User talk:Ckatz

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

Archives

Page One Page Two Page Three Page Four

Moo!

l

You get a cowstar for being SUPERGREAT!

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

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 ^T_C (Stollery) 10:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

No problem - I've forgotten before, and I always appreciated it when someone did the same for me. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

np . Matthew Fenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 09:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

You're welcome! I appreciate the note, and the BSG information as well. Cheers! --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Barnstar

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

External Links

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

• Thanks helpin' to clean up the spam external links. --MaNeMeBasat 11:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Banner

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)

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)

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)

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)

Any interest in adminship?

I have not actually created the nomination page yet, but will do so in short order if you are interested in standing for adminship. I suspect you would find it useful to be able to block vandals directly, and you would be well suited to many of the other chores that adminship entails. Please let me know what you decide. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 23:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [1]. --Maniwar (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, do you know what the morse code for "reconstruction" episode is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.149.130.131 (talk) 10:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Dwarf planet

1. Sorry, this was an edit error of mine (since you can see that it deleted some of my previous edits too!)
2. I do not understand your point with this edit].

Cheers! Nergaal (talk) 11:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

mythology

thanks. I will remove the tag. I am done now, but thanks very much. I would really love for you to go through the article. you are fantastic editor and i know you can improve and get rid of any fan cruft or OR, POV or unverified stuff I may have added...lol...I am sure I did...but not intentionally. Anyway, take and look and please improve. I hope all my refs are good. I didnt use any fan sites or local newspapers. anyway, thanks for adding the tag for me...that was really cool of you to do that. have fun fixing the page. i am about to go to the peer review volunteer page and try to get some editors to contrib to a new peer review request i posted.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 05:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

peer review

I was wondering if you could take some time out of your schedule to head over to the Heroes (TV series) talkpage and give us an honest peer review. The page has gone through some major changes in the last few months, and it would be fantastic if a prominent editor/contributor like yourself, could head over and give us at the Heroes Wikiproject some sound opinion and ideas on improvements for the page. We have all worked very hard at improving the page, and we need great outside, reliable and trustworthy users to come over and help us improve. I you are interested in joining the peer review discussion with other prominent users/contributors, much like yourself, please follow the link. Thank you very much for your help and your continued effort to improve Wikipedia and its quality! Wikipedia:Peer review/Heroes (TV series)/archive2--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Solar System

Are you sure that info needs to be there? It's all already in Formation and evolution of the Solar System. Serendi^podous 22:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Research guide

Please unschedule this template for deletion. I am doing testing on the template at the moment for possible changes that need to be made before posting it for discussion, which I expect to do in the next few days. There is only one other administrator who has posted to my page and I am working with him on advice to get it to the posting stage. I have a record of all of the pages the research guide appears on and can go back and delete them should the template be rejected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shannon bohle (talk • contribs) 06:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok. See this page for the proposed deletion and my reply.Shannon bohle (talk) 06:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Solar System

Go right ahead; whatever you feel is appropriate. :-) Serendi^podous 20:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Removing of link

• You removed an external link from the article List of films shot in Hamilton, Ontario. No explanation was given for the removal. Why was the link removed? Nhl4hamilton (talk) 08:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hollywood North

Hey Ckatz. I know your work on Wikipedia very well, but in the fairness of neutrality I just want to point out that on the article Hollywood North it is dangerously close to an edit war. I have given User:Nhl4hamilton a WP:3RR warning, but strongly suggest that you guys attempt to discuss the topic further with out making any further changes to the article. Perhaps informing other key contributors to the article about the dispute would allow for a larger discussion. Mkdw^talk 00:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem, and I appreciate the note. I'm also trying to avoid an edit war, as that article has had enough battles in the past with "DEYS". Accordingly, I've proposed what I feel is a possible solution at the talk page; please let me know what you think. Thanks again. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Deletion of television-related images

Hi Ckatz. Sorry for not replying you soon. There seemed a bit misunderstanding here. Please look at my log and check 'What links here' for each image, you will see that I only deleted orphan fairuse images, which did no harm to the illustration of articles. If the image is found in use, I am willing to restore it. Hope this address your concern. Cheers. @pple complain 04:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've restored all images. The rest (putting them in use) is up to you. Cheers. @pple complain 05:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Schulich School of Business

Hello, Ckatz. I wonder about consensus when Wikipedia also provides the following guidance: votes are not necessarily binding. Have I mis-read something? A couple of anonymous IPs, an alumnus and Cyrill... represent a consensus, do they? I can get ten times that number if I asked my friends to join. Then, what? COYW (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Senior editors should answer questions or refer people who want to know to the right place. Let's act on principle. I want to know if ranking MBA programmes, or any programme, constitutes a comercial activity. It seems like marketing to me. How about you? Consensus will always go in favour of self-interested cliques, like alumni are when they subvert a general-knowledge, Wikipedia page into a marketing arm for an institution. COYW (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Editors may give my contributions less "weight", you have written on my page? Why would they bother to check where else I have posted? Why would they not simply deal with any contribution on its own merits? I posted on other MBA sites and have stated my purpose to ameliorate the rankings on (all of) them. You edit the Heroes page, and plenty of others I see, so you do get "Wiki-respect" from me; however, it does mean you can "Wiki-ignore" answering this question: Is it correct to have these rankings (=marketing) on Wikipedia? COYW (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

My history of edits does not indicate a pro-anything position. Others on that Schulich page have selfish agendas. After over a year of reading the squabbling on that page, I feel comfortable enough to use 'have' instead of 'seem to have'. Incidentally, when I "accuse" (as you have written) someone of conflict of interest, all I am doing is repeat wht they have written themselves. Dtorgerson is an alumnus who posts on his own school's page and there is plenty of money tied up with it. His admission alone and/or his pro-Schulich history of edits should raise eyebrows. Please answer this question, too: "Is it OK to post on one's own school page AND tell everyone that you are an alumnus?" Keeping in mind the money that's at stake, it is naive and provocative at best, even if you answer yes. COYW (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I notice you overlooked one of Dtorgerson's interjections into my posts (Dtorgerson 04:45, 13 February 2008) to correct a later one of mine into his. You even moved one of my posts that followed a completed, signed one of his. How is this fair? Was it a simple mistake? I am serious about no longer wanting to work with that editor, yet he still posts on my talkpage, within my posts, changes and threatens to change my edits to pro-Schulich ones. All this from a self-professed Schulich MBA alumnus! I am compelled to respond in kind. The truth is that I asked him not to write on my page or within my posts long ago. He ignores me and persists. Maybe you overlooked how he breaks up my posts. Hell! One of those posts was directed to you. I used a pronoun for you, he butted in right above, and it looks like I am addressing him. Yet, this is all small stuff...

You have not helped me with advice/information for dealing with a COI case. You have not referred me to the right forum or committee. Sorry, but your post on my talkpage does not do it for me ("Hope this helps - please feel free to ask if you have any questions"... More questions?). Here are the two main questions for you: Is ranking data anything less than marketing material for schools and magazines? Are employees and alumni anything less than self-interested posters. I am taking the rest of the month off to see what you do.

Hope this helps us all. COYW (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you just some kind of Wiki-cop or would you like to be more pro-active on this matter. Believe me, it did not start off at that level of devolution. It moved there bit by bit. It takes two to tango, but only one can lead [and I have been wanting to sit down a long time]. That school has had cheerleaders for a long time. It's not right, but it is a fact of lifeon these types of pages. Comments on actual edits, please! Comments on procedures, please. COYW (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Your removal of the external links I added (Danelectro)

I can understand -- perhaps -- why you deleted the external links I added to several articles pertaining to Danelectro, but why did you also delete the link I added to the actual Danelectro page. Much of what other people write on the subject is incorrect, incomplete or just misses the main point -- namely my father's pioneering role in the field of electric guitars and musical instrument amplifiers.

I'm quite new to Wikipedia and don't understand how to carry on a conversation with its editors/overseers. Please respond to me at my e-mail address, howard@pen4rent.com. Thank you very much.

Howard E. Daniel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Howarddaniel (talk • contribs) 10:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello... thanks for the note. Hopefully, the guideline I supplied will help explain Wikipedia's approach to external links. However, I wasn't the one who removed your edit from the main article - that was done by someone else. I see you've restored it, which is fine as it seems valid. If, by chance, it is removed again, you may wish to bring it up on the talk page and explain why you feel it is warranted; that tends to be received better than simply reinserting. (By the way, with regards to "how to carry on a conversation" - you're doing just fine. Generally speaking, questions regarding article content go on the article's talk page, while questions regarding a specific editor's actions are best directed to that person's page.) Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

help with vacation rental page

I made a suggested edit to the vacation rental page but it was removed. I am fairly new to wikipedia so am not sure what to do. I completed the edit summary -- hope that is all that was needed??! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Denise78735 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi

I noticed you made a few revisions to Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles and I was wandering if you had any suggestions for how to improve the show's episode list. It recently went under some big changes and I understand that the show is still extremely premature, but I feel that's reason to make it as strong as it can get right now. If you can, thank you, it's appreciated. But if you don't want to, I understand. Thank you, The no erz (talk) 07:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Sam Tyler

Thanks for clearing up my edit now that you mention it they aren't really theories so thanks - J.Naven 11:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Spaceship moon

Consensus, why? Wikipedia is not a democracy--Tomtom9041 (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Peanuts

Ah - I was confused as to why you had reverted my change, as the rest of the paragraph is written in the past tense, and so it seemed to read better by changing the first sentence into the past tense as well. I wasn't familiar with that particular Wikipedia policy - I will leave the sentance as it is! --DonVincenzo (talk) 04:29, 6 February 2008

Thank you for explaining the logic behind that - it now makes much more sense. --DonVincenzo (talk) 05:07, 6 February 2008

external links removed

Hi Ckatz, you told me you removed some external links I added to some articles. I can understand the one pointing to a video hosted on AOL video (I think) but also the photo galleries and interviews? I've seen several links like those on Wikipedia and I thought linking to photo galleries was OK. They're generally accepted on the web in general (not like videos or song lyrics), so please explain if the problem pertains those particular websites or if it's just because they were non-official photo galleries. So I'll know what to do in the future. Thanks a lot!

PS: if you can, please leave me a message instead of replying on your own page. Thanks.

Outerspace813 (talk) 10:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

External links (Heroes)

Hello Ckatz. How are you today? I was wondering if you can explain your reason behind your edit of the Heroes page external links section. I have read and reread WP:EL and have found no evidence that proves my contribution to the EL section was inappropriate. Of course, I may be wrong on this subject. I was under the impression that wikipedia was supposed to give to an international scope on the series and since NBC is not the only network that shows heroes, i was under the impression that it was okay to link to other official sites for other networks which aired the show. My reasoning for making the edit was moduled after the LOST page...as you know, I love the Lost page. Lost is a featured article and I was attempting to emulate them. Anyway, if you have some time, please respond. I will add your talkpage to my watch list until you respond, so feel free to respond here or come to my talkpage...whatever you prefer. Like I said, you may be right on this subject, as you are more experienced than I; i would just like to know your reasoning and discuss it with you. Also, if you are right, then is the LOST page wrong in having a similar external links section like the one i created?--ChrisisinChrist ^{comments and complaints here!} 03:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Just wanted to chime in here. I also don't know of anything in WP:EL that prevents the links ChrisisinChrist added. Also the Lost article has them now and also had them back in October 2006 when it became an FA. I think they'd be a useful addition. --Centish (talk) 16:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for adding on to my point...that is kinda exactly what I was trying to say, but i said it in too many words. yeah, lost is fa and had a similar if not exact EL section as to the one i made when they got upgraded to featured article. thoughts?--ChrisisinChrist ^{comments and complaints here!} 16:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, I noticed on a lot of pages about books and novels, the external links section has links to all the different official publishers from around the globe.--ChrisisinChrist ^{comments and complaints here!} 18:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

(indent reset)Per WP:EL, there are several reasons why the links should not be included:
(from "What to link")

• Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any.

-As the original broadcaster, NBC's site is the "official" site for Heroes. The other sites are not official Heroes sites, they are promotional pages for the respective networks. (Yes, NBC's page is for promotion as well, but we consider it to be authoritative with respect to the show. Not so the others.)

• Long lists of links are not appropriate: Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links.

-We're not supposed to be a directory service. Yes, we want to be international, but that means having the article reflect a global perspective, not creating an unmanageable list of links to every broadcaster. Do we list every station in every country that has the show? If not, how do we decide what is "worthy" and what isn't?

(from "Links normally to be avoided")

• Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.

-Most of the sites fail this - for example, Seven Network's "page" is a Yahoo site, and TV3's site is a bare-bones episode guide. Further to this, we have no way of verifying information presented on these sites. With NBC's site, we can presume a certain connection between the broadcaster that commissioned the series, and the creative team. With the other sites, they are just networks that bought programming - and their sites are more likely controlled by their respective marketing departments.

• Links mainly intended to promote a website.

-By this, I certainly don't mean to suggest you are biased in choosing the links. However, they serve no useful purpose other than to indicate the website exists.

These are just some of the reasons for avoiding excessive lists. Yes, Lost may well have such lists, and I'm sure you could present other examples. That doesn't mean it is the best solution, however, and there are certainly examples of long-established, highly respected television articles that do not do this. (For example, The Simpsons, which is generally regarded as an example of what we should strive for.) Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for explaining...I understand now...i just needed some clarity...your explanations make sense to me...maybe the lost article should be reassessed for FA status, because that page has a lot of little errors that should not be listed in a fa article. Also, are you an admin? You have a lot of knowledge on WP policy...you should really go for admin status if you are not.--ChrisisinChrist ^{comments and complaints here!} 20:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well said, Ckatz. =) I think those are some very good reasons. --Centish (talk) 04:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

AutoWikiBrowser

Hi,

I have approved you for AutoWikiBrowser. You can get to work immediately (you can download it from here). Good luck!

  jj137 (talk) 01:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the TARDIS edit

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		thanks for the corrections you made to the TARDIS article Ukt-zero (talk) 04:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

That one sentence has been a thorn in my side every since I started editing this - and it wasn't even my sentence to begin with, but somehow it has been attached to my edits now all evening ... it's been changed and changed back so many times that I now wish I would have just left it out of there altogether

grammar is one of my worst areas and I appreciate you going through that article and cleaning it up

anyways, thanks for fixing it up - I've included your corrections into my current edit (thank goodness for the "edit conflict" message) and it should stay that way now

have fun - Ukt-zero (talk) 04:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Why are my links being changed?

Why are my links being removed from the subjects "Dodge Charger" and "Superbee", and why am I considered a "known spammer"? The website being linked to exist purely as a resource to help people find their old cars, and has no profit motive whatsoever. Other links on those subjects bring you to websites that advertise or have google ads, and they are still linked. Why can I look up Juno or Cloverfield and be sent to the official website, where I can purchase tickets? I think you are way off base on this. Please explain. my email is superbeefinder@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbeefinder (talk • contribs) 17:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I still await your reply as to why my links were removed, and why I am considered a "known spammer" The term 'uneducated user" might apply instead. superbeefinder@yahoo.com - please respond. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbeefinder (talk • contribs) 20:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. The links were repeatedly restored, despite cautions and notification that they were not suitable. (I've explained in more detail at your talk page.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Imagery

Yes, that's exactly what I mean (a new image revision). Go ahead and do that if you want for the images you want to keep. We can have my revisions deleted once you're done. Matthew (talk) 23:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Vancouver

Hi Ckatz, do you watch the WP Vancouver page? I'm looking for some feedback there. Thanks. Franamax (talk) 22:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Adminship?

I came across your name while looking for good administrator candidates. I notice you've been asked here a couple times but (apparently) never confirmed. Any interest now? You appear to be quite qualified. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, take whatever time you need. I won't do anything further unless I hear from you. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Come now, let's get this show on the road already. ➪HiDrNick! 18:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixing Vancouver article

Hi Ckatz, I noticed this morning that (at least on my browser), the Vancouver article has been broken for several days, all the references were in plaintext down at the bottom. I restored a good version from Feb. 6. The intervening lost edits were: vandalism; playing with population figures, which I'm not going to try to reconstruct; and this edit you made with AWB. I can't particularly follow what you were doing there, so I'm asking you to have another look and make your changes again.

I'm not sure, but it also looks like the edit you made left the infobox taking up more than half the page, can you check on that when you re-do? Thanks. Franamax (talk) 17:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note; I'll re-run AWB when I get a chance. (IIRC, the changes from the scan were pretty minor.) I also took a look at the page, and the problems with the "Reference" section seem to originate with the IP edits just following where you reverted to. The IPs removed a few brackets from the "ref" and "cite" coding that messed things up. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Sockpuppet possibility on Judge Judy

You may well be right. I do not know the full story behind what happened months ago, however based on the evidence of the past few days, neither side has behaved particularly well, even Jujube. It does not appear than any attempt has been made to bring in outside opinion yet on which side is in the "right" on this one. Please following my instructions to start a RFC. If several neutral editors clearly favor one side, then if the other side continues their attack we have justification for a one-sided block. However, without the input of uninvolved editors to show consensus one way or the other, it is impossible to ascertain which side has the support of the community. If there ARE sockpuppet problems that I have missed, then use WP:SSP or WP:RFCU to investigate them. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Heyo. I've brought the continued sockpuppetry to the attention of checkuser Jpgordon (talk · contribs), who has dealt with EHC many times before. Jayron32's protection and admonishment to all sides is perfectly reasonable given what he knows, but Jpgordon is already very familiar with the extent of the EHC problem here and will probably be willing to take more direct action against the actual problem, which is not the actions of you all by any means. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 18:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC).

deletion at Talk:Vancouver

Hi; just saw your deletion and inline comment....yeah, he as a newbie hasn't provided cited examples of the changes, bot-derived or not (probably just a p.r. hack at VANOC monitoring a watchlist just like the rest of us). But censorship is an issue, and it is his issue. Your removal of his complaint will tend to underscore that; deleting other peoples' talkpage comments is not a standard, I think, unless they're obscene or trivial. This isn't. It would be easier to take on his complaint (her?) if this were the 2010 page, i.e. because of WP:AUTO and associated "don't edit your own shit" rules/guidelines, but this is a Vancouver page; I do agree it's vetted by official p.r./propaganda types; but so are most corporate and university pages (especially in BC IMO).Skookum1 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC) PS given his comments on news coverage items being deleted, that's obviously non-encyclopedic (for the most part) but it might be worth suggesting to such people that they use WikiNews and assemble coverage over there, which is what it's for (and vastly neglected compared to Wikipedia, considering its potential for free-speech/free-press.Skookum1 (talk) 18:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough... you've raised a valid point, and I did consider the whole "removing a complaint about removing stuff" issue when making that change. Given the IP's limited contribution history, and the fact that the only contributions have been POV article text or forum-style talk page posts, I still think it was justified. However, I won't object if you wish to restore it. (Good to see you're still around, by the way!) --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Would another strategy have been to make a collapsed box for it, including your comments on it's inapplicability for Talk:Vancouver? Then it would still be there, but not taking up so much space on the page. (I don't know how to do that myself else I'd probably give it a try) Franamax (talk) 19:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

A good suggestion... hmm... I saw that trick a short while back - I'll try to track down the coding. Thanks. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for at least trying to understand my concern here (I'm the OP - Chris). The Bot allegation is not fabricated. He has his own user page where he proudly talks about his bots.

My apologies if I don't follow proper syntax or etiquette, I am not a coder and don't live on the wikipedia. I'm very concerned about censorship of the wikipedia and wiki information manipulation by agencies or persons representing agencies. Bots fighting bots to lock down dissenting opinions and force a particular slant seem anathema to the wiki concept. IMHO

RFC discussion of User:Quizimodo

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Quizimodo (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QuizimodoTemplate:Highrfc-loop]]. -- soulscanner (talk) 05:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:AM730Vancouveralltrafficlogo.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:AM730Vancouveralltrafficlogo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:AM730radioVancouverBC.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:AM730radioVancouverBC.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

==Deleted signature==

Hello Ckatz.

Thanks for your input on the Schulich School of Business page. As well, I stumbled upon your single purpose account comment on COYW's page and the same advice applies to me. If there is anything else you see that might help improve the discussion, please let me know. I've only really edited one page and I've made lots of mistakes along the way. I'd prefer to make a few less mistakes moving forward.

From the Schulich School of Business history page you restored deleted signatures and asked why they were deleted. I believe that I am the one responsible. I might have removed my own signature accidentally (consequentially?) as I did not realize that I was not logged in when I made some changes to my posts. As I just learned, my assigned IP address appears to be 71.231.77.157. Sorry about that and thanks. I'll be more diligent in the future to ensure I am logged in.Dtorgerson (talk) 13:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Judge Maria Lopez

Ckatz, I can tell you why it was removed. First there's already has a article about Lopez the person, second it still doesn't cite any further references and third her previous cases does not have anything to do with the show, since they are already mentioned in the Maria Lopez article. So unless you can find a valid reason why it should be left on the article, it needs to be changed or it will be removed. Robert Moore 05:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ckatz. I appreciate the advice, but please know that I did read the Wikipedia: External links before posting. I wanted to post entity pages for TV shows that I am interested in. Let me know if this is cool because it is a links to an entity page on the particular TV show and the info is neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article. I felt that it was meaningful and relevant content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobinDagos (talk • contribs) 19:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ckatz for your quick response. Could you show me where is says that in the guidelines? Just want to ensure I have a clear understanding. Because I am not sure what the difference is between posting the entity page of Fancast versus the TV guide, yahoo TV, TV.com, etc. I do not even work for Fancast, but thought it was a cool site to link to because of all the info it has. Thanks again —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobinDagos (talk • contribs) 19:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

We

I noticed that you modified a recent edit of the Earth page to eliminate the use of "we". Note that the MoS says that, "it is sometimes appropriate to use we when referring to an experience that any reader would be expected to have, such as general perceptual experiences." So I thought that was an appropriate use of 'we'. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Any thoughts about how we might rework the line to include "we" and still make it a bit more formal? (Part of why I removed it was because I thought "we know life exists" was a bit casual.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm just hoping for some sort of consensus to emerge from the talk page. Everybody seems to have their own opinion on the matter, so I'm not sure what would be best.—RJH (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Charlottetown edit

Sorry, that was by mistake, didn't notice the edits past this. --Qyd (talk) 23:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Adminship nomination ready

Let me know if there's anything I can add. Like the notice above says, you can transclude the page to WP:RFA or I can. See WP:RFA/N#What to do if you are nominated by someone else. Good luck! —Wknight94 (talk) 04:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Off to a nice start! Keep your eye out for additional questions (one was added recently). —Wknight94 (talk) 02:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Help with Wikipedia

Hi Ckatz:

I am new to Wikipedia entries. I entered in a link to a diagram of a check yesterday and it was removed. You had marked it as a commercial sales site. I wanted to know what, if anything could be done to include that page on the wiki check page.

I know you have strict rules about sales type of pages, but thought that this page was appropriate for the section since it gives users a visual aid. Would it be better if it came from an informational site vs. a sales site?

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks for your help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dadado1 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Quebec

Hello Ckatz. Personally, I'd rather that 'Quebecois motion' be removed from the introduction. But I'll go along with it, in order to avoid 'edit wars'. GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info!

Many thanks for the info on which tense to use!

I can see the logic, now that I am aware of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stile99 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

editing external links

Hi Ckatz, I noticed you are taking our external links down from a couple of pages we have added them. Not sure how you are deciding why our competitors get a link and we don't. Could you publish the criteria by which you decide one publication is okay to link to - but not another. If you are going to pull our links then you should pull all the other external links to our competitors' sites. There has to a consistent rule on external links that applies to all external links and not just the ones you decide to edit out. Regards, Simon Mansfield, President, Space.TV Corporation (spacedaily@gmail.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.243.18 (talk) 07:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia is not for advertising and self promotion. Posting links to your own site violates WP:COI. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 08:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you can't leave some external links and take out others. Either remove all external links that are placed by our competitors or leave ours alone. This is shared resource that is meant to have equal access to all or is it now the private playpen of those that control the software. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.243.18 (talk) 09:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This seems like a non standard rule is being used to decide what's in and what's out. We had a link on all three pages in the past that was there for along time until some decided to remove them. I note that on the Space Exploration page the whole slew of links to well known Space News sites was removed and now only Space.Com remains. So their link is ok - but the other's are not. Again this is selective enforcement that is manifestly unfair and designed to favor one over the other. You either have external links to news sites in this category or news or have none at all. You can't favor one company over another - and that is exactly what you are doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.243.18 (talk) 09:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Please stop restoring the links - they fail Wikipedia's guideline for external links. First off, the link you added to Spacewar! has no relation to the page, other than a similarity in name. The other two links don't add anything to the respective page, I'm sorry to say. That, really, is what we use as a standard, not "equal access". (There are many, many, many space-related sites like yours that do not make the cut.) Beyond that, you have already been advised about the conflict of interest; as a principal in the company, you cannot be considered neutral when it comes to assessing the perceived value of your product. Please don't just keep restoring the links, as it will only result in a block of your IP, or worse, a spam-block of your domain. A more productive approach would be to try to seek consensus amongst editors that there is some merit to including a link to your site. Hope this helps. --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Mate... we are the largest space industry site on the Internet. We are the second oldest space news site after Nasawatch.com. We are the most profitable space news site. I can go on all night. You obviously missed that we were listed on all three pages many moons ago until someone pulled them. This is a classic example of why Wikipedia is no longer seen as neutral but a biased clique where the rules are decided by whoever controls the software. As to spacewar.com - good lord man - where were you today. They just shot a satellite up in orbit. Don't you think there is some relationship between the game and real life. We named the site after the game 12 years ago. Type in spacewar.com to google and what it the first listing. Same with "space news" - the top three/four results includes SpaceDaily.com - and for news about Mars. Again MarsDaily is in top three links. In fact, the Mars Exploration page needs a bunch of links added for - Marsnews.com - Marsdaily.com and Unmannedspaceflight.com. But the way some Wikipedians behave such as here today, has driven people like myself away and we no longer bother to contribute. You are making a decision based on an undefined criteria to favor some and exclude others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.243.18 (talk) 10:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

By all means, please do not contribute. We would prefer that spammers whose sole interest in contributing here is to promote themselves and their websites get lost; it makes the mess easier to clean up after you leave. ➪HiDrNick! 16:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

And quite honestly, you've been explained over and over again why your links are being removed. There's nothing undefined about it, you're violating WP:COI by posting links to your own site. Likewise the links do not satisfy WP:EL. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, there's google for that. Any links included are there because they enhance the encyclopedic article with material not already included or not appropriate for the main article. Simply throwing a link in because it has to do with the subject does not satisfy that criteria. Likewise, "being listed on three pages many moons ago" is not criteria for adding back in as well. As you stated, someone removed them, and that was for a reason. Same reason as now. Finally, complaining about people wanting to contribute being driven away - what have you contributed? All you've done is spam links across articles. I see no attempt to actually add content in your edit history. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 00:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

About the Quebec article

I get your point. However, I am also concerned that just leaving it out altogether will also attract instability. Please see my comment on the Quebec talk page for more details.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Images

Hi Ckatz,

How's it going re-uploading the images you want to keep? I'm planning on tagging some of my remaining fair use uploads tomorrow that I don't believe are essential. If there's any particular images you think definitely needs to stay send me a message and re-upload them (it seems easiest if you upload it under a new file name, though a new revision is fine too).

Good luck with your RfA.

Matthew (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Ottawa blog

I left a message on Montoni's Talk page directing him to WP:EL and explaining why this blog link might get deleted. cheers, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Research on the RFA process

Hello, I am an anthropology student researching the Wikipedia Requests for adminship procedure. As you are currently going through this process, I was wondering if you would be willing to answer a few quick questions.

• Do you believe that the current RFA process is an effective way of selecting admins?
• Do you notice a difference between users who are nominated vs selfnoms?
• Is a week an appropriate length for process? Should it perhaps be longer or shorter?
• Do you think the user's status in the community changes while the user is undergoing the RFA process? How about after the RFA process is over?

If you are willing, please leave your answers on my talk page or e-mail them to me.

This research will not be published academically, as this research is primarily to demonstrate the feasibility of doing online ethnography in online only communities such as Wikipedia, though I intend to make my findings available on Wiki. Your name will not be associated with any information you provide in any published work. If you have any questions please let me know. Thank you. --Cspurrier (talk) 18:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Check your email

I felt it wise to respond to your question off-site. Serendi^podous 20:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey

I was coming here to see why you aren't an admin yet and came across someone vandalising your userpage. I see you're making all sorts of fun friends heh. Mkdw^talk 10:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it's been awhile. I've sort of disappeared from Wikipedia over the last while. I had to take time off in my final two semesters but now I graduated and have been on tour. I'm thinking of making a return to Wikipedia but I haven't thought about an area I'm interested in writing about. Maybe literature. Mkdw^talk 11:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from User:Stifle

Not bad slight error. It is not so much that a free image is not availible more that a free image either does not exist or would not be posible to create. This where the {{subst:rfu}} kicks in.Geni 00:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

RFA SPA/sock

My first reaction is that I wouldn't bother responding - unless someone asks you to. It's been established that there are banned users targetting you (which I wasn't aware of or I would have mentioned it myself). Unless someone else has already, I'm going now to see if any checkusers can establish a solid link. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Jackfm969fmvancouver.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jackfm969fmvancouver.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it may be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Canada

Excuse me, Ckatz, but could you please restore my tags to the "Government and politics" section of the Canada article. Those were not inserted to make any point other than the section is now repetetive and needs stylistic cleanup. My observations on that matter are no less valid than Soulscanner's objections to content. Thank you. --G2bambino (talk) 07:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I see that you won't oblige this request. Cheers. --G2bambino (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, it is hardly fair to make such a statement just because I was not able to respond instantly. As to your tags, there was no need to add four additional templates to the section, especially with an edit comment such as "Well, let's go all out then, shall we?" Soulscanner had added the "disputed" tag, to which you added "cleanup-section", "copyedit", "repetition" and "misleading". At the most, you should have added one tag - the "cleanup-section" template. The others are repetitive; "copyedit" and "repetition" are already covered by "cleanup", while "misleading" is addressed through the existing "disputed" tag. The edit war you and Soulscanner are involved in is disruptive enough, and I'm not favouring either side. The simple fact is that the extra templates did not help, so they were removed. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Doctor Who fandom history

Hey, I noticed you contributed to the Doctor Who fandom article. I was wondering, because of that, if you might be willing to help edit the page on Fan History about the Doctor Who fandom? It is intended to be a bit more comprehensive and all encompassing. It could really use some one familiar with wiki editing and Doctor Who fandom knowledge to make it better. :) If you can help, it would very much be appreciated. --FanHistory (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Fact tag in imperial unit

Hi Ckatz,
Were you looking for a citation as to whether CIMX and CIDR actually did their weather reports in imperial units only or whether they did so to attract American listers? It seemed speculative, so I removed the part about doing so to attract American listers. I don't know if a citations can be provided to show that CIMX and CIDR do their weather reports in imperial units only. I know that it is 100% true because I hear it about 30 times a day, but if it is not in writing somewhere it's hard to cite. P.S. looks like the RfA is going well. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 04:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The latter, to verify that they do it to attract US listeners. It seems plausible, as it could attract American advertising, but a cite seemed in order. Since you've removed the text it applied to, I'll remove the template. (By the way, thanks for the note (and the vote)) Cheers! --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Browser problems

I just undid a second edit you made at Vancouver that nuked most of the article. I'm sure that wasn't your plan, but please review. I also see your comment at VPT, maybe a script is broken somewhere? Franamax (talk) 06:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You are now an administrator

Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions, get in touch on my talk page. WjBscribe 22:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much... and thanks for the "new admin school" tip. That will help with the learning curve. Cheers! --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations. seresin | wasn't he just...? 23:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, congrats! Don't delete the main page, but it's ok to block Jimbo a few times ;). Malinaccier (talk) 23:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! Long overdue... —Wknight94 (talk) 23:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks dangerous. >:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Super-spam

As you are now an admin, I would like to test your super-powers. :) This [2] strikes me as evidence of spamming and self-promotion on the article. I've asked a couple of admins about this, but haven't really gotten a direct answer. I don't want to just go whacking that info unilaterally. But they're giving inside info on something not yet released, which qualifies as original research; and they're trying to drum up advanced orders, which qualifies as self-promotion, as I see it. It's true I am not buying it because they're not selling it in stores. But I reached the spam conclusion before I called Barnes & Noble and they confirmed it was not available. So I'm offended by this on at least two fronts. What do you think? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, just missed this last night. I'll try to look over the article and give you some feedback. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Congradulations on the adminship

That's all, just congrats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Padillah (talk • contribs) 13:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

SkyTrain topic

See reply. Simply south (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Dispute with links

You took down links that are sourced to many biography pages of people. The information is on the record and from a legit media outlets. There is no spaming going on. Please undo those links. I'd appreciate it. You had no right to take them down. Other online outlets with interviews for celebrities have been noted. Many of those interviews have been sourced for months.

Read the following wikipedia rule:

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This is fundamental to the encyclopedia's policies. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context, which is a matter of common sense and editorial judgment.

These articles are reliable, so please undo what you did.

The links are not being used as references; they are being spammed across many pages, most recently by single-purpose IPs which appear to be in use by the same person or persons. Furthermore, this is not the first time this URL has been involved in questionable postings; problems date back to at least March of 2007, when Sportsint was repeatedly warned regarding spam. (It even appears that the URL was added to Wikipedia's spam filter for a period of time.) Wikipedia is not a collection of links; just because an interviews exists does not grant it the automatic right to be listed. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

So an article that is from a real person is not allowed to be a reference on that person's life? That is not correct. No one was spaming anything. These are legit articles and you have no right to take them down. Many of those articles have been sourced for months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gator1985 (talk • contribs)

Please read through the external links guideline; I would be happy to answer any questions you might have. However, please remember that you have been given final warnign regarding these links. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I ask that you chat with me on Yahoo, MSN, or AOL or whatever you have. You aren't being helpful and you are only taking away valuable information from people who can use it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gator1985 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but we'll have to discuss this through the talk page as I'm not on a chat service. As for your concerns, I'm not sure how much more helpful one can get. I've explained the guideline regarding external links, I've given you a link to that page as well as to previous concerns regarding the URL, and I've held off on other measures despite repeated reverts. --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Ceauntay

Should User:Ceauntay be deleted? It looks like it's only being used as some kind of sandbox; both the userpage and the talk page. -WarthogDemon 04:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Civil Flag in Jericho....

In the Article "United States Government in Jericho." A much earlier version of this article which I accessed last year had the new flag in Jericho being described as "the disputed Civil Flag of the United States." That text was removed and replaced with what is here now.

Now it is the "US Treasury Ensign" with a link to a site that promotes the "US Civil Flag." I had posted a link to another website which deals with this matter which has researched and come to the opposite conclusion to "Civil Flag" advocates.

http://mysite.verizon.net/vzeo1z2a/CivilFlag.html

This gentleman on the site above carefully researched and cited his sources and his research is difficult to dispute. The site which is listed in the article seeks to promote the Civil Flag and indeed advocates its use. However, the link I posted was removed. I could have removed the previous link and substituted the one I posted. However, being fair minded, I felt that all sides should be considered and posted the link that I believe was very well researched. The article above provides links to all researched materials and is very thorough in its diligence. The one cited which promotes the Civil Flag has few references and is strictly a site for the promotion of the idea that the US had or has a so-called Civil Flag and that the present flag of our country is the military flag of the United States with the impression being left that the US has been under a military dictatorship, etc.

The fact that this article links to that site rather than to both is something that I believe is deceptive. I posted the link in order that someone could get both sides of the coin as it were and I could have suppressed such information. Whoever posted the link obviously believes in the "US Civil Flag" myth and is seeking to promote it by linking this site.

I really don't feel that the deletion was appropriate and I would request that at the very least my link be put back into the article. If not, the other link should be removed in the interests of fairness on the issue.