User talk:Ckatz

User talk:Ckatz

Hello! Thanks for dropping by... please feel free to leave me a message below. I don't have a convention as to where I'll respond, be it here, your talk page, or the talk page of the subject we're discussing - but I'll do my best to keep things clear. Let me know if you have a preference... now, get typing! Ckatz

Archives

Page One Page Two Page Three Page Four Page Five Page Six

Frequently asked questions

• Where can I learn more about editing Wikipedia?
  • The best place to start is at the Help Desk. Other useful links include the style guide, the list of policies and guidelines, and the guide to editing. Please feel free to ask on my talk page if you have any questions.
• Why was the link I added removed from an article?
  • Typically, links are removed because they fail the external links guideline. Although many links are deleted because they were placed by spammers, links to good sites are also removed on a regular basis. This is because Wikipedia isn't a directory service; the mere fact a site exists does not mean it warrants a link.
• Why was my article deleted?
  • Pages can be deleted for many reasons; there are very specific criteria that govern the process. Please review this article for more information.
• Why was information relating to my company or organization removed?
  • This is a very common question, based on a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's purpose. This project is not a directory, forum, or search engine, and as such it is not a place for you to post advertisements about your company or your product.
• Why were my spelling changes reverted?

Wikipedia's Manual of Style recommends the use of regional varieties of English, based on the topic and the article's contribution history. Please avoid changing spellings unless they differ from the appropriate version. Most spell checking software can be configured to use British and American English; some extend this to include other varieties such as Canadian or Australian English.

Contents

Hello: I have sent you two messages before this but not heard back. As you know, Wiki guidelines require editors to explore differences of editing opinion through the talk page. If there is not sufficient resolve through this method of conversation, third party opinion and conflict of interest protocols are the next step. I would appreciate hearing back from you on this matter to avoid moving to these next levels of problem solving.

I am monitoring the Salt Spring Island site and see that you have edited out a link I added and other links community members have added, but have kept others in place. Can you please share with us your rationale for keeping some sites included and others not? You are keeping commercial vested interest sites in place, so why have you deleted others? Do you have an association with those links you are keeping in place? I would like your insight so that our community website which represents a cross section of Salt Spring Islanders can be listed under external links.

I see you are very active on wikipedia so I assume you are getting my messages. Please take a moment to respond, it would be appreciated.

````slinctank, Suzanne Little, Editorial Manager, www.saltspringcommunity.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slinctank (talk • contribs) 17:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Our Prattville removal after User:AniMate created the entry

On entry 07:41, 17 September 2009, Admin Animate reworked the Prattville Wiki and added the Our Prattville link where it should be under Media. Then on 10:16 of that same day IP Address 76.73.140.26 undid his revision and stated no reason. Then on 11:57 of the same day IP address 98.89.12.105 properly undid that revision and at 13:05 Admin Baseball Bugs calls 98.89.12.105 a spammer and undoes it.

Therefore, if 98.89.12.105 did not create the entry and only undid what 76.73.140.26 undid, all of this refers back to the original poster Admin Animate as the spammer, right? I highly doubt that one of your administrators could be considered a spammer? What in the world is going on here? Please, somebody clarify this for me. Should not Animate's revision stand? Why is it being removed? He said he would do that for us and he did and we thank him for that. Now it is removed...why? Please advise.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtp1960 (talk • contribs) and associated IP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.89.12.105 (talk)

I read the guidelines

Nowhere did I find information in the external links guide that would lead me to believe that the link I published was inappropriate.

What should be linked: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons."

Links to be considered: "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources."

The website SkiingtheBackcountry.com is a leading source of information, resources, gear reviews, where to ski and all sorts of other stuff related to ski touring. My understanding is that it's based in Jackson Hole, but I don't even know who is behind it. It's a core site, and I was simply trying to share information, as I said before, about an activity that I love, to the people who are involved in the sport.

Is ski touring something that you care deeply about? If so, have you been to the site I was linking to? And if so, why would you care to remove it? And if you are not interested in ski touring, please leave the page alone. -MBailey

External Links

Dear Ckatz,

You have removed links to the "Bibliography of Fantastic Film" from the "science fiction film" and the "horror film" page because of a spam verdict. I think that links to external sources who offer the Wikipedia users a wide range of additional (in this case bibliographical) information are not spam but an helpfully addition.

I therefore restored the related links.

--Athenaion (talk) 09:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Ckatz,

again you have deleted all links to the "Bibliography of Fantastic Film" without a proper explanation. You did not reply to my email which describes the nature of the bibliography and why I think it is a usefull addition to the related Wikipedia articles, nor did you answer to the note at this site. Why don't you let the users of Wikipedia decide wetcher this link is relevant or not? Do give them a chance to build up their own opinion here is a copy of parts from the email I sent you earlier this month:

I'm new as a signed-in Wikipedia member but I'm a long time user and there is something that I don't understand. I habe recently added links to my "Bibliography of Fantastic Film" on the "horror film" and "science fiction film" sites. You deleted these link by arguing that they "seem to be advertisement". With all respect - have You visited the linked site? I know the rules of adding links in Wikipedia and especially the attempt to prevent any kind of spam, but do You really concider a link to an international bibliography of the secondary literature dealing with fantastic film als spam? With all modesty: this bibliography is the only regulary updated genre bibliography of that kind which is available on the Internet for free. It has nearly 59.000 literature titles listet, both books and articles, including annotations and reviews (which, in this combination, is also unique as far as I know), and it's a high quality source for researchers which is mentioned in many academical sites and link lists. Of course it's not as big as, let's say, the IMDB (after all, it's a personal project which I'm working on since the early 1990s), but it's a serious project, elaborated, reliable and running for many years. And, as I mentioned before, it's a non-profit project free of charge for all users.

For now I have reversed your editing of the related articles. I welcome any kind of constructive argumentation and critique, from you as well as from any other reader/participant of Wikipedia.

Regards again

--Athenaion (talk) 02:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, we are not a directory service. Many quality sites do not have links, specifically because we try to avoid giving preferential treatment. Keep in mind that this is not a knock against your particular site, but instead a reflection of the established consensus with regards to links, which we try to keep to a minimum. Furthermore, there are several issues that complicate this, most notably that you have repeatedly restored the links without seeking consensus to do so, and that you are adding the links despite having a direct conflict of interest in doing so. Given your relationship with the site, you cannot add links to it, and would have to convince other editors of the site's merits in order to see if they feel it warrants inclusion. --Ckatz<sup>chat</sup><sub>spy</sub> 02:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.

It was not me. That IP vandalized several of my pages. Thank you for the help. Their entire contribution history is all attacks at me. I don't know what I did, but it isn't me. Thanks for the help. --HELLØ ŦHERE 02:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Changes I made to Ripping

What is the proper process for adding content as it is certainly legitimate. There are dozens of companies like this and most ARE notable. Please define notable if you think otherwise! Please help me understand this. If there is something wrong with the content let me know. Do I need to leave the site addresses out? I feel that this suits the topic well and is a directly related to this. If it belongs elsewhere, let me know. I intend to keep adding it until I receive an valid complaint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffcsmith (talk • contribs) 18:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

So adding the information without the links would be fine? There are company listings such as CNN, etc. These are notable companies. Just because one person's opinion differs certainly does not make it the rule. CNN is no different than any other news agency, yet they have a listing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffcsmith (talk • contribs) 18:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

So are Fox News, Apple Inc., Microsoft and even Chase Bank. It is just a bank, why so notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffcsmith (talk • contribs) 18:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The text benefits the companies you've listed, but not the article. I think you'd be hard-pressed to argue that Pickled Productions is anywhere near comparable to Apple, Fox, and Chase Bank. --Ckatz<sup>chat</sup><sub>spy</sub> 18:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Not even close, I would agree that none of these companies are at the level of CNN. So it is better to leave out examples? Just say that there are companies that fill this void? Jeffcsmith (talk) 18:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Just trying to understand where to draw the line. You can mention some caompanies but not others. What is the litmus test as to whether you can or can not. Is it strictly your opinion? If a service had a wiki page, would it then be acceptable to link to it? Would that make it acceptable? Jeffcsmith (talk) 18:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Added again, no links. Let me know your thoughts. Jeffcsmith (talk) 19:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. When we are done discussing does this get deleted and do I need to do it? Still learning... Jeffcsmith (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help as I am learning

Jeffcsmith (talk) 22:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Why deleting new informations on the Knight Rider Movie?

Glen A. Larson himself had said it personally.

Yours sincerley,

David Metlesits News Editor Knight Rider Hungary —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.197.131 (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Stargate Universe

The show debuts this Friday so it's not "in production" and we have a source that says it will debut on October 2, 2009 and we have a source that says there will be 20 episodes so that info should also be in the infobox, I don't see why it should not be in infobox. Also it should not have "in production" in "|first_aired =" as that is for the shows debut date, it should be in "| status =", see Template:Infobox Television for info. Powergate92Talk 17:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Also Template:Infobox Television says that "| num_episodes =" is for "The number of episodes produced (a reliable source is required if greater than the number aired)." Powergate92Talk 17:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This comes up every so often; sourced or not, the convention is that we only update season and episode counts in the infobox after an episode airs. (The "sourced' bit you've mentioned is more relevant to series such as Firefly, which was cancelled before all of the episodes aired. In that case, the sources justify listing more than what actually aired.) --Ckatz<sup>chat</sup><sub>spy</sub> 17:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Again Template:Infobox Television says that "| num_episodes =" is for "The number of episodes produced (a reliable source is required if greater than the number aired)." When episodes start airing then you could change it to "20 (2 aired as of October 2, 2009)". Powergate92Talk 17:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

No, we would put "1" (or "2", however many air). The following week, "3", and so on. Look, I understand your confusion as the doc isn't too clear, but the established convention as used on all series articles is that we update only based on aired episodes. That is why changes prior to air are reverted immediately, as there are too many variables that can affect a scheduled airdate. Will it air at that day and time? Realistically, of courcse. However, we have no way of knowing if an unexpected event (natural or man-made) will occur and disrupt scheduling, so we wait. --Ckatz<sup>chat</sup><sub>spy</sub> 17:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to edit war and I am not being disruptive as I am reverting your edits per Template:Infobox Television. As I said before after episodes start airing you could change it to "20 (2 aired as of October 2, 2009)". Powergate92Talk 18:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Listen, I don't know how many times I have to say this: what you are proposing is contrary to the established practice for the infobox. If you're not convinced by my explanations, please refer to the recent discussions at the Television project, where this came up a few days back with regards to the Cleveland Show. As with your case, there were references indicating a planned run of "x" episodes. However, despite that, the convention is to only list aired episodes in the infobox, with the other details going in the body copy. (With respect to your example, no "20 (2 aired)", just "2".) Other points raised include the fact that while 20 episodes may be planned for, they are not all actually produced as of yet. If the series is cancelled during its run, several of these episodes may never even be scripted or shot. --Ckatz<sup>chat</sup><sub>spy</sub> 18:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed external link at Capital Punishment

Hi there,

I see you removed an external link (not my addition, I hasten to add). I am not quite sure why. As the page stands, it is neutral and says it lists the laws etc etc. So on the article page itself it seems pretty innocent. Deliberately I have not gone to the page, so as not to confound my query that on the page it looks innocent, if it goes to a rabidly pro-cap pun page hgmm perhaps that is not ideal for the neutrality of the article, but on the other hand an external link is quite explicitly "not our problem" so it should be OK to link to it?

I repeat, I did not make this link and don't really care if it comes or goes. My concern rests solely that you have removed someone else's NPOV or if POV at least a balanced one.

best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 07:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the question. Unfortunately, in this case, it is a site that appears to have been spammed across just about any article the site's people could get away with. There were over 150 links to the site when I first noticed it, many of which were spammed by an IP in 2008 and a single-purpose editor in the past few days. Many of the links were added as "references" to basic information that should come from more reliable sources, while other links were used to replace existing links from government sources. Hope this helps. --Ckatz<sup>chat</sup><sub>spy</sub> 08:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Admin note

WP:3RR says "3RR is a bright line where action now becomes almost certain if not already taken. It is not an "entitlement" to revert a page a specific number of times. Administrators can and will still take action on disruptive editors for edit warring even if it does not violate 3RR." I am not disruptive editing, I am reverting original research per WP:No original research and I try to discuss it with Trust Is All You Need but he still reverted. Also I was not trying to edit war at the Stargate Universe article as I said before I reverted your edits per what it says at Template:Infobox Television. Powergate92Talk 20:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

the sock rot

Please see this and this edit. Yes, your naming method is a good idea. Tony (talk) 03:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Edits to page on Augmented Reality

Hi, you removed information added to the "Specific Applications" section about an iPhone application called buUuk. Did this information contravene the guidelines in some way? Strangebuttrue (talk) 03:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I see you've removed the information on buUuk once again, but this time with the question "Why is it notable?". The section of the page is headed Current Applications>Specific Applications, buUuk is probably no more or less notable than any of the other applications listed. It is the first app with AR content on the iPhone with significant Asian content and probably the most popular iPhone Lifestyle app in Asia. I'll leave you to decide on whether the information should be added back to this section. Have a nice life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strangebuttrue (talk • contribs) 00:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Strangebuttrue (talk) 00:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Prostitution in Germany

Give reasons for "spammed link". Wispanow (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello... please do not restore the link to the "procon" site. Links to this site have been added en masse by single-purpose accounts and IPs, such as User:Proconorg and others. In some cases, these accounts have deleted valid government sources in favour of their own URLs. Thank you. --Ckatz<sup>chat</sup><sub>spy</sub> 10:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I like to end discussions where i started them.

08:28, 3 October 2009: I requested to give reasons for "Procon spam". Can't see any spam by this nonprofit organization.

And we can see that You are acting strongly against Procon. IMHO:

1. You gave no reason against Procon. Only "Link-spam" (by one or probably some (a few?) more wikipedians or IPs), but this are TOO FEW REASONS to delete this source.
2. User:Proconorg has added only a few links and is already blocked.
3. "tertiary source with unknown quality control": Authors are named and additional info is given.

Please give reasons why ESPECIALLY THIS LINK can't be used.Wispanow (talk) 13:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I am warning you: Don't delete this source without giving a reason for especially deleting THIS source. Stop the Edit-war.

And even it it's difficult for you: Try to be polite even in your edit summaries. Wispanow (talk) 13:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Wispanow, you comments are uncalled for and unnecessarily provocative. With respect to edit summaries, I have made every effort to be polite; the summaries involved in our exchange, while short due to the limitations of the comment field, reflect that:

• (1st note) "alt. cite needed; part of extensive ProCon spam"
• (your response) "If you don't like the original source, explain why or add another."
• (2nd note) "Restore tag; this should be cited, I presume, but the source that was present was a spammed link and as such removed across dozens of articles. That doesn't negate the need to have a source here."
• (your response) "I requested to give reasons for "Procon spam". Can't see any spam by this nonprofit organization."
• (3rd note) "the site was spammed (added repeatedly) by an IP and a single-purpose account."
• (additional explanation on your talk page) "Hello... please do not restore the link to the "procon" site. Links to this site have been added en masse by single-purpose accounts and IPs, such as User:Proconorg and others. In some cases, these accounts have deleted valid government sources in favour of their own URLs. Thank you."

I fail to see how this exchange is "impolite"; if anything, your replies to date have been far more provocative than mine. I've removed these links as an administrative action, one that was begun after noting the suspicious pattern in which they were, for the most part, added. There is no reason for you to issue "warnings" and make spurious claims regarding politeness, as you have done. Furthermore, keep in mind that the spammed site was tagged onto the line "Prostitution in Germany is legal along with brothel ownership". There is no reason why this text cannot be referenced from an official government source. --Ckatz<sup>chat</sup><sub>spy</sub> 17:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

"administrative action": Your idea to make the administrative action or some rules or voting?

The 4th and last time: Please give reasons why ESPECIALLY THIS LINK can't be used. Some "link-spam" is no reason for THIS link. You didn't reply to any of my answers and questions. Wispanow (talk) 21:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

You are apparently ignoring the explanations I've already provided, the indication that there has been a concerted effort to spam this site, the fact that the information in question can easily be sourced from what would be a more appropriate source anyway, and the assessment by a second admin that site is not suitable as a reference. --Ckatz<sup>chat</sup><sub>spy</sub> 22:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Procon as source

Hi Ckatz! I noticed that you removed the website procon.org as a source from the article Dore Gold. I don't know where it would satisfy all criteria under WP:RS, but it's not a clearly unreliable source (not self-published, not affiliated, etc.), so the removal seems strange. What is the reason for it? —Ynhockey <sup>(Talk)</sup> 11:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

There has been a clear and definite effort by several IPs and SPAs to add this link to as many articles as possible. In some cases, valid references were removed in favour of this site's links, while in other cases the links were added as references for reprinted material that should be sourced from the original author. --Ckatz<sup>chat</sup><sub>spy</sub> 11:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)r

I agree with your assessment. This site is a tertiary source with unknown quality control and usually no named author. Zero<sup>talk</sup> 12:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it isn't always so bad. I restored it where it was more or less accurate on one point in United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 (and the other ref - a LoC Country Study said something (not quoted in article) completely wrong.) There it was acting as a convenience link for works of Rashid Khalidi and Michael Oren, so I think is acceptable in that case.John Z (talk) 22:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Problem is, the site has a demonstrated history of being spammed over a period stretching back at least a year. In such cases, it is desirable to avoid using the site at all. From what I've seen, the text it has been used to reference can all be replaced with more appropriate, more direct, and non-spammed sites. --Ckatz<sup>chat</sup><sub>spy</sub> 22:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand the specifics above, but got here from a similar edit, and tend to agree with John. There are many instances where procon is a melding ref for both POVs. In the general arena where pro and con are so evident and exclusionary, this site tends to place them as part of the whole, and says so. I also somewhat question the passive usage 'of being spammed'. What does that mean, that some are citing it more regularly on Wikipedia? Is that a valid reason to delete a ref and replace it with a fact-tag? It might be seen as less-than-adequate AGF. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 00:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I see ProCon as a Wikipedia-like source. It is someone's compilation of things that are interesting to them. The reason we shouldn't cite it much is the same as the reason we aren't supposed to cite other Wikipedia articles. Most of what I can see there is reasonable quality and well intentioned, but in almost all cases we can ourselves cite the sources that ProCon cites. Zero<sup>talk</sup> 01:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, by "being spammed", I mean that there are several IP and SPA accounts whose edits consist solely of adding links to the ProCon site on a host of articles. When I first discovered the links, there were well over 150 of them. Many were in the external links sections, added one after another by the same account. Others were tossed into articles on text tha tcould easily be sourced more directly, or (in some cases) even used to replace more direct sources. Are some added by well-intentioned editors? In all likelihood, yes. However, based on what I have seen, these are a tiny minority of the total number of links, compared to the huge list of spammed links. Assuming good faith is important, of course, but when an account's entire history involves nothing other than adding ProCon links, and when those same format links appear throughout other articles, AGF has its limits in the face of a definite effort to spam the links. --Ckatz<sup>chat</sup><sub>spy</sub> 03:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: your removal of ProCon from the "medical marijuana" page at Wikipedia. The Medical Marijuana page at Wiki is known to have low quality. Not only is it confusing in its layout but the content is biased and has biased sources like NORML, PUFMM, and other clear proponents of medical marijuana. The ProCon link seems to have good, sourced, unbiased information. I even Googled that specific page and saw links to it from several media outlets. ProCon shows 140 media outlets referencing their content (http://www.procon.org/viewbackgroundresource.asp?resourceID=001519). Don't you want to make Wiki better? You've made your point about some IPs linking to ProCon more than you like. I get it. That's no reason to punish Wikipedia users by denying access to good content. No govt. agency has reported the 13 states with legal medical marijuana. Who else you gonna quote? You'd have to do the research yourself and compile it onto a webpage. Oh wait, ProCon already did that. You seem to have a vendetta against anything from ProCon and that is not a responsible attitude for an unbiased editor to have. For the sake of a useful encyclopedia, please reconsider your bias again ProCon. (oh and sorry for not using the proper format on this Talk page; I am still learning the ropes) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redondomax (talk • contribs) 22:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

With respect to the IPs, it's not a question of "more than I would like". It is instead the fact that several IPs and accounts came to Wikipedia for no other purpose than to add dozens and dozens of links to the ProCon site. Furthermore, many of those links were added as external links in a manner contrary to what is permitted under the external links guideline, or used to replace existing references that in some cases were to more direct sources. It is a simple reality that any time you have a site that is being spammed by single-purpose accounts, or an editor whose primary role on Wikipedia involves promoting or using one particular source, you have to take a very close look at the site. In this case, the site itself is questionable as a reference source; any material they post without explanations of where they sourced it can't be verified by us, and any information they post from referenced sources should really be sourced here to that primary source (rather than the ProCon intermediary). --Ckatz<sup>chat</sup><sub>spy</sub> 22:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You ignored my point and made your same stubborn and tired arguments. There is no other source for the citation you deleted. By denying the citation you are allowing your ego and bias to trump access to good information for the public's benefit. Your stated logic of linking back to primary sources only would negate half of all the references in Wikipedia. Many newspaper and magazine articles are writers rehashing primary information. If you applied your claimed standard even to the same page on medical marijuana, you would have to replace many more references with "citation needed." Fix the page in a manner consistent with your stated editorial standards or restore the citation. Anything less is being inconsistent and biased, and therefore exercising your editorial power in an inappropriate manner. You don't like ProCon and because of your position you get to manipulate the public perception of that organization. That is not right. No wonder I don't use Wikipedia. I've sat on the sidelines for years and complained about Wiki and when I finally try to do the right thing and make improvements to the encyclopedia, I get someone like you whose got an agenda. Sheesh. Restore the citation or apply your standard consistently on the medical marijuana and remove many more citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redondomax (talk • contribs) 22:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Letterman

Hi, you changed the David Letterman subhead back from "Sex with interns and staff" to "Extortion attempt" with this comment line:

"Unless the relationships have a notable impact on his career or public standing, the focus is still the extortion event"

Letterman seems to have thought there would be an impact on his career, hence his statement "I hope to protect my job." His concern was not a joke; CBS's stated policy on employer-employee sexual relationships may have been violated. I have cautiously added several news sources that explain the issue, with refs.

I have no idea whether Letterman violated CBS policy and i have no idea where this part of the story is going to go -- but as of today, the "I hope to keep my job" portion of the event is rivalling the extortion plot for column inches, so, in a good faith attempt at compromise, i have retitled the subhead "Sex with interns and extortion attempt"

Cordially, cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 01:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I've commented on the talk page, but I'll add here that the "job" quote cannot be used to speculate about his job security, just as we cannot use the "creepy" comment. Nor can we speculate about CBS and their policies, or Letterman's status with regards to those policies. Simply put, a lot of details with regards to this matter may well be better suited to Wikinews, as we have to look at the bigger picture to determine what is news and what is encyclopedic. --Ckatz<sup>chat</sup><sub>spy</sub> 02:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The "job" quote was not "used to speculate" about anything. He said it. I am reinserting it. You'd better have a better reason to cut his full paragraph right before the last sentence than that we are "speculating." Given your adamant removal policy of such important material, i am now going to return this matter to the topic's own talk page. Discussing it with you here is going nowhere. cat 64.142.90.33 (talk) 03:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Catherine, the use as you added it implies there is an issue with his job status. There is no evidence to suggest that, and we are not here to speculate, imply, or any other such task. If you are adamant about the line, get consensus on the talk page - but you need to do that before restoring it. --Ckatz<sup>chat</sup><sub>spy</sub> 04:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a request

Given the fact that you've offered to watchlist Letterman for issues, would you also consider temporarily adding Joe Halderman and Stephanie Birkitt to your watchlist for the time being? They're part of this issue too, but in terms of article exposure, they're a bit on the fringe, so some more eyes on them is probably a good idea.

Thanks, Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 04:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:GLAM

In case you haven't noticed, there is a proposal to develop a WP:GLAM guideline (Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums, see m:GLAM) in this discussion. The idea is to advise experts from suitable institutions how they might contribute to articles, including how they might add links to their own institutions. I think the general plan is excellent, but obviously some care needs to be taken to avoid driving a tunnel through WP:EL because already it is sometimes difficult to explain why it is necessary to revert links added by SPA accounts. This is just FYI, no reply needed. Johnuniq (talk) 06:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

EESI green buildings page removal.

To whom it may concern,

I recently placed a link to the Environmental and Energy Study Institute "High Performance Green Buildings" page on the "Green Building" Wikipedia page. I wish to respectfully inquire as to why the link was removed. The EESI is a non-profit, non-partisan environmental study group, not a think tank or a lobbying firm. Its mission is purely to educate. The group's website contains a great deal of knowledge that cannot be found on Wikipedia or any other source. EESI has a staff of highly qualified experts who study tirelessly to make sure all of the information on the EESI web site is factually true.In addition, the web site contains videos and overviews of the many briefings EESI holds on Capitol Hill in Washington DC. These briefings are attended by congressional staffers and policy experts from around the world, and their testimony contributes greatly to the public's understanding of environmental and energy issues. The link that I posted offers interested users of Wikipedia additional insight that the could not get from the wiki page alone. Please be assured that I had no intention of spamming, but the EESI has a great deal of useful knowledge has information on all environmental and energy issues. Thus, there are appropriate EESI links for almost every wiki page having to do with environmental and energy issues. This might seem like spamming, but the links I post are relevant and offer insight not available on Wikipedia pages. Please feel free to visit the website (eesi.org)and watch one of the briefings or read about an issue and. In any case, I will abide by your ultimate decision, but I must respectfully ask that you reconsider. Thank you for you time.

Intern8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Intern8 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you think about this

In March 2009 there was a discussion at WikiProject Tokusatsu where it was agreed that number of episodes in infoboxes are OK. On October 4, 2009 User:Ryulong (the only user in that discussion who thinks number of episodes should not be in infoboxes) removed the number of episodes in the infobox in the Kamen Rider Double article, so I reverted has edit per the discussion at WikiProject Tokusatsu[1] then he reverted my edit saying "Nothing came about it"[2] so I reverted has edit again "I think you need to look at that discussion again as it was agreed that number of episodes in infoboxes are OK"[3] but he reverted my edit again saying "New show, and no weekly updates"[4] So what do you think about this? Powergate92Talk 22:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)