Jump to content

User talk:Ckatz: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
MiszaBot III (talk | contribs)
m Archiving 1 thread(s) (older than 5d) to User talk:Ckatz/Archive 10.
Jrclark (talk | contribs)
Skiing links: new section
Line 85: Line 85:


[[User:Jkyleg|Jkyleg]] ([[User talk:Jkyleg|talk]]) 21:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
[[User:Jkyleg|Jkyleg]] ([[User talk:Jkyleg|talk]]) 21:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

== Skiing links ==

Linked site is affiliated with and cited by other sites not removed from articles, which also feature minimal advertising. Site contains detailed historical information and photos, both of which are used in Wiki articles. Data is well researched, site cited in major publications, and has not been called into question. Only one user as been removing the link (while not removing any other links). [[User:Jrclark|Jrclark]] ([[User talk:Jrclark|talk]]) 18:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:20, 8 June 2011

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
Archive

Archives


Index
Page One
Page Two
Page Three
Page Four
Page Five
Page Six
Page Seven
Page Eight
Page Nine
Page Ten





Frequently asked questions

  • Where can I learn more about editing Wikipedia?
  • 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?
  • 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

Still trying to get a response

Re: Your undo of my Locations in Jericho edit

How is what I wrote any more speculative than speculation about St. Louis or any of the other cities with unconfirmed status? I used information from the show combined with factual statistics about the populations of those cities and arrived at a reasonable conclusion. Please respond to SethJL83@gmail.com.

Ckatz,

You removed an external link I recently added to Wikipedia. This is not a promotional link. It is a unique link because it provides an ENTIRE list of Mahayana Buddhist Canon in English. Other sites may have some translations but not all texts not yet translated, which is an overwhelming majority. It should be clearly noted that some of the other links only contain a portion of the Mahayana sutras rather than a complete or comprehensive archive of Mahayana sutras.

I want English speakers to see the extensive list of titles in the Mahayana Buddhist Canon/Tripitaka/Sutras. If external links is not the best method, feel free to suggest other methods, but I believe this is a worthwhile contribution and link.

Thanks, Guo Cheen

Mail!

Hello, Ckatz. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Concerning April 16, 1966

Hello CKatz

I have made an editorial contribution of a verifiable date (April 16, 1966) concerning the production period of The Prisoner (TV 1969) and have included the source as the "Daily Express' article by the reporter Martin Jackson. This was been removed. In that this is a verifiable source that adds new information to the body of the article (The Prisoner: Origins and Production) I would like to know upon what basis this has been removed. If you need as an editor to verify this for yourself you can do so at the digital archive UK Press Online.

Thank you in advance for your prompt reply.

Sincerely

A Contributor

66.235.14.67 (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ckatz

Thank you for your reply over at The Prisoner talk.

Sincerely

A Contributor

66.235.14.67 (talk) 22:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mr. Katz,

This is Jonathan Glatzer. My publicity rep informed of the back and forth antics you and he engaged in about a month ago. I told him not to worry about it and to drop it. But today, I had reason to look up the page and couldn't believe you would insist on 6 references to the statement, "the film received mostly negative reviews." Frankly, it seemed punitive. Perhaps my PR guy got under your skin and you wanted to let him know he didn't hold the keys to his client's wiki page. Fine. Point made. But now, I am asking you directly, personally to not take out your ire on me. There should be one reference for a simple statement such as that. Make it Rotten Tomatoes if you want - that ought to do it. But please don't pile on. For work purposes, I have looked up lots of fellow directors with similar resumes to mine and none contain this sort of finger in the eye type of thing - let alone a reference to any reviews good or bad. It would be my preference to not even reference the critics since I think the film shouldn't be defined by them but by audience response which has been decidedly positive - moreover, since it is a page about me, not the film, I would not want the critics to define me either. (Also, the critical response is discussed on the film's page.)

I have no quarrel with you at this time. However, if you ignore this request for fairness or engage in a similar back and forth with me, I will be compelled to take further action as this page, for better or worse, has a direct relationship on my career and my ability to earn a living for my family. Please, make it one reference or remove the sentence entirely.

Lastly, I was never on the Men's Olympic Fencing Team. It's hysterical - and illustrative - that this petulant argument over reviews was occurring a half inch away from a complete falsehood dealing with a major international event. I have no idea how that info came to be on my bio.

Thank you,

Jonathan Glatzer

Jkyleg (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linked site is affiliated with and cited by other sites not removed from articles, which also feature minimal advertising. Site contains detailed historical information and photos, both of which are used in Wiki articles. Data is well researched, site cited in major publications, and has not been called into question. Only one user as been removing the link (while not removing any other links). Jrclark (talk) 18:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]