User talk:Ckatz
 | Ckatz is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.If you have an urgent matter, it may be best to use email. I'll check in when I can, but please understand that circumstances may create a significant delay between when you post and when I am able to respond. Thanks for your patience and understanding. |
| 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 |
|---|
|
| Page One Page Two Page Three Page Four Page Five Page Six |
Frequently asked questions
- Where can I learn more about editing Wikipedia?
- The best place to start is at the Help Desk. Other useful links include the style guide, the list of policies and guidelines, and the guide to editing. Please feel free to ask on my talk page if you have any questions.
- Why was the link I added removed from an article?
- Typically, links are removed because they fail the external links guideline. Although many links are deleted because they were placed by spammers, links to good sites are also removed on a regular basis. This is because Wikipedia isn't a directory service; the mere fact a site exists does not mean it warrants a link.
- Why was my article deleted?
- Pages can be deleted for many reasons; there are very specific criteria that govern the process. Please review this article for more information.
- Why was information relating to my company or organization removed?
- This is a very common question, based on a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's purpose. This project is not a directory, forum, or search engine, and as such it is not a place for you to post advertisements about your company or your product.
- Why were my spelling changes reverted?
- Wikipedia's Manual of Style recommends the use of regional varieties of English, based on the topic and the article's contribution history. Please avoid changing spellings unless they differ from the appropriate version. Most spell checking software can be configured to use British and American English; some extend this to include other varieties such as Canadian or Australian English.
| Contents |
|---|
Our Prattville removal after User:AniMate created the entry
On entry 07:41, 17 September 2009, Admin Animate reworked the Prattville Wiki and added the Our Prattville link where it should be under Media. Then on 10:16 of that same day IP Address 76.73.140.26 undid his revision and stated no reason. Then on 11:57 of the same day IP address 98.89.12.105 properly undid that revision and at 13:05 Admin Baseball Bugs calls 98.89.12.105 a spammer and undoes it.
Therefore, if 98.89.12.105 did not create the entry and only undid what 76.73.140.26 undid, all of this refers back to the original poster Admin Animate as the spammer, right? I highly doubt that one of your administrators could be considered a spammer? What in the world is going on here? Please, somebody clarify this for me. Should not Animate's revision stand? Why is it being removed? He said he would do that for us and he did and we thank him for that. Now it is removed...why? Please advise.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtp1960 (talk • contribs) and associated IP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.89.12.105 (talk)
I read the guidelines
Nowhere did I find information in the external links guide that would lead me to believe that the link I published was inappropriate.
What should be linked: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons."
Links to be considered: "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources."
The website SkiingtheBackcountry.com is a leading source of information, resources, gear reviews, where to ski and all sorts of other stuff related to ski touring. My understanding is that it's based in Jackson Hole, but I don't even know who is behind it. It's a core site, and I was simply trying to share information, as I said before, about an activity that I love, to the people who are involved in the sport.
Is ski touring something that you care deeply about? If so, have you been to the site I was linking to? And if so, why would you care to remove it? And if you are not interested in ski touring, please leave the page alone. -MBailey
Remote goat
Hi. I see you've been deleting lots of links to Remote Goat reviews. I'm sure that some of these deletions were justified, but I think some of them might not be. If I explain how the site works, perhaps you'd let me know whether you'd still consider them all to be spam/inappropriate links.
Remote Goat is a bit like IMDb in that any visitor to the site can create an account and post a review of an event. Unquestionably, I think such reviews should be deleted as self-published/personal reviews. However, there are also "official Remote Goat" reviews which are submitted by an official reviewer and edited by he Remote Goat staff before publication. You can tell these reviews from the personal reviews because the review says "by X for remotegoat". Compare this "official" review [1] with this personal one [2].
I know remotegoat is not well known, but there are so few sites that review theatre productions, particularly fringe/amateur/local, theatre that it would be a shame to lose this resource which, for the official reviews at least, appears to me to meet the requirements for being a reliable source.
Let me know what you think. GDallimore (Talk) 09:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- I have restored some of the links that you removed, confirming theatre listings and officially published theatre reviews for which there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of the source and no other source available. GDallimore (Talk) 15:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Apology for misuse of External Links sections
I'd like to apologize for my misuse of Wikipedia's External Links sections and my ignorance of the guidelines for including them. I am a student who was hired part time to assist in generating traffic for a publication by distributing their articles to related forums, blogs, and interested parties, and in my efforts I did include relevant links in the External Links sections of relevant Wiki articles. Please be assured that my intention was not to spam or disrupt Wikipedia at all--I love Wikipedia, and I experience and hate spam like any avid Internet user--but to provide interested parties visiting those Wikipedia articles to related quality extra reading or watching material. But after receiving your message and reviewing the Guidelines I understand what I've done was a violation thereof and I will cease immediately. As far as I know, the warning this IP address received should have been the work of only one person (me), so any additional suspicious activity is not the work of my department or publication, and because I am on my university's network, blocking this IP would likely affect many innocent people. Again, I'm very sorry for any trouble I might have caused you or Wikipedia's community in general, and I will cease immediately and let my supervisors know about Wikipedia's guidelines. Thank you! -SN
128.197.210.89 (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Redirects
As the admin that insists on a full discussion on the future of the Dog sex article, when will you 'feel' that the discussion is complete? I do not want to revert your over-zealous reverts for fear of starting yet another edit war with you. So far I have noted that you, yourself, have not chimed in on the merits of Dog sex, so assume you are abstaining. As it has now been discussed for little less than a month, with several editors giving either implicit or explicit support for Dog sex, I think you are in the wrong and that it will be a disambig page. But, again, I am waiting for you to stay your hand so as to be prepared that you will not revert future contributions. Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 21:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- FYI, it's not an article, it's a redirect page that you've proposed for conversion to a disambiguation page. So far, the serious arguments seem to lean toward keeping the redirect; the 24.* IP is just a disgruntled IP that is hounding my edits, and another editor has already commented that the entries you've proposed aren't especially necessary. Myself, I don't care either way what the page is, as long as proper procedure is followed. That is why I'm acting in an administrative role there, rather than as an editor with a particular preference. --Ckatzchatspy 21:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- I assumed Dog sex was an article because the first little tab on the left says article and not redirect page. Maybe it is all sementics, but i believe that currently Dog sex is an article that is currently a redirect, but will soon be a disambig. Regardless, it is still and article and unless Dog sex is completely deleted it will remain an article. Regardless of your problems with 24*, he does support the change and i believe he has come to his colclusion based upon good reasoning. There are other editors who edited [[Dog sex] before it was reverted by you, thereby giving their implecit agreement that the disambig page was valid. the Cp user also admits that: "I didn't even think of dogging but that is another one that I would also imagine people would be looking for if people are trying to reach an article entitled "dog sex"" So he admits that people who are looking for dogging might type in dog sex. I am bascially looking out for the type of people that hear about dogging, or zoophilia, etc., and don't have all the facts so they come to wikipedia looking for information on dogging or sex with dogs. They are unlikely to type in dog sex to figure out how dogs have sex with eachother. But the glrious thing about disabmigauous page is that they will also find the information about Canine reproduction along with information about dogging and bestiality. It is for the ever-growing number of people who turn to wikipedia as their first source of information that I am concerend about, not people who know EXACTLY what it is they want to look at, but those who might overhear about dogging on the bus, and come to wikipedia with a degraded memory of the actual term for the thing. Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 21:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, Ckatz, we're all lawyers picking at the exact name of a Wikipedia entry. Well, if we're lawyers then forgive us for looking at the evidence (...does so and returns...). No, Ckatz claims are unsupported by the evidence. She is the only editor who advocates reverting to a redirect. Ckatz has insisted on doing so following at least five editors who have moved to reinstate or improve the disambiguation page. No one but Ckatz has advocated a redirect. [3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. --24.187.199.178 (talk) 21:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Most if not all the editors are newer editors with not that many contributions. I personally agree with the redirect design, no one's going to look up "Dog sex" to find a professor.Abce2|This isnot a test 22:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a meritocracy, the number of edits a user has should not trump the points they bring. Further, you point to the fact that "no one" (over generalization) would use Dog sex to find a professor, maybe so. But, you'll have a hard time conviencing most people that Dog sex is a rational mishearing of doggy style, dogging, or bestiality, and people might try to find information on the SEXUAL position of Doggy Style by looking up dog sex. You have taken the weakest example on the Dog sex disambig as an argument. I think that's refered to as a straw man.Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 23:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't mean that way. I meant that users that have been here longer and edit regularly tend to know policy. Also, may they search, "dog sex postion", but feel free to criticize me all you want.Abce2|This isnot a test 23:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Also, I wasn't refering too you.Abce2|This isnot a test 23:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- If "the professor" is the notable author of a book entitled Dog Love with a well-known chapter about bestiality called "Sex and the Single Dog", of course a researcher might Wikisearch "Dog sex" to help find Marjorie Garber. --24dot (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a meritocracy, the number of edits a user has should not trump the points they bring. Further, you point to the fact that "no one" (over generalization) would use Dog sex to find a professor, maybe so. But, you'll have a hard time conviencing most people that Dog sex is a rational mishearing of doggy style, dogging, or bestiality, and people might try to find information on the SEXUAL position of Doggy Style by looking up dog sex. You have taken the weakest example on the Dog sex disambig as an argument. I think that's refered to as a straw man.Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 23:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Most if not all the editors are newer editors with not that many contributions. I personally agree with the redirect design, no one's going to look up "Dog sex" to find a professor.Abce2|This isnot a test 22:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, Ckatz, we're all lawyers picking at the exact name of a Wikipedia entry. Well, if we're lawyers then forgive us for looking at the evidence (...does so and returns...). No, Ckatz claims are unsupported by the evidence. She is the only editor who advocates reverting to a redirect. Ckatz has insisted on doing so following at least five editors who have moved to reinstate or improve the disambiguation page. No one but Ckatz has advocated a redirect. [3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. --24.187.199.178 (talk) 21:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- I assumed Dog sex was an article because the first little tab on the left says article and not redirect page. Maybe it is all sementics, but i believe that currently Dog sex is an article that is currently a redirect, but will soon be a disambig. Regardless, it is still and article and unless Dog sex is completely deleted it will remain an article. Regardless of your problems with 24*, he does support the change and i believe he has come to his colclusion based upon good reasoning. There are other editors who edited [[Dog sex] before it was reverted by you, thereby giving their implecit agreement that the disambig page was valid. the Cp user also admits that: "I didn't even think of dogging but that is another one that I would also imagine people would be looking for if people are trying to reach an article entitled "dog sex"" So he admits that people who are looking for dogging might type in dog sex. I am bascially looking out for the type of people that hear about dogging, or zoophilia, etc., and don't have all the facts so they come to wikipedia looking for information on dogging or sex with dogs. They are unlikely to type in dog sex to figure out how dogs have sex with eachother. But the glrious thing about disabmigauous page is that they will also find the information about Canine reproduction along with information about dogging and bestiality. It is for the ever-growing number of people who turn to wikipedia as their first source of information that I am concerend about, not people who know EXACTLY what it is they want to look at, but those who might overhear about dogging on the bus, and come to wikipedia with a degraded memory of the actual term for the thing. Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 21:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not "just a disgruntled IP that is hounding" anyone. If I really "hounded", then Ckatz would show a few examples, which she cannot do. --24dot (talk) 20:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC) formerly 24.187.199.178
- All anyone needs to do is to look at your contribution history, which parallels mine. Funny how you "just happen" to edit articles I've edited, in many cases in exactly the same order I've edited them in. Funny, too, how that pattern appears to be transferring itself from your IP account to your shiny new registered account. (I could, of course, just be paranoid. I'm sure it is just a complete and utter coincidence that you chose to edit Jackie Tyler, arachnophobia and flashlight earlier today as 24.dot, or J.D. (Scrubs), click-through rate and Quebec City under your IP account on the 14th, each of those edits immediately following mine in the respective article histories.) --Ckatzchatspy 01:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not "just a disgruntled IP that is hounding" anyone. If I really "hounded", then Ckatz would show a few examples, which she cannot do. --24dot (talk) 20:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC) formerly 24.187.199.178
SG1
Ckatz, you also cleared the obviously legitimate disambiguation page for "SG1", replacing it with a redirect. Would you call my legitimate re-creation of it an example of "hounding" or "vandalism" or "harassment" or "trolling" or some other pejorative prevarication? You throw around your empty accusations and too-hasty deletions in a way that costs you credibility and costs Wikipedia useful work. Please stop it. --24dot (talk) 14:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Because it is not needed. There was already a page for it. SG1 (disambugition) or however you spell it. Now please, just drop it. Abce2|This isnot a test 14:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- A dab was and is needed, dear Abce2. Also, your chronology is mistaken. Ckatz too-hastily cleared SG1 on 2009-10-05 to a redirect. Why didn't Ckatz simply "move" that disambiguation article to a "disambiguation" title? Perhaps because it would have taken fifteen seconds? It wasn't until ten days later that a conscientious editor and conscientious admin created SG1 (disambiguation) together. A typical editor/admin who did as Ckatz did with SG1 would acknowledge it and simply say, "My bad!" and personally resolve to do better. Ckatz instead accuses those who edit after her of "hounding" and "vandalism" and "trolling" and "harassment" (yes, those are quotes of Ckatz). An accused editor should certainly cite the facts, no? Too, in the case of Ckatz, this incident is just one in a string of incidents which reflect a pattern of behavior that needs improvement.
- See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
- My hope is that Ckatz will recognize what others recognize, and resolve to improve. --24dot (talk) 15:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- A dab was and is needed, dear Abce2. Also, your chronology is mistaken. Ckatz too-hastily cleared SG1 on 2009-10-05 to a redirect. Why didn't Ckatz simply "move" that disambiguation article to a "disambiguation" title? Perhaps because it would have taken fifteen seconds? It wasn't until ten days later that a conscientious editor and conscientious admin created SG1 (disambiguation) together. A typical editor/admin who did as Ckatz did with SG1 would acknowledge it and simply say, "My bad!" and personally resolve to do better. Ckatz instead accuses those who edit after her of "hounding" and "vandalism" and "trolling" and "harassment" (yes, those are quotes of Ckatz). An accused editor should certainly cite the facts, no? Too, in the case of Ckatz, this incident is just one in a string of incidents which reflect a pattern of behavior that needs improvement.
External links removal
Hello Ckatz, I'm finally writing you to explain my latest activities. If possible, I beg you to not remove my external links: I'm not spamming at all, nor promoting or advertising, just putting appropriate sources of information related to those Wikipedia enties. If it is a matter of guidelines, I'll be going further into that, thank you. Matmi (talk) 08:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
FYI
[10]. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Article deletion
Why my article RenderX has been deleted? It had enough references showing the importance of the subject. Siringa (talk) 07:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Scrubs: Janitor's name
Hi, you removed an edit regarding "Janitor's" name on the Scrubs TV series entry. You stated "no implying, speculation, guessing, etc" as the reason. The word imply does not mean speculating or guessing. It means "To express or indicate indirectly". The edit I made was part of the joke when Neil Flynn's character reveals his "fake" name to Zach Braff's character J.D. which everyone leaves out of the article. The Janitor in fact never reveals his true name and is known to be a consistent liar, especially to J.D. This is not speculation, the "extra" that calls him Tony "implies" this fact and it is not speculation or guessing, as you cite in your reason for removing my edit.
My edit: As J.D. walks away, an orderly (played by an extra) passes and exclaims, "Hey Tony!", implying "Janitor" was lying to J.D about his true identity.
This is an integral part of the character "revealing" his name to J.D. and therefore is not speculation or guessing. The current information about Janitor revealing his name to J.D. shouldn't even be in the article (if the article isn't amended) as it is misleading information (a lie from Janitor). It makes people think the character's name IS in fact Glenn Matthews unless you've actually seen the final episode, which until the DVD comes out, not everybody has. DLake31565 11:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Slick Tire/Tyre
Tire is an older spelling than tyre, but both were used in the 15th and 16th centuries for a metal tire; tire became the settled spelling in the 17th century. In the UK, tyre was revived in the 19th century for pneumatic tires, possibly, though many continued to use tire for the iron variety. The Times newspaper was still using tire as late as 1905.
In addition to that, the article on "Tire"s in general is spelled "Tire". Why change the spelling of a specific type of tire when the article on all "Tires" is spelled with an "i"? This is basically a sub-article, if you will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamezero05 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hello... thanks for the note. You raise some valid points - and personally, I don't really care either way. (Keep in mind that I'm Canadian, so I use "tire", not "tyre".) However, the important consideration here is that per WP:ENGVAR we don't arbitrarily change the spelling of an article without discussion first, and (more importantly) in the case of this article, the title uses "tyre". We would not change the spelling of the article without first changing the title to "slick tire". If you feel strongly about the spelling, you are welcome to open a discussion to move the page and change the spelling. I can provide tips if you like, but it should not be done before such a discussion is complete. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 16:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
slick tire
How do you go about getting the title changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamezero05 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declines
Hello Ckatz, I was wondering if you could expand on your rationale for declining the speedy deletion of Category:2010s American television series and Category:2010 television series endings. More specifically, what exception to WP:CSD#C1 they fall under. "Going to be used in a few weeks" (and and I would describe 2010 as more than a few weeks away, and even then nothing is likely to go into the categories for a while) is not an exception to C1. In fact, C1 is there to specifically delete these categories that aren't likely to be populated within 4 days of creation. Thanks, 70.150.94.194 (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- The categories have already been vetted through a deletion debate, and the resulting consensus was to keep them. These are not "possible" categories, they definitely will be populated (as are their predecessors). --Ckatzchatspy 18:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, but them becoming empty makes them elligible for speedy deletion regardless of them being kept via a previous deletion discussion. Are you saying that no category, after being kept via CfD, can become elligible for C1? If so, I don't think the wording of C1 supports that. It says anything involved in a current deletion debate, not a previous one. Also, such categories for 2011, 2012, etc. are also more or less guaranteed to be populated. Does that mean we should create them now as well? I thought the C1 criteria was there to prevent premature creation of a bunch of categories like this.70.150.94.194 (talk) 18:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- If you would like, I can seek a third opinion. 70.150.94.194 (talk) 15:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, but them becoming empty makes them elligible for speedy deletion regardless of them being kept via a previous deletion discussion. Are you saying that no category, after being kept via CfD, can become elligible for C1? If so, I don't think the wording of C1 supports that. It says anything involved in a current deletion debate, not a previous one. Also, such categories for 2011, 2012, etc. are also more or less guaranteed to be populated. Does that mean we should create them now as well? I thought the C1 criteria was there to prevent premature creation of a bunch of categories like this.70.150.94.194 (talk) 18:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
ANI/AN Vandalism
Since you are semi-protecting ANI, please consider doing the same for AN. It is getting the same amount and same style of IP hopping vandalism ANI is. Thanks...NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I notice that you requested this page's deletion by WP:PROD, and the page was duly deleted. This is to notify you that the article has been requested for restoration at WP:DRV today and was duly restored. You may wish to list it at WP:AFD. Stifle (talk) 11:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)