User talk:Mkdw

Film/TV lists at Hollywood North - wikification and separate lists?

Been wikifying the TV series first, was going to move onto the films next. Wondering on the one hand, as these are all titles, that they should maybe be in italics; also wondering about formatting the list into bullets or two columns of same; or else migrating the works to "List" pages; Vancouver's TV list seems a bit short; I'll check on reelwest, UBCP and other sites I've got linked; depends on how far we go back, too - Wiseguy was made a long time before Hollywood North as a phenomenon earned its name; if McCabe and Mrs. Miller and Carnal Knowledge are listed in films (haven't looked) then earlier TV stuff like Wiseguy should also be here. Rumble in the Bronx is probably listed, but there's a host of B-grades made for US/international markets, e.g. the second in the Xtro franchise, which was an early up-and-comer in the local biz, B-grade though its market was. Reboot was shot/made in Victoria primarily...Vancouver's Hollywood North machine is also behind Alberta-shot projects like Legends of the Fall and Brokeback Mountain and The Assassination of Jesse James (not yet released); Alberta is its own "node" now, of course, but Legends of the Fall was definitely shopped out of Vancouver, and most of Jesse James' local casting went through here also. What's that J.Lo thing that was made up in Kamloops? And wasn't The Russia House made on Bowen Island? There's another one with Richard Gere, playing an architect, that's actually set here, rainy Hwy 99 and dark skies and all, but can't remember what it's called at the moment......the other reason I dropped by about this is I'm wondering if there shouldn't be Category:TV series produced in Vancouver and Category:Films produced in Vancouver, which would include both US-market and Canadian/int'l market productions. Mind you, it's pretty extensive when you include visiting stuff like the German production Dreamship (their version of The Love Boat, more or less, which shot only one episode here...I know because I was background in it.). Speaking of background, Pathfinder (film) opens on Jan. 7.....I'm the "third viking from the left", with downturned horns and a shiny, sharp nosepiece that almost took my nose off a couple of times (and left one stuntman with a couple of stitches when he wore it....); I'll be the guy knocking a First Nations guy's head off with a flail/ball-and-chain....(whoops I might have just broken the non-disclosure, but at least this isn't the Pathfinder talkpage ;-)).Skookum1 02:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

HongQiGong - POV vandalism on History of Chinese immigration to Canada

It's me, the whiteboy bogeyman, back at it; while I was blocked I watch HongQiGong smugly boast that he could revert things since I couldn't stop him; he's deleted mainstream history, including in the latest revision/deletion concerning the Governor's protection of Chinese miners, and also concerning well-documented Chinese mining practices, including the pulling up of stakes while othe miners were in town. I'm not about to launch an edit war here after what I've just been through, I'm not about to get in a major conflict with Hong here- but I would like an admin, preferably a BC one versed in our history, to slap him down some and also restore these materials. He also deleted the old POV tag while I was away - I was the one who placed it, originally, and exactly for reasons of biased/censored content like the type Hong obviously prefers. His smug remarks, such as the inline comment made when I was blocked - deserve a reprimand. If not, indeed a BLOCK for PAIN as well as vandalism. Doncha think?Skookum1 06:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

PS I was going to be dragging out the cites for these tonight, but as you can see from my User Contributions I've been hard at adding BC Wikiproject tags and ratings and tidying up things here and there on BC history stuff...still drafting my AFD statement for the Bornmann thing (want to cite-link certain things but been preoccupied doing legitimate Wiki work; I may seem like I like conflict, but I don't....).Skookum1 06:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Mkdw - for your consideration, read this[1]. Skookum1's bias is obvious, and his incessant soapboxing, annoying. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Funny how you found out so quickly it was Mkdw I'd taken this to; you must be following my User Contributions. I'm flattered....Skookum1 06:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and you'll notice that all the content on that part of the Noticeboard is Hong's "soapboxing" against me, pullling things out of context (and picking on my use of "colourful" language and "tell it like it is" analysis). style from many motns ago (and without proper cites) as a means of defending his current vandalism needs no further comment. The lines of mine he's quoted were in response to insulting or racially-biased analyses of his own, or of others in the same "discussion"; pot calling the kettle black as far as the personal attacks thing goes. I've learned my lesson; but Hong came back and did unwarranted deletes right after his 3RR block ended (and as explained his deletes here really also are 3RR, as he'd deleted the same stuff, or stuff like it, long ago).Skookum1 06:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

PS I notified Bobanny of this, as she's also "into" BC history, and might do the same for Fishhead64; I did discover on his talkpage that Hong was blocked overnight for 3RR, and notified William M. Connolley the admin who blocked him of these edits as well; they took place immediately when his block ended (and really they're 3RR, since we've edit-warred about the same content last spring). Cites for the deleted material are in the Akriggs and Ormsby, as well as in Hauka and Morton.Skookum1 06:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Saying that humiliation is "one of the driving forces of the Chinese cultural ego"[2] is just your simple "tell it like it is" analysis? Come now. But anyway, I'll let Mkdw and others make their own judgement. I can find other examples of your so-called "tell it like it is" analysis, or what I would say are borderline racist comments. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Hong, see red herring. The issue is not an isolated quote of mine, without the context it came from, from several months; it's what you did tonight, and while I was blocked, and your trigger-happiness on removing things that don't fit with your prejudices about BC history, while leaving in uncited stuff that does. Whatever. I was hoping to see it was Mkdw who'd responded here; but it's just you "after me" again...which falls into the harrassment/personal attacks category (various visiting admins please note).Skookum1 07:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, with your claim that you've "reported me" for vandalism[3], yeah I would like to know exactly where you reported me, and state my own case. I stand by my point that your bias is apparent, and it manifests itself in your edits and your comments. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Following Wiki guidelines on conflict, this is my notice of disengagement and you can keep on sniping at me here, or anywhere else you can find to try and throw red herring issues to evade responsbility for your conduct.Skookum1 07:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

To Mkdw and others, please see my further statement of disengagement posted on Hong's talk page as per Wiki conflict guidelines. I also submit that Hong's interpolations here as well as his sniping in the edit comments on the history article cited and elsewhere constitute harrassment.Skookum1 07:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

ATTENTION
Please take this conversation somewhere else. Mkdw^talk 10:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thought you were an admin; what's the appropriate arena for (a) content disputes/vandalism/edit wars and (b) personal harrassment?Skookum1 23:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC) PS I"m not the one who turned it into a "conversation".Skookum1 23:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. I would like to be one day, but at the moment I am not. Sorry. Mkdw^talk 04:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to have bothered then...it's just you write and code with such authority ;-) Skookum1 04:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, have to start somewhere on the road to adminship, however I didn't do so well on the Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Vancouver. Mkdw^talk 05:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Have to have a look at that discussion. Could it be because there are still issues with the article the portal sources, or is it layout or ?? Guess I'll read the discussion and see what went down. This place (Wikipedia) has so many different procedures and protocols it's hard to know where to turn for what (as with my query above).Skookum1 05:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

SVG??

Is it possible to upload SVG files, and have wiki automatically convert it on the fly to png? If so how do I do this, when I tried to upload an SVG it said it was not a recommended format, I did not see a way to force it to go. I noticed in the uploaded files area you have a couple that are .svg.png. --Green-Dragon 06:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images in portals

When articles are selected, a free use image replaces the first fair use image. There is discussion to change this, however. -- Selmo ^(talk) 18:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Bornmann AFD

I know you haven't positioned yourself on this particular, um, affair, and are probably trying to stay non-involved, but in your capacity as a British Columbian please see the Erik Bornmann AFD] for my recent posts on it. It was extended as I had had an unfair block during most of its duration and the original decision to redirect was revoked so I could "testify". Please read all my posts and comments and also follow the links/cites provided. I am not asking you to make a vote, but I am fielding this around BC WikiProject people as it's the kind of thing we're also going to run into on everything from CasinoGate to Fantasy Gardens to Fastcats and more; even historical scandals and bios are soft-soaped often enough - it's just that this one is so blatant. I'm not partisan here - but I do feel that this is a test of Wikipedia's integrity (as well as of my patience).Skookum1 04:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi; saw your post on the AFD, and thanks. Something else I realized a while ago, in the course of having to "dig" to find rascalpatrol's userpage, and hence all my previous problems, is that the sig-link that he uses goes to User:rascalpatorl, not User:rascalpatrol. He must be typing it directly, instead of using the four tildes. Not sure what that's called, or where to report it, but it's definitely kind of squirrelly and there's no way Wiki technology would generate such a mistake, and a consistent one, too. Try it - click on his link on the AFD and see where it goes - it's go to User:rascalpatorl. Not exactly a sock puppet but definitely a willful deception.Skookum1 07:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Or it could be a genuine typo when he was setting his signature under Preferences. That way he wouldn't be typing his signatures directly. Carson 09:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I know that Clayoquot goes to Kla'quot, for instance. But while his sig on the AFD goes to the correct place (now adorned by a sockpuppet notice from Bobanny) his sigs on the article's talkpage do not (e.g. this item)...I'd thought earlier that the one on the AFD did, too, but I just tried it and it works correctly and there's no sign of a change to it in the edit history of the AFD. Maybe he's changed his prefs since all this began; I know that this was the case last week because the only way I got to his userpage and wound up in hot water over it (can't find my block log, but if you can, check out my statements in the unblock template if you can find it) was by hand-typing "user:rascalpatrol" in the search window, as clicking on his links went to "user:rascalpatorl", which has no user contributions at all so couldn't have been right...Be bold is a Wiki guideline, so I was...and got slapped down for it (though wrongly and the block was ultimately revoked).Skookum1 09:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use of GVRDlogo.jpg

Hi, just letting you know that I've reduced the resolution of the image by 80%, to better comply with fair use guidelines. Regardless of that, however, using the GVRD logo for illustrating the Web Resources section of the Vancouver Portal doesn't qualify as fair use, as far as I know. Carson 05:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

new BC Wikiproject Userbox template

Made a stab at a userbox; check 'er out: Template:User WikiProject British Columbia (use {{User WikiProject British Columbia}} ). Fudged around with the colours and borders for a while, tried to use colours taken from the dogwood but wound up blue-adjusting the background, not quite happy with the bkgnd colour but it's better than the grey-transparent on the Vancouver userbox. Trying to think which stubs are needed; I think one for mountain and moutain range stubs (there'll be hundreds of these...), though the dogwood won't do for that; could use it for parks stubs, though, no? There's already a protected area stub that has a thing from the US Southwest on it; might as well replace it with the dogwood (d'ya like the dogwood? It's from Wikimedia Commons...I thumbed it down though). Trying to remember which other stubs are needed....bio-stub I guess for biographies, I'm thinking one for communities/settlements, have to think what else. Suggestions? Skookum1 02:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

More BC stub templates!

Have a look at the templates section of the WikiProject; prob. will make some more before bed (mountains, rivers will be so numerous that it seems necessary; not sure about islands, which could keep the geo-stub ).Skookum1 09:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Confusion over Bornmann's role

Hi; saw your edits on the AFD; Langara College had made the same mistake, but you'll note the date on the source brought up, which I guess Langara College might have been sourcing from, too, but it's from the opening of the whole affair, the original headlines. He plea-bargained or whatever it is he did - I'm not sure I'm allowed to say that around here - but the confusion over this is a delicate matter, and it's why "they" are monitoring the site. But they created the problem by hiding the public record and so there's confusion in Wikispace when people come looking, which is what happened with Langara College. I myself originally came to try and remember some of the details of what happened, and couldn't find anything at all but the flame war; I made the reverts to collate all the evidence in one place, and one copy-pastable document too...

The point is that this is WHY the page is needed, and it has to contain current facts - Omar Jack was very wrong in removing the current events tags, but then he's just wrong, period - or else, by obscuring events, people believe what they want to believe; by not having the current events tag to remind people information is changing and will be changing soon, because of the trial, they're giving the idea that everything is static... And/or because of the scattershot and only reconstructed nature of the story and events now, and a reading/hearing of a 2004 news item, without forgetting there's been other copy since, people have to be able to not be confused about this stuff. I had nothing against Bornmann, I only wanted to sort out what happened, and got caught in the crossfire....

But since the other copy about this since those original headlings has mostly been in the independent media and the 'zines, and including CKNW and its various guys in their print guises, and the big media has mostly obfuscated or shoved it aside, people are confused as to what happened, but they know about the scandal. Because it's not in the mainstream media people don't know the facts, but they know about it, and that's a bad thing for EB or any of them, in my estimation. They should be wanting a clear and concise record here to vindicate them, since they've got nothing to hide...

Which is why having to reconstruct it is such a pain in the a** ; it means reading everything, for one thing. So the effect of destroying the record here had the counter-effect of creating the illusion that he was charged, because there's the sensationalism of the original headline, and also as a primary resource, or primary source that is, even as just as a demonstration of the lurid nature of the scandal when it happened...primetime TV for at least a few days anyway, then muzzled pretty much. Baldrey tried to write it off a while ago; the point is that it's a historical record around here and if it's false, people will believe anything they want. And if it's not there, it's not that it's not unimportant, and then people who do want to find about it can't, and that will make them dig. And read everything.

I imagine it'll make quite a few good books by various authors, eventually, once it's all out in the open, whatever it was that did go down. My original point again, though, before I leave you alone about all this, is that Bornmann and Marissen should realize that if their online profile isn't full and complete about stuff that people already widely know, it will look bad for them. And give people the impression they have something to hide. Which is why, I'll bet, Bill Clinton never screws around on his own Wikipage...hmmm. Maybe we should propose it as a model? Compromise is everything.

Right now they're hissing mad, although maybe they're waking up It may only be a sockpuppet hydra, but since Tompettyfan got there it's at least a two-man show; or maybe they're waking up to Wiki rules and editing carefully and mindful that other people are trying to make sure the information is correct, and complete, according to what's allowed by Wiki rules and is expected by Wiki standards, such as are evolving in so many areas; the complexity of "Wiki legal culture" must boggle them in its complexity and in fact its subtleties, as I found out in working the language/system during the unblock...

Anyway, before I sign off I wanted to ask you to stop by the merge discussion that splits off [[Talk:Talk:Skwxwu7mesh Uxwuimixw]] in the discussion on the merge with Squamish Nation and the differentiation/structure of all the band, people, language and native community articles that intersect but have different categories, and of the list of First Nations in British Columbia, and its talkpage, too. Been busy tonight at points, when not playing music...just checking in but it occurred to me to ask you to look at some of the different articles that have been written around BC in that topic area, as linked out of that discussion anyway; maybe I'm thinking I should lay out a guide to the Indigenous People's project-structure for BC and other Wikipedians working on these articles, or who might be? Basic layout, where things are and the range and scale of articles needed (lots); check out Nisga'a and Gitksan for density of local culture being able to represent itself in Wikipedia; and also I found Wikipedia:WikiProject Local History, which is interesting in the same light.

Likewise I'm wondering about the table/list of categories I'd compiled on Buchanan-Hermit's sandbox page (I'll link that later when I find it again...) so we know what things new articles might need of BC categories. And it looks like some of those stubs will survive, that I just made, as you probably noticed; but I have to resubmit them, and someone has to make them right, so it's done right. Hope you like the infobox, and sorry for the long scribing - it's late, and I was playing music.....Skookum1 09:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

"Nameless" IP address vandal active on Bornmann page

Hi. I made some change "back", and put back in stuff you'd just added with a 74.*.*.* IP address-type decided wasn't necessary. Langara College is watching, and I know Bobanny and the other BC Wikipedians all have this on their watchlist right now, as yourself; contacting you as yours were the most recent, before "they" got the cutting knives out again. POV watch big-time on this one...haven'g noticed any changes on the Legislature Raids page yet...but I'm sure they'll be back....Skookum1 21:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

"74.104.19.225" is a non-traceable IP address - IP address locators can't find it. This was also the case with IP addresses on either the Bornmann page, and on the Ledgegate page; one of which the IP address locator couldn't even identify the country it was coming from. Typically IP address edits in these articles have come out of Ontario, by the way....Skookum1 21:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Just left a note with Proto about Omar Jack's latest

Please see Ongoing vandalism by sockpuppet at Erik Bornmann page at Proto's talkpage.Skookum1 02:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Fresh vandalism of Talk:Erik Bornmann

Please see this.Skookum1 19:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

And to remind me why I'm actually here...

I wrote this last night, in the wee hours: an article on the Rock Creek Gold Rush - brand-spanking new and been shoved aside because of the "War of the Puppets". Also made the redirect for Rock Creek War, since there wasn't a point in two articles (as there is with Fraser Canyon Gold Rush and Fraser Canyon War). Nice to write about something other than, well, you know....enjoy, and please add anything or fix anything that seems fitting. Unlike r.p. and friends, I don't have a problem with other people editing my Wiki contributions....now for the Omineca, Big Bend and Wild Horse Creek....Skookum1 19:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Portal tweaks

Just FYI, although I'm presuming you'll see them on your watchlist... I've made a few minor tweaks to some of the Portal sections. Details are in the edit comments and on one of the talk pages. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Not a big deal about the "archive" tag, although... keep in mind that the tag adds the text "this is an archive - do not edit" (not the exact phrasing) to the page. It's usually intended for pages/discussions that are done with, and for which a permanent record of their final state is desired. Using it on text that is currently "live" discourages input to that content. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

IP Address changes to Hollywood North

You did so much work bringing this article into tow and common sense, but there've been a series of edits by IP addresses, probably more to come, "putting Toronto first". I was gonna do an undo/revert but the database was locked; I'll try again in a few minutes but this is a heads-up; I'm deferring to your authority and the citability of all your changes (and cool head). Does serve, to me, to demonstrate exactly what is so puerile about the Torontonian attitude towards its version of the national reality, overriding all others; something like "me too" plus "me first".....Skookum1 (Talk) 18:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Come Together

David, I know we've had problems in the past regarding vandalism, but I don't want that to get in the way of cherishing a good joke on someone else's behalf. Take a look at User:Cynthia18 and the ridiculousness of everything she talks about regarding the iPhone. Come one, we should really share a laugh about all of this and call this whole war off. Cheers. 210.92.207.2 11:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Hollywood North - POV template?

Thought of putting a section-POV template on the new stuff by User:Donteatyellowsnow, who's clearly from California and highly prejudiced against the Canadian film industry; placed a bunch of fact templates and moved his "attack edits/contribs" to the bottom. He'll be back I'm sure, and no doubt you've got this on your watchlist, but wanted to consult with you about the section-POV template, and also wondering about placing a warning about vandalistic edits/content on Donteatyellowsnow's talkpage.Skookum1 21:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Mkdw, I've reverted your "speedy deletion" tag at Runaway production (I've moved it from Runaway film) as it is a valid industry term, even showing up in a BC government report. I've also restored the section in Hollywood North as it is a valid addition. I rewrote it to reflect the changes I made at Runaway production earlier, and it does provide background on the issue from a perspective other than our own. (Otherwise, we run the risk of getting accused of POV editing ourselves.) Anyway, you might wish to rework your note on Donteatyellowsnow's talk page to reflect the above, and the fact that you actually reverted my edits - not his/hers. That editor already seems pretty riled up about the subject, and I don't want this to devolve into an edit war. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, without meaning to stoke things up, but it is worth noting, somewhere (and citable, too, I think) that Hollywood itself began as runaway productions from New York; it was also about tax breaks and cheap land/costs relative to New York's skyrocketed turf, as much as it was to get the sunshine and oranges. I agree about the edit war, but I'm obviously pretty particular about people "having their way" with this topic, for all the citable reasons Mkdw has worked hard to compile, too. The POV tone of the new stuff was a bit shocking....even by my standards. Point is the competition/animosity with Hollywood is a part of the film industry environment here now; the place is always on tenterhooks about what L.A./Cali may or may not do, and the industry as I think Mkdw exists on razor-thin ice, and pretty much always has; it doesns't have the backing of government infrastructure and sweeping legislation/resources allotted to it like forestry or mining, for example, and even during the tax credit thing one of the cabinet ministers, resisting a further break, opined (very briefly, and bypassed his comment later without comment) that if the film industry didn't like it they could move to Ontario....er, what??!!. Anyway, I can see there being a need for the gist of what Donteat's talking about; not his tone, or the unsubstantiated rationale. I've been meaning to stop in on one of "my people" who's been around for ages and would know; but it's not like this name was "invented" by Vancouver to try and steal something from "the real Hollywood" (Hollywood doesn't own the film industry as a concept; it just likes to pretend it should have a monopoly), it was conferred upon us from within industry slang. Toronto, on the other hand, did deliberately start packaging itself around the name and also pretending it was all about itself (I won't go on as I have before...). But the hype/paranoia within the L.A. film unions and (only some of) the production/money community is very hot sometimes, as we've seen here; the issues are there; it's a question of how to tie them into what relevance they have within an article on Hollywood North. There may be some, but only as a side-reference (we lose productions back to LA regularly, too.....and most actor roles (less than 5 lines) go to out-of-towners, and auditions are only held here to qualify for the tax credit, with no intention of hiring a Canuck and his/her funny way of saying "about". No, seriously, and that's citable, although I can't remember the article it was in - in the West Ender or even the Sun I think, and I cant' remember when....Skookum1 11:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree about the new stuff from "Dont" - there's a definite agenda there, especially when you look at some other contributions that editor has made. (Check out the edit histories of Runaway production and Film history to see what I mean.) However, I do think there is a place for this "industry reaction" in the Hollywood North article; again, I think it can serve to beef up the article, along with details about the rivalry, the "tentative" nature of the business, and the fact that - as Hollywood was to New York, and as we are to Hollywood, other jurisdictions are eager to get some of Vancouver/Toronto's business. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Completely too esoteric for this Wikipedia article, but Jane Jacobs' theory of import replacement is at work here; economies learning to make what they previously had imported, and getting so good at it that they export it back to the place they were originally importing it from. Anyway, just made some notes on the article's talkpage about "if we're gonna have all this content, then we need to have all that content", "that" content being the specifics of tax regimes and other stuff vs the information now there on Cali/D.C. legislation, etc. I'm not saying the stuff that's there even needs to be there but if it is, then corresponding material on Canadian/BC/ON etc. laws is needed, or this article becomes APOV. And either of you guys (Mkdw or Ckatz) I'd appreciate it if you'd drop by the Oregon boundary dispute some time, or at least have a look over it relative to the entrenched/increasing USPOV content/tone there, even though it's part of "our" history just as much as "theirs"....Skookum1 19:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

template:click

Hello again, Mkdw. I've understood the project to remove template:click didn't provide enough documentation, so it wasn't rare some wikipedians like you have some doubts about it. I have tried to change that adding more documentation. Please, let us know if it answers all your questions. Best regards, --surueña 20:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

As you haven't made any further comment, I assume you don't have more objections to the project to remove this problematic template, am I right? In that case, can you remove the (used in a non-standard way) {{disputed}} banner, please?. But don't hesitate to make additional comments at the talk page at any time. Thanks! --surueña 17:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hollywood North

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Example. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you, [signature]

Langara College 01:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Changed numbers

I noticed you changed the numbers cited on the article for hollywood north i took those numbers from the cited document. You added that 19 features were produced when the document says 39 not to mention you altered a few other figures and added some. where are you getting those numbers from? since their not in the document that was cited.

Brodey 01:12 January 15th 2007

Template

I've fixed the template. -- Selmo ^(talk) 23:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protecting Vancouver

Done. I'll probably unprotect in a few days, but hopefully this will teach the spammers a lesson. Academic Challenger 23:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be possible. Academic Challenger 23:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure!

Okay I will review you, and of course you are allowed to borrow some coding from my page, this is "wiki" after all ;). Arjun 02:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Review is done. Cheers! Arjun 02:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Mkdw/House

Removing formatting content and reducing the size of the text by a considerable amount to one of my userboxes is helpful and could be considered vandalism. Please do not tamper with userboxes that do not require further maintanence. You talk page is 112kb too long. Wikipedia recommends pages over 30kb be archived. Mkdw^talk 04:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

My talk page is currently 112kb long; if it's "112kb too long", doesn't that mean that the optimal length is 0kb? :D

Note that accusing editors of vandalism without basis is a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. In the vast majority of cases when dealing with experienced editors, neither editor will be "vandalizing" in a dispute; it will simply be the result of misunderstanding. Consequently, throwing "vandal" around left and right without consideration is likely to cause countless disputes, and is sure to resolve absolutely none. It is thus advisable to only use it to report genuine vandals.

The template in question uses depracated formating that will break many of the WP:UBX tables, making it useless to many users. There is no visual difference between the two formats, so there is no reason not to use the non-template-within-a-template version. I apologize for the change in font size; that was simply a copy-pasting error on my part.

Also, your talk page is 12kb too long. Wikipedia recommends pages over 30kb be archived. :) -Silence 05:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The template I used for the userbox is the 'standard' method in creating a userbox. See WP:UBX#Userbox_types. Please stop changing it. Also there is a visual difference. It shrinks the text to size 7 font making it barely legible and its far more esoteric and less user friendly. Mkdw^talk 05:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I also want to add, in response to the WP:CIVIL, the userbox is on my namespace. The article Wikipedia:User_page#Ownership_and_editing_of_pages_in_the_user_space talks about the general convention of user namespaces and respecting that they are in the namespace of others. While to do belong to the community, its considered 'polite' to not change pages on users namespaces with out asking. Who's threatening who now with WP:CIVIL, especially since in the case that you changed the userbox from its standard to another format and made it illegible to read. In my opinion I saw that as vandalism for it reduced the quality and integrity of the page. If it was a misunderstand then I apologize, but since you've done it twice now, I dont think there is any confusion. Mkdw^talk 05:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Conversation moved to User_talk:Silence#User:Mkdw.2FHouse.

Editor review

I hope you found my advice helpful and my pleasure as far as my edits to your articles were concerned. Some people use Editor reviews to get a feel for editor opinion before going for RfAs and some don't (admins sometimes ask for reviews too...). I thought I may as well address the RfA question in case you had it in mind- I should think you'd be a strong candidate in a month or two. But don't feel you have to go for adminship if you don't want to. By the way, it does say he founded an academy in the dif you linked me to on my talk page. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 07:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

No probs. Congrats on the featured portal- guess I was looking at the nomination for that through difs only and didn't notice it was over :). WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 07:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Hollywood North. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 10:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

Cat and the Canary & citations

I've left a note at the article's talk page and the FAC discussion regarding the citations and your edits. Please examine the Notes section carefully, and you'll see all the required information is there. Dmoon1 16:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Opinion requested - PSAC title

Hi. Please see [4] and [5] re the best/preferred name for an article on Puget's Sound Agricultural Company (that's my own pref).Skookum1 00:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey man

Can you review Portal:China in the candidate page to see if it meets featured criteria? Thanks!

The teamwork of us Vancouver people on building Portal:Vancouver was great :) AQu01rius (User • Talk) 22:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. --Mais oui! 11:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Never use the "Minor edit" button to attempt to disguise reversions. And while I'm here, the "oh I forgot to fill in the Edit summary box" is not very convincing I'm afraid. To my knowledge I have never failed to complete it in about 40,000 edits - not since my first few days anyway. --Mais oui! 12:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Advice

Please take note of my comments at Talk:Vancouver#No need for any flag. BTW your 3RR report is incorrect, please take care to re-read WP:3RR and note the 24hr bit. I'm not going to handle the 3RR report, but personally I think you'd be better to remove the report, stop edits to the article for now (don't worry if it's left at The Wrong Version) and gain consensus on the talk page. Thanks/wangi 14:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

If you think I am incorrect on my WP:3RR please say so on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Mais_oui.21_reported_by_User:Mkdw. I don't understand how you can 'take this on' with out doing it through the admin noticeboard. I've read WP:3RR and I still feel I have justification. As far as your comments on Talk:Vancouver I agreed to stop editing awhile ago to avoid getting into an edit war. My first edit on Jan 23 was to move history section back to History of Vancouver and Mais reverted the flags section before I had a chance. My second edit was immediately reverted by him for 'not having an edit summary' which I thought was a simple misunderstanding, but he did it again after that. This user is exceptionally rude and I find it hard for anyone involved to advise ignoring his comments, insults, and reverts to an article you've spent 3 months working on including a Wikipedia:Featured article review. Anything else that I would only guess could be labelled as disruption would be our argument on the Talk:Vancouver, but I thought that's exactly what its for, discussion? Mkdw^talk 16:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course you're free to ignore my advice, I was just trying to be helpful and diffuse the situation - I'll offer a full refund :). By not editing the article I meant not editing at all, the matter is trivial and it does not damage the encyclopedia if the article is stuck at either of the versions until the matter is resolved — it's more productive to focus on discussing the issue. Having a thick skin and backing away from a confrontation are the best ways to get progress on these sort of issues. You're both good productive editors.

Admins aren't tied to only working through the Admin Noticeboards and other such pages, we can try to help outwith them. And when reporting 3RR it's within a 24hr time frame. Ta/wangi 16:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

--Yannismarou 20:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

As you set out for Ithaka, hope the voyage is long Knowledge is your destiny, but don't ever hurry the journey May there be many summer mornings when With what pleasure and joy, you come into harbors seen for the first time Don't expect Ithaka to make you rich. Ithaka gave you the marvelous journey And, if I, one of your fellow-travellers, can offer something To make this journey of yours even more fascinating and enjoyable This is my assistance with anything I can help.

new use of "H.N."

Hi; avoiding putting this on Talk:HN because of the archive/blankslate there that's been established, but found myself with a wry grin tonight - I usually have Entertainment Tonight blaring while I'm writing after dinner (it's either that or Coronation Street, as I don't have cable...) and the American edition said "next we're going up to Hollywood North - the SUNDANCE Festival!" And she didn't mean the avalanche of Canadian films and actors/directors there; the Canadian edition (on right now) did use it in that context; but it's clear that the writers for the American edition didn't care, and/or were content to fudge Park City and its filmfest into the Hollywood North paradigm. All I could do was smile....Skookum1 03:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yellowsnow's latest

Is that or is that not an incorrect use of the AFD template? Because if it was a correct placement, the link to its discussion page at the AFD area wouldn't be redlinked, right? I almost reverted it but am unsure of procedure here; does he have the right to randomly place the AFD tag? Or is this one step short of vandalism? Or is it just vandalism plain and simple?Skookum1 03:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed it, and am prepared to accept any repercussions for that action, on the basis that the fundamental claim used for the AfD is flawed. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Runaway production

Mkdw: I saw your edits at Runaway - thanks for getting the internal links as I'd been meaning to go back for those. I've tweaked a few of your edits as I think that some of the earlier stuff was more appropriate - nothing major though. I'm also toying with pulling the "POV" tag. While there certainly are issues to be addressed, Donteatyellowsnow actually accepted the rewrite of the first two sections that I did earlier today, so it might be a good idea in the spirit of calming down the article. What do you think? --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I swapped in "notable", but it didn't read quite right in this context - so I've removed it altogether. What do you think of "pioneering"? --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Mkdw, I don't want to tell you what to do, but... you might want to seriously consider removing your last message on "Dont"'s talk page. While that editor certainly has removed tags in the past, a check of the article history will show that he/she didn't remove it in this instance, and in fact left it intact through a series of edits. The POV tag actually came off during Agent 86's cleanup yesterday. I know tensions are high right now, but removing that message - given that it is in error - could prevent things from getting worse. Just a thought... --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting Langara - the message was sent to that page as well, to a similar sub-page. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Sending warning messages

I was not aware. Thanks for the heads up! Cheers. —Aiden 11:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for the wishes, David, I hope your holidays were fantastic, too :) Take care, and I hope 2007 treats you well! Cheers, riana_dzasta 14:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Your latest warning to Donteatyellowsnow

Sorry about the time lag in letting you know, but I've posted a response to the warning you left on Donteatyellowsnow's talk page. He might not have removed the template you were referring to. Agent 86 22:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:GVRDlogo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:GVRDlogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 14:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Suresh

I've read the sources and looked into it, she's not really notable anymore than a kid who calls the fire dpt. and winds up 'saving' an apartment full of people- and then winds up on CNN the next day because they're "A hero" -- feb^talk 10:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I have not reverted comments. I have, however, removed a message which was intended primarily to insult my judgement and lessen the value of my opinion, which was added after I specifically stated that I had reviewed it. -- feb^talk 11:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I have read CIV, if either one of us is going against it, it would be you. There is ONE comment above the line, which is mine, and I have made it very clear that I have A: Never based an AFD bio vote on the article itself along, and B: Reread the article. In addition, it is NOT a comment or vote by you, so I am not in the wrong for removing it. -- feb^talk 11:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Purple Heart

I wanted to respond to your comment at the AFD for PFC Howard Johnson II, but didn't want to clutter the page. As you might (or might not know), the Purple Heart is given to those who suffer combat injuries or death by enemy action or terrorist attacks. All of the OIF and OEF combat deaths and injuries were presented Purple Hearts, which means sadly, a lot of people, or their families, were presented the medal. However, one thing I wish to ask is this: what kind of medals does someone have to be presented with in order to obtain notability. I know about Knighthoods, Hero titles, the Medal of Honor and top orders, such as the Order of Canada, but can you tell me where that "inclusion criteria" exists? I am not asking to change your vote, since you have your opinions, I have mine. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Portal peer review

Hello, Mkdw! Since it has almost been a month since you nominated the Canadian current events portal for peer review, I hope you received good feedback on how the portal could be improved. If you would like, you could keep the portal listed at the portal peer review for more suggestions for improvement and ask the Wikipedians here for feedback. Also, if you think the portal is ready, you could nominate the portal for featured status. Either way, I hope you've received helpful reviews! Cheers, S.D. ¿п? § 03:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your message on my talk page. I have nominated the Portal:Current events/Canada as a Featured Portal Candidate. The time has come and I think its safe to remove it from the Peer Review list. I don't see it likely that it will get more feedback anyway. As a regular on the Peer Review board, do you have any advice for the Portal. User:Rfrisbie is on WikiBreak right now so I feel relatively alone on this project. Mkdw^talk 11:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Y Done

Nothing comes to mind right now — best of luck with the nomination! Monitor the page regularly and try to fix any suggestion reviewers might have. Happy editing, S.D. ¿п? § 12:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Heh

Thanks David! 'Preciate it :) Clearing out C:CSD is... more fun than I expected it to be ;) Hope you're doing well! riana_dzasta 11:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

That's terrible! Not that I haven't done it before... this place is far too addictive, and I suspect it will become even more so now :) riana_dzasta 11:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

FP Nomination

Hi, although I'm on an indefinite break, I'll keep an eye on the Canada Current Events FP nom, since I already encouraged you to go for it. I'll put it under the "continuation rule" and help out if needed. Since I'm off the clock, so to speak, please make any replies about this topic here. Good luck, Rfrisbie 13:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Knock it off.

How about you knock it off and let me have my user page the way it was. I have no idea what you're talking about with the Chicago vandalism, but it wasn't me. So mind your own business and leave me be. Thank you and I hope you have a great day, evening, night, or whatever the case may be where you're from. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.0.108.141 (talk) 06:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

If you are wondering about some of the warnings you are receiving, I suggest you take a look at the contributions associated with your IP at Special:Contributions/208.0.108.141. If you're using a shared computer or using an ISP such as AOL that rotates your IP, you may want to create a registered account to separate yourself from vandals that may be using your IP to destroy content on Wikipedia. I would also like to take this time to remind you about WP:CIVIL and not bite other users on Wikipedia. Mkdw^talk 06:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)