Jump to content

User talk:Ckatz

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DDD DDD~enwiki (talk | contribs) at 10:11, 20 November 2007 (→‎Interac (Japan): new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Page One · Page Two · Page Three




Moo!

l

You get a cowstar for being SUPERGREAT!

--217.134.237.125 19:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Welcome to VandalProof!

Hi Ckatz, thank you for your interest in VandalProof. I am happy to announce that you are now one of our authorized users, so if you haven't already simply download VandalProof from our main page, install and you're all set!

Warning to Vandals: This user is armed with VandalProof.

Please join the VandalProof user category by adding either: {{User:UBX/VandalProof}} (this also places the user box attached) or, [[Category:Wikipedians using VandalProof|{{PAGENAME}}]] to your user page.

If you have any problems please feel free to contact me or post a message on VandalProof's talk page. Welcome to our team! - Glen TC (Stollery) 10:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Barn + star = Barnstar

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For your continued diligence and hard work towards Greater Vancouver-related articles. :) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 03:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9617 Grahamchapman

Thanks for creating the above article, I think it inspired C-w-l to create articles on the rest of the "Monty Python asteroids". Quite the nice set we've got now! Have a great day, — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • 08:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


About the Vancouver College Article

Wow! Thanks for contributing to the VC article! I go to VC, and I'd like to say what a great job you've done. You wrote some stuff that even I never knew about VC! Again, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.43.200 (talk • contribs)

Signature thanks

Thanks for fixing my mistake with my signature. -- Jeff3000 00:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - I've forgotten before, and I always appreciated it when someone did the same for me. --Ckatzchatspy 00:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
np . Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 09:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Title

I think "of the" is supposed to be lower case - I don't mind either though, The 4400 epsiode is "of the" according to USANetwork.com not sure about Buffy though. Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 09:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7 Minutes to Midnight Edit

Thanks for the edit. I wasn't sure the best way to word that and not take out the other guy's Gattaca movie trivia. I like your rewording. Thanks!

RE: Beyond Jericho update advice

Just wanted to say thanks for the feedback on how to address the info I've gotten on the fate of Beyond Jericho. Your input was, above all else, given in a positive, professional and above all else *adult* manner. That's how an RFI over Wikipedia policy should be handled, and there are those who could use that as a lesson on how to conduct such affairs. 66.90.151.114 05:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! I appreciate the note, and the BSG information as well. Cheers! --Ckatzchatspy 23:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to be of help. Are you planning on using the info in the Pegasus article, or should I bother to add it myself, as it's obviously *not* "fancruft"? Sixty Six 06:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks

Thanks for the userpage revert (although it made me look way more impressive than I am ;) ). -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 19:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Ckatz, it was very thoughtful of you to create an edit-count userbox with a comma in response to my moaning. I've checked it out and it works just fine. I think people will appreciate having the choice. Thank you. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 18:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sklocke

Ckatz, I'm for the investigation into user Sklocke's activities. If I can help let me know. He has as you say done some "strange edits" on my user and talk page. I'm more concerned of the vandalism he might be doing to the rest of Wikipedia. I wasn't aware of how to report Sklocke so I'm glad that you have.-BiancaOfHell 20:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Solar System interactive template

The new ineractive image looks great -- I especially liked the touch of having the asteroid belt on both sides of Ceres (and likewise for Pluto and the Kuiper Belt, Eris and the Scattered Disc). On the large Solar System template, I moved the image to the top, just under the "Solar System" banner -- I hope without breaking anything. I also changed the margins so that there was less of a gap between the edges of the image and the edges of the box; unfortunately, I wasn't able to make them match exactly. RandomCritic 20:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The complilation, solar system image is finally finished (on my part), while I had some ideas of improving it while doing it, it would require starting form blank, and I'm not going to do it. The first version (in latin) of the image took almost full two days to do and I believe that a more experienced image processer could do a better version in a day (if the scale can be modified to allow larger images of the planets). Then maybe someone finds an even larger Eris or something, and that would require again a new scale to be adopted... Dreg743 13:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your support

It's been a long haul, and I really do appreciate you and everyone else who stepped in to help. Any ideas for another article you think needs improvement? Serendipodous 10:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colonization of Pluto

What needs citation, I assure you all on that page can be found at a website please tell me what it is.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Post Falls Man (talk • contribs) 01:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I see now thank you, I will put in the Refrences :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Post Falls Man (talk • contribs) 19:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hey, thanks

Got your note - thanks very much! Now, how do I edit my monobook? This is an area I have not ventured into since I've been here.... Tvoz | talk 03:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC) (Meaning, I have not a clue.... I've seen "monobook" but I don't what it is, what it does, what I want from it, or much of anything to do with it!)Tvoz | talk 03:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

trivially easy to do, and awesome! thanks so much! They absolutely should incorporate this into the watchlist Tvoz | talk 03:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The Surreal Barnstar
For your insighfull edit summaries, I proudly award you this barnstar. --Qyd 16:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Luxborealis (talk • contribs) 11:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for the revert

Thanks for reverting my talkpage. It's the second time something like this has happened recently (user with no prior contrib history vandalizing my userpage)... strange. Thanks again! -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 06:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Jelly Belly Award!

Here are some "Wikibeans" for being a very GOOD VandalProof user!

This message is issued from Loop 101 Dead!. If you have any questions, send it to my talk page. 15:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Heroes

You're welcome, and thank you for the awesome work you do on the articles as well! - fmmarianicolon | Talk 23:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just tidying up my talk page...

when I realised I never said thank you for the very nice compliment you paid me over getting a GA notice for Solar System. I have to say, the process of getting that article up to code was fairly ardurous, and I really appreciated your help, particularly in the whole "planet vs. dwarf planet" edit war. Serendipodous 08:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for the autocollapse imagemap hybrid for Solar System footer!

Thanks so much: I really really like how it came out. I hope other people like it, too.

For a bit of amusing historical context, check out Talk:Solar_system/Archive_1#Navigation_footers for the original discussion of the design of the footer 3 years ago. I'm glad that WP now has fancy stuff like imagemaps and collapsible tables... we can now present a lot more information in the amount of space. hike395 14:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might be happy to find out users are now no longer taken off-wiki by the banner.

Thanks for the revert

Thanks for reverting my user page to a non-koran-quoting version; much appreciated. Mike Peel 19:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TV templates

Yes, your changes have improved the template considerably: less aggressive, more helpful. I threw a few ideas down on a blank template that were generated by an equally blank mind! We need to prepare a few more templates for other stages in the review, so have a think about the wording for them, also. Thanks. Gwinva 18:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Farscape Episoldes

I have replied to the talk page. I'll add only that as you are very familiar with WP:CONSENSUS, WP:FICT, WP:WAF, and WP:EPISODE, your actions in my view border on vandalism. Wikipedia has asserted standards for a reason and your actions are wilfully flaunting those standards. As I said on the talk page, if you disagree, you need to change the standards of notability as they currently stand. These episodes will be changed back to redirects unles you can demonstrate real world notability backed up by reliable sources. Eusebeus 14:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ckatz's actions are quite right as per policy (WP:CONSENSUS). I suggest you read the discussion on the LOE talk page, Eusebeus, also a re-read of the guidelines would help! Matthew 15:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus of a small group doesn't override that of the site. The current standards held within WP:V, WP:N, and WP:RS that are placed into WP:EPISODE are certainly not to just be passed off by fans with blanket assertions of notability. TTN 15:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for admitting that TTN, hopefully you'll discuss before declaring "consensus" now, where there is none ;-)! Matthew 16:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, consensus lies in the policies and guidelines of the site, not fans. Just because a bunch of you object doesn't mean anything in regards to it. I know that you don't like WP:N or any of its sub-topics, but that doesn't really matter. TTN 17:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to provide something that supports you? As it stands I'm not able to see a line of text that supports you remotely. Matthew 17:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I don't know...the fact that the polices and guidelines require real world notability established by reliable sources for all topics, and that if topics cannot establish that notability, it's removed, regardless of how many people like the topic? TTN 17:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To quote the guideline itself "Articles about fictional topics that are notable should be given time to develop.", and several users have established notability for multiple articles… even so I notice these are being redirected anyway. The consensus on the talk page (whether you wish to accept it or not) is that these articles can be improved with secondary sources, ergo will be given the time to be improved. I'd say one year is a reasonable allotment of time :-). Matthew 17:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing has shown that all the episodes can be improved. Only the first episode has anything going for it, and what it has barely does a thing for it. Four or five episodes random episodes would have to be completely fleshed out (more than a few sentences in each section) for all to be safe. What you're talking about is just a silly fan blanket that holds no water. TTN 17:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Sorry to be repetitive, but consensus is apparently misunderstood by Matthew, CKatz and others. When consensus is referred to in Wikipedia discussion, it always means 'within the framework of established policy and practice'. Editors weighing in on a specific topic on a talk page does not trump the larger community consensus. Matthew and Ckatz, you should bring up your views at the ongoing debates on Fiction & notability. !Voting against a merge at the talk page is of no consequence as long as those guidelines and policies are extant and supported. Eusebeus 15:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Eusebeus for providing a reply that supports me, because these policies clearly don't support you :-)! Please also remember that we don't "vote" on Wikipedia. Matthew 16:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you need any help with the Farscape issue, ckatz? I don't think that the episodes should be deleted--I've made a number of contributions to the pages--so I am happy to add links to show relevance or whatever, though that will take a lot more time than just adding summaries and such, which is what I was doing before. I think it's silly to get rid of all the work we have already done, just because we haven't added those extra supporting bits yet.QuizzicalBee 19:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Matthew, I think you are being deliberately obtuse with this mindless gainsaying. I quoted the key provision in the Consensus policy: it always means 'within the framework of established policy and practice'. Unfortunately, your desire to retain individual episode articles contravenes established practice and policy, which requires real-world notability and reliable third party sources. I am not suggesting that this cannot change (per WP:CONSENSUS), but you need to take up the discussion at the main policy page. Grousing on the Farscape talk page (or your other fave tv series pages) is not meaningful. You need to change community-wide views on notability through the presentation of a limpid argument as to why tv episodes should not be subject to the same standard of notability. I also agree with TTN's point above. There is no compelling evidence that, as the guidelines and polciies currently stand, any of these episodes can satisfy the criteria. Eusebeus 18:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Note to Eusebus

I'm not interested, frankly, in a pointless war of words with you. However, I will say that it is very telling that you chose to respond to a disagreement over content with a carefully veiled personal jibe - that being the insinuation of vandalism on my part. I won't dwell on the insulting nature of your comment, other than to note that a) even the most cursory examination of my contribution history (and absence of blocks and warnings) would demonstrate that I spend an enormous percentage of my time on Wikipedia removing vandalism, and b) you obviously couldn't be bothered to make such an obvious, essential check of said records before hitting "save". It is also interesting to point out that, according to your note on this page, my actions "border on vandalism" because I am "very familiar" with Wikipedia's policies. However, at the Farscape talk page, you stated that I was "unfamiliar" with these same policies. Either I'm a really, really quick study (given that the messages are only three minutes apart) or else you're just saying whatever you feel like in order to try to justify your actions. Kind of sucks, really, and it is completely contrary to what this project is supposed to be about. --Ckatzchatspy 04:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I am sorry I misspoke and you are right to note the discrepancy between my two comments, but I suspect nonetheless that you know what I mean. More importantly, would you care to address the actual issue at hand: namely, have you attempted to amend the notability guidelines in the relevant fora and if so with what result? If you haven't I would appreciate not having policy-driven actions (redirects) reverted simply because you happen to be a fan of the series. Eusebeus 06:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is another case of Eusebeus using wikilawyering and his length of time editing wikipedia to manipulate wikipedia policy to suit his own opinion. His recent involvement at Chris Conley and continual reversion (against community consensus) while failing to comment or discuss edits on the articles talk page, are direct evidence of his arrogance. It seems that causing conflict in his eyes far outways the benefits of the encycopedia. Hal 18:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pages

Done: A Prefect Murder 162402541


Done: Twice Shy 162402670 Done: Bad Timing (Farscape episode) 162402134 Done: We're So Screwed Part III: La Bomba 162402145 Done: We're So Screwed Part II: Hot to Katratzi 162402154 Done: We're So Screwed Part I: Fetal Attraction 162402167 Done: Prayer (Farscape episode) 162402178 Done: A Constellation of Doubt 162402208 Done: Bringing Home the Beacon 162402228 Done: Mental as Anything (Farscape episode) 162402271 Done: Liars, Guns and Money Part I: A Not So Simple Plan 162403283 Done: A Clockwork Nebari 162403297 Done: The Ugly Truth 162403305 Done: The Locket (Farscape episode) 162403311 Done: Won't Get Fooled Again (Farscape episode) 162403351 Done: Liars, Guns and Money Part II: With Friends Like These 162403230 Done: Liars, Guns and Money Part III: Plan B 162403214 Done: Die Me, Dichotomy 162403197 Done: Self-Inflicted Wounds Part II: Wait for the Wheel 162403188 Done: Self-Inflicted Wounds Part I: Could'a, Would'a, Should'a 162403158 Done: Suns and Lovers 162403154 Done: Season of Death 162403145 Done: Relativity (Farscape episode) 162403069 Done: Losing Time 162403062 Done: Green Eyed Monster (Farscape episode) 162403051 Done: Thanks for Sharing 162403022 Done: Eat Me (Farscape episode) 162403015 Done: Meltdown (Farscape episode) 162403010 Done: Incubator (Farscape episode) 162403001 Done: Scratch 'n Sniff (Farscape episode) 162402910 Done: Beware of Dog (Farscape episode) 162403355 Done: Look at the Princess Part II: I Do, I Think 162403371 Done: Look at the Princess Part III: The Maltese Crichton 162403379 Done: Look at the Princess Part I: A Kiss is But a Kiss 162403465 Done: Dream a Little Dream (Farscape episode) 162403481 Done: My Three Crichtons 162403486 Done: Home on the Remains 162403533 Done: The Way We Weren't (Farscape episode) 162403558 Done: Picture if You Will 162403562 Done: Crackers Don't Matter 162403652 Done: Taking the Stone 162403661 Done: Mind the Baby 162403662 Done: Vitas Mortis (Farscape episode) 162403671 Done: Family Ties (Farscape episode) 162403701 Done: Bone to Be Wild 162403720 Done: The Hidden Memory 162403730 Done: Nerve (Farscape episode) 162403736 Done: Through the Looking Glass (Farscape episode) 162403802 Done: A Human Reaction 162403812 Done: Durka Returns 162403823 Done: Jeremiah Crichton 162403827 Done: The Flax 162403870 Done: Rhapsody in Blue (Farscape episode) 162403880 Done: Till the Blood Runs Clear 162403886 Done: Thank God It's Friday, Again 162404019 Done: DNA Mad Scientist 162403958 Done: They've Got a Secret 162403891 Done: That Old Black Magic (Farscape episode) 162403966 Done: PK Tech Girl 162404000 Done: Back and Back and Back to the Future 162404020 Done: Throne for a Loss 162404037

Done: Exodus from Genesis 162404081
He reverted your reverts, so I reverted his reverts. Matthew 17:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Heroes

As a member of the WP:HEROES, i'm asking you to step over to the show's main article, and help out in the Helix section, it's a mess. Also, consider reporting that IP above to WP:AIV to get them blocked for that mess above. ThuranX 19:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aluminum/aluminium

Can you explain what you mean by "consistency with regard to science" in the edit summary for this change? It seems to me that the article is written in American English, in which aluminium is a misspelling. Rracecarr 03:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meerkat Manor

Hi. The external links that I added to Meerkat Manor are very interestng to fans of the show. Please do not delete them. They are all legitimate links. Grundle2600 12:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Bush

Mr Bush also made some weird changes in Ceres. I've asked him why on his talk page. Jim77742 06:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the page exsist now. I finished it.

Heroes Infobox template

I cannot seem to find the actual infobox structure that shows the font colorings of the Heroes template. Do you know where it is? I've looked at most of the items marked 'Heroes template', but none of them shows where the text is white on a black background. Help? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Farscape

Hi Ckatz, I've sent you an email. Matthew 12:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

If I might ask, how do you think I could have handled the situation/arguement/disagreement (whichever you perfer) with JPG-GR? To me, I think I handled my temper well, but I would like to know how I can improve on that. - NeutralHomer T:C 09:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Episode title format on Sarah Jane Smith article

Why is it correct to format certain episode titles with quotes, while most are italicized? -- AvatarMN 17:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. There's a long explanation/discussion about the formatting at the Doctor Who project page. In a nutshell, Wikipedia convention is to use quotation marks for episode titles. The DW project, however, got into the habit of using italics instead, I think due to the fact that many titles refer to multi-episode serials rather than single episodes. The convention initially carried over to the new series, but more recently consensus was reached to move toward conforming with Wikipedia's guidelines. The new episodes were done first; I'm not sure what the plan is for the older ones. Hope this helps. --Ckatzchatspy 03:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heroes Plot rewrite.

Nice assist on that Forst season plot rewrite, Just noticed it now. Looks great. I think between us, we've gone from a craptabulous list to a solid, strong summary. great job in expanding in a neutral, major points only relevant manner. ThuranX 03:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On this...

Hey there! I think it was a good faith revert on your part...but it seems that you re-added the vandalism that Caltas reverted. Could you please look more closely next time? -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 08:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep...it must definitely have been a mistake on your part; your contributions provide enough explanation. Thank goodness I always check first, otherwise you would've gotten a Test2 template for all the wrong reasons (no offence there). See you around. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 08:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ckatz,

I am leaving relevant info and links at the bottom of pages that meet your guidelines for external links but you are still deleting them. For example, I was reading info about the Mustang on Wikipedia and linked users to a site containing reviews for all Mustang years. Under your "External Links" guidelines it specifically says "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews" should be accepted to Wikipedia.

Why are they being deleted?

Redroller —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redroller (talk • contribs) 18:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you reverted my edits to Heroes

I see that you've reverted my edits to Heroes, where I added a seperate sections for Current and Former character, and also added dates to leaving/joining characters. Your reason was that it was "non-standard" (which I dispute, see (Characters of Veronica Mars, for example, it is similar to what I did, though it doesn't use seperate sections. X-Files also notes when characters joined and left) and "non-necessary" (please explain also). The information is definitely useful for newcomers to the series and former characters need to be noted as such. Is what I did to the article harmful in any way? I should think not. What is your reasoning in reverting my edits (please respond in the talk page of Heroes)? Mrmoocow 08:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are several issues with regards to how you restructured the section. First off, there is no need whatsoever to separate "former" and "current" cast members. We treat the series as a whole, and the cast list reflects it as such. (Both of the examples you've used, Veronica Mars and X-Files, avoid separate sections.) Similarly, your use of years isn't the most effective way of representing cast information, as a) viewers tend to think in terms of seasons rather than years, and b) the series is broadcast internationally, and Wikipedia itself is international. What North America sees as "current" is not necessarily so for other regions. Personally, I have no problem with indicating when a character joined or left a series, but given the problems with your changes as a whole, the only viable option was a revert. Hope this answers your questions - please feel free to ask if you have more. --Ckatzchatspy 09:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, I'm not American, and yeah, I considered using Seasons instead. Would it be okay if I didn't seperate them into sections, and instead of putting in Years, I add Seasons next to former and new cast members? I mean just keeping it the way it the way it is except also adding dates to people who joined in season 2/were recurring previously and people who have left. Will it be alright? Mrmoocow 05:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Something simple, such as "(season one)" or "(season two, recurring in season one)" might be suitable. (FYI, I never presumed you were American; I was only referring to the fact that the series airs in North America ahead of many other parts of the world.) --Ckatzchatspy 05:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are the characters organized in a specific structure currently? If so, what is it, and if not I've hardly made it harder to read. Mrmoocow 08:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alphabetical order, as per most other series articles. With your list, there was no easy way to find characters - some were alphabetical, others were grouped at the bottom. --Ckatzchatspy 08:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scrubs (TV series)

Rather weird that a 11th Grade honor student is naratting a major TV show. Will (talk) 09:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calgary, Edmonton & Halifax Regional Municipality

I would like to have the links re-added to the external links section of the pages for Calgary, Edmonton and Halifax Regional Municipality.

These sites are travel and information portals for these respective cities. I believe these sites meet the linking criteria. In fact I know they meet the criteria because there are other links from sister sites on Wikipedia.

These sites are considered valuable online resources and already have links from municipal government sites, Canadian University libraries, airports, etc.. The database listings on these websites are free. There is a minimum amount of direct advertising.

I would also argue that these sites have at least the relative importance of current existing links.

Therefore could you please re-add these links.

Thank you for your consideration.

Also can you explain what criteria the following websites meet --

On the Halifax Regional Municipality I see these links...

1 - Halifax Search Engine - which is just a website with a Halifax news feed and the regular Google Search Engine. I don't think this merits inclusion.

2 - 2 links to HalifaxInfo.com

3. Halifax Travel Guide - HalifaxKiosk.ca

Thanks, Robert Exell villagelynx@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Villagelynx (talk • contribs) 15:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

further to your last note

If you are not the administrator for these pages, why is it that you asked to have them removed.

I don't understand why you have authority to do this and while other administators have already approved similar links to other pages?

Can you please advise who I need to contact and the process required to have this corrected.

Thanks.

Villagelynx 17:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick "Undo" question

How do you undo an edit without undoing anything in between? I mean, when there's an edit you want to undo but it's two changes back how do you undo that edit without undoing the most recent ones? Thanks for the help. Padillah 18:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Useful feature, indeed. There is an "undo" link in the page history - click it to have the option of undoing that edit. Alternatively, if you need to remove several edits in a row, use the "diffs" option and undo that. (This works for edits by more than one editor.) Note that the edit will fail if there have been changes to the selected text in the meantime. For example, if Editor A vandalises a section, and Editor B edits a different section, you can undo Editor A. However, if Editor B makes a change to the same section of text, you can't undo Editor A's change. You could, however, undo Editors A and B if Editor C hasn't changed that section, and so on. This might not be the clearest explanation - please let me know if that is the case. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 21:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TheRingess

I saw your message on TheRingess's page, complaining about how she deleted text from The Day After etc. She does this sort of thing all the time, deleting other people's contributions. I've been complaing about it for months. Are you an official of some kind? If so, put the boot in. Reasoning doesn't work.

If you want all the gory details about the hassles I've had with her, just go to the Medcab link at the top of my talk page.

Sardaka 09:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ckatz,

I appreciate your comments looking out for my status on wikipedia. Although, the posts I've added are not copyright infringements because NBC and News Corp (Fox) have partnered up with MSN Video and AOL Video. See article below. Therefore, it is legal to try and engage users in video and attract them to free content, right? I don't work for either so that's important too

http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/10/hulu-integrating-with-msn-aol.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfwg22 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

toronto - york u

Why did you revert my commentary that York's schulich business school is among the world's best and that Osgoode is a flagship and prestigious Canadian law school and is the largest common law school in Canada? All of these things are facts that are as relevant as U of T being a world leader in biomedical research. If you disagree with any of it let me know which part (ie use of "flagship" and "prestigious"), cheers Cyril2006. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyril2006 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EverybodyHatesChris

Editor was unblocked after I spoke with the originally blocking admin and the blocked editor. I'm aware of the alternate accounts and block evasion. If he's inserting original research, talk to him about it. If he keeps doing it, let me know. I'm keeping an eye on the situation.--Isotope23 talk 12:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TI99-4/a

Well, I knew it couldn't last, but it was new content, and I've long been annoyed to know about that little arrangement, where every blank bit of audio recording media you buy lines the pockets of the RIAA, whether or not you're copying with it, or putting something else entirely, on it. Because of me, some music recording official got a "royalty" on a program written in BASIC. Still, you were right. It wasn't the right spot, just a sidenote pointing to an old annoyance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean.Roach (talk • contribs) 22:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Planemo

Please read the new topic that i wrote in the "Planemo" discussion section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onsly (talk • contribs) 19:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Rating Charts

Why are they being deleted, there on evey other page? I was just bringing those shows so evey 07-08 show is the same. Look at other shows, I didnt create those but there still there? Its encyclopedia type information because people can see if a show is in danger of cancellation. Please can we work this out? I also noticed you put "non encylcopedic charts" what makes them encylcopedic charts? Please get back to me ASAP. --Yankeesrj12 15:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You still have not gotten back to me, but you had time to remove it once again. Every page, old shows and new, have a Nielsen Ratings page. I believe it should stay because it presents info about the show. --Yankeesrj12 02:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are many bits of information about shows that do not qualify for inclusion. Countless bits of trivia are added on a daily basis across the television articles; some are deemed suitable for an encyclopedia article, while many others are removed. Does it mean the subject material isn't interesting? Not necessarily - just that it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Take a look at the the articles for mature series - those such as The Simpsons and Doctor Who, with strong Wikiprojects and hundreds of editors. Then, take a look at the articles for the newer, "hit" series such as Heroes and Lost. You'll see that they do not include week-to-week ratings information. Ratings, when included, are treated on a season-to-season basis. Hope this helps. --Ckatzchatspy 04:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see why you deleted ratings for Traveler, but I think ratings for new series, such as Pushing Daisies, and Back To You should have week to week because they are new and you dont have seasonal info yet, but after the first season its only season-to-season info. --Yankeesrj12 19:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond your observation of other (much longer running) television series could you please elaborate on how you decided that a ratings chart for a show like "Pushing Daisies" isn't encyclopedic? The chart in that case shows a very important trend of dropping viewer-ship and as the show hasn't completed a full season it is impossible to present the numbers of a seasonal basis. So in that case, could please provide a concrete reason why you have decided that the weekly chart is not encyclopedic? --Prudhommea

I was just wondering the same thing. TV articles are supposed to describe how well a show is received and this seems like one of the few scientific indicators of a shows reception over a period of time. How does averaging a show's performance over a whole season demonstrate this in a better way than on a week by week basis? Hewinsj 23:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tabula Rasa

The phrase "tabula rasa" is rarely used in modern media, so much so that a large portion of the population would not understand the meaning. Despite this, two "unrelated" media releases occurred with the same title on the same day.

Thank you for confirming what I feel has been happening to Wikipedia lately; it is no longer a collection of linked information. It is a collection of opinions by the few who deem themselves superior on a baseless argument.

Edit: I do, however, acknowledge that a "list of trivia" seems to contradict the concept of notability; perhaps trivia isn't the right word. Maybe you'd like to look at incorporating the information in a more suitable manner than outright eliminating it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.50.145 (talk) 06:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had to remove the text again. While I appreciate the coincidence (and do find it interesting), the reality is that without some form of proof as to a connection, it is not considered to be encyclopedic. Are the game's creators Stargate fans? Perhaps - but computer games are released around this time anyways to meet the Christmas season. Are Stargate Atlantis producers fans of the game? Again, perhaps - but it is highly unlikely that they would alter the plot development of a season to match a game release date that could well change on short notice. However, if you feel strongly about it, please bring it up on the article's talk page. --Ckatzchatspy 07:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to say that there is a connection; the fact that they share a release date and an uncommon name is just that: a fact. As a hypothetical situation, say someone is writing a paper on the business dynamics of television show production, and they are taking Stargate Atlantis as a case study. While I don't condone citing Wikipedia as a valid reference, it is most assuredly a good "first-approximation" to whatever you are researching; a kind of jumping-off point. This person comes to WP in search of information regarding these business practices; wouldn't they want to know of this coincidence? This would allow them to dig deeper and do more research and figure out if there actually is a connection or not. If they find one (or don't), they may even be so kind as to update the article along the lines of "The dates were chosen to coincide because of a contract signed on blah blah blah" or even "Despite the coincidence of these dates coinciding, the producers have confirmed that there is no connection to the popular video game", both of which would be useful improvements.
As another hypothetical situation, say a fan (of either the game or the show), or even someone else, has an opportunity to speak with the people in charge. If they are unaware of this connection, they can't ask anything about it. Just because not all the details of a particular fact are known yet (i.e. why, how, when, etc.) doesn't mean that fact is useless. Make a note of it, and SAY that the details aren't known. When someone down the line finds out, they can add in the details as they become available.
Take a look at the article as it is now: "The episode borrows heavily from the Christopher Nolan film Memento." How is this any more "notable"? This person did not reference any proof that there is a connection to the movie. Are the Stargate producers (or whoever) fans of the movie? Who knows? The only real connection to the movie was the concept of memory loss (hardly a unique idea). At the very end, you could say there was ONE reference (but most definitely not a heavy borrowing) when Ronon tells Major Lorne to look in his pocket and he finds the picture of Sheppard with the note "He is your commanding officer."—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.50.145 (talk) 16:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ripping

Blocked them all. Let me know if any more pop up. --Stephen 09:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the titles

Hi. OK, no problem for my cancelled contributions. I just saw some other series episodes' articles had international titles (in many languages for a change, lol) and decided to add those for Heroes. No offense was meant and none was taken. See ya. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SaniOKh (talk • contribs) 13:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sections

I never knew that about the sections. Interesting! I can honestly say that you are correct in your edits and I can't disagree with any of them. haha :) EverybodyHatesChris 09:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to give the section just below overview a title. For instance, there is a section called recordings and airings but the section just below overview does not have a title. I thought of background but that doesn't sound right to me. You seem to know the rules around here and have a good mind for this stuff. What is a name for that section? EverybodyHatesChris 10:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It generally wouldn't have one, as it is described by the "Overview" heading. --Ckatzchatspy

That's for the whole section I thought, but nevermind I will think up something my self EverybodyHatesChris 10:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: episode titles

Hi. I just looked on Wikipedia more carefully, it appears tha the presence or the absence of those titles isn't a "general" feature. In fact, some of the series have international titles, some don't. I saw international titles in series "Buffy the vampire slayer", "Charmed" and "Alias" (those titles are placed in articles devoted to episodes, just as I tried to do with Heroes), that's all that came to mind, but I'm sure there are more. However, those who don't have articles devoted to episodes don't have international titles. Lost doesn't seem to have them or episodes' pages neither (and, while I'm at it, Nip/Tuck obviously doesn't have those titles at all :P ). So, if you seem to be in charge, I guess it's up to you to decide whether you put those titles or not, because it won't be wrong either way. See ya! SaniOKh 12:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

edit

hope you don't mind a minor edit I made on your front page ;) EverybodyHatesChris 04:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article assessment - Judge Judy

As requested here I've assessed Judge Judy. I've included a summary of my thinking here.--Opark 77 11:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ckatz...

I added some content to the 2010 Olympic section on the Whistler, British Columbia Wiki page and supported it with a link but both are gone....???

What is up...???

I thought people could edit the source and add content it is common knowledge that the Athletes Village and Housing will be Accessible to the Disabled. I see a Citation there but lets be realistic, these are Disabeld Athletes (Paralympians) that will be staying in those locations....??? Do you think they will be building stairs and barriers to access these places knowing full well a mobility restricted person will need to access it?

It is the same location for Paralympians as it is for Olympians... They are "not" going to spend another $ 10 Billion dollars to build seperate housing or another village for the 2010 Paralympians..

Where would they even put it? If you have ever been to Whistler you know how limited the space is and how expensive everything is....

I am "New" to Wiki editing so help me out here...

I went through the trouble to register and provide information for everyone about the disabled in Whistler on your page, I really can't understand why it is knocked off already.

Do I need to back up things that are obvious with supporting documents if I have to do this for everything I contribute I won't bother making another contribution.

Kellis —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellis99 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor (Doctor Who)

All I'm doing is adding a footnote that essentially says the same thing as the fourth footnote found in The Master (Doctor Who). If you're going to delete mine saying it's a 'theory', then you have to delete the same footnote from the Master for exactly the same reason or you're being unfair to me. HalfShadow 17:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Interac (Japan)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Interac (Japan), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interac (Japan). Thank you. J 03:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Doctor Who (1996 film)

The novels are clearly set just before (Lungbarrow) and just after (The Dying Days) the TV movie. Whether they are canon or not is another issue entirely. Considering the fact that many people don't even consider the TV movie itself canon, and that Doctor Who has never been all that big on canonicity, I added them to the succession box. If you don't think they should be there, I can see that too. — BrotherFlounder 17:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Macintosh litigation

Hi. About the litigation, I think that it really isn't vital to have a section devoted to it. Maybe integrate it with the main history section, but the guys at FAR are breathing down my neck to decrease the length. So maybe we could mention the cases elsewhere and throw out most of the section?--HereToHelp 18:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Judge Judy

No problem - least I could do when I can see you're going out of your way to take a patient approach to working with a relatively new editor with some aversion to certain policies.--Opark 77 (talk) 12:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/How to write an episode article

Hi,

I saw that you added The Hollywood Reporter as a source on this page. I had thought of doing that, but found that the content of their website is unavailable to the public. I thus figured it might not be that useful a source for Wikipedia editors. Still, I understand it is a perfectly valid secondary source. Should we keep it on the list?

Incidentally, thanks for formatting the magazine titles. It's something I do somewhat obsessively and I'm surprised I forgot about it.

Cheers,

Acegikmo1 (talk) 10:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interac (Japan)

Hey, Ckatz. I added another comment after your suggestion about searching in Japanese. Please have a look on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interac (Japan). DDD DDD (talk) 10:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ckatz&oldid=172675913"