User talk:Ckatz/Archive 5
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
deleted article
hello. I'm the contributor of "Dan Pena" article which was deleted. :( Can you provide me a copy of it? I want to improve its content and hopefully stay on wikipedia.
thanks gommez —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gommez (talk • contribs) 07:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Need big help
I've come across a user (Ahoalton1 currently) that needs more help than I can give. He seems (seems) to have a valid argument: He is editing the Order of the Arrow article and he's getting pushback from a couple of admins that are admittedly OA members and appear to be trying to keep the "secret" ceremonies secret (1, 2, 3... and more). Well, this guy stuck his foot in it when he started IP hopping (I don't know that this was his fault, might be a dynamic IP) then he ended up in a couple of edit wars (being with admins he was blocked instantly), he then went on to get a user name (Ahoalton) but was blocked for having a user name that is a secret word to these OA guys (he never got a single edit in the mainspace before getting blocked ). No edits, no help, no introduction to WP just hit him with an indefinite block instantly! Now he's gone and got a second user name and the namehopping is not looking good. What can I do to help this guy? Where can we go to get this reviewed and resolved? And what do you suggest I do with the user himself to get him to stop acting this way? Any help would be a big help. Yet more of the argument can be summed up on this users talk page, it's pretty blatant that at least some editors are trying to keep the secrets. Now, I don't give a tinkers cusp what the secrets are but any editor that has sworn to keep information secret is obviously in a conflict of interest when they start editing WP to keep those sworn secrets. Like I say, anything you can do to help, any direction would be a big deal. Padillah (talk) 19:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the input but it looks like this guy was just bound and determined to torpedo himself. I've never seen a user try harder to ruin their own argument. Well, we tried. Thanks a million. Padillah (talk) 13:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations
Hi, i don't know if you remember me, but i just wanted to say congratulations on becoming an admin, i wish i'd noticed your RFA, purely because i cannot think of a better candidate for adminship, and i would have liked to add my support, even though you didn't need it. I'm clearly not alone in my views. You're going to make a great administrator. Good Luck--Jac16888 (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Alternative titles for Smallville
See Talk:Smallville (TV series). Simply south (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Blog for English Words with Sanskrit Etymology
My Sanskrit Blog - showing English words in Sanskrit forms.
This is a non promotional and non profit endeavor of mine and I show how some of the English words are connected to Sanskrit, by following well known rules.
So why are you saying that this is promotional? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunilsrivastava (talk • contribs) 11:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
My Disruptive Editing
Sorry 'bout all that. Someone found out my password and thought they'd have some fun with it. Don't worry I've changed it now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seantrac (talk • contribs) 20:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Copy of Characters in Stargate
Hello. You are listed in Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles. Could you please copy Characters in Stargate to my userspace, i.e. User:Sgeureka/Characters in Stargate? Thank you. – sgeureka t•c 00:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Done - I've restored the version immediately prior to the posting of the AfD notice. (There were no revisions after that point.) The only change I've made is to comment out the categories and the interwiki links. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 00:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Why did you remove Jaslene's Elite Model Management External link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.147.207 (talk) 18:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Jaslene External Link
Why did you remove Jaslene's Elite Model Management External link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.147.207 (talk) 18:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks:Six Nations
Sorry.I thought I was using the sandbox.I will watch where I put it from now on.--86.41.85.203 (talk) 10:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, I see you are an admin, can you please protect the six nation page for a couple of hours.
- This guy has been making random edits for a while now. Thanks FFMG (talk) 10:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the page protection. --Snowdog (talk) 10:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- No problem - please let me know if this persists after the protection is released. --Ckatzchatspy 10:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Possible semi-protection?
Hey, sorry to just drop this here, but, since I notice you've done some of the same reversions, I thought I'd ask - any chance I can get a semi-protection of my user page for, oh, a couple days maybe, in the last few hours it's been hit with the same edit by a couple different IPs [1] and [2] (think I got this diff thing right, first attempt at some), presumably in response to this reversion I made a few days back: [3]. Anyway, checking WHOIS on both IPs resolved to ISPs in Ireland. I reverted both, first go-round I dropped a note on the IP [4] talk page saying please don't do that, and to take discussion to my talk page. I'd rather not do that to every IP that keeps putting the same thing back up (and feeding the trolls)... and I'd also like to avoid constant reverting. (If it weren't multiple IPs, I'd simply go to AIV, but...) Anyway, thanks for whatever assistance you can provide. --Umrguy42 (talk) 07:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- My little troll is back, with two new edits to my userpage in the past hour (within a half hour of each other, and the second three minutes after my reversion of the first). Both edits from different IP addresses, although the first one is within the same subnet as the original vandalism. Using WHOIS, all of them indicate ownership by a subsidiary (or something like that) of BT Ireland. --Umrguy42 (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Order of the Arrow
You were recently involved in discussions on the article Order of the Arrow. Some of the issues brought up then were not resolved. If you are interested, please participate in the continued discussion at Talk:Order of the Arrow#Safeguarded material. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 13:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The Puerto Rican Parade
Dude the parade is in New York. Not Chicago!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.147.207 (talk) 05:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Sliders article - External Links
Just wanted to chime in that I believe your addition of DMOZ is the fair and equitable solution to the fan site listings; I will help you enforce that if fan site links are added further. DBHughes (talk) 07:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. I've found the "DMOZ" link to be pretty useful so far... the Sliders page most definitely wasn't an "issue" by any stretch, but there are other pages (in TV, cars, etc.) that have had real problems with external links. It seems to address several concerns, especially complaints along the lines of "why isn't my site here if that one is", while still providing easy links to fan pages. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 07:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
reverting uncited edits
Hello Ckatz, you reverted my edit on Terraforming of Mars. I agree with the idea of not to insert original research in Wikipedia. As you can see, the information is (mostly) available in other pages on Wikipedia, already. Some of the information was moved from one page to another, and your reverting destroyed the information. So, I would kindly ask you not to revert whole paragraphs without checking the contents in detail. -- The Cascade (talk) 09:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- There is still a need to provide proper references, and a check of the other pages shows that it wasn't referenced there either. Please try to provide some, as much of the article is unreferenced. --Ckatzchatspy 09:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
The date
Hi. I'm trying to bring Degrassi: The Next Generation up to FA status, and I'm having problems with date formatting. I've been doing it the American way as I have been assuming that is the way Canadians do it, but Calendar date#dd/mm/yyyy or dd-mm-yyyy (day, month, year) says either is used. I also noticed you warned User:Robinepowell back in June about changing date formatting (she removes commas in this article so "March 19, 2008" becomes "March 19 2008"). As a Canadian I'm sure you'll be able to help me on this, which format is more widely used? -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 20:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- The warnings to RP were a part of a larger issue, rather than any specifics about formatting. (Good to check, though, if you're aiming for FA - hope it goes well!) For your question, I would suggest going with 01 January 2001, and then applying wiki markup to the date as [[01 January]] [[2001]]. That will allow it to appear based on a user's preferences. Hope this helps. --Ckatzchatspy 21:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- But were her edits warranted? Wikipedia:DATE#Full date formatting says "Commas are not required to be used in full format American dates, such as February 14, 1976. Their inclusion or exclusion is a stylistic and editorial preference. Either style is acceptable so long as articles are internally consistent. Editors should follow the method already established in an article, so that if the article has dates with commas, then the commas should be left alone and new dates added to the article should have commas. If the dates in the article do not have commas, then they should not be added to existing dates and new dates should not have them. Where there is disagreement or the article currently has a mix of commas and no commas, then the earliest format used should be respected and the article changed to be consistent with that format." But IrishLass0128 is saying the removal is the right way to go, and placing a warning template on her page was wrong. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oh! And thanks for answering about the correct formatting. Is the British version used more than the American way, then? -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Question about copying/moving page histories
Hey again, Ckatz... technical question for you. A while back, when I was still (even more) inexperienced and all, I found that someone had changed information in the article Adam Russell from its current form of a redirect to Story of the Year, to information on a baseball player. Not wanting to just cut-and-paste move that information (especially assuming that those editors interested in the baseball player would be looking for it again), I did a page move to Adam W. Russell (which has since been moved to Adam Russell (baseball)). Anyway, long story short - I didn't realize that ALL of the page history went with the move. Since there used to be a fair amount of information on the original Adam Russell before his page was changed to a redirect to the band he's in, I was wondering if there's any way to copy the page history (either all, or up to and including November 13, 2007) (or split it) back to Adam Russell from Adam Russell (baseball). If not, okay, but I just wanted to check. (I admit to a little personal interest in the case, as I went to high school with the guy.) (My current "remedy" was to leave a note on the Talk page for the original Adam Russell mentioning where the history was, but...) Thanks, --Umrguy42 (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'll take a look. It should be possible to split the history, but I'll have to double-check. Might take a while before I can get to it, but I will let you know either way. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 19:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Planet of the Odd
Frankly, CK, I did it because I suggested creating the articles several times over the last couple of weeks and each time was told no. Nothing changed since. Obviously it was a silly idea, though. —TreasuryTag—t—c 08:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've started a discussion at WT:WHO which you can contribute to. —TreasuryTag—t—c 09:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I think we all need to decide on a policy (WT:WHO) and have it written down, because from series to series personal policies seem to change and new people take the reins of artical writing, at the moment TT and I seem to be conflicting.--Wiggs (talk) 11:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Re:
Hi, thank you. When I asked for the move I didn't realize that there are hundreds of pages. It seemed to be a pretty good idea, but apparently it wasn't so good :) Anyway thank you for fix. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 21:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Regarding Jericho the TV series and the Tom Tooman tie in
All due respect- but how is the Tom Tooman saga "not notable," but "Beyond Jericho" is? Tom Tooman was 8 months of follow along the Jericho universe for us fans. There were thousands of players scattered across the globe. I think the Tom Tooman information is pertinent and should stay. I'm open for discussion about this, but deleting the page is unnecessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tygr20 (talk • contribs) 12:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- The section (not page) was removed initially because of questions over its notability. Keep in mind that while the game may have had a fair number of players, that does not necessarily mean it warrants inclusion. Given that the series is now over, you may find that a lot of material that is currently in the article (Tom Tooman, Beyond Jericho, etc.) ends up being removed by the editors if there is no indication of lasting importance. However, I've left it in for now after cleaning it up a bit. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 16:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Moving/Copying Page Histories (Pt. 2)
Hey, Ckatz, don't think I'm unhappy with you (I'm not), but I just decided to go ahead and ask about the page history issue for Adam Russell over on WP:ANI. (It's not you, I'm just an impatient type ;D) All the best, and thanks for your help and consideration --Umrguy42 (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Links left on "Concept Schools" "Horizon Science Academy" and "Charter Schools"
Hello, You blocked links that I left on these three pages. I believe that the link is valid. It has everything to do with Horizon Science Academy. Look at the link for yourself.
http://oseasnain.blogspot.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miguelfyi (talk • contribs) 08:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
p.s.
I didn't realize that you were sending me messages. I thought there was an error. I did put the link on one of those pages with spacing. If you still think the link does not belong, you may remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miguelfyi (talk • contribs) 08:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Image Copyright Violations
Hi. I was hoping you could help me with some copyright violations. User:Decumanus/images Most of the images on that page seem to be scanned maps and in use by articles. However, the user seems to have put GNU free licenses on all the images. I don't know where to post them, so I found your name on Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images. XcepticZP (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Request to block user
Hi Ckatz, I've been undoing User talk:24.74.241.111 from continually adding a fan site to the external links in the Jim Sturgess article and was wondering if you could please give a stricter warning to him or her, and perhaps issue a block. I noticed that you have messaged the user several times before but it seems that he or she is making a nuisance on other articles as well. Thank you. IndulgentReader (talk) 06:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for the explanation and help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liam.grue (talk • contribs) 02:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
regarding citations on Location scouting
I am the main source for the location scouting page and much of what is on that page has never been written down in one place before.
I would be happy to cite myself and the several location professionals I know who use the the wikipedia location scouting article as an explanation of what they do on their homepages but pointing to my website leaves a lot to be interpreted in the way of self promotion.
The last edit before yours author made several editorial "adjustments" to the page, that judging by the syntax used gives clues the author has little or no expert knowledge of the subject and leads me to ask why other than perhaps boredom and or a personality flaw that individual might have been motivated to seemingly go on a witch hunt on the page including the first citation challenge.
Wikipedia is new territory and there are not 200 years of trade practices related to location scouting - in fact it may be one of a very few trades left where the knowledge is passed on by doing and learning by watching others - as far as I know much of what is on that page hadnt really been written down in one place before
I must say my level of motivation for contributing to Wikipedia has dropped considerably after reviewing the recent edits there on the location scouting page I and others have worked so hard on that seemed to be just fine for many years now till very recently.
rrhobbsR. Richard Hobbs (talk) 02:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Block User Request
Hello Ckatz, I messaged you before about issuing a warning to User talk:24.74.241.111 for which you did, and I'm grateful for it. However, I noticed the user is continuing to vandalize the Jim Sturgess article by continually adding the same fan site despite your warning. Could you please issue a block if possible? Thank you. 17:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ckatz, I'm sorry if I'm continually bothering you with all of these requests, but I believe User talk:Moonset is a sock puppet to User talk:24.74.241.111. Both have been continually adding the same spam link on the Jim Sturgess article. Could you please issue a warning or a block? Thanks! IndulgentReader (talk) 01:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- No bother - and done. (I'd noticed the connection between the two as well. Thanks for keeping an eye on it.) --Ckatzchatspy 05:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Couple Things
1. Important question - do you know, is it WP *policy* that images on articles MUST BE uploaded to wikipedia (or commons)? I was just wondering, as I removed an IP user's attempt to place a link to an external image into an article, and I left them (what I hope) was a friendly message on their talk encouraging them, assuming the licensing is good, to upload the image to WP. I didn't say it was policy, I said it was "usually a good idea (maybe policy?)". I just thought I'd check on that. (I skimmed through WP:IUP and a couple related pages, didn't see anything explicitly on the subject there.)
- According to Wikipedia:Images#Using images (a guideline):
- Images on external sites can no longer be linked inline to be publicized on Wikipedia. This is due to several reasons:
- * inline linking to images on other sites is often considered "leeching" and is thus rude
- * allowing inline image linking makes it easier for vandals to post images from shock sites
- * allowing inline image linking makes it easier to introduce copyrighted images in Wikipedia.
- * external images are often unreliable
- Instead, to place an image on Wikipedia, you will need to upload it.
2. I know you're likely busy and all, with other WP stuff, with stuff IRL... but if you can still be looking at the whole page history issue I mentioned with Adam Russell and Adam Russell (baseball), I'm much obliged.
- No problem - thought you;d taken this elsewhere. It is now done. (Always good to learn a new trick!)
3. Thanks. (for everything) --Umrguy42 (talk) 07:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Trivia of Amherst College
I see that you reverted my change to the Amherst College page removing the piece of trivia about the asteroid named after the college. Can you explain why it's relevant to keep it on the article? And perhaps suggest where in the article you think it should go? Thanks! Npdoty (talk) 07:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- If you could respond on the Talk:Amherst College page in the appropriate section (at the bottom), that would be great. Thanks. Npdoty (talk) 07:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Don't delete my page!!! I was in the middle of creating and you deleted my work in less than a minute from the time i created it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20wide (talk • contribs) 05:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
EHC Shenanigans
You may wish to act on the most recent result posted at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/EverybodyHatesChris. As someone familiar with EHC's editing patterns, you'll hear the quacking louder than most. BicMacDad18 (talk · contribs) first edits were to Hogan Knows Best, and he has that same can't bother to preview style and a habit of acting chummy with his other socks when administrators are keeping them down. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 15:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Doctor Who newsletter, March 2008
|
The Space-Time Telegraph |
| ||||
| The WikiProject Doctor Who newsletter | ||||||
| Issue 1 | March 2008 | |||||
For the Doctor Who project, Sceptre (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC) | ||||||
Possible stalking by 65.31.98.71
Hello. Recently, I have noticed that this IP has been leaving disruptive comments as you did not respond to an "apology" by him. He has threatened to revealed your personal information. Please take a look at it. If you would like to reply to this message, please do so on my talk page on Simple Wiki. Chenzw (talk · contribs) 11:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
warnings
When you revert link additions as you did here, you might wanna warn the person adding the link. In this case this guy was adding the same link quite extensively, and it helps if they get warned about it somewhere. You can see the full details at m:User:SpamReportBot/cw/iasa.ir. —— nixeagle 19:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey Ckatz
Hi There CKatz... i'm responding back to the Telus/TELUS discussion. There is specific documentation within TELUS Legal documents that require TELUS to be be spelt with all CAPS, no matter where it is being used. So i believe that Wikipedia should take this into context and edit appropriately. Just my view, no hard feelings on this but can we not have Wikipedia show this to be correct in their rules? or maybe Wikipedia needs to adjust their editing rules if the company that it is encyclopeding has those rules as a part of their legal constitution.
Can we look into having this changed? That is why TELUS needs to be capitalized....
Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coryrob1979 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks...!!!
Hey thanks...that was really helpful. I will start using it in the future when I add lazy refs...thanks a lot...i never knew that gadget existed...it makes things much easier.--ChrisisinChrist comments and complaints here! 16:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
i did not make any edit of music of germany how come it sent to me i just started to make a user on wikipedia i never even went on music of germany before! please respond, thanks Halfgirl65 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halfgirl65 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
IP address 159.130.64.3
You were the last person to block this IP for vandalism, and (s)he's been up to it again. Dunno if you have time to do anything about it, but thanks if you do! -Yupik (talk) 13:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
This guy wants to talk to you about his block, apparently. I think he's User:EverybodyHatesChris using his IP again, but I said I'd call you over... Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
You are receiveing this message because your name appears on the WikiProject Vancouver Members List. The WikiProject Vancouver is currently having a roll-call; if you are still interested in participating, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Vancouver/Members and remove the asterisk (*) from your name on the list. If you are unavailable your name will be moved to the inactive list on Monday, April 28 2008. Also the WikiProject is currently discussing some proposed changes on the talk page. Thank you for your time. Mkdwtalk 08:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Vancouver meetup
It is being organized at Wikipedia:WikiProject Vancouver/Meetup 2008. It looks like it will take place on Monday, May 5 evening at Benny's Bagels at Broadway and Larch. Please comment and we hope that you can attend. –thedemonhog talk • edits 03:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Um, think you could come over to Talk: Planet?
It's getting really weird. I don't want to be doing this alone. I'd rather have a second opinion, whatever it is. Serendipodous 19:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- I lost my cool after a while. This guy was beginning to sound a bit like David Irving. Once you realise that the person you are arguing with is basing his beliefs on a totally separate line of inquiry to the one you are familiar with, you cease to be sure of anything. Serendipodous 09:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Who to speak to re page deletion
Hi Ckatz,
I created a page for We7 an ad-supported music service that has been gaining a lot of traction in the recent month, a music service that is easily comparable to other services like Last.fm, SpiralFrog. We7 is one of the first music site, to offer free legal and DRM-free music and therefore has stirred a lot of discussions and interests in the music industry.
Unfortunately, it has been taken down today due to following reason.
A tag has been placed on We7 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content.
I understand your policy I just wanted to point out to you or other admins here that you already have Last.fm SpiralFrog on wikipedia, which makes me think why We7 page can't be equally represented on Wikipedia.
I'd be grateful if you can give me some sort of guidance on this.
Many thanks,
JCummins —Preceding unsigned comment added by JCummuns (talk • contribs) 15:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Technical Surveillance Counter-Measures
Ckatz, I see from your user page that you are an experienced editor; therefore, I'm a bit hesitant to leave the standard Uw-delete1 template in response to your recent edit to Technical Surveillance Counter-Measures. Still, I trust you realize why removing 2,431 bytes from an article while marking it as a "minor edit" and leaving a cryptic edit summary of "rm. EL" would be problematic, to say the least. Could you explain your rational for the edit in Talk:Technical Surveillance Counter-Measures, and then we can work to improve the article? Thanks! -- JeffBillman (talk) 15:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Wow... glad you caught that, as it certainly wasn't what was intended; I'd only meant to undo a spammed external link in that article and several others. Seems the utility I was using did something other than what it reported, so I'll review the other edits as well. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, and sorry for the inconvenience. --Ckatzchatspy 19:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, understood. No worries, then. Happy editing! -- JeffBillman (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Question about a page
Hey Ckatz... I brought this to you, knowing that you're an admin and having interacted with you before, since I wasn't sure what the appropriate noticeboard might be (possibly ANI, but not sure)... so, feel free to move this there if you figure it out.
Anyway, here's the scoop:
My watchlist includes Doctor Who (as well as a few associated articles). I've noticed several times in the past few weeks the move-vandalism of that page to some incredibly long name, but which includes the term "Britfags". After finding a discussion on WP:AN, in which the title blacklist is being discussed, I went and looked at the current listing, wondering about other terms that might improve things by their improvement (profanities, etc.) (I realize such inclusions might be problematic in light of reasonable uses, i.e., album and song names, book titles, etc.). Anyway...
So (coming to my point) - wondering about that term being used, I decided to see if there was in fact a page on Britfag - there is, and of more concern, it's a redirect to British people, which would make it seem an attack page to me. Is this possibly a candidate for speedy deletion? Or even regular deletion? (Possibly followed by "salting" the page against recreation to prevent future abuse?)
Anyway, for now, I'm gonna hang a CSD tag on it for the G10 (attack page) criteria, but I'd appreciate a more experienced set of eyes & opinion on it. Thanks, --Umrguy42 (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm. Well, it looks like another admin thought so too, it's since been speedied. But anyway, would appreciate your thoughts on situations like these, whether to keep going to WP:CSD, or what (not that I normally go looking, but...). Anyway, thanks again. --Umrguy42 (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
To: Tone, The no erz, Ckatz
Hi. Can someone please merge Claude to List of minor Heroes characters with special abilities ? I think we agreed with that but never happened. The article lacks any real world information and its mainly plot description.
Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 07:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- I performed the merge today. -- 19:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Re this edit, what pending discussion are you referring to? As a new administrator, are you aware of WP:NFCC and how it is applicable? Specifically, I point you to criteria 1: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." We have Image:Hst pluto cropped.png, a free equivalent. It's a far suckier image, but it's free, and in most of the articles it serves the same purpose: displaying Pluto. Thus, we are required to use that one instead. I left the pretty image in the Pluto article, if you notice, since that's really the only place where its use can be justified. Please feel free to revert your reverts when you read this. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 16:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- With respect to the image, it is important to discuss a change of this nature first because there are several issues with regards to the replacement. The replacement images have been retouched (by a Wikipedia editor) and cropped, and were actually mislabelled in some instances as being "Pluto and Charon". (According to the official source, the two discs are both Pluto.) Furthermore, this is not a question of using a "prettier" image, as evidenced by the number of comments about the "disco ball" (Image:Pluto.jpg). Despite these complaints, we have used that image because it does better serve the "encyclopedic purpose". The original is a more accurate representation of Pluto, being a true-colour image. --Ckatzchatspy 19:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes it is a more accurate representation, but it's non-free so you can't just use it across articles willy-nilly. In most of these articles, it's just in a table and its purpose is to just show Pluto. Well, the suckier image also does the same job; the licensing of the photo takes precedence over the encyclopedic purpose. howcheng {chat} 20:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Contact juggling page Undo
Good Day,
I am newish to Wikipedia and as such get easily confused.
I recently made a single change to the Contact juggling page to give proper credit to Sphereplay which is trademarked.
I discussed it in the discussion page and then later made the edit.
Today I stop by and my edit has resulted in someone else removing all references to other names for the art form.
Since I am new to updating pages I would love to find out if there is an actual reason that a nameless IP address removed everything in the 'Names' section because I added the proper trademark notification. I would also like to find out how I can change it back without it being removed 2 minutes later by another nameless IP address
Thanks for your help.--RichShumaker (talk) 23:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Edit war regarding use of flags
This message is being left for both parties - please stop edit warring over the use of flags in the television template. This is a content dispute; reverting one another over and over is more detrimental to the project than the presence (or lack thereof) of an image. Both of you are in danger of violating the [[WP:3RR|three-revert guideline today; CJ2005B may already have done so. As well, to correct Islander, the template instructions are simply that - instructions for use. They do not mandate the use of a flag icon, nor should they be considered as being on the same level as an official guideline. --Ckatzchatspy 23:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oh and for the record, I made sure I didnt break 3RR. Note to Islander - Loved your edit summary when you removed that warning from your talk page! It was really funny. I would give a barnstar for it, but I fear you might not accept it! Anyway, it was bloody funny! Nice one CJ2005B (talk) 23:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- I somehow don't think that a barnstar would be appropriate here :P. Still, I thank you for your kind sentiments ;). We're going to have to agree to disagree when it comes to this matter (and, for the record, I completely disagree with Ckatz, but there you go). You seem a decent chap, and I know I am ( :P ), so here's hoping we just got off to an appalling start, and can put this behind us ;). TalkIslander 00:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- The edit war being "already over" (and Islander's being a sysop) aren't really relevant - the note was still valid. I'll emphasize, however, that it was just a note, not a warning or a template. If you've resolved it between yourselves, great, I was only trying to stop the back-and-forth on the page. However, since it has been brought up, I'm curious to ask Islander why he/she (sorry) "completely disagrees" with me. (I'm presuming it is in regards to the template-guideline comparison.) --Ckatzchatspy 08:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- I only referenced my sysop status to make obvious the fact that I know 3RR, and don't need to be told about it. I certainly didn't mean to imply that I am immune to 3RR, or anything like that, so sorry for any confusion there. As for the edit war being over, it is kinda relevant - if there the problems have ended on their own, no need to jump in. In response to your question (and, for your reference, I'm a 'he' :P ), take a look at WP:GUIDE. "...guidelines are more advisory in nature". To me, this suggests that in general guidelines should be followed, but common sense should also be used. In this instance, common sense suggests that the template instructions should be followed. You state "...official guidelines..." - they're no more or less official than the template instructions, both are written by the users of Wikipedia. Appologies CJ2005B for taking over your talk page. TalkIslander 10:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, but guidelines do have a higher status (if you will) than template instructions, as a guideline must reach consensus to become a guideline. (The template documentation is just that - instructions on how to use the code - and does not have the same weight. (As well, the template instructions do not say onemust use a flag, or even that flags are recommended. They only give a link to where you can find flag templates.) --Ckatzchatspy 15:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Islander's admin status may not be relevent at the moment, but should this escalate, more than likely it would come into play (based on experience). And an edit war is an issue whether or not it is currently active - does anyone really think this issue is over? Also, there is still obvious disagreement on some other matters, i.e. guidelines vs. templates etc.72.92.4.157 (talk) 13:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey guys...I bumped into this conversation on another user's page, and because I've done the same thing myself I want to ask--am I correct in my interpretation that flag icons are generally NOT supposed to be used in infoboxes?? I've removed quite a few, so if I'm doing something wrongly I'd like to know about it! Gladys J Cortez 01:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Was/Is
Hello Ckatz
How are you doing? Despite guide lines I think it would be in the articles interest to have was, apart from what Wikipedia says by the book what is your personal opinion on the matter? Regards Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 21:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Saw Loser Wiki
Hello,
I am contacting you because Ive been trying to make a Wiki page for a band called Saw Loser. I had gotten your message that I need to contact and ask for advice through the Wikipedia Music project page. I am completely new to WIki and was wondering if you could tell me how to do this.
Thank you :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reneerenee88 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Deletion of Mark Crysell
I Really appreaciate the job admin do on wikipedia but i fell Canadians would not want to look at N.Z media articles though Newzealanders do —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tshiels1 (talk • contribs) 06:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi. All I saw in the references was a the equivalent in Canadian units of a U.S. fl. oz. That might conceivably be there as a convenience rather than an indication that U.S. units are authorized. I think it's likely U.S. units are allowed, but I don't see where that's mentioned in the references given. Joeldl (talk) 08:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- It is in Section 11.2, stated as "Metric units must be used or, metric units and any other equivalent unit of measurement, provided that the metric units are displayed more prominently." (The relevant text is in bold text for emphasis.) Hope this helps. --Ckatzchatspy 08:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Dave McRae
Hello:
With the explanation, I see some of the areas of concern that you are talking about. However, it was written this way to reflect a lot of Wikipedia's articles reflecting people with in the entertainment industry.
Non the less, It would be greatly appreciated of a better angle and suggestions.. perhaps an example..
Linda Randall —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.151.137 (talk) 22:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Emily Sullivan
An article that you have been involved in editing, Emily Sullivan, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Sullivan. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Magioladitis (talk) 06:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Jarothbart (talk) 05:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC) Hello. You deleted GroupSwim Collaboration while I was adding information to the Talk section. Can you please undelete the article and/or review the talk page. You did not give me a chance to explain the entry.
List of BC uni's
I thought we weren't putting any of them on the list. GreenJoe 20:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Request for copy of article "Rice!"
Hello, I am Neod4000, and I joint created an article about a band which got speedily deleted, and due to time zones and things, I was not able to respond or do anything as it got deleted when it was 3 o clokc in the morning over here. However, all this aside, I would like to request a copy of the (ex)-page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice%21 if this is at all possible. I would not be intending to remake the article myself, and only want it for archival purposes, namely due to the fact that it was my first artile written, even if it did contradict guidelines.
Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neod4000 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Because they are either of poor quality or have really nothing to do with things. If you think there should be license plate image replace them with the ones from Canadian license plate designs and serial formats since they aren't garbage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fail Fail Fail Fail (talk • contribs) 21:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, some of those images were stolen from elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fail Fail Fail Fail (talk • contribs) 21:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I am replacing the images from the aforementioned page and putting them in a more relevant section of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fail Fail Fail Fail (talk • contribs) 21:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Spam Link
Hi,
I have been engaged in an effort to revert a series of edits that link to [5]. As you can see from Special:Contributions/70.79.114.83 this link has been added to a variety of articles that seem to be calculated to promote the outside web page rather than to develop Wikipedia. Seems to me to violate WP:LINKSPAM. You added the link back to Steveston, British Columbia when the source of this link added it and then deleted it. You commented that there was no explanation given for the deletion. I am not sure why the spammer backed down. My own view is that such sites are link farms under the guise of information sources and that wikipedia should not be used to promote them. Could you have a look at the situation and let me know what you think? Thanks. -- ````
- Hello... yes, we've been tracking and reverting the same person/link. However, the revert you're referring to actually involved the URL www.steveston.bc.ca; the spammer (after having his/her handiwork removed yet again) deleted that link out of what I can only assume is spite. --Ckatzchatspy 08:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
If I understand all this back and forth spam talk, which seems to involve me and my site, let me clarify the situation. First off, I kept re-adding my link because I assumed it was being removed by my competition at [6] as she's repeatedly sent me threatening and abusive emails. It wasn't until yesterday, May 19, while searching for someone with whom to file a complaint (still haven't found it), that I discovered all this social stuff, which I had no knowledge, interest or time for. I've never ventured beyond the main Steveston page, and others, other than to post paragraphs to the main article or add my external link. Every link posted had a right to be there, especially for the Steveston page. I have subject matter relating to each and every page linked to, though admittedly, didn't link to the page which directly related to each and every Wikipedia page, where I sometimes used my home link.
As for the Steveston page, if anyone had ever taken the time to click and look, it is COMPLETELY involved with everything Steveston to a degree that even my more entrenched--21 years to my 3--colleague who you allow to link, can't match.
You allow my link to remain on the Richmond, BC page--Steveston is a historic neighborhood of Richmond--but keep nixing it on the page it most closely relates to, which is Steveston. So, before running around Wikipedia labeling myself as a spammer, and my website as a link farm, try clicking on the link to see what kind of site it truly is.
I DO NOT SPAM knowingly, nor is this site or any I own a link farm. My links were added to provide more information on the page subject and to make Wikipedia an even more informative resource on various topics covered by my website. It wasn't for the traffic I receive from such links, as it is minimal. I apologize for the confusion in assuming it was my competition deleting my links, as she wishes to retire and my site has not helped her situation--has devaluated hers as it's so all encompassing--but seeing as I can't even use my Wikipedia account, as the login refuses to let me in, and when I try to create a new account using my login data I'm told the account is taken or in use, I was in the dark as to what was really happening.
Now, how does one clean up this mess so one can link to provide up-to-date info in an external site, or would you prefer to remain with the link to what has degraded, in comparison, to a second-grade resource on the subject of Steveston. I have no problem with her site being listed, as well, but when my superior resource link kept disappearing I just assumed it was her removing my link, given the nasty emails received from her. Dave Davis--70.79.114.83 (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
external link removal
I added an external link which you deleted
As I read the policy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links
the external link was well behaved. It does point to a great deal of 3D mapping for the region. Also, while the target is not GPL, it is free of any charge and so less commercial than, say,
http://www.whistlerblackcomb.com/
a totally commercial site designed to promote and accept payment for Intrawest's resort services.
Could you please explain if I misunderstand the policy?
Ata. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.66.227 (talk) 17:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I now realize you have also removed this link:
*EarthDetails.com Canadian Topographic Maps in 3D
from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_peaks_of_Canada
Do you realize that there is an external link to
http://www.bivouac.com/
This is a website that totally charges for its content. On EarthDetails everything is free of charge and every mountain in Canada is mapped in 3D, none of that available on Bivouac. Why so biased. Please explain and please post a comment explaining the reason when you remove things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.66.227 (talk) 02:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Gatchaman Titles
- I believe that Eagle Riders (1996 TV series) should have the new title Eagle Riders as it keeps redirecting to Battle of the Planets. Since I have written an article about the show and shown provided evidence of its existence. Dwanyewest (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- I forgot to mention the same for the above Gatchaman II (TV Series) to Gatchaman II. Dwanyewest (talk) 19:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
jacque parizeau article
there is a consensus on the jacques parizeau page about the edits I made, stop changing it please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.172.154 (talk) 21:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Superbird Links
I saw that briefly there were links added on the Plymouth Superbird page to the aerowarriors website, and then removed. I'm curious why they were removed. The Aerowarriors site is a non-profit, private-run site which is by far the best archive of Superbird/Daytona/Talladega information on the web...I'm not affiliated with that site but have met the guy who runs it and there's not a person out there with more pictures, videos, Nascar rule books, etc on their site...
Just wondering why the edit.
198.97.67.59 (talk) 17:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC) Jason Snowden darkmage@gmail.com http://www.geekpinions.com/
Spam Link
Hi,
I have been engaged in an effort to revert a series of edits that link to [7]. As you can see from Special:Contributions/70.79.114.83 this link has been added to a variety of articles that seem to be calculated to promote the outside web page rather than to develop Wikipedia. Seems to me to violate WP:LINKSPAM. You added the link back to Steveston, British Columbia when the source of this link added it and then deleted it. You commented that there was no explanation given for the deletion. I am not sure why the spammer backed down. My own view is that such sites are link farms under the guise of information sources and that wikipedia should not be used to promote them. Could you have a look at the situation and let me know what you think? Thanks. -- ````
- Hello... yes, we've been tracking and reverting the same person/link. However, the revert you're referring to actually involved the URL www.steveston.bc.ca; the spammer (after having his/her handiwork removed yet again) deleted that link out of what I can only assume is spite. --Ckatzchatspy 08:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
If I understand all this back and forth spam talk, which seems to involve me and my site, let me clarify the situation. First off, I kept re-adding my link because I assumed it was being removed by my competition at [8] as she's repeatedly sent me threatening and abusive emails. It wasn't until yesterday, May 19, while searching for someone with whom to file a complaint (still haven't found it), that I discovered all this social stuff, which I had no knowledge, interest or time for. I've never ventured beyond the main Steveston page, and others, other than to post paragraphs to the main article or add my external link. Every link posted had a right to be there, especially for the Steveston page. I have subject matter relating to each and every page linked to, though admittedly, didn't link to the page which directly related to each and every Wikipedia page, where I sometimes used my home link.
As for the Steveston page, if anyone had ever taken the time to click and look, it is COMPLETELY involved with everything Steveston to a degree that even my more entrenched--21 years to my 3--colleague who you allow to link, can't match.
You allow my link to remain on the Richmond, BC page--Steveston is a historic neighborhood of Richmond--but keep nixing it on the page it most closely relates to, which is Steveston. So, before running around Wikipedia labeling myself as a spammer, and my website as a link farm, try clicking on the link to see what kind of site it truly is.
I DO NOT SPAM knowingly, nor is this site or any I own a link farm. My links were added to provide more information on the page subject and to make Wikipedia an even more informative resource on various topics covered by my website. It wasn't for the traffic I receive from such links, as it is minimal. I apologize for the confusion in assuming it was my competition deleting my links, as she wishes to retire and my site has not helped her situation--has devaluated hers as it's so all encompassing--but seeing as I can't even use my Wikipedia account, as the login refuses to let me in, and when I try to create a new account using my login data I'm told the account is taken or in use, I was in the dark as to what was really happening.
Now, how does one clean up this mess so one can link to provide up-to-date info in an external site, or would you prefer to remain with the link to what has degraded, in comparison, to a second-grade resource on the subject of Steveston. I have no problem with her site being listed, as well, but when my superior resource link kept disappearing I just assumed it was her removing my link, given the nasty emails received from her. Dave Davis--70.79.114.83 (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
external link removal
I added an external link which you deleted
As I read the policy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links
the external link was well behaved. It does point to a great deal of 3D mapping for the region. Also, while the target is not GPL, it is free of any charge and so less commercial than, say,
http://www.whistlerblackcomb.com/
a totally commercial site designed to promote and accept payment for Intrawest's resort services.
Could you please explain if I misunderstand the policy?
Ata. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.66.227 (talk) 17:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I now realize you have also removed this link:
*EarthDetails.com Canadian Topographic Maps in 3D
from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_peaks_of_Canada
Do you realize that there is an external link to
http://www.bivouac.com/
This is a website that totally charges for its content. On EarthDetails everything is free of charge and every mountain in Canada is mapped in 3D, none of that available on Bivouac. Why so biased. Please explain and please post a comment explaining the reason when you remove things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.66.227 (talk) 02:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Gatchaman Titles
- I believe that Eagle Riders (1996 TV series) should have the new title Eagle Riders as it keeps redirecting to Battle of the Planets. Since I have written an article about the show and shown provided evidence of its existence. Dwanyewest (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- I forgot to mention the same for the above Gatchaman II (TV Series) to Gatchaman II. Dwanyewest (talk) 19:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
jacque parizeau article
there is a consensus on the jacques parizeau page about the edits I made, stop changing it please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.172.154 (talk) 21:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Superbird Links
I saw that briefly there were links added on the Plymouth Superbird page to the aerowarriors website, and then removed. I'm curious why they were removed. The Aerowarriors site is a non-profit, private-run site which is by far the best archive of Superbird/Daytona/Talladega information on the web...I'm not affiliated with that site but have met the guy who runs it and there's not a person out there with more pictures, videos, Nascar rule books, etc on their site...
Just wondering why the edit.
198.97.67.59 (talk) 17:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC) Jason Snowden darkmage@gmail.com http://www.geekpinions.com/
Monotone (common) Help
Hi, sorry to bother you. User Orangemike deleted the stub on this topic that I started, so that we would have a place to define some (the most) common uses of "monotone" none of which are covered in any of our articles. I tried to explain in detail where it was headed and don't seem to be getting anywhere. Could you kindly help and explain to me how I should proceed. I don't try to be contentious. But apparently I'm being told that this word "doesn't mean" what is described in the dictionary, (?!) while it does mean something that try as I might I can't fit to any of the uses that I've spent (wasted) many of my working hours on? BTW just looking at the dictionary definition doesn't help with figuring out exactly what features make something monotonous. What am I getting wrong? How could I help create the space for answers to common questions on "monotony" to be collected/presented in wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisa4edit (talk • contribs) 01:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC) Lisa4edit (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Scrubs redirect
In reply to [9], you said:
- Hello... regarding your message, I appreciate your concern - but it would have been more appropriate to enquire as to the situation rather than just assuming the worst. I'm certainly not interested in edit warring, nor do I personally care about where the redirect goes. However, there was an established consensus as to where the redirect should go, and the page has been plagued with multiple changes since then (usually from newer editors who aren't aware of the consensus.) Part of an administrator's role is to ensure consensus reached through discussion is maintained, and that involves using our discretion to do so. In this case, it is clear that leaving the page redirected to the TV series will not achieve that goal. Accordingly, the best choice is to protect the consensus version. If you disagree, I'm happy to discuss it with you - and I do apologize if my edit summary wasn't clear as to my intentions. However, I still feel that there is no need whatsoever to suggest a "misuse" of the admin bit when a thorough examination of the details clearly reveals it is not. --Ckatzchatspy 20:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- The details are exceptionally clear: you have reverted all-comers Scrubs since August 2007, on 5 separate occasions. Most recently, you did so to a version which you have repeatedly preferred and you did so through a full protection. The protection policy is absolutely clear on the point, at WP:PROT#Content disputes. It is also clear that the most recent version is the one that should be protected unless it contains vandalism or other overtly unacceptable content.
- I would be interested in seeing the truly extraordinary discussion that you think licenses such an opposite approach as the one you are taking - in neither of the two discussions (Talk:Scrub#scrubS should undoubtably redirect and Talk:Scrubs (TV series)#Scrubs) I can find on the matter is such an exceptional position displayed. You should not have edited the article using your admin tools when it was fully protected, and I am rather shocked that you have just "yes, I should have". Again, I'm going to invite you to undo yourself and respect the policy. If you do not, I will enforce the policy myself until a discussion settles on a particular destination for the redirect. Splash - tk 21:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC) (PS, this being about you, I would prefer to have the conversation on your talk page.)
- There was a decision to move the article about clothing and redirect Scrubs to the disambiguation page Scrub in 2006, with no objection from the regulars on the medical article. There was also a decision in 2007 at the TV article to keep Scrubs pointing to the disambiguation page. While those were both short conversations, there has not been any pressure from the regulars at either article to change the redirect/disambiguation setup. There also been a consistent pattern in which regular editors have reverted to maintain the redirect/disambiguation after it was changed without discussion to the TV show by a series of IPs and newer editors.
- Look, this really shouldn't be such a big deal. I can assure you that it is certainly not meant as any sort of comment on your move to protect the page. I'll revert myself if you wish, but I really think you should open a discussion on the matter - or at least make some sort of mention of it - on the talk page. Otherwise, the page remains locked, there's no clear explanation of why, and the regulars who have been working under consensus are left in the dark. --Ckatzchatspy 22:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- There's an explanation for why in the protection log, so noone is in the dark. I know your edit is no comment on my protection of the page; but that's also not what I'm talking about. You just must not edit through protection in the way that you did. I'm going to leave this now, and unprotect it. Splash - tk 12:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
From Jreconomy
Hi CKatz I received your message The research from IBISWorld reports is completely objective (based on econmic trends and research so I'm not trying to promote any product in particular). I have access to IBISWorld's economic/encyclopedic information when it is published so it is simple for me to upload it.
I understand your criticism though so I will refrain from writing "IBISWorld' when uploading content on to wiki pages.
--Jreconomy (talk) 07:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC) Thanks Jreconomy
I am not sure why you reverted my edits. I made those changes because I found them useful. I am sure others will as well. Additionally, they did not take up any extra space, since that space had been blank beforehand. Please revert back. --Eliyak T·C 21:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- In principle, the idea is interesting. However, the template itself is not designed for such a fine degree of directional input, nor is it appropriate given the constraints imposed by the typial Wikipedia page. (For example, while you've squeezed in the directions you did, there's not really any room to add their counterparts that require horizontal space.) This template is only intended to give an approximate indication of where other cities are. --Ckatzchatspy 22:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not advocating expanding the template size. I only want to make better use of the space available. The other four direction possibilities need not be available at all, but people will still benefit from being able to use these four. What does it matter what the template is "intended" to do? That is open to change. --Eliyak T·C 22:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have re-reverted. --Eliyak T·C 14:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- The changes have been removed again, pending discussion. (I've asked the other editor who maintains the template to comment as well.) Again, the addition of the additional points is not necessary, and does not improve the template in its current form. In fact, it actually complicates the design, as it is nearly impossible to differentiate between the different positions given the coarse resolution possible with a text-based template system. (This is especially true with longer entries that tend to wrap.) If you still feel strongly about his, I would suggest you open a discussion on the template page to get input from other editors. --Ckatzchatspy 17:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have re-reverted. --Eliyak T·C 14:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not advocating expanding the template size. I only want to make better use of the space available. The other four direction possibilities need not be available at all, but people will still benefit from being able to use these four. What does it matter what the template is "intended" to do? That is open to change. --Eliyak T·C 22:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Screenplay software article consistency
Hi Ckatz,
I noticed your edits to the Scripped article and removal of information you described as "trivial." I understand that the article cannot be used for advertising, but if you look at the field of other articles on screenwriting software, such practice is very common. For examples, please see the company articles linked from: List_of_screenwriting_software and especially Zhura, which I largely based my Scripped article on.
Have you found trivial information on these articles as well?
I would appreciate your thoughts. Thanks. Rbucks (talk) 13:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Mount Seymour
Why did you remove my Mount Seymour link to ShredBC?
www.shredbc.com/resorts/seymour/
-D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.196.240 (talk) 18:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Reverting Scripped page
Hi Ckatz,
Not sure what was meant by your silence, but now nonvocalscream has posted us for deletion, presumably because you took a bunch of content off our page and now it lacks purpose.
Furthermore, there are a bunch of other screenwriting software pages on Wikipedia. You can see them at List_of_Screenwriting_Software. Will you guys delete all of us?
I hope to hear from you soon. Thanks. Rbucks (talk) 02:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, Ckatz, I feel like a squeaky wheel, but I'm confused. Check out Celtx, Movie Magic Screenwriter and Zhura and you'll see feature sections with same material that I described. What makes their features more notable than ours? You'll see it's the same stuff. Rbucks (talk) 05:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Is/Was in The Black Donnellys
I reverted your edit back to was. After chatting with a few editors to make sure, the proper way to state a show that formerly aired is using "was". Have a good day :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 17:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. However, the correct wording (per Wikipedia convention) is to retain the present tense. Creative works are considered to exist even after ceasing production. --Ckatzchatspy 17:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Ahh kay, I started a talk page discussion, and came here to tell you about it then saw this. Can you link me to that naming convention? I gotta go for right now. I will keep this page up for when I get home from work.<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 18:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
why did you remove the BowenTV link?
please explain... do you own this site?
sincerely BowenTV www.bowenislandtv.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.82.101.100 (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- The link was removed because it does not meet the external links guideline. Ths is not a comment on the quality of your site, merely a reflection of the fact that Wikipedia is not intended to serve as a directory service. Hope this helps. --Ckatzchatspy 22:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
link removal
Hi, you removed the link to my site from your newsletter entry. If you look at the site - http://www.internal-communications.info there's actually a useful guide on how to write and produce newsletters and other communications materials. Considering your entry consists of nothing more than a brief dictionary definition, then I would have thought this was a useful link as many people who look up your entry will be looking for the sort of advice that my site provides. I shall be grateful if you will reconsider and replace the link.
Thanks
Harris Johns
81.174.162.37 (talk) 07:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Date formatting in Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood
Sir,
You recently reverted several changes I made in date formats in Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood. I feel that the reversion was unwarranted. I have replied to your assertion on the talk page.
At the least I maintain that the date in the quotation should not be subject to autoformatting.
The date ranges were recently changed from a compact form, to a form with repetition of month names, which reduces readability. The MOS seems to imply that this is not preferred.
The single dates are another matter; the MOS suggests that articles of localized interest may use a single fixed format throughout, though there is no suggestion that this is preferred.
Please reply with a further explication of which changes you will allow and which you won't. Cstaffa (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Just curious...
Why did you block the article for The Sound of Drums (Doctor Who)? I was actually making useful, non-warring edits. Mael-Num (talk) 23:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC) ...And more importantly, why a week? That's highly irregular. Mael-Num (talk) 00:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I figured it would be more appropriate to answer your question here. It's from a song. I didn't mean that you were levelling an ultimatum at anyone, and I hope you didn't take it to mean I was making an ultimatum to you.
Would have been a pretty lame ultimatum if it were. ;)
Thanks again for the reply. Mael-Num (talk) 00:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hi; as a side-note to that, could I ask you to read through the talkpage discussion if you've not done so? I know it's a lot, but the comments and edit-summaries left by Mael are atrociously rude, attempting to score minor debating points ("if you're going to point at the founder of Wikipedia at least spell his name right"/"In the interests of AGF, I'll assume that you're actually a moron, and not willfully ignorant").
- While I'm grateful for you to (perhaps accidentally) protecting what is undoubtedly the "right version" :p I honestly don't believe that a meaningful and constructive discussion can take place with Mael's attitude. Aside from anything, while you're obviously not allowed to comment on the issue at hand having protected it, I'm sure you'll reach an opinion on the issue, and it will be similar to either mine or Mael's... And I can guess which one :-) That wasn't too obsequious, was it? ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 07:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- I really don't mind if Ckatz offers an opinion, even if he (?) blocked the article. Despite my ability to prattle on about WP:This and WP:That, I'm not much of a stickler for rules, particularly ones which exclude people from participating. The more the merrier. Mael-Num (talk) 08:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The X-Files: I Want to Believe
Hi, Ckatz! Could you explain to me why you keep reverting the page about The X-Files: I Want to Believe? Your first deletion was acceptable, as you were removing speculation (I'd forgotten that speculation was discouraged at Wikipedia, as I'm much more used to Wikia and Memory Alpha - being an administrator at the latter and the iniator of currently the only Wiki about The X-Files). There was absolutely no reason for your latest revert of the page, however, as I rewrote the text without speculation and you provided no explanation for your revert. What's going on with you?! --Scififan714 (talk) 10:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. Regarding the revert, keep in mind that it was a case of an anonymous IP editor whose only two edits were to 1) add speculative trivia, then 2) restore that trivia without explanation after it was removed. As for the information, it is non-notable trivia, as explained by the other editor who reverted your text. Hope this helps. --Ckatzchatspy 18:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. I had a feeling we'd be able to settle this amicably and we have, so that's cool! :-) Is there someplace I can learn about the guidelines of what is acceptable here? Wikipedia seems a lot stricter on what is acceptable than Wikia sites (perhaps due to the quantity of users making edits to Wikipedia pages)! Also, I have realized that registered users are more "respected" than unregistered ones, so I have signed up for Wikipedia as, though I don't make many edits to this site, it still has its uses (which I would say are limited as, IMHO, it's incomplete - for example, the information I tried to add was removed)! Are there any help pages for Wikipedia? Your assistance would be much appreciated (sorry if I'm rambling)! --Scififan714 (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Grrr!
WHY IS WIKIPEDIA PREDATORIZING ME WITH MY IP ADDRESS?! SHOULDN'T THAT BE ILLEGAL TO PREDATORIZE OTHER USERS WITH THEIR IP ADDRESS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.235.74 (talk) 20:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what your question is. I'll presume that you are referring to the fact that your edits are listed under your IP address. That is because you have chosen to edit anonymously, without registering. All edits must be logged under the licence used for Wikipedia's content; if you prefer not to display your IP, just click on the "Log in/Create account" button. (Registering also allows you to have a personal talk page, create a watchlist for pages you've edited and/or wish to follow, and so on.) Please feel free to ask if you have any questions about this. --Ckatzchatspy 22:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Vandalism?
The first time around, I was asked to reconstruct it, i thought I did, and now I'm a Vandal? I'm not sure I understand Brent2009 (talk) 09:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank You
I don't really understand why my link is in violation, but thank you for clarifying to me, I do appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brent2009 (talk • contribs) 09:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- No problem - and thanks forleaving me a note so that I could correct my previous message. As mentioned, the issue is with adding promotional links. You may find the external links guideline helpful in understanding this; feel free to ask if you have any questions about it. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 09:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I've read through the guidelines, I'm not really seeing how that site is promotional, and not just informational like the others under the same category. I do appreciate your diligence to keep Wikipedia up to par, and for that let me go ahead and say thank you so much. =] Even though I may not grasp the difference, I know that you wouldn't have made the decision if it wasen't needed, so thank you again. =] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brent2009 (talk • contribs) 10:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
plutoid
Hi Ckatz,
So you're saying that a plutoid "for naming purposes" is not a plutoid? kwami (talk) 18:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, I undid the recent move to Eris, pending some discussion. Maybe you'd like to support/oppose the move? kwami (talk) 18:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, for the template, those are all plutoids and plutoid candidates, so the change is accurate. I also don't see anything wrong with categorizing a plutoid for naming purposes as a plutoid, since that does not remove it from the dwarf planet or TNO categories. kwami (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Per the release, "The two known and named plutoids are Pluto and Eris. It is expected that more plutoids will be named as science progresses and new discoveries are made." The text further down about naming apears to be related to resolving the overlap with regards to naming objects between the IAU (planetary bodies and their satellites), the WGPSN (surface features) and the CSBN (small bodies except satellites of the major planets). I'm sure we'll eventually see Sedna et al declared as plutoids/dwarf planets, but for now only two are official. --Ckatzchatspy 18:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
a-ha page
Why did you delete the Norwegian flag from the a-ha article ? I see no reason for removing it. a-ha is from Norway always have been, always will be and the flag is a nice adittion to the article. I like an answer, please Mortyman (talk) 00:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- It isn't a question of where they are from. The Manual of Style - specifically, the section regarding use of flags - outlines how we are supposed to avoid the decorative use of images. --Ckatzchatspy 00:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- If one should go after those rules, there is'nt really a place for flags at all. This is not a scientific paper my friend. And there is no doubt where a-ha is born. Numourous other bands and peoples bio's includes the flag. Many British, Australian and American bands have them. Flag goes back on ! Mortyman (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Being (or not being) a "scientific paper" has nothing to do with it. This is an encyclopedia, with a series of policies and guidelines developed under consensus. Please read through the Manual of Style and the guideline for use of flags. While you may find the use of the image esthetically pleasing, that does not make it acceptable under the site's rules. Neither does the presence elsewhere. Also, please stop reverting without discussion as that is not permitted either. --Ckatzchatspy 01:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Block for 62.255.252.75
Hello,
Thanks for your reports of vandalism from 62.255.252.75. I am the IT Support Manager for Dr Challoner's Grammar School, the school owning this IP address; we fully support the block action that has been taken and can only apologise for the poor behaviour of our students. I will be following up the incidents internally this morning.
In the meantime, could you let me know how long the current block is for? As per agreed school policy, I would fully support the longest block available for anonymous editors as it seems there are always students perfectly willing to break the rules and control we have in place to prevent this sort of thing.
Secondly, as noted on the talk page, it is essential that any block is duplicated on our second proxy's external IP address, 62.255.252.76 for the ban to be effective, as external access is load-balanced between these two servers using Round robin DNS.
Thanks in advance for your time. Jay Schlackman (talk) 08:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hello, and thank you for the swift response. Tonight's vandalism was relatively minor in nature, being more of a nuisance factor. However, I did block for six months based on past history. Given your attention to the matter, however, I have now reduced that term to two months, and (as per your request) extended it to the second IP. Thank you again for taking a proactive approach to this matter. Please feel free to ask if you have nay questions about this. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 09:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Cold Case Again
If you see CSI, CSI Miami articles, They have every little detail about the show...I Mean, I'm a Cold Case Fan and we have the right to do so. To give people details of the show because It had has 111 episodes until now and all them are different! For what I can see, you´re used to delete other people´s work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eduardodelroice (talk • contribs) 21:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Doctor Who
What makes you say "they have changed their site" - the fact that he is half-human is explicitly there on the most recent and update version of the site. I know this fact upsets some fanboys but that's not a wikipedia problem, sorry. --87.113.55.13 (talk) 23:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for resolving (and I do hope it is resolved) the half human nonsense. The BBC site is inferior to the show itself, and it makes for a good example as an unreliable Reliable Source. MartinSFSA (talk) 19:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Desert Vista High School page
I hope you don't mind but I added some info about the band program
--Lowtrumpet (talk) 01:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)Lowtrumpet
Image removal
I'm puzzled why you don't see a graph showing a rough trend of vandalism correction effort over time being useful in general to the poll, but you're entitled to your own view. Since you're now holding the position that the illustration is somehow a material change to the poll I intend on elaborating my comment in the discussion and including the image there. Can I trust that you will not remove it again? --Gmaxwell (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- There are a number of issues with the graphic, and its placement. First off, we shouldn't be tinkering with the lead while the poll is under way. Secondly, the graphic itself is confusing and hard to interpret. There is no explanation of what the different axes represent, no qualification as to how the results are compiled, and no indication as to whether or not it is even relevant. Counting rollbacks is not a definitive measure of vandalism; rollbacks are often used as a speedy revert of other material, especially given that many users have scripts that allow proper edit comments when rolling back. Finally, I'm not sure why you feel it is appropriate to include this graph when you were opposed to including the poll results. --Ckatzchatspy 22:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Spam and Noflow links
not sure if this was meant for me. i had added external links to John C Maxwell, Warren Bennis, Robin Sharma and Tom peters pertaining to the specific ranking they received as leadership gurus (now they are gone). i have no affiliation with maxwell, sharma ... and do not need to advertise them (links to their websites are already there and and personally i find that useful), the leadership gurus site is not commercial, and i am not affiliated with it either. so what exactly is the problem? 202.169.237.30 (talk) 12:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
My FEAR ITSELF links
Since other horror websites (run by white men) are able to leave links on the FEAR ITSELF page on wikipedia, I feel I should be able to leave a link to my reviews from my horror site as well. However, taking down my links ONLY.....while leaving theirs up, and using some BS excuse like I'm spamming, and not providing useful info...leads me to believe that there is a racial component to your behavior and content editing. Therefore, should this keep up...I will not only report Wikipedia to various media outlets and the NAACP....as a racially bias website, but will also take legal action as well in a civil case. Have a nice day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newyork2010 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- I could respond in so many ways to this... anger, over a nonsensical accusation of racial bias; frustration, given that you've obviously not read the external links guideline... Look, this isn't a link directory. If there are other sites that (as with yours) should not be there, let me know. Don't resort to making ridiculous, unfounded, confrontational, unfair, insensitive and meaningless accusations just because your nose is out of joint. --Ckatzchatspy 21:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I need help
I'm on the verge of starting an edit war, and having just got blocked for edit warring I really don't want to start over again. I could use a third person arbitration before things get hairy. The issue is quite simple, but rather fraught. There's an article called "Hypothetical trans-Neptunian planets" that was created as a merge article for the articles on the ninth planet and the tenth planet. I've never been a fan of this article; it's meandering, vague, gossipy, unsourced and lacking in anything approaching historical and scientific rigour. Since much of what it said was already in the Planet X article, which is far better sourced and organised, and since no one had made any substantial edits to the other article in months, I decided to merge the other article with Planet X, assuming no one would even notice, let alone care. However, a few days later, to my absolute shock, someone showed up who apparently cared. User:The Tom not only reinstated the other article, but began removing similar material from "Planet X", much to my chagrin, as the material in Planet X was cited and the equivalent material in the other article was not. Eventually we came to a kind of compromise (although not one I liked very much) that "Planet X" would be strictly about Lowell's idea, with all other hypothetical trans-Neptunian planets kept in the other article. Specifically, the other article was to hold material on the recent announcement by Patryk Lykawka of Kobe University that gravitational effects suggest the presence of a large planet in the outer Solar System. Since this is essentially the same rationale for Lowell's Planet X, Lykawka's planet is called "Planet X" in the media. There are also other "Planet X"s out there, proposed by other astronomers.
Nonetheless, I held for a few days, because I didn't particularly care. However, today, a slew of information has been added to the Planet X article about Lykawka's planet, and I realised that if I was to hold to Tom's separation policy I would be spending the rest of my Wiki career removing this information, which I didn't particularly want to do, especially since I felt it should be there anyway, and that the other article wasn't worth saving. So I reverted the merge and reinstated all the old material. But I figured Tom would burst his gasket when he found out, so I thought I'd ask for a second opinion. Let me know what you think. Serendipodous 14:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
A-ha
Hello, im a serious fan of a-ha and i cant tolerate someone add wrong information about a-ha in that page i cant understand whats the relation between a-ha page and brazilian certification??? i know many chart position about a-ha earned in mid 80 and after. but they are not in internet. but i followed those before. thank you for your comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mortenfa (talk • contribs) 07:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thing is, you have to provide a reliable source for the claim. Memory isn't good enough; it has to be something verifiable. --Ckatzchatspy 07:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Berkeley
Hmm, I thought you were not an editor of that article Ckatz. If you want to edit, you are welcome to do so, but you cannot be an unbiased admin if you are blocking editors you disagree with, and this goes for bringing in the cavalry of buddies or whatnot too. So please choose: editor or admin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.10.248 (talk) 05:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- Reverting changes by an editor with a history of POV incidents is perfectly acceptable, and does not in any way limit my responsibilities as an admin. --Ckatzchatspy 05:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey
im trying to write an article about a book that i wrote and you just deleted i was seeing if you would delete it and you did can i write an article about my book or are you guys just going to delete it because of it's " non significance". I'm not promoting sales or anything im just writing an article that explains the outline of the book now please respond quickly before i waste more of my time —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdastoli (talk • contribs) 08:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Please help!
Hi Ckatz, I see you're an admin for Wikipedia - just the person I'm looking for! I'm hoping you can help me ...
Earlier this evening, I created my very first Wikipedia account and got to work on an article. The content of this article was about me and my history as a professional pianist, which I intended to submit in the "American pianists" subcategory. (Several of my colleagues are already included and urged me to submit my own page). I put up a brief (but relevant) page and uploaded it. Everything seemed fine.
When I came back to the page a little while later it was flagged with a notice questioning the validity of the content. I wasn't aware at the time that another user had added the flag; I assumed it was an automatic response from Wikipedia due to an editing oversight on my part. After tinkering with some details on the page, I erased the flag and kept working. However, it continued to re-appear (again, I wasn't aware that a real-life person was making these edits). This pattern continued several times. Eventually, I created a second account using my own name to do the editing - assuming this would be more acceptable - and began to add reference links for additional verification of my work.
I eventually received a message on "my talk" from one of the users who was flagging my account (LEGOTECHMichael Angelucci (talk) 09:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)), telling me to stop making edits and erasing the flags or I would be "blocked from editing". I followed his messages and stumbled across a complaint he posted about me on the "Incidents" board. I wrote back to LEGOTECHMichael Angelucci (talk) 09:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC) and indicated that I was new here and was unaware of his messages and that I was erasing his edits. Afterwards I added another reference link only to find my article flagged yet AGAIN (unfairly if you ask me). Frustrated, I decided to just erase the whole page and worry about it later, only to try it and get ANOTHER message accusing me of vandalism!
I realize I wasn't aware of all the protocols here, but can any user just flag another user or their articles on a whim? I was only trying to submit a solid article. I had no idea I was even receiving messages/complaints until after the fact, and I certainly wasn't trying to vandalize anyone's work, least of all my own. In any event, I used my initial account to erase the whole page. The last thing I wanted was all this controversy.
I would like to re-submit an article in the future if I can avoid all this behind-the-scenes drama. I would appreciate hearing your thoughts on the matter. If possible, please email me at [mangelucci@yahoo.com]. If there is someone else I should talk to, please feel free to point me in their direction.
Thanks for your consideration. Michael Angelucci (talk) 09:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Personal attacks
What's Wikipedia's policy on dealing with personal attacks? I've been dealing with them over at Talk:Planetary habitability but they're beginning to get on my nerves. I'm usually pretty cool with personal attacks but not when they're posted on my talk page.Serendipodous 18:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- Simply put, they are not permitted under any circumstances; this isn't just a guideline, it is policy. I'll take a look at the page. --Ckatzchatspy 18:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Do you think you could put Planetary habitability on your watchlist? I can't do this anymore. I've been taking abuse from this user for months and so far no one has seen fit to help me deal with him. I've taken the article off my watchlist but I'm terrified of what he'll do with it once I'm gone. Marskell, who created the article, is on semi-permanent Wikibreak, so I have no one else to turn to. Serendipodous 09:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'll also keep an eye on it, though I'll be gone most of July and can't promise much. kwami (talk) 09:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- Since the problem is coming from multiple anonymous IPs, blocks might not do much good. And since the article is already FA and should no longer need the kind of attention we depend on anons for, I just protected it. If our visitor wishes to continue, at least he'll have to sign in. kwami (talk) 09:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
User:Bongbarbarian
Meh. I think that was an overreaction. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for the revert on my userpage:-) I appreciate it. By the way, you're a great vandal fighter. Keep up the good work! I've noticed you a lot in the recent changes;-)--SJP (talk) 05:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Quebec city article
Can you please check the edits that I made regarding the national capital question. I did put a source on this matter. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.167.251 (talk) 07:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Your Edits To Haroo
Dear Sir or Madam, Why did you delete the redirection from Haroo to Cockatoo? Haroo is a sound commonly made by cockatoo's and I for one have searched Haroo in order to see if there was any information on the sound.
I request that you turn it back sir. Sonnenbuhlians Unite (talk) 02:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Nofollow?
Ckatz, I'm sorry but I don't understand what the nofollow thing means. I'm assuming that is what I am doing wrong. People are putting petitions on our site, so I was putting them on Wikipedia under their shows. You know, save our show, which Spiderman is better, that kinda stuff. I figured it was no different that IMDb putting links to their pages so I copied what they were doing. So what am I getting wrong? Here's what one of my links looked like under External Links...
- Which Spiderman is Better Petition on YouChoose.net
Thanks for your help.
Mary Beth —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbdostillio (talk • contribs) 21:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Removing my recent edit to Esther
Hi, You recently removed my edit from the "Esther" page, suggesting it was advertising.
Help me understand how adding another entry to the "Modern Retelling" section which in between lines that are already included like:
In 2000, VeggieTales, a company that uses CGI vegetables to teach children lessons from the Bible in a comical way, released Esther... The Girl Who Became Queen.
In 2005, biblical novelist Ginger Garrett released, Chosen: The Lost Diaries of Queen Esther 480-465 BC.
In 2006, Lightstone Studios, LLC released "Esther and the King," a live-action movie musical. It is part of the Liken Bible Series.
is advertising?
Being a fan of musicals, I was aware of several adaptations of musicals that did not seem to appear on a few pages like this one. So, I felt I could contribute. I am not the creator of these musicals. I have listed a few on a variety of pages, and was about to add more by other playwrights when I discovered that at least one of my entries was edited out.
If it is inappropriate to list these musicals under "Modern Retelling" (and on a few other pages where I added similar lines under headings like "Other Adaptations", "Stage", etc.) why aren't all of the other ones listed being removed?
I really do want to be a good Wikipedian. I have benefitted from Wikipedia for many years and am a good friend of Ward Cunningham, the father of Wikis. I understand the purpose of the "not advertising" rule. I'm not sure I understand the rule you are following here. It certainly doesn't seem like the not advertising rule is being appropriately applied here.
Thanks for educating me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kauerrolemodel (talk • contribs) 05:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
OOPS... forgot to sign.
I recently questioned your reversing of edits on the Esther page (and others I've discovered since then), and forgot to sign using the four tildes.
Sorry...
Kauerrolemodel (talk) 05:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Our entries being deleted
Hi Ckatz
We are an experimental arts researchers putting reciprocal links into Wikipedia to ensure that entries are up to date. Our interest is only to provide information.
We do not want to be considered spammers as we are very much supportive of Wikipedia's open ethos.
We know you are very busy and get a lot of messages on your chat page. But maybe you can explain specifically why we are going wrong. We do not want to mess up the system.
Hope you can enlighten us.
Kind regards MrArchive —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrarchive2 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Don't you think the spoiler note on refs should stay... I wouldn't want to mess anyone up?--Dr who1975 (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Generally speaking, Wikipedia doesn't use spoiler tags, even in references. Hope this helps. --Ckatzchatspy 22:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
link removal
Hello Ckatz,
I am writing to you concerning the notice I've received from Wikipedia regarding recent external links. If you feel the links are in appropriate, that is fine. I did, however, want to let you know that although the links point to my website, which is advertising supported, all of the information on my site is free to the public. My intention was to provide your readers with information that is lacking in the Wikipedia articles. My purpose is not to sell anything and not to spam your website. I cannot include any of the material I've written in the form of articles on your site because my contract with About.com prohibits that. I was just hoping to provide information to your readers.
However, I'll respect your decisions on that and stop editing if that is your preference.
Sincereley, Ann Logsdon
Ann Logsdon (talk) 02:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
THought you might like to know that Jtp is now using their user page as a soap box against you whilst Blocked. THought you might want to know in case you wanted to protect the page. BigHairRef | Talk 08:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry forgot to add could you respond on my talk page if you're going to reply? Thanks BigHairRef | Talk 08:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Deletion of my page
My page was clearly not a personal attack and that was your reason for deleting, it was instead a biography on the life of Travis McBride, god bless his heart, that was 100% accurate and true. If anything it was giving that man praise and recognition for all he has done and I think if anything was an attack on him... it was your deletion of my article on him. good day sir! --Tjmcbooes (talk) 08:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well, either:
- a) you really like the guy ("He turns straight men gay and women into lesbians"), in which case it is still an inappropriate page;
- b) you loathe the guy ("Travis weighs no less than over 9000 pounds"), in which case it is an attack page;
- c) or you are the guy ("He is the light in the life of everyone around him, truely a pleasure to be around"), in which case it is a vanity page.
- Either way, it isn't a suitable contribution, and has been removed. --Ckatzchatspy 08:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
i am the guy... it was C you caught me! --Tjmcbooes (talk) 08:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Journey's End (Doctor Who)
I accidentally put back the wrong verson of my references... you didn't have to delete the entire thing.--Dr who1975 (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Saint Jean Baptiste Day naming dispute
- I've asked some dissenting editors to acknowledge the Wikipedia naming conventions that emphasize that article titles should be the ones that are most recognizable to English-speakers[10]. If they do not, I think we should ask for a Request for comment as the next step in solving this dispute, as such a refusal could constitute bad faith. It will require at least two editors to start the process. Thank you. --soulscanner (talk) 19:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Pgsyl IP check
Added IP check for our friend Pgsylv [11] requesting that IP's be blocked for a year. --soulscanner (talk) 05:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
use of editorial templates
I notice that you have placed an exclamation icon on my talk page.
You should be aware that I have never added an inappropriate external link to Wikipedia. All of my contributions have been submitted for bona fide purposes. My use of the term 'bona fide' means that the main reason and intention of my contributions is to provide Wikipedia readers with access to more valid and more relevant information. And I can affirm the reliability, validity, and relevance of the contributions for use on Wikipedia.
Not one deletion of my edits adds any valid or relevant information about the topics. Moreover, the accounts that deleted my contributions used language that demonstrates bias and non-neutrality.
You have used language that threatens to block my account from editing Wikipedia. Because I have never added an inappropriate external link to Wikipedia, and because my contributions can be affirmed and substantiated to be valid, relevant, and bona fide; your comments don't sound neutral or knowledgeable.
Please don't let Wikipedia be a vehicle for bias and non-neutrality. It undermines the credibility of the encyclopedia and the organization.
Please reconsider your use of templates for contributions of external links. The way that these templates have been used poses a serious source of editorial conflict of interest that also demonstrates bias and non-neutrality. Just because a template is used doesn't mean that the use is accurate or relevant.
If you think that it would be appropriate to forward this matter to an objective party for more appropriate consideration, then I would strongly encourage you to do so.Whatismetric (talk) 09:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Mister Saxon = Master No. Six
Hi there Ckatz!
What was it that you didn't like about the anagram Mister Saxon = Master No. Six?
(I.e. why did you remove it?)
It is noted on this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Story_arcs_in_Doctor_Who#Saxon_arc
87.102.114.214 (talk) 13:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Mister Saxon = Master No. Six
Ooops! I didn't sign in first ...
Dj manton (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Our friend
He operates out of the University of Guelph in Canada, apparently from Johnston Hall. Almost all his IPs resolve to Guelph, the majority to tJohnston Hall - a couple have been from the Guelph library. I've just rangeblocked the entire Johnston Hall range for a week to give us some time off. I haven't see any productive edits from any of the IPs he's used there, though unfortunately I can't entirely rule out collateral damage, of course. I haven't seen any Indian IPs myself, though perhaps he is trying to branch out? Best, Gwernol 02:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
TfD nomination of Template:Jericho Morse Code
Template:Jericho Morse Code has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Deadly∀ssassin 10:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Reason given for deletion of my page on 'pustard' not applicable
You stated that the page 'pustard' was deleted due to the importance not being asserted, and yet that article (A7) of the wikipedia rules states that "A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on. Other article types are not eligible for deletion by this criterion." As this article was clearly not about people or organizations, and was merely a trivial article about a particular little-known breakfast dish, I do not see how A7 applies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciarandowd (talk • contribs) 09:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Scrubs
- Please discuss at Talk:Scrubs#Where should this page point? instead of any more edit warring. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Moonlight
Thanks for reverting all the vandalism to Moonlight. Anyways, I was wondering if you could review the first episode here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/No Such Thing as Vampires. Thanks. :-) Corn.u.co.pia ŢĐЌ Disc.us.sion 07:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Unprotecting Phun
Hi, I'd like to add a page about Phun, a 2D Physics Sandbox engine that we have created, and that has gained tremendous popoularity. See www.phunland.com for more information and examples. I realize that phun.org and phun.com (porn sites) might want to take control over the Phun page in wikipedia, and this might be the reason you have protected the page? I don't know wikipedia well enough to understand how this can be semiprotected or the similar, but in any case, we'd really like to set up a real and serious Phun page here. Best regards, --89.160.50.2 (talk) 01:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Kenneth Bodin, CEO Algoryx Simulation kenneth@algoryx.se
Tomato
I noticed my mistake. But you were faster than I. Sorry and thanks. Oda Mari (talk) 06:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- No problem at all - thanks for your work as well. Sneaky vandals... --Ckatzchatspy 06:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Babylon 5 Links to full video episodes
On the B5 page I added links to sites that provide episodes of the actual show (Hulu and AOL video). (I wasn't logged in at the time). I was curious as to why you took them down? It seems to me that on an article about a television show a link to the actual show is relevant. Am I incorrect? Please let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NoahWolfe (talk • contribs) 16:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
That was goind to be quite awkward for me to undo. Glad to see I'm worthy of targeting! Thanks for the revert! Fritzpoll (talk) 00:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Battlestar Galactica
Twice in as many days now you've reverted page moves on this page without any discussion. Per WP:BOLD, discussion is not required before performing edits (and page moves are just like any other edit). Obviously there's some concern over the title of the page as it is (since it only reflects a European view). Battlestar Galactica (2005 TV series) is also inappropriate because it makes the title US-centric. I believe removing the year entirely and following the naming used at List of Battlestar Galactica (reimagined series) episodes makes more sense (and also keeps things more consistent). As for the concerns with the 1978 series, I'm not aware of any title disputes there. If there is, we can address that as well, but that would be a separate issue from the newer series. Thanks! —Locke Cole • t • c 00:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- It is important to note that there was no discussion of the page moves to begin with, nor any consensus to do so. (The first move was an undiscussed move by a newish editor who wanted to affirm the US dates.) As well, per WP:BOLD, keep in mind that the second part of that guideline states "...but be careful". In the case of an established page with dozens (if not hundreds) of pages linking to it, it is better to initiate a move discussion first. Yes, the episode list is under "reimagined", but the older series is titled "(1978 series)". I've no real preference, but I do feel that the proper way to do this is to discuss it first, so that there can be a) consensus and b) a coordinated effort to clean up all the loose ends afterwards. Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 01:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Again, consensus is not necessary for making edits on Wikipedia (if that were so, we'd be discussing everything, even simple spelling changes, prior to actually editing them). Consensus is only necessary in the event of a dispute (which, unless you're taking a stand one way or the other, there is no dispute). As far as loose ends are concerned, IIRC there's a bot that corrects double redirects (and I think there's even one that goes through and fixes single redirects as well). All that remains then is ensuring that actual article links use the newer title (the text describing the links, not the links themselves). I agree with you that using the US date is totally incorrect, but using the European date is also incorrect (as it's still not a "world view" title, it's a European view title). Better to choose something that won't lead to disputes or debates later and avoids conflict. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Disruptive?
How is an edit summary disruptive? I'm making positive contributions to Wikipedia, and I use some colorful language. SFW? Supposedly this isn't "censored", but I guess it is when you want it to be, huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.234.19.110 (talk) 02:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Read through your edit summaries. They are clearly disruptive, clearly inappropriate, and you've been (clearly) warned. --Ckatzchatspy 02:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm clearly warned, but I don't get it. How is a f*****g edit summary "disruptive"? My content is fine, and nothing is being disrupted excepted some tight asses who want to enforce WP's non-censor rules when it suits them. Why can we have an entire article at cunt and fuck but I can't use those words? Are we censored or not?
- Still trying to figure that one out, huh sport? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense now that you think about it, does it? Well, I hope you don't get a f*****g headache trying to make some sense of that pile of bullsh*t hypocrisy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.234.19.110 (talk) 02:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, no, just had other things to do. First off, not all of your content is "fine", as demonstrated by the fact that you have been reverted by several different editors. Second, there is a vast difference between an encyclopedia article on the word "fuck" and your edit summary about a misplaced comma saying
Surely you can see the difference.--Ckatzchatspy 02:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)"What kind of fucking IDIOT places a comma in a place like that? Jesus fucking Christ I could see a frigging semi-colon, but how far up your ass would you have to stick your head to find that comma?"
- Actually, no, just had other things to do. First off, not all of your content is "fine", as demonstrated by the fact that you have been reverted by several different editors. Second, there is a vast difference between an encyclopedia article on the word "fuck" and your edit summary about a misplaced comma saying
SearchMining.net page
Hi,
My search engine page has been deleted due to lack of refernce. However, it is very similar to searchmedia - can you please explain the difference??
Lauren —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauren 218 (talk • contribs) 08:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Article removed
why do u keep deleting my article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sellouteater (talk • contribs) 08:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- The article does not meet the notability requirements for inclusion. (Please note that this is not a reflection on the quality of the band.) You may wish to see if you can locate reviews, references, etc. to support an article. --Ckatzchatspy 19:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Re: Thanks
Re your message: No problem. I see you blocked him. I probably should have done that. He left you a few choice words on his talk page and I put a stop to that. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Article: Hrvoje Banaj
Could you please email me the latest version of the above mentioned article? It has been deleted under very blurry circumstances and I intend to reinstate the article so I could correct all the mishaps I might have had during the creation of the article the first time. If nothing else, I'd just like to have it in my archive then, for future use, if any. Waleran (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- I've restored it to a sub-page of your user page; you can find it here. Please feel free to ask if you have any questions about the article. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 20:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Rolex error
Ckatz, it seems to me, that you make error, editing the article "Rolex": you keep it in the form of propaganda of the Rolex company. Do you consider yourself as a specialist about "rolex"? dima (talk) 23:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello Ckatz：
I'm sorry the content I compiled disturbed you, and I feel despair that my edit content is deemed to spamer. But what I added is really benific for the items, so what should I do to solve this problem？
Wait for your feedback. My English is really poor and excuse me please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Longlong1672 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Link
Hi, I think you deleted the link to my site in the Sarah Jane Adventures. I just wondered why as there is similar sites listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.210.150 (talk) 20:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Reply to 'Note re: user name'
Hello Ckatz,
I left a reply to your comment (asking me to change my user name) on my talk page.
eye circles under the eyes edit
is there a particular reason why my addition to the page was removed? i can't see a reason why one of the more common and effective medical treatments for dark circles under the eyes (one that i had done on me) should not be included in a page about dark circles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.182.197 (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Editing Kodachrome
Hi Ckatz,
I noticed sorrowful that you undid most of my edits concerning articles about scanning / graphic issues.
This one here I rewrote two times, but you still can't agree with it.
My intention is to inform about the problem of scanning kodachrome slides and to show up a solution.
Have you ever tried to scan a Kodachrome slide ? to use a conventional dust and scratch removal tool on it ?
I had some serious problems and it took some time until I discoverd how to do it, that a solution is the nikon 9000 and the silverfast iSRD.
Isn't this a useful information for anyone trying to digitalize his kodachrome slides, looking for help at wikipedia ?
Your reason for undoing was: "rm. unsourced section that is being spammed w/software link"
I specified a reference, a link to the kodachrome page of silverfast as a source. Isn't this ok ?
Let's have a look at a part of the deleted paragraphs:
"In 2004 Nikon came up with the first film scanner (Super Coolscan 9000 ED with ICE professional) that has the ability to scan Kodachrome slides reliably dust- and scratchfree, it is the only scanner with this ability up to date. A Software solution wasn't available until midyear 2008 when LaserSoft Imaging developed an advanced infrared dust and scratch removal tool (iSRD)."
How to write it else ?
"There exists a scanner that has the ability to scan Kodachrome slides reliably dust- and scratchfree, it is the only scanner with this ability up to date. A Software solution wasn't available until midyear 2008 when a software developer designed a tool. for it."
Possibly the reader wants to know, which scanner or software is meant ?
Maybe you could propose better versions for debatable sections instead of deleting complete paragraphs ?
best regards
Sven Boisen (talk) 14:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted article BumpIn respawns under Bumpin?
Hi Ckatz, I have seen in the deletion log that you deleted the article BumpIn, maybe you can have a look at this new article. Maybe it is the same? - 83.254.214.192 (talk) 15:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- Looks like you took care of it. :) - 83.254.214.192 (talk) 21:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Glitch/Typo?
Hello Ckatz,
I was wondering if you could delete the article 2003 UZ 413. I am not sure what happened. Obviously I want to keep 2003 UZ413.
Thanks, -- Kheider (talk) 14:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Lennar
FYI, I responded to your message on Landon1980. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Tornheim (talk • contribs) 03:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Minor Planet Box
Please comment on: Template_talk:Infobox_Planet#Minor_Planet_Box -- Kheider (talk) 13:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- I think the problem is now fixed. But it will not hurt to take a quick peak. -- Kheider (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Offical number
That is the offical numbers from the 2006 census. Wikipedia has said you can use fedearal offical numbers only. Not Provincal Estimates. What your source for 650k in Van City Dennis7410 —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Deletion of Slide Rocket
Could you please revert your deletion of the Slide Rocket article? It had potential for improvement. If you believed it to be blatant advertising, you should have tagged it as such instead of deleting it without notice. --Munchkinguy (talk) 23:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
9th Doctor
I was only removing the statement: "which has not yet been seen onscreen" from "Plot Details", paragraph 2 sentence 1. Odd that it would blank the page. Thanks for catching it. --BizMgr (talk) 03:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Kodachrome
Hi Ckatz,
haven't you seen my message concerning your Kodachrome Editing that I posted on 23 July ?
Or do you just think there is nothing to discuss ?
Leave me a note, please.
regards Sven Boisen (talk) 06:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Field Cate on Pushing Daisies
People keep deleting my son's name from the cast list of "Pushing Daisies" and leaving me messages about unverifiable content and inaccurate info. Yet I am Field Cate's mother, so obviously I am a source of verifiable and accurate information, and I'm only trying to set the record straight. As I've stated, he is a series regular on the show and, therefore, does deserve to be listed with the rest of the cast. He was in every episode last fall and gained series-regular status by the end of Season One. Anyone is welcome to contact the producers or network to verify the info about Field. The truth is out there... Fieldspring (talk) 09:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Thank you. Fieldspring (talk) 08:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Incident question
Hello! Could I ask your advice regarding an incident report on the Administrators' Noticeboard? It was posted on the 27th and concerned the Taekwondo article, and had been marked as unresolved. I see, though, it was recently archived with no comments or action. Did I file the incident in the right place, or is there a more appropriate forum where I should post instead? Thanks, Huwmanbeing ☀★ 11:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm on the edit war threshold
So I'd appreciate it if you could take over monitoring Solar System until this is sorted out. Serendipodous 21:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Solar System Dwarf Planet Edit
Asteroid belt unlikely to be increase in dwarf planet population! Any mention or listing of dwarf planets can be torpedoed by the same argument, but this will be a slow process, and a bridge only needs to be crossed when you come to it!
Cheers.
HarryAlffa (talk) 21:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Harry Potter Film Edits Removed - I don't think that was necessary
The simple modifications I added to the film section were meant to make it more clear exactly how the films are related to the books, especially since book 7 will be split into two films.
The modifications were directed primarily at younger people who may not have been able to fully understand the explanations as they were originally written.
I did not detract from what was there, I simply made it a little more detailed and I feel, much clearer and straight-forward, which should in no way affect older visitors, but will indeed benefit younger visitors.
I would like to request that you reconsider the removal of the modified text and restore the edits that I made.
Thank you,
DB
DudeBoyz (talk) 04:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
SFU
Saw your edit just now; there's other passages which fall in the same category as promotional in flavour and not really encyclopedic, but I've never had the energy (or the NPOV disposition) to take them on; the "Aboriginal" section for instance is just fluff; and doesn't even mention the First Nations Studies department. Institutional spin doctors always patrol these pages - would it be worthwhile do you think to post WP:BFAQ on the talkpage? Or would they just ignore it?Skookum1 (talk) 20:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it was from their brochure. Professional p.r. types are not very creative, and usually like to user "boilerplate", as all teh wording is carefully calculated to represent policy; there's other sections here that are likely from, if not the catalog or their website, from the SFU News or other publications; all very dry. You'll notice there's no mention of the PSA crisis back in the '60s, and other political turmoil; someone removed even the slightest mention of that; I don't know enough about it to write it up properly, but I know SFU is sensitive about it, or even any association with their past except the catchy "radical by design" cooptation of '60s liberalism (featuring soft jazz, not acid rock). Institutional articles are corporate in nature, and a POV watch for corporate/institutional soft-soaping is always a good thing; "reading with a jaundiced eye" is becoming a sort of sport for me after so much wiki-exploration....Skookum1 (talk) 14:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi!
Hi there!
I saw that you undid my change on the local search page. I'm quite new to Wikipedia but feel that my contribution was useful. Would you disagree? Cheers, K Keltineath (talk) 00:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- Hello, and welcome! Thanks for the contribution. It was, however, removed because of Wikipedia's external links guideline. (In a nutshell, this site isn't a directory service, so we usually only add links that supplement the information in an article, as opposed to providing links to search engines.) Don't let this deter you, though, as your participation is appreciated. --Ckatzchatspy 00:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up for me! Have a great one! (and cheers for the welcome) Keltineath (talk) 01:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Harry Potter edits
I believe the very modest changes that I made in the Harry Potter Films area, including the simple addition of release dates and the clarification that while the 7th novel was a single entity, the motion picture based on that 7th novel will actually be two separate films, are indeed quite reasonable, especially given the fact that they were primarily directed at improving readability for youths seeking information.
Displaying the order number for a series and identifying the release date of each item in a series is done constantly on Wikipedia, especially with books. When you find a prolific author with many series, you will often find a numbered list and publication date of each item in that list. I see no reason at all why this would be acceptable in one area of the site, but not acceptable in another. It is a glaring inconsistency and seems to indicate that an editor may take action based on personal preference rather than relying on an established methodology.
An example of the established method discussed above can be found at this page, for the author Robert Jordan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_jordan
Anyone viewing that page can clearly see the established pattern - one that has been accepted here at Wikipedia for years.
Therefore, I would like to formally contest your specific denial of the proposed changes, as I truly believe they were well within the content guidlines and follow an established precedent. I would appreciate it if you would forward this matter to the next step in the process so that a case can be made to a deliberative body for arbitration / mediation.
To remind you of the proposed changes, I will list them below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_Films
- Simply put, you tried something, I disagreed. This is not a case to be "formally contested"; instead, I would suggest you open a discussion on the article's talk page to see if anyone else supports your idea. --Ckatzchatspy 17:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I want to follow the formal procedure for contesting a denial of content. I am informing you of that, politely, because I feel that your decision is not the correct one.
Identifying each movie with a number makes sense because it is a series. Adding the production date of each movie also makes sense, and it is done all the time with other works, including novels.
If I understand correctly, there ARE procedures in place, including mediation, and that is what I'm asking for.
DudeBoyz (talk) 06:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
If you are unwilling to allow for that option, I would sincerely appreciate it if you would provide me with the contact information of those who would be in charge of such a mediation process, and then I will initiate contact with them directly so that the process can move forward.
Solar System
Please don't revert things on reflex. I moved the Pluto stuff from Terminology for good reason. It had nothing to do with the actual definition of the terms. It just clutered up the text. -HarryAlffa (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- Please don't make assumptions as to why I make certain edits. I would suggest that you discuss your proposed changes in greater detail and seek consensus first, rather than the method you are currently using. Solar System is a well-established and featured article, one that has been through numerous reviews. Does that mean it is perfect, and should never be changed? Of course not - but it does indicate we should approach changes differently from the way we would for a developing article. --Ckatzchatspy 17:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm all for helping the newbies, but she's just not getting it. The disruption is taking up a lot of peoples' time. Time for a block? --Rodhullandemu 20:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- Getting that way; I've just given notice on the talk page. --Ckatzchatspy 20:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Follow up that I might have missed...
I was expecting a response to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ckatz/Archive_5#Removing_my_recent_edit_to_Esther which I can't seem to find. As you stated that you are not always consistent as to where you respond, perhaps I'm looking in the wrong place(s). I'm sure you are very busy. I've tried to be patient, but about a month has gone by.
Thanks,
Kauerrolemodel (talk) 16:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Sockpuppet
Hi,
You may be interested in Clubbota (talk · contribs) and Placcjata (talk · contribs) and Apptas (talk · contribs) and Teammoto (talk · contribs), all socks of one very uncreative Serafin (talk · contribs). He has been reported and blocked. WLU (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
User:Makeida is back
She's apparently reincarnated as User:Olimusic, a handle she uses elsewhere on the internet! --Orange Mike | Talk 15:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. After checking the contributions, it seems to match. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 23:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I had a revised version of Alffa's addition
Which Alffa reverted. I think it's better, assuming you don't mind its inclusion.
Astronomers use the terms "rock", "gas" and "ice" to describe the various forms of matter in the Solar System. Rock is used to describe siliceous or carbonaceous materials, "gas" to denote hydrogen and helium, and "ice" to describe those materials with low boiling points on Earth which exist in their solid states in the colder regions of the Solar System. These include not only water but also carbon dioxide, nitrogen and methane. These terms are shorthand and are not meant as exact: much of the "gas" in gas giant Jupiter is liquid, while much of the "ice" in ice giant Neptune is actually gaseous.
Of course, Alffa could revert it again...
BTW, sorry my last email was a bit terse. I'm really not enjoying this. Serendipodous 07:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
removal of date autoformatting
Now, I see you've reverted my removals in a few articles. Does that mean you're going to revert (1) even after contributors have requested removal, and (2) where one or two people have said "go ahead" on the talk page, and after two weeks there's no objection to the proposal? If so, I'd expect your participation in the talk-page process, providing full reasons each time justifying consensus for retaining date autoformatting. Tony (talk) 08:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- With all due respect, Tony, the onus is on you to seek site-wide consensus for a change largely championed and desired by you, rather than the article-by-article non-consensus method you are currently using. --Ckatzchatspy 08:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, I wish you saw it that way for your unannounced changes to the wording at MOSNUM, which I do not believe are justified by your edit summaries. To pin the movement away from mandatory to optional DA solely on me is a seemingly hysterical distortion of the facts. While I have done a lot of the pushing to have the community ween itself of what is widely seen as an unfortunate dalliance with a facility that causes more problems than it solves, the move is supported enthusiastically by many editors, and many more are not bothered by the prospect of removing DA. You are a member of a vociferous minority here.
- However, I'm keen to talk this through with you, since I don't comprehend what is upsetting you to this extent. Perhaps you might change the way I see things. Would it be possible to talk it through, either here or on my talk page, or wherever you wish? Tony (talk) 10:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I'd prefer it if you didn't try to marginalize my concerns through the use of terms such as the unjustified "hysterical" (here) and the offhand "might have traction" (on your talk page, to myself and to another editor). I made an effort to explain my minor tweaks in the edit summaries, and have expanded upon that on the talk page. As for the DA, I have never said you were the only one pushing for optional status. I do, however, object to the way in which you are removing it without seeking a widespread consensus. That should definitely be discussed (and consensus reached) on a wider scale, not just in a conversation between us. --Ckatzchatspy 20:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think that's the way WP works. If the guidelines make something optional, it's quite in order for anyone to debate which option should be adopted on an article-by-article basis, whether one-off or systematically. It should not matter whether the proponent of one view or another is a regular or an outsider to the article, as long as undue pressure and incivility are absent. If you read the text of my notices (which are, in fact, almost entirely a survey of attitudes in function), you'll see that there's neither, even though an argument is put persuasively.
- I do think that because you have deep qualms about the removal of an existing facility, and one that has been around for four or five years (?), that you're misplacing where and how broadly consensus is required at which stage. MOSNUM has evolved slowly to this point, which was inevitable in my view: there's nothing sudden about optionalisation. Now people are free to make their own decisions, or to not care, article by article. It's nonsense to assume that lobbying on WP is somehow illegitimate: there'd be no change at all if that were the case—the project is heaving with lobbying at every level. Tony (talk) 23:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I'd prefer it if you didn't try to marginalize my concerns through the use of terms such as the unjustified "hysterical" (here) and the offhand "might have traction" (on your talk page, to myself and to another editor). I made an effort to explain my minor tweaks in the edit summaries, and have expanded upon that on the talk page. As for the DA, I have never said you were the only one pushing for optional status. I do, however, object to the way in which you are removing it without seeking a widespread consensus. That should definitely be discussed (and consensus reached) on a wider scale, not just in a conversation between us. --Ckatzchatspy 20:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Screenwriting software.
Ckatz, I would like to point out some inconsistencies here. Please look at the feature lists on Celtx, Movie Magic Screenwriter and Zhura and, really, the entire bunch on List of screenwriting software. I noticed you deleted the feature list on Scripped.
Full disclosure, I am a director of Scripped, but our services are notable in that no other site on that list offers coverage and registration in addition to a browser-based text editor. To anyone browsing the screenplay software pages on Wikipedia, I think they would appreciate seeing it highlighted in a separate section. I took time to choose my words carefully so the features do not read like an advertisement.
Can you work with me to get it back up? Rbucks (talk) 19:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Scrubs
Hello, I have noticed that you reverted my edit in Scrubs. Please check the article's talk page, there is a peer review archive there that cites as one of the necessary things for the article to gain good article status the transforming of the lists into prose. Cheers and thanks for interesting in Scrubs! --MakE shout! 07:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the text as written does not help toward that goal. It needs a rewrite, contains a lot of speculative material, and too much plot detail for the main article. While your efforts are certainly appreciated, in this case it would be better to discuss first. --Ckatzchatspy 07:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello. That was quite a whacking you gave the guy. After all he's the author of that page ;) Anyhow, he did need a reminder. De728631 (talk) 09:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
World snowboard day : the largest snowboard event in the world ! no money, no sponsor...just passion !
hello my article on the world snowboard day has been cancelled , but I cannot understand why as it is a worldwide event not driven by money and completely free for snowboard addicted...we are just offering a snowboard world celebration since 3 years over 20 countries and it works well.. can you please send me a copy of my job because I spend time over there and needs it for other support thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by FORSANS remi (talk • contribs) 09:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
RE:Moon 390 degrees
Sorry, that was a misstatement. I should've said 'The Moon appears to move 390 degrees each month.' Against the Sun of course. --IdLoveOne (talk) 01:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
User:Malleus Fatuorum - uncivil comments
Thanks for reminding this user to keep his comments civil. I had just posted an entry on Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts when I saw your intervention. I'm always open to listen to others' opinions if they disagree about Wikipedia policies, so I'm slightly taken aback that a third user would jump in and write such rude comments from the start. Thanks again for your intervention, anyway. JRawle (Talk) 09:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Scripped page reversion
Ckatz, you mentioned in the comment to your latest edit that services are already mentioned. That is incorrect. The screenplay registration and creative support services are not included in the current version you reverted us to.
These two products of Scripped, Inc. are core company services and are relevant to the topic of online screenwriter services. I understand the page is not a company ad. However, screenplay registration and creative support are factual, important services offered by Scripped.com to screenwriters.
Have you written a screenplay? Ever used screenplay software? I appreciate your attention to my article, but I wonder sometimes what authority you have on this topic.Rbucks (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- The partnership is described in the lead paragraph - complete with your reference. (Your text "Executives from both companies expressed optimism..." has been removed because it is not encyclopedic.) The lead also mentions, in the first sentence, that Scripped offers script registration and script coverage. --Ckatzchatspy 20:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
fracas
I'm sorry that this happened on my talk page; your blocking action was reasonable. Tony (talk) 11:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey! I think a block was called for, though I understand why some might think it was a bit long (whilst others don't). I would like your permission to unblock User:Malleus Fatuorum with a warning that if he's uncivil again, the next block could be longer and won't be lifted. What do you think? All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I've unblocked User:Malleus Fatuorum because you didn't seem to be online to see all the back and forth kerfuffle on his talk page. I think your block was wholly understandable and helpful. Sometimes we need to watch the outcome of a short block like this but you weren't here (also understandable), someone asked me to take a look at his talk page and I did what I thought would be most helpful, half a day on. If I've botched and you take this as a wheel war please forgive me, that's not what I had in mind. I've left him a long warning about civility and will indeed support a longer block if this happens again. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for leaving a note. No worries about wheel-warring at all; I think you've done a good job in monitoring the discussion. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 23:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Mobile Augmented Reality
I see you have removed my addition about mobile AR. I was wondering why? Please include your dispute in the talk page of Augmented reality. (PeterQuain (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC))
- Ckatz, it seems PeterQuain is in fact Carl Freer trying to promote his new company, I encourage you to check the history of the guy and forge your own opinion about him and his new venture... TheDarkKnight42 (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- Ckatz, There are instances where Wikipedia does show a relationship to companies for certain entries is it is applicable. Movie camera would be a great example. The first image you see is of an Arri cam and later in the page is says some of the most popular 35mm cameras used today are Arriflex, Moviecam, and Panavision models. Mobile AR is a viable piece of the Augmented Reality puzzle and Media Power is the largest developer of Mobile AR the same way that Panavision or Arri are the largest developers of 35mm equipment. All of the information I provided was educational, was neutral, and most importantly verifiable. If you would like to dispute these point please respond on my talk page.(PeterQuain (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC))
- Ckatz
I have included my points up on the talk page.
The information I am providing is a valid contribution to the Wiki-entry on Augmented Reality.
Please let me know how to proceed with getting is posted.
I am still a new contributor and want to do things the correct way.(PeterQuain (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC))
(Reply) Ckatz, what kind of references do you need? I am happy to come up with them but you are very vague as to what will suffice. Would you like articles, letters from professors or students at the University of Canterbury or Georgia Tech, Please let me know and I will get you the info you need.(PeterQuain (talk) 19:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC))
(Reply)Ckatz, I asked the question above over 48 hours ago. Please respond by this afternoon or I will re-post with my newly found references... I am sorry to be rude but you only seem to respond to my questions if I post something.(PeterQuain (talk) 13:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC))
- As mentioned previously, what you need is to provide references that establish the notability of the research. At present, we only establish that it is happening - not that it is notable. (Many companies fund research in areas they are involved in; that does not make the research encyclopedic.) --Ckatzchatspy 20:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
(Reply) While reviewing other pages I remembered a question I had about why Media Power couldn't be included in my entry. Please see the entry for Movie camera. If you scroll down the page it mentions several providers of movie cameras. Then at the bottom of the Sound Synchronization section it says, and I quote "The most popular 35 mm cameras in use today are Arriflex, Moviecam (now owned by the Arri Group), and Panavision models." This statement seems like almost exactly like the one I was trying to make about Media Power. Media Power is the largest mobile AR provider just like Arri and Panavision are the largest 35mm camera providers. That being said could you please tell me why the two are different or allow me to add the following sentence. "Currently the largest provider of Mobile AR is Media Power Inc." You can respond here or on the Augmented Reality talk page. (PeterQuain (talk) 13:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC))
History of television
The IP's content which they added to History of television is plagiarised from the very source[12] added. Bidgee (talk) 09:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
edit
I don't see how my edit to Big bang was disruptive —Preceding unsigned comment added by The C of E (talk • contribs) 10:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Telus Field "Crackhouse" nickname
It's an actual nickname used by radio stations, but is absolutely not officially sanctionned. However, I can't find a single thing about it on the internet, so I may have just heard a one-off occurance and the name never caught on. M.Nelson (talk) 05:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
AN/I
FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#WP:MOSNUM. (sdsds - talk) 10:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Mobile AR
(Reply) Then why in the entry for Film cameras are Arri and Panavision mentioned as some of the "most populuar" film cameras? How is that different then what I am saying?(PeterQuain (talk) 13:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC))
External Links, how do I get approved to post them?
I recently received the following message:
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you.
After taking a look at the guidelines I feel that the link I am trying to post is definitely in the criteria, most specifically it is one of the: 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.
This resource is crucial to learning more about the small cities and neighborhoods in my county. It is a free, impartial community resource and I want to connect people to it who want more information.
How do I add an external link and ensure that it will not be removed? Is there someway to get an external link approved? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wchc (talk • contribs) 17:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- I've taken my own stab at answering this here but Ckatz, I'm sure you will have a better perspective than mine. Franamax (talk) 18:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Smallville MySpace
I don't know if you visited the CW page, but there isn't a link to their MySpace there. There is a link to their facebook. I only found the MySpace page when I was visiting the page for that trailer contest, which also isn't on the CW page. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Matt Lanter
I still don't know what's wrong with the deleted website on his page. It's because it's posted by its owner?... If someone else posts it then is it OK? G.-M. Cupertino (talk) 11:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Ray Nagin edit
Hi, making contributions is new to me so please bear with me. I think you removed an addition I made to the "confiscation of firearms" section of the Ray Nagin entry. Can you tell me why? There is a (rv. POV) entry, I am guessing that means the addition is a personal point of view and not fact? Thanks. ASEIDave —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.215.43.67 (talk) 18:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Reply
Sorry - I was not aware. Usually if I see people removing things, I immediately assumed vandalism, and will pursue it as much as possible. --The One They Call GSK // talk to me // 05:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Heroes
Hey. Yeah, I was going to stop my reverts after my most recent one. Thanks for the heads up, though. I appreciate it. Ophois (talk) 05:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Links Removal
Thank you very much for taking the time to respond. I'm still learning and i've read all the requirements but it can still be a little dautning because there is so much of it..so any feedback is welcomed and appreciated. I'll re-read again:) --Amyreelz (talk) 13:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually all but 1 link of the many links that I've posted of interviews with Leonard Maltin which are more than reliable sources and respectable have been removed while other links (that are like poker matches and things that I would think to remove are still active) I just as a user won't pull peoples links down. I know thats part of the process but it feels wrong for me to do. I've read through a lot of the welcoming information and maybe a 4th time would do me good, but some of the links passed the guidelines and they are pulled:( ahhhhh sadness..oh well. not the end of the world..just want to figure out a "good" place where what I'm doing is accepted..know what i mean?--Amyreelz (talk) 14:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Planetoid Ceres
I did bring up the color change in the talk page. What, didn't like the shade? xD It is also worth mentioning that all of the planets have different colors and no one minds. --IdLoveOne (talk) 15:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
A day has gone by since your revision and no one had any problem with the colors or with the Solar System bodies having different colors besides you. I don't think trying to change that will be a popular move. --IdLoveOne (talk) 06:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- There's no need for the aggressive tone here and in your edit summaries. My suggestion was merely to discuss the change *before* implementing it, not after. Simply put, many of the astronomy pages are high-traffic articles with relatively stable content; several have reached GA and FA status, so the general aim is to try to coordinate changes rather than just alter individual articles. --Ckatzchatspy 07:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I apologize for the aggression, I was frustrated that you hadn't replied. Well, as I mentioned I had said that I'd do it on the talk page of Ceres and that if someone objected it was fine, but I wish you would've left a message there to state your opinion on the matter before you reverted it. Also, I try to pick a color that matches Wiki formatting and perhaps some sort of mythology (Ceres, goddess of agriculture=brown. Juno, jealous, but dignified, goddess of women= darker shade of pink), I probably also should've explained that in the edit summary or talk... I apologize for that, too. Pretty sure that changing something like this doesn't affect the status of the article. I attempted to have 4 Vesta become featured. It failed, but not because of the infobox colors (which I added among a few others), copyediting is needed. --IdLoveOne (talk) 06:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Protection still necessary for Eris, Pluto?
I notice that Pluto and Eris (dwarf planet) are semi-protected (something about bad page moves, it seems). You're the protecting admin at Eris (12 June 2008) and NawlinWiki is the protecting admin at Pluto (17 May 2008). WP:RPP suggested I take it up with the protecting admins rather than making a request there, and NawlinWiki's talk page is at least semi-protected, so here we are. Do they still need to be semi-protected? It's been a long time, and it doesn't seem like they warrant indefinite protection. 24.72.73.161 (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Reference Point--------------------------------------------------------------------------
HI Ckatz,
Thank you for getting back to me, OK how do I put forward my interview to be used as a reference point not a link. I feel that a lot of my content adds to Wikipedia article –
For example my interview with Garry Bushell , gives an good insight into some of the bands he pioneered like The Specials , and U2, and how he would go beyond press releases to get good copy. I hope this proves some of the depth my interview provide
"ZANI - Then you landed your career at Sounds and it seemed that you were very quick off the mark in noticing up and coming talents like U2 and The Specials and to writing about the mod revival, 2 Tone. Is that really true and around this time what where you looking for in terms of music?
Garry Bushell - I’ve always looked at what’s new coming up and what’s any good. I did back a lot of new bands as they were starting, as they were breaking. In my first week on Sounds, I wrote the first-ever review on The Specials in early summer of 1978 when they supported the Clash at Aylesbury. It was the first gig they ever did as the Special AKA. I did the first reviews of Bad Manners and the Bodysnatchers and I believe the Selector too but I missed out on Madness, someone from NME got there two nights before me.
In that first year, I covered the UK Subs, the Ruts, the Skids, The Jolt and the Members. In my second year, I covered the Chords, Secret Affair, the Purple Hearts, the Cockney Rejects. U2 brought me their demo tape and were shocked by our drinking habits. It was exciting and I was going to a lot of places were a lot of reviewers weren’t going to. I would go to Barking; I would to the Bridge House in Canning Town. Other writers would play safe and stay in the West End, they wouldn’t venture East or South East. I just wanted to see what was about"
I believe quotes like this help along with Wikipedia entries to give an better understudy of a subject. I know I am repeating myself, how do I put this forward as a reference point in our article.
I look forward to your reply
Kind Regards
ZANI Ezine (talk) 12:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Solar System
I'm contemplating breaking off the "Discovery and Exploration" section and remaking it as the lead article in a Solar System subtopic. Since you've been against the idea of breaking off the section, I wanted your approval before I went ahead. Serendipodous 10:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Internet Explorer 8
The sources are there to back up the notability. You go take it to the talk page. Everyme 10:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- I see you also reverted me here with yet another invalid reasoning. The point of my edit was that The sun redirects to Sun while there is an article at The Sun. This is not about the newspaper itself, but about the article. As long as The sun redirects to Sun and not to The Sun, this is an exception that very well merits a special mention in the hatnote. Also, I've included yet more sources in IE8 that thoroughly back up the claim of due relevance that merits a mention. If you are hellbent of repressing that bit of information, start an RfC. But do not remove multiply sourced information again. Everyme 10:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I've filed a request for third opinion to help us get going. Everyme 07:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
So, are you happy with the changes at Internet Explorer 8#InPrivate and Porn mode? Everyme 13:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
a-ha awards dispute
Hi. Regarding the dispute I have with a certain person on the a-ha awards page. I have tried to explain to him or her my view on the issue, however the person keeps reverting my edits and is not willing to accept my view. This person only wants to include what he / she calls notable awards, while i want to inlcude all known awards a-ha has won. My problem with this is that I can't see how this person can dictate what a notable awards is and what is not. In my view, a won award is an award and i can't see how it can be a problem to include the awards on the list. I can't see how it can bother anyone. In my view, the article can only become better, including as much relevant information as possible. I would appreciate your input on how to solve this. Where I can turn to for help to solve this issue. Mortyman (talk) 02:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm at a loss as to how that series of edits occurred. Thanks for the cover. Kuru talk 02:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Haumea
Hi Ckatz,
My recent change to the intro of Haumea was sparked by a question on the talk page: How can Haumea be a DP, if it's not round? I've seen this time and time again. Because Haumea is so extremely not round, and many people reading the article are going to have the same question, I think it's a good idea to make the point explicit in the intro. This article will get a lot more traffic than hydro eq, so it's not sufficient to just pass readers off to that article. kwami (talk) 07:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
hi - did i do something wrong?
i wanted to start adding some links i thought were relevant to some of my fave wiki pages, but the first one isn't there any more. did i not do it right, or did i put it in the wrong place?
thx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthonymonroe (talk • contribs) 01:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
From Hawknania
Why can't my edit of adding Makemake as a dwarf planet along with eris pluto and ceres be kept because it is a dwarf planet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkania (talk • contribs) 23:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Pluto Edit
Why can't my edit of adding Makemake along with ceres and eris be left on the pluto page as it is a dwarf planet (plutoid). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkania (talk • contribs) 23:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Pluto Edit
Ah now i understand cheers i didn't understand that bit and there's a new DP cool. :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkania (talk • contribs) 23:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Dwarf Planet
Hi Ckatz, what is your justification for SP on Dwarf Planet on 17th August? Thanks. 86.24.126.222 (talk) 19:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Further to the above request, please see Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Makemake (Dwarf planet). I have placed a request for your general actions concerning semi-protection to be reviewed. Thanks. 86.24.126.222 (talk) 22:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
re block of HarryAlffa (talk · contribs)
1 week? First block. Hmmm... I see you issued the warning, and HA did exactly the edit you warned about (and possibly attacked you on this page), but I am not certain that you are the right person to make the block. With almost 200 edits to the Solar System article it might be considered that you are not as impartial as may be desired. I suggest that you request review at WP:AN, as regards the tariff. While there has been some history as regards the editor and that article it appears to me to be somewhat severe for a first sanction. In any case, I shall be linking my concerns expressed here at HarryAlffa's talkpage for consideration by any reviewer. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the input; I certainly considered those points before issuing the block. However, HarryAffla has a long, long history of single-purpose editing on Solar System, an equally long history of edit warring and ignoring input from others, and a habit of making inappropriate accusations against editors who disagree with him. While I have edited Solar System at length, I have made a point of avoiding this particular dispute as an editor (as HA has commented on at length) in order to remain impartial as an administrator. I've no objection, though, if you or anyone else wishes to review the matter, as I feel the contribution history for HA will more than justify the action. Thanks again. --Ckatzchatspy 22:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. If you are content that you have taken the appropriate neutral position then I see no reason to take it anywhere else. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
External Link to HurricaneWiki.org
FYI, there might not be any follow ups, but I opened a discussion on this subject at Talk:Hurricane Ike#External Link to HurricaneWiki.org --Danorton (talk) 04:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Edits
Thanks for the heads up. I was also iffy about the Capilano redirection page, but I'm unsure of the statistics behind which use of Capilano is the most popular. (Do you know of any way to check?)
The issue of "CapU", however, I think is fair for a redirect given how it's the only logical consequence of the previous use of "Cap College", and also the previous URL address of "capcollege". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keitherson (talk • contribs) 05:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. I'm still wondering if there was a way to determine the popularity of a page. Is there a wiki tool to measure how many hits an article gets? Keitherson (talk) 05:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Editor at WP:EAR making a copyright complaint about something you quoted
At this posting at WP:EAR, User:BillLoney might be feeling remorse about a criticism of Wikipedia he had posted earlier on his own website, and has since taken down. Your quotation of his own comment, for purposes of response, seems innocuous. You can decide if you wish to respond at WP:EAR. If you want, you might edit your own comment at Talk:Mathematics to summarize what he previously said instead of quoting directly. EdJohnston (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Previews
Why http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frost/Nixon_(film)&diff=prev&oldid=238849878 ? See my comment on the article's talk page; I'd prefer if you just reply there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IReceivedDeathThreats (talk • contribs) 20:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)