --Ckatzchatspy 20:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Please ban 72.92.4.244
Hi , a frequent vandal with the IP address 72.92.4.244 has been vandalising List of DirecTV channels repeatedly. They have been warned multiple times. Please block them permanently.TomCat4680 (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Heroes template
Hi, I tried to talk to the user who nominated the tag, but he just reverts any edits and wont respond. can you tell me what you think is wrong with the template? I copied the links from the template Template:Memoryalpha which is a Star Trek wiki and it is widely used in star trek articles and never been contested as spam. This one which is exactly the same, I just copied the code from that template to Template:Heroeswiki and they are identical, but he says its spam. If one is no good then I would assume the other is too, they are the exact same thing. I created the tag for a Heroes wiki that was already in place to help redirect people to the heroes wiki instead of posting in-universe material at length in the Heroes wikipedia pages, to help clean up the articles. I just dont get why a star trek wiki template is ok and a Heroes template is not. Ejfetters (talk) 07:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Also, I know you reverted the edits until a consesus is reached, I just am looking for some guidance in this matter on how to make this proper and how to proceed to clean these articles up, they are a mess. Ejfetters (talk) 07:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Don't understand. I followed the procedure and reached a consensus with the nominating user, and he said feel free to add the template now... what else needs to be done? I'm probably gonna give up on cleaning these up, too much effort to do something small. Ejfetters (talk) 18:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Also, I know you reverted the edits until a consesus is reached, I just am looking for some guidance in this matter on how to make this proper and how to proceed to clean these articles up, they are a mess. Ejfetters (talk) 07:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Message reguarding promotional purposes.
I received a message saying that what I posted on Wikipedia was for promotional purposes.
On this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_Are_Beautiful,_We_Are_Doomed
I posted this:
"The title of the song "Between an Erupting Earth and an Exploding Sky" is a reference to a line from the novel Timequake by Kurt Vonnegut.[5]"
I simply posted a fact about a song title from the band's new album that I received in an interview with the band. I correctly entered the source of my information as well. I'm not quite sure why you would want this removed, but if you'd like to remove this interesting and noteworthy fact, then by all means...
69.200.247.135 (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Greg
- Thanks for your question. The note was not regarding the information you added to that particular article, where you used the interview as a reference. It was about the other seven links you added to various "External links" sections, which did not meet the guideline. --Ckatzchatspy 19:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Gotcha.
Thanks for the update, C. Much obliged. :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Meatloaf 2
I was asking you before but you were not answering anything,. Ask again, why remove the kosher meatloaf?
Warrington (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Keenspeak
Hello, could you have a look at user:Keenspeak and try to block them pleasE? It appears that they have been blocked but they are still editing and the AIV page doesn't work as the bot thinks the user has been blocked. Thanks - Kingpin13 (talk) 16:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, it seems that this user can edit the page because the block allows them to eidt their own talk page. Is it possible to protect that page? - Kingpin13 (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
New edits
Hello. I know we've disagreed on edits regarding Canadian television in the past, but I wanted to touch base with you about the fact that I'm doing some revamping of the Simultaneous substitution article, which I've opened discussion about at that article's talk page. I'm doing this to avoid possible future confrontational edit wars between us on that article.
To ensure NPOV, I encourage you to review my edits, add your own, and even discuss on the talk page about the article. Although we have disagreed sharply in the past, I think that can work to our advantage in improving and balancing this article (whose namesake is the subject of most of our disagreements). Thank you. — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` 12:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
"Notes" Sections in Articles
Just curious about these sections. They seem to be immune to editing, although it's probably because I don't know how to do it, yet. A few minutes of casual reading, and I found three errors in two article-notes sections. The errors are related in that they all consist of a punctuation mark that follows the last letter of a word by two spaces, as in...
- I don't know how , but I'll try. (and)
- Let's get to the end of it . Are you ready, yet?
As I said, I've found three of these types of errors in two articles, Split infinitive and Wikipedia. Can you counsel me on where I can learn how to edit these "Notes" sections? or perhaps where I can suggest edits? TIA .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`. 02:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- The Notes (or sometimes Footnotes or References) section is generated automagically by the MediaWiki software when a <references /> or {{reflist}} tag appears. It lists everything enclosed by <ref> tags earlier in the text. If you click the little hat thingy at the start of each line, you will go back to the place in the text where the footnote appears. Edit that section and you will see the <ref> tag that causes the footnote. You can fix things up there, then save and check back down in the Notes section to see if it looks good. Note though that many notes use one or other of the {{cite}} templates, such as {{cite web}} or {{cite book}} to generate a standard format, so you can't control every aspect of what gets shown.
- Tip: You can see what the footnote will look like by putting {{reflist}} at the bottom of the section while you preview. Just remember to take it back out before you save ;) Franamax (talk) 05:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- And reviewing the articles you mention, I strongly suspect that you are talking about the blue-lighted hyperlinks to external sites. Normally these have a little double-square icon just following (and before the punctuation) indicating that they are external links. In Internet Explorer at least, when the blue-link wraps around a line, the little icon disappears and there is a space instead. If you stretch your screen out so that the blue-link is all on one line, the icon will reappear. Or you can call Microsoft and ask them to fix their software :) Franamax (talk) 05:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you, Franamax! Lotsa luk with that final suggestion. I know some people who've been trying to get Microsoft to fix Outlook Express for several years now--with no end in sight. The rest of your reply seems to be chock full of useful info, and I look forward to making time for checking it out thoroughly. Again, thank you so much for the tips! .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`. 08:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, I played with this a little by using the HTML Non-breaking_space, "
", between the words in the visible name of the link (Note 8 on Wikipedia). And I also tried your {{reflist}} tip. All very satisfying. Ultimately, I cancelled the edit to keep things as they are. Using the NBSP or a Wikicode solution (1) causes early line-breaks and looks weird, and (2) might actually take longer to fully implement than it would take to get Microsoft to fix their software. And (2) above would also apply to inserting the "plainlinks span class", as well. - At least thanks to you, Franamax, I have learned how to make minor edits in the Notes sections! .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`. 16:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, I played with this a little by using the HTML Non-breaking_space, "
Canada page
hello, I tried to correct the Demographic's table but it is locked. the Saskatchewan beside Regina is not showing. Ta l santry (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC) never mind I found the template and fixed it. Sorry to bother you l santry (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Kevin.keith/22squared
Hi Ckatz-
Thanks for your message regarding the test subpage I have been writing for 22squared. Based on all of the rules I have been reading on Wikipedia I felt my article was in complete compliance as it is written strictly as a factual piece on an 85 year old firm. Similar examples that exist on Wikipedia include BBDO and retailer Target Corporation. If you could give me more guidance in terms of what is out of compliance I would greatly appreciate it.
Kind Regards,
Kevin Keith--Kevin.keith (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
VidDug - imdb for music videos
hey Ckatz...just wanted to see what the objection was for adding a link to VidDug pages. with viddug i'm working towards creating a resource with every music video ever made...basically imdb but for music videos. there are currently over 17,000 videos and over 4,000 directors/dp's/editors/etc.,
imdb external links are all over, what's the problem with having VidDug links on related pages?
thanks, jerad Jeradsloan (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Erg....yes, in a way, but it's also Punjabi-speaking and French-speaking and German-speaking. The proliferation of "Chinese cultural colonialism" categories, articles and content is quite appalling at times, and to object against it winds up having bad things said about you for criticizing it. There was an attempt, shortly after the influx began in the '80s, to make Mandarin an official language in BC "because there's so many Mandarin-speakers here now", when it wasn't even the historical dialect of Chinese found in BC (which was Toishan Cantonese). See {{Chinese Canadian}} re the prolfieration of multiple articles with overlapping/self-reinforcing content; very much like the plethora of {{Stephen Harper}} articles.....Thanks for taking that out, and worth noting that Vancouver is neither a country nor a territory.....(in colonial BC, the Benevolent Assn documents refer to British Columbia not as a British possession/province but as "the Colonies of T'ang" where T'ang means non-Qing China....sorry to rant, I jsut get p'd by this stuff, I used to be active in talk.politics.tibet and have seen so much of this kind of thinking/over-reaching it gets my back up....If that cat were to remain then respective Italian, German etc other categories should exist; loosey-goosey interepretations of what constitutes are Chinatown or a Koreatown have similar problems.....were you around when someone tried to label Robson & Denman "Koreatown" because of the location of three restaurants, never mind who else lived around there?Skookum1 (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- I just took the same category off Christmas Island, where the official langauge is English (70% Cantonese origin).Skookum1 (talk) 17:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the follow-up. With regards to the Vancouver page, in the absence of any references I'm presuming that it just spread from one page to the next until noticed. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 18:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- PS Where in the world are you these days? Still back east, or have you returned to the snowy West?
Doctor (Doctor Who) Continuity curiosities
If you watch those spacific quotes you will find them accurate and that they imply that Gallifreyans have two hearts.
Daniel2500 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel2500 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Max Payne
Whatever, I'm not going to fight over this. I think it's all important. He flew completely off the handle and even the "cock" part is important. I assumed that since he said it, it's a direct quote, that would be encyclopedic enough. Peppageblather 01:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Charm School Gives Back
Thanks for deleting Charm School Gives Back. I have tagged Charm School with Ricki Lake (Season 3) as it's yet another recreation of deleted material. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Battlestar Galactica (reimagining)
Thank you for cleaning up the part about the use of humanoid models in the original series and in the reimagining. This should end the controversy and make it easier for the reader to understand the difference. --Lennier1 (talk) 06:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Dysgenics
There has no consensus to rm the info on Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth. Everything added and changed since I was last here has been done without talk. You should follow WP policy rather than threaten me with a block on my talk page. Verwoerd (talk) 22:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I see you once again changed back the infobox without consensus. You keep insisting this is convention but have not posted where it says this is convention and, instead of discussing it, just change it on your own. As you can see on Talk:Criminal Minds this is not an uncontroversial matter.
I would seriously warn you against such actions as they could erupt into edit warring. I'm not going to do such because I don't want to find myself in violation of WP:3RR but you have basically put the article at odds with the other CSI articles in terms of what is in the infoboxes. There is no longer consistency across the three articles. Redfarmer (talk) 13:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Please note that the change occurred prior to the discussion, not after it. As well, it is the other articles that are out of line with the wider convention across television articles. I have provided several links that explain this. --Ckatzchatspy 20:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
regarding moving average
Hi,
I changed the external link to dickreuter.com/strat1.php so that people get directly to the moving average page. I honestly believe this add a lot of value to the site and a lot of people who look up moving average on wikipedia would be interested in seeing this. This is definitely no commercial.
regards Nicolas —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dickreuter (talk • contribs) 14:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
URLs
Regarding this edit, the equal signs mess up with the template invocation (I believe we're using {{quote}} here). Escaping the equal signs resolves the issue. :P —Locke Cole • t • c 05:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- ...or so I thought. I see the issue now, I'll see if I can fix it. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, I was wondering what was happening there. --Ckatzchatspy 05:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Lesson learned: {{=}} is our friend for URLs containing equal signs embedded within template calls. Compare to {{!}} which is useful for embedding vertical bars in template calls. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, I was wondering what was happening there. --Ckatzchatspy 05:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
courtesy notification
Ckatz, As a matter of goodwill, I thought I'd let you know that Greg is going to post a significantly updated version of the Statement against, probably in the next day. Tony (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notice. I'm off-line until Sunday night, so I suppose I'll see it then. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 15:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
List of Jericho episodes
Hey there. I was rewriting List of Jericho episodes little by little,[7] and I remembered you from this discussion. I was wondering, since you seemed to have that page watchlisted, if you would be interested in helping out before the FLC. I'm kinda blabbing on to that article right now; I really need someone to copy edit my work. Do you think that you could possibly help with that? NuclearWarfare (Talk) 00:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Moon
Several weeks ago I made an edit to the Moon article, but a user named Franamax objected to it. So I revised my edit to address his objections. And he was fine with that. A few weeks passed, and someone else objected to the revised edit, and Franamax expanded on those additional objections. So a few days ago I revised my edit again to address those additional objections. And now you removed my twice revised edit, saying you wanted to remove it until Franamax has had a chance to reply.
I agree that Franamax should have a chance to reply. But he already has. So I'm restoring the latest version of my edit. Historically, when he's wanted to reply to something I did, he's made his reply immediately after I did the thing to which he wanted to reply. Now he's had several days to reply to my latest edits. And in those days, he made 54 other edits. If he wanted to post a response, I think he would've done it by now.
You should keep in mind that if he's ok with the edits, he might not post something saying so. When people are debating someone, they're sometimes reluctant to admit when the other person is right. Sometimes they don't say anything at all. A few weeks ago, when we went through the first round of revisions, he never made a post saying they were an improvement.
If you have some reason to object to the latest version of my addition, feel free to say so yourself on the talk page. But I don't see why you would, since there's no reason to object to the latest version of my addition. And you shouldn't presume to make edits on behalf of Franamax. If he wanted to respond, he could do it himself. - Shaheenjim (talk) 16:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Shaheenjim, the edit is obviously disputed, given that more people have objected to it (and removed it) than have supported inclusion. As such, per any number of Wiki quidelines, the onus is on you to achieve consensus *first* rather than to restore the material without consensus. --Ckatzchatspy 16:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- They objected to the old version of the edit. And I addressed all those objections in the new version. No one has raised any objection that applies to the new version. If they have an objection, they should state it on the talk page. I'm going to have to ask you to stop your edit war, and use the talk page to discuss your objections, per Wikipedia policy. - Shaheenjim (talk) 16:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Umm, would you care to explain how I am edit warring? Last time I checked Moon's history, you are the one who has repeatedly restored your text without consensus to do so, given that three editors (myself, PhySusie, and most recently Rracecarr) have objected to it this morning alone. --Ckatzchatspy 17:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- On several occasions now I've asked you to post your objections on the talk page, if you have any, per Wikipedia policy. But you keep deleting the edit without listing a single objection to it on the talk page. That's edit warring. The only thing you've seemed to say is that you think other people might have objections to it. If they have any objections to it, they can state it themselves. They don't need you deleting it for them. - Shaheenjim (talk) 17:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- I've been quite clear about the need for more discussion on this text, which is a valid reason for removing material; I've been equally clear in moving it to the talk page, rather than just "deleting" it as you claim. Given the objections of others to your restoration of the material in its present form, that seems the appropriate course of action. --Ckatzchatspy 17:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- You say that you want to discuss the objections to it, but I've asked you several times now to list your objections, and you haven't listed a single one. Again, if other people want to post objections to it, they can do that themselves. They don't need you to presume to object, or delete, or move things on their behalf. Let's be clear. Do you have any objections of your own, or are you just presuming to speak on the behalf of others? - Shaheenjim (talk) 17:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Human Future
Hello Chartz, There are very few future organizations out there and actually the wiki articles do not have enough referring links for the interested readers who might want to join a future organization or even participate . Few links to our organization had been added to the exact matching articles after discussions on some users talk pages ,so if there was something wrong please move the links to the right place without a complete removal . Thank you--Wiki4ata (talk) 19:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Re: UC Bill
You're welcome to overturn it if you (or ANI) want - personally, though, from what I saw on his talk page before and after the threat I think it's a lost cause. I trust you to do the right thing. :-) Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello Ckatz, I just noticed your stated intention to restore this user's userpage, though I'm not sure if you realise I've already deleted most of its history, and made a note about this at ANI. I think he made it very clear he did not want the userpage at this time. I would personally want to wait until you've made some other progress with this user before restoring the deleted information, however I will probably miss out on most of the ensuing discussion, so I thought I'd just mention this now, and leave you to adjust the page/user as you see fit. -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I was going to say "That's fine - in fact, I'll go revert myself on his user page now", but if the the history has been deleted I'll leave it for just now. Depending on how zzuuzz feels, though, I'm ok with removing the indefblock notice. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
User pages
Thank you for being patient, I'll move our pages to wikispaces. I'm still a huge supporter of Wikipedia though.--Digipatd 01:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Courtesy note
CKatz—Just to let you know that a revised version of the Statement against (DA) will be posted in maybe six hours. It's become necessary because of the emergence of this patch and what is now a confronting reference to "Assholes" at the link to Bill's "demo" page. Tony (talk) 05:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Another issue: User_talk:Ryan_Postlethwaite#Onerous_response_requirements. Tony (talk) 06:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up. --Ckatzchatspy 06:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
You beat me to it.
I was going to self-revert but you beat me to it. As you may have surmised, I was making a point (again). Greg L (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
#formatnumber
We appear to be getting along so well, and I took the part about #formatnumber out after there was no response to me. I don't want to get into an edit war.
Perhaps it's a simple as me doing something wrong, but my problem is that the function does not format dates such as 30 March properly on my screen, March 30 displays as: March 0, 3. It seems that the function must be applied to a dmy or mdy sequence to function; date ranges come out with no transformation. Please refer to User:Ohconfucius/dates_test. Can you comment on these observations, please? Ohconfucius (talk) 03:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- I was upset you reverted me without bothering to respond to the messages I left for you here and on the article talk. However, Tony seems to think there is no bug because it's billed to work on 'full dates', so I'm cool with that and I would apologise. Ohconfucius (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. Sorry too - I thought I had left you a note, but it seems I didn't. Must have been the late hour! Thanks again. --Ckatzchatspy 20:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I note that you have followed me around and deleted the following: The Great Lakes Circle Tour is a designated scenic road system connecting all of the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River.[3] This is factually correct and pertinent in the articles, all of which involve Great Lakes states or provinces. It was a minimal geographic reference. I assume your good faith, but appeal to your reason. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC) stan
- Thanks for the note. The text doesn't seem necessary for the main articles about these provinces and states. (I think a couple of other editors have also removed it or moved it to the talk page in some cases.) I've only removed it from the more general articles; it seems better suited to the ones I left, such as those on the lakes themselves and on tourism. --Ckatzchatspy 21:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oops, removed one from a "Lake" article; I've restored that. --Ckatzchatspy 21:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- I assume you mean Lake Ontario. I thought perhaps your memory was slipping, or you had such a paroxysm of deletion that you had no imprinted recollection. I think that Wisconsin and Ontario have so much of this that it does not hurt to reference them. I think Ohio would qualify. This was not a WP:spam situation, just so we are clear. To characterize this as a "tourism" link ignores the central importance of the Great Lakes to these areas. I don't know where you are from, but here in Michigan we would consider you to have ignored certain geographic and economic realities. I'm trying to avoid anything like edit warring. This is as legitimate paragraph with a legitimate reference. Please reconsider. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 21:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC) Stan
- Perhaps you overlooked Saint Lawrence River. While you use "tourism" as an epithet, I think that a lot of "tourists" may find such information halpful. It is also part of a basic industry for a lot of these places, not to mention a geographic fact that this route is there, and that it is well supported and documented (it happens to be a citation to a very good website, and it was not put in as an External Link). Indeed, you eliminated not just the external reefernece, but the internal wiki link. I think a lot of users might benefit. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 21:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC) Stan
- No, not spam for sure. However, I'd suggest giving editors a chance to respond at the talk page where another editor moved the text... it was one of the US states if I recall correctly. As for the idea of providing tourism information, there is a difference between tourism and encyclopedic content. Believe me, I can understand the importance of the Lakes to the local states and provinces... after all, British Columbia's tourism industry is one of its top employers. However, the main article (British Columbia)doesn't list the tourism routes. --Ckatzchatspy 21:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Just so we are clear, what I did in Indiana was write directly to the editor. I then adopted his suggested change that 'it did not merit a section' -- I eliminated the section heading -- and I also tied it into the local article. That one would not mention the coastal highway in B.C. -- I've driven it many times on my way to Whistler-Blackcomb -- only saddens me. I do not think it a paradign to emulate. As I said, you eliminated not only the reference (Iwe're supposed to have references) but the internal link. IMHO, this was 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater'. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC) Stan
- As I said, the material (all text, not just an EL) was removed because it did not seem necessary for the main article. It is better suited to a sub-article instead. As well, other editors have questioned the appropriateness of the text for similar reasons; SandyGeorgia removed it from the Minnesota article, to which someone else commented : "It was out of place in Geography, unneeded for a high-level, overview article like this, and the target article is completely undeveloped. It was properly removed; thanks." Look, the information is useful - just not everywhere that you placed it. I would think that it is best suited to the articles on the Lakes and the Saint Lawrence River, which is why I didn't remove it from those articles. --Ckatzchatspy 17:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Future of Human Evolution
FYI, with regards to this site, there have been a series of single-purpose accounts created exclusively to add links to it. At this point, it should be considered spam unless you see some value to it. Thanks. --Ckatzchatspy 16:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. For the record, I don't see some value to it. --Loremaster (talk) 16:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
RFC on date-autoformatting and the linking of date fragments
The issues of automatic date formatting and date linking have been the subject of an ongoing Arbitration Committee hearing, which has commissioned a "Request for Comments" (RFC) to assist in resolving the matter. The RfC is currently under way, and your input is important in ensuring that opinions are received from the entire community. If you should wish to participate, the RfC can be found here. --Ckatzchatspy 18:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Moving response comments
I'm not the greatest fan of moving reponse comments on polling pages (e.g. to here). The point of providing comments (in situ) is that obvious misunderstandings can be read by people who are about to vote—which could perhaps help them to make up their minds. There is no way that anyone (who is about to vote) is going to scroll to the end of the page to read out-of-place comments. This shouldn't be about neatness. Cheers. HWV258 00:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ryan has stated that he does not want threaded comments in the for/against areas; hence his cleanup earlier today. --Ckatzchatspy 03:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- You may as well ban all response comments (and move the entire section at the bottom of the page to another page), as no one is going to scroll down there to see what they are about. HWV258 04:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Magnet Renewable Energy
I would like to know if you can restore my page about magnet renewable energy. I would like to add dated prod-Deprod-oldprodfull-Oldprod-hangon tags
- Ckatz is busy so I'll take the liberty of responding. I dont think you understand what those tags are for. Your edits were removed because they lacked proper sources. Please read WP:CITE and WP:RS before editing any further.--RadioFan (talk) 04:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Archive 6
FYI I think /Archive 6 should have {{archive-nav|6}} (the '6' argument is missing). I'm not quite bold enough to fix it myself. No reply needed, but I'll look here. Johnuniq (talk) 03:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, I appreciate it - fixed things right up. (Not sure what happened, as the header is generated by the 'bot.) --Ckatzchatspy 03:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Regarding link on Sustainability
Hello Ckatz,
I put out a discussion on the talk page of Sustainability to put an external link. After it was OKed I put it there. However the user Themfromspace has been consistently vandalising my attempts to do so. This is very disruptive. Probably since he is just an undergraduate student his immaturity shows. He has done so many times to other users also. I will greatly appreciate if you please read the link and respond. Thanks for your help.
Ruralface (talk) 02:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello Chatz,
I observe that you have been removing various links regarding renewable energy and solar energy. All these links carry nariphaltan.virtualave.net. It is really sad that withut even looking at the material in the links you are removing them. They are important contribution to the science and technology of solar and other energies. You can google htem and you will see for yourself them quite high on it. The whole purpose of Wikipedia is to give knowledge and if the link belongs to an organization is it a crime?
I will appreciate if you please refrain from unnecessary removal of links and references.
Ruralface (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Your spurious accusations of "vandalism" to the contrary, the links do not appear to meet the requirements Wikipedia outlines in the various guidelines covering sources and links. As well, much if not all of the text removed appeared to serve little purpose other than as a rationale for including a link to your sites. As for the links, they again did not appear to meet the requirements. --Ckatzchatspy 17:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hello Ckatz. I've left a final warning for Ruralface about adding links. More at my Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 13:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Battlestar Galactica infobox changes
Hi, I'm not sure why you chose to remove all the "last appearance" information from the BSG character infoboxes. It's part of the WikiProject BSG character template guidelines. Please let me know.Aatrek (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
For every category you create, you should specify parent categories to which it belongs. In the case of a category like this one, parent categories are provided automatically when you include a {{Sockpuppet category}} template.
I am a human being, not a bot, so you can contact me if you have questions about this. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Removing of Webcuts link
Ckatz, what is your rationale for removing The Webcuts album review link in A_Woman_a_Man_Walked_By. It fufills the criteria as outlined in Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums "Professional reviews may include only reviews written by professional music journalists or DJs, or found within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff (which excludes personal blogs). The standard for inclusion always is that the review meet Wikipedia's guideline for reliable sources and that the source be independent of the artist, record company, etc." If Webcuts isn't considered a reliable source then there are many albums which link to similar such webzines (e.g Dig,_Lazarus,_Dig!!! / Wireless Bollinger)--paperjunk (talk) 09:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Werdna bashing
Egads! Sorry, I wasn't trying to put down Werdna; I guess I was just getting a bit over-emphatic about one of the rare points of agreement between me and the autoformatting opponents. I have nothing but respect for the technical skills of the Wikimedia developers — my only complaint is that Werdna completely ignored the ongoing discussion as well as the vast majority of the discussion on the bugzilla page itself (where it had been made pretty clear that the original request shouldn't have been fulfilled, and several alternate solutions had been discussed.) Since his patch was actually a new feature and not a bugfix, it really should have been proposed to the community first — especially given the months and months of fairly heated debate and an ongoing arbcom case surrounding the issue. A lot of the complaint on the anti-autoformatting side stems from mistrust of the developers, so I'm leery of anything that contributes to that mistrust, or to the perception that the developers consider themselves above the community process. I'd explain myself at the poll talk page but I'm abiding by a self-imposed ban from editing there for a while.. and I'd apologize to Werdna directly, except that a) I doubt he reads that page and b) he doesn't seem to read his en-wiki talk page, either. Not that I blame him for that either, given how insane the discussion here has become. :) Cheers, --Sapphic (talk) 23:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Doctor Who articles
I'm seeing lots of reverts with regards to Doctor Who articles and User:Adamsappleturnover — mostly subtracting 4 from episode numbers. What's all this about, and do you need help? --Ian Weller (talk) 03:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hey, thanks for the offer. From what I've just read, there seems to be a dispute as to how to number the individual stories, and whether the "Shada" story should be counted. The consensus appears to be with the existing numbering, given that a similar renumbering by an IP was reverted a short time ago. We'll see what happens after the editor reaches the end of the list; if her restarts, some other action may be required. --Ckatzchatspy 04:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Apologies. The story numbers were out of sync with a recent issue of Doctor Who Magazine and indeed, publicity tied into the 200th story of "Doctor Who" which just went out this past weekend. I thought I was doing a service, as my understanding was that the numbering that had been used on Wikipedia was arbitrary and was based on older reference books. I also was led to believe that the primary reason for the change not occuring yet was the amount of time involved, so I thought I would assist in the project to update the story numbers so as to be more in sync with the official BBC numbering. As you have suggested, I have put the call out on the Doctor Who talk page. Again, I am sorry if I have overstepped my bounds. I was just trying to help the articles be less confusing to users of the wikipedia articles. Adamsappleturnover (talk) 04:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
MOS template
You will find my effort to begin discussing this matter on the bottom of Template talk:MoS-guideline; the wording in question seems to me both more widely supported (by Radiant and others) and better than what has evolved since; Tony has not bothered to respond, but just reverted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Revert of edit removing advertising
You reverted my edit which removed links which appear to be advertising links for a private organization who makes money from selling their "research". The links were to out of date information, make unencyclopedic and heavily disputed claims, and do not directly relate to the topic of the article (Which is school districts, not the ranking of schools). The research "findings" of the linked reports cannot be verified through any objective means, if it is even possible to do an objective ranking. These links clearly are not appropriate wikipedia links for this article.
If for no other reason, these links should be removed because they link to information which is one company's point of view as to how to ranks schools. Many companies and organizations have differing methods of ranking based on their points of view or ideologies, all of the rankings produce different results, and none of which are relevant to the article on school districts.
Could you please remove the external links you added to List_of_school_districts_in_British_Columbia, or explain why links which do not meet wikipedia standards should be included? Thanks, Dmurchie (talk) 08:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Whitecaps merger, etc
Duly noted. I too will make it my mission to close merger discussions that I feel are not going the way I like. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Walter, that's not it at all... there had not been any discussion since March 27, and there was no apparent consensus to merge. Perhaps Cmjc80 should have requested outside advice, but the fact that he closed it after 17 days of inactivity is not comparable to your stated intent to "close merger discussions that I feel are not going the way I like". --Ckatzchatspy 23:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Whatever. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
BF153 has created Final Special 2010 as well!
Hello, thanks for your sterling work with this rather stubborn editor. I noticed that they've also created Final Special 2010, which is just a redirect to Christmas Special 2009. My instinct is to mark it for speedy deletion - but I'm not sure if there's a category that fits. What is the best way to proceed? Maccy69 (talk) 10:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, no need to worry Edokter has dealt with it. Maccy69 (talk) 11:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I probably shouldn't be amused but: look at this. Maccy69 (talk) 14:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Just a note
Comicbook30 (talk · contribs) is at it again. Could we do something about this? LeaveSleaves 19:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Calvin and Hobbes for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Grsz11 22:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Confused by the linking guidelines. Please help.
Hi I've been trying to link some articles and book reviews from kidzworld.com. It's a reputable website and it has book reviews that give more details than many of the articles on this site. And yet, my links are being deleted. I read the External Links page and it seems that I've been doing everything right, so I still can't figure out why you're deleting my links. Even when I create a page and add a reference to kidzworld's article, you're deleting it. Please help me understand so I can link properly.
Thanks so much,
Cute koala —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cute koala (talk • contribs) 17:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- I hope Ckatz doesn't mind me jumping in here, but I may offer some thoughts. First, if you visit Massive spam you can click en next to kidzworld.com and see that there are 228 pages on the English Wikipedia that link to kidzworld. That's quite a lot – why would you want more? Then click "contribs" next to your user account and observe that you seem to be a single-purpose account.
- The way to look at this is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place where people can get free high-value links to their web sites. The information at WP:EL provides a more specific answer to your question. Johnuniq (talk) 23:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
BC-TV Template
Hello Ckatz. While I do see where you are going with this and what you are trying to imply, but I think that the Vancouver/Bellingham templates should be merged into one template for mainly two reasons. The first being the Detroit and Windsor templates are one, with both American and Canadian locals in one template. It would make sense to put Bellingham in the Vancouver template as Bellingham is closer to Vancouver than Seattle. The second being KVOS is not carried on cable anywhere south of Skagit county, I believe, and both KBCB and KVOS have poor over the air penetration in Seattle and it's northern suburbs (Everett, Bellevue, Lynnwood, Bothell, etc.). While technically KVOS is an American station, most of its ads and the programming is target to Canadians, and little programming (like NW Notebook) is targeted to Americans. That is why I believe the Bellingham section in the Seattle template should be in the Vancouver template. Thanks. єmarsee • Speak up! 04:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- The difference here is that this is a British Columbia template, not just a Vancouver one. (Even if it were just Vancouver, there's a big difference between Detroit Windsor and Vancouver/Bellingham.) There are some other reasons; I'll add more later (ASAP) to better explain, but have to go offline for a short while (sorry). --Ckatzchatspy 05:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't really see a big difference between Detroit/Windsor and Vancouver/Bellingham. In both situations, there are two cities on opposite sides of the border with one being larger than the other. Both areas have TV stations on either side of the border, except with the Vancouver/Bellingham situation, a station from the smaller city in a foreign country serves the larger city. Please reply as soon as possible. Thanks. єmarsee • Speak up! 00:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've created some templates regarding this situation, please take a look at them and comment on which proposal do you think is the best. Proposals here. Thanks. єmarsee • Speak up! 16:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't really see a big difference between Detroit/Windsor and Vancouver/Bellingham. In both situations, there are two cities on opposite sides of the border with one being larger than the other. Both areas have TV stations on either side of the border, except with the Vancouver/Bellingham situation, a station from the smaller city in a foreign country serves the larger city. Please reply as soon as possible. Thanks. єmarsee • Speak up! 00:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
you've just blocked them for 3RR violation, now they keep wanting to remove the official block notice from their talk page. suggest protecting their talk page to enable them to cool down. thanks. LibStar (talk) 02:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Unprotection request
Hi Ckatz, could you unprotect this section of the MoS, please, so that changes can be made?
- 09:03, March 19, 2009 Ckatz (talk | contribs) protected Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Datestempprotectedsection [edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite) (Edit warring / Content dispute: Trying out having only the contested section as protected.)
Many thanks, SlimVirgin talk|contribs 11:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ckatz
Thank you for delving into the Sustainability article. I wish more people would come there and edit and give it a critical look. skip sievert (talk) 01:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
True Blood External Links
Hi! Curious to know why you removed two external links, both of which contain far more useful info than some of the others. Thanks.Ravenscroft32 (talk) 00:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
rickshaw removal
You removed this pdf with a comment of "rv. yet another vanity spam". The article was published in Current Science and appears to be a very reliable source. What's up? tedder (talk) 18:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Saw your info, thanks. Let me know when you have time to write it all up so there is some context. tedder (talk) 19:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ckatz. I saw that you edited the article on Marketing to remove my edit in the Branding section. Just curious what you didn't like about it (just looking for some feedback really). Thanks, JerLlo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.255.3 (talk) 19:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
i got my link removed, can i please ask why?
i am pretty new to wikipedia, so may be there is something i didnt understand about the way to use it, tonight i created a blog devoted to augmented reality, and i linked it in the augmented reality page, where i see other blogs, but i see now my link got deleted (2 times, the first one i didnt understand what was happening), what did i do wrong? massimo fontana —Preceding unsigned comment added by Massimo fontana (talk • contribs) 05:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
removal of SceneWriter_Pro
Hi There,
Forgive me if I did something wrong when submitting the article for SceneWriter Pro - it was my first submission. However, I do not believe that it was written in an advertising way and certainly no different to other screenwriting software articles on Wiki; such as Final Draft. It was written because the screenwriting software article links to many different types of software and SceneWriter Pro was missing from that list - even though it is popular amongst the screenwriting community. I do not believe its removal, or the removal of its links from other relevant articles is therefore justified and if anything, its very exclusion creates a bias to the other screenwriting software listed.
No sales wording, pricing or bias was used in the creation of the article, only factual information. There were not even any photographs or screen shots used.
I truly am puzzled as to why this was removed.
Yours confusedly,
Mark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scenewriter (talk • contribs) 20:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Edit to the Coroico article
Dear Ckatz,
The link I published to www.COROI.CO.cc[4] was removed from the Coroico article[5] , and blacklisted as Spam by you, obviously in all good faith.
I do not understand nor agree with this decision.
After studying the rules explained in this page [6] , I cannot find any rule this page might have breached. The only plausible explanation I could find is that the page has a DNS name hosted by www.co.cc[7] . .cc addresses apparently are considered 'redirect' URLs, and though this might be true for some .cc services, www.CO.cc offers a respectable service, without pop-up adds or any of the like. They make their money from bad webmasters, by forwarding people from 404 errors to commercial pages. It is not an elegant way to make money, but it is acceptable, IMHO. Also, as I explain here[8], if you use www.co.cc in combination with the free webhost byethost.com , using the DNS option, there is actually no way to get to the content of the page without using this domain name. Hence it is not a redirect service.
Meanwhile, two of the other external links violate rulings 4, 5, and 13 of the 'Links normally to be avoided' section of earlier mentioned page [9].
COROI.CO.cc is a semi-official page about the content of the mentioned article (supported by most people in the village), is accessible, and there is no reason why the link would die. (The reason why this page is hosted on a free DNS provider is that there is a lack of funding for a paid domain name. You might have noticed how Bolivian websites tend to disappear, because DNS providers don't get paid. Understand that a domain name for one year is worth roughly the equivalent of two to three weeks work for most people.) On top of that it does "contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail [...]"
I would therefore be very happy if you could remove this link from the blacklist and reinstate the link in the Coroico article. I am the owner of the COROI.CO.cc site, so that would also solve my moral dilemma about putting up a link to a page I created.
Sincerely, Joostschouppe (talk) 10:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
PS. I tried discussing about this measure on the Unblacklist page [10] and the External Link discussion page [11], but unfortunately have not been able to discuss the facts at hand so far, nor have had any clear answers to my questions. Joostschouppe (talk) 06:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- Update
- Apparently .co.cc is in fact blacklisted because of abuse by some users [8], as someone explained to me on the Blacklist page [9]. I think www.COROI.CO.cc is eligible for Whitlisting though.Joostschouppe (talk) 12:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Romoval of the "Controversy" article on Rogers Wireless
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_Wireless#Controversy
Why is it not a controversy while it's the case for Bell & Telus. Last year I did the same thing for Telus or Bell and someone keept canceling the change.
WTF. How is charging for incomming SMS that cannot be blocked an acceptable policy ? It's definetly a controversy specially when Rogers responded that year that they where not going to Bellus on this decision. This is unaceptable specialy when some client have switch from Bellus to Rogers and where told this wasn't going to happen anytime soon and 1 year later Rogers do the exact damn thing.
At the last limit, controversy or not, the wikipedian user NEEDS to know to Rogers charges for incomming SMS. This information is already available on Telus and Bell articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkman007e (talk • contribs) 05:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry
I'll stop. Forever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sxjmxe (talk • contribs) 04:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Star Trek Edits
I noticed that you have added non-free content to Hope and Fear & The Raven (Star Trek: Voyager) for the purposes of illustration, and to Unity (Star Trek: Voyager), Descent (Star Trek: The Next Generation) & I, Borg, and have not given an indication what the purpose of this content is ther, these actions are not consistant with m:mission or even WP:NFCC, and I would invite you to revert your edits Fasach Nua (talk) 20:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- Fasach Nua, you know full well that the images were not added; instead, they were restored from deletions by you, all of which were without any form of explanation whatsoever. (One of your edits even broke the formatting for an article's infobox, an error that you did not correct when you reverted me.) Again, as per what I and others have told you repeatedly, you would probably find that your concerns receive a more positive response if you took the time to engage in discussion, rather than just deleting without even explaining why you are doing so. --Ckatzchatspy 21:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- The invitation for you to revert the addition of copyrighted material without a claim of fair-use remains open, and I would encourage you to accept it Fasach Nua (talk) 21:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- Please do not misrepresent the situation. You deleted material, you did not explain why, you did not provide an edit summary, and you refuse to participate in any form of discussion about the deletions. FN, I'm presuming that your intentions are good. However, you must keep in mind that the behaviour I've described above - if taken by an IP or an editor without a good track record - would be considered vandalism. Please reconsider your refusal to explain your edits; I am certainly not the only editor to take issue with this problem. --Ckatzchatspy 21:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- In addition to reviewing your edits, m:mission and WP:NFCC, you may also wish to review WP:AGF Fasach Nua (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- Please do not misrepresent the situation. You deleted material, you did not explain why, you did not provide an edit summary, and you refuse to participate in any form of discussion about the deletions. FN, I'm presuming that your intentions are good. However, you must keep in mind that the behaviour I've described above - if taken by an IP or an editor without a good track record - would be considered vandalism. Please reconsider your refusal to explain your edits; I am certainly not the only editor to take issue with this problem. --Ckatzchatspy 21:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- The invitation for you to revert the addition of copyrighted material without a claim of fair-use remains open, and I would encourage you to accept it Fasach Nua (talk) 21:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimate_theater
- ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_%26_Order#Theater_talent
- ^ Great Lakes Circle Tour.
- ^ www.COROI.CO.cc
- ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coroico
- ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:EL
- ^ www.CO.cc
- ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Harmless_redirect.3F
- ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:EL
- ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#www.co.cc
- ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Harmless_redirect.3F