User talk:Bcatt

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips to help you get started:

• Read the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the Sandbox.
• Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
• If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk or ask me on my talk page.
• To sign your name on a talk page, please finish your comments with ~~~~ (four tildes). The wiki will insert a link to your userpage and the timestamp.
• Not every subject needs its own page. Sometimes it is wiser to deal with certain subjects together on one page. See Wikipedia:Merge and Wikipedia:Redirect for some background. You may want to review Avoiding common mistakes to get started quickly.
• Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck! JFW | T@lk 22:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Another welcome

Hi Bcatt! Welcome to Wikipedia! BTW, nice user name :-). — Bcat (talk | email) 02:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

CHD

Hi Bcatt

I'm also interested in the various CHD articles. Regarding the TGA/TGV dispute, I think it is a no-contest in favor of TGV. Ask 100 people what is TGV and 99 will draw you a sleek locomotive. Which other CHD articles are you working on? seelster, 2 Aug 2005

User categorization

You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Canada page as living in or being associated with Canada. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians in British Columbia for instructions. --Doviende 18:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

wikipedians

Hello, i saw you were listed on the category:wikipedians by fields of interest under drugs/drug addiction, and i invite you to read this and add your name or something else if you want. cheers! --Ballchef 13:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Capitalization of article names

Hi Bcatt. You've made several great contributions to articles about congenital heart defects. Keep up the good work! Just one minor thing: only proper names should be capitalized in article names. Dextro-Transposition of the Great Arteries is incorrect. It should be dextro-transposition of the great arteries. However, Tetralogy of Fallot is correctly capitalized since Fallot is a proper name. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) if you have any questions. Thanks! —Brim 16:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

(moved from my talk page) Since these articles are the names of medicale conditions, wouldn't they be capitalized? I was under the impression that these are proper names...thanks for the help bcatt 19:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

No, medical conditions aren't proper nouns. The only time that they should be capitalized is when they contain the name of a person. It might be a bit confusing since on Wikipedia the first letter of every page is capitalized, which may have mislead you into thinking these terms were meant to be capitalized.

Here are some examples of proper usage to help you get the hang of it:

• correct:heart, incorrect:Heart - not capitalized since it's just a word
• correct:myocardial infarction, incorrect:Myocardial Infarction - two words, but not capitalized since none of these are proper nouns
• correct:Down syndrome, incorrect:Down Syndrome - first word capitalized since it's named after a person
• correct:metabolic syndrome, incorrect:Metabolic Syndrome - not capitalized
• correct:Thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura, incorrect:Thrombotic Thrombocytopenic Purpura - not capitalized

Hope this helps! —Brim 21:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Capitalization

Per your two questions -- I found the ICD9 for dTGA (745.10) at [1]. And you're right -- my comment did cut off in midsentence. I made the mistake of linking to a category, so the category appeared at the bottom instead of in the paragraph. Sorry for any confusion. And thanks again for all the great content you wrote. --Arcadian 21:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

d-TGA

Hi, I hazard the guess that it was you making the comments about spatial orientation of the arteries. Go take a look, sufficient information or too much/little? --Ekko 07:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Line breaks

Hey, your line breaks question at WP:HD has been answered. Hope that solution works for you :o) tiZom_{(the man)} 23:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Xenotransplantation

Greetings, Bcatt! I'm not quite sure about which part of the article you are referring to. The only sentence I intended to delete was "jack n sux dick", in the end of that entry. I also restored a sentence that had been removed by an anonymous user. Perhaps it was not a good idea to label both actions as "revert vandalism", but I thought that restoring that sentence would give more cohesion to the text. Anyway, I won't mind if you decide to undo that. Thank you, Leoadec 17:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem, Bcatt. : ) And thank you for your tip on edit summaries. See you, Leoadec ^(talk) 12:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Metis_flag_blue.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Metis_flag_blue.gif. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 14:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikimedia Canada

Hi there! I'd like to invite you to explore Wikimedia Canada, and create a list of people interested in forming a local chapter for our nation. A local chapter will help promote and improve the organization, within our great nation. We'd also like to encourage everyone to suggest projects for our national chapter to participate in. Hope to see you there!--DarkEvil 17:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Victoriabcemblem.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Victoriabcemblem.gif. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 06:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes

Hi. I've noticed that you're making use of political or religious userboxes on your user page. They can be a nifty way to share about one's personal preferences, but I realized, after a while, that they often detract from the real purpose of Wikipedia, that is, writing an encyclopedia. I'm inviting you to consider these words from Jimbo Wales, the site operator:

I wonder if you might consider simply removing your political/religious/etc. userboxes and asking others to do the same. This seems to me to be the best way to quickly and easily end the userbox wars.

Userboxes of a political or, more broadly, polemical, nature are bad for the project. They are attractive to the wrong kinds of people, and they give visitors the wrong idea of what it means to be a Wikipedian.

I think rather than us having to go through a mass deletion (which is what is likely to happen if the userbox fad doesn't go away), it will be better to simply change the culture, one person at a time. Will you help me?

Thank you for your time.

{{User:Vacuum/sig}} 02:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr.#This Article is Quite Biased

BCATT,

Why on earth do you insist on putting excessive emphasis on my name (and displaying it wrong in the process)?

I saw you added the NPOV to the article cited above and read your reasons. Though you stated you felt the article was biased (which in itself does not merit the label), you only reason was referring to memebers as Saints.

That is still a reason. In addition, I was also agreeing with the comments made previously by 128.125.118.151:

"that the entire article is biased toward history as presented by the Church which has been heavily censored and changed. Reviewing the editing history, it appears any changes actively maintain the pro-Church bias a la FARMS and other Church publicity machines. It basically avoids any of the controversial and damning bits of history that discredit Smith and show the side of his character that the Church won't tell you about because that would, by the Church's own admission, call into question the veracity of the Church. To be a neutral article, it should demonstrate Smith's claims, detractor's claims and pertinent historical fact for both. As it is, most of the article states Smith's claims, or rather the Church's assertions about Smith, as if they were fact. The myriad of Church publications cited for the article should be indicative of the bias. I can only assume this article is being tended by Church interests at the expense of neutrality."

which is the same as giving reasons.

I question your understanding of the Latter Day Saint movement.

One does not need to understand a subject in great depth to recognoze POV. Regardless, you have no real basis for questioning my understanding of the topic in the first place.

Although I explained why this demonstrates a lack of understanding of Mormonism, I felt it would be best to open a dialogue directly with you.

In fact, it does not demonstrate a lack of understanding. I was quite aware that the reference was to "Latter-day Saints". My point, which I made very clear in the first place, was that "Saints" is a misleading term and more neutral references should be used to indicate JS's followers, so as not to confuse or push POV on people who come to the article seeking information.

Saint is a term used to refer to those who follow Christ;

The average person (which, by the way, is the target audience of wikipedia articles, and the reason why all articles are to be strictly NPOV), reads "Saint" as it's most traditional Christian meaning: "A person officially recognized, especially by canonization, as being entitled to public veneration and capable of interceding for people on earth."

Plus, I have NEVER heard any garden variety religious person or group referred to as "Saints" by anyone but themselves. Most especially not by anyone interested in using neutral terms.

if your Bible has a dictionary in the back check it out;

I'd have to go to the library, I don't keep books around if they don't encourage spiritual and intellectual growth.

a topical guide is also helpful.

Do you mean a "guide" that is going to help me learn all about mormonism from a mormon POV?

It is this usage that meant by the term Saint in LDS articles. It does not mean a holy person as is used in historical Christianity

I knew that, the average joe does not know that.

(see Saint).

My point exactly!!!!

I would also invite you personally to join the LDS WikiProject.

No thanks

It is a group of knowledable individuals who strive to ensure balance in all of the articles related to the Latter Day Saint movement.

I'm sure they do

Storm Rider 06:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I saw that you reinserted the NPOV label without providing one reason.

Actually, I provided the following reasons:

• Use of the term "Saints" in reference to Mormons, is only in use by those who are religious, it is NOT a universally used term, and therefore, it's use in the article is misleading
• very little is mentioned about the more controversial topics related to Joseph Smith.
• The article is also very misleading as to JS's alleged "visions" speaking of them as though they are proven fact, whereas they are actually no more than a claim made by JS himself.
• Contrary to your statement directed to the unsigned user above, it is NOT customary for religious articles to be written from the point of view of the people who hold those beliefs...EVERY wikipedia article is supposed to be written in strict NPOV, discussing ALL supportive AND opposing views EQUALLY...wikipedia IS NOT a religious recruiting vehicle
• There are many opposing views regarding mormonisn not expressed here, and therefore the article is heavily biased

You have made broad accusations,

Actually, they are not really that broad, although they aren't nit-pickingly specific

but nothing concise as directed by WIKI policy.

Concise means short

You have been around long enough to know the drill; do it right or it will be reverted.

And I'm sure you've been around long enough to know that your behaviour in regard to this article is inappropriate...and that you are not the be all and end all of what is right and wrong on wikipedia, although you clearly enjoy asserting yourself as such.

Please note that it may be helpful for you to read WP:DNFT

We all assume good faith from others until they prove that their intentions do not merit it.

I suppose your POV is that my interest in NPOVing this article is "proof that my intentions do not merit assumation of good faith" and/or my expression of NPOV concerns are an expression of bad faith...or some other silly notion?

Storm Rider 07:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The use of the term Saint is a term used by everyone who has a modicum of understanding about Mormonism.

Is this one of those typical illogical religiously biased arguments? IE: Anyone who has a modicum of understanding of mormonism IS mormon, and all mormons refer to themselves as "Saints", and anyone who does not believe in mormonism is ignorant on the subject. A clearly baseless and misleading argument.

It certainly is not only used by religious people. Where do you get you come up with this stuff?!?! Bcatt, put your axe down.

I'm the one with the axe? I simply sugested maing the article properly NPOV, you are the one attacking and patronizing everyone who disagrees with YOUR POV.

I have not reviewed all of your past contributions, but you obviously have a good mind and can bring a lot to these articles.

You should take the time to do so..I especially pride myself on being capable of writing an NPOV article on subjects I feel VERY passionately about.

However, take some time to gain a better understanding of the subject matter. You are shooting from the hip and it is not working well.

Really? And your evidence of that is? (non-Church sources, please)

Storm Rider 08:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Notice BCATT

There's that unnecessary and inflammatory emphasis (improperly too) on my name again...only more unnecessary and more inflammatory this time. Hmmmmm.

that you have not followed proper procedure;

I actually was not far off on my procedure, you are simply nit-picking to try to throw me off and "defend" "your" POV article.

most importantly you have not clearly and exactly explained which part of the article does not see to meet NPOV policy and WHY.

In fact, I explained very well what I was having an issue with, you just chose to ignore it. Plus, at the time you were posting this to my talk page, I was in the process of writing out a description which left zero doubt as to what I am referring to. Maybe you should allow a person a proper opportunity to express themselves...the little "watchdog" routine is highly unnecessary.

Broad accusations such as, "There are many opposing views regarding mormonisn not expressed here, and therefore the article is heavily biased and I am going to restore the NPOV tag."

Funny, the NPOV article states that that is a perfectly valid reason for beginning an NPOV discussion.

You have said nothing, but made an accusation.

You just might want to check your own responses, I dare point out that it is you who has said nothing of substance in response and instead have just thrown around accusations and uninformed insults.

If you do not follow policy I will delete the label tomorrow evening.

Perhaps you should pay more attention to making sure you do not abuse wikipedia policy, than you do to trying to discredit people's valid comments based on "they didn't follow the (often simply "suggested") policy to the meta letter.

Storm Rider 08:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

bcatt 11:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)