User talk:Ckatz/Archive 4

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

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

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

Ckatz's actions are quite right as per policy (WP:CONSENSUS). I suggest you read the discussion on the LOE talk page, Eusebeus, also a re-read of the guidelines would help! Matthew 15:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus of a small group doesn't override that of the site. The current standards held within WP:V, WP:N, and WP:RS that are placed into WP:EPISODE are certainly not to just be passed off by fans with blanket assertions of notability. TTN 15:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for admitting that TTN, hopefully you'll discuss before declaring "consensus" now, where there is none ;-)! Matthew 16:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, consensus lies in the policies and guidelines of the site, not fans. Just because a bunch of you object doesn't mean anything in regards to it. I know that you don't like WP:N or any of its sub-topics, but that doesn't really matter. TTN 17:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to provide something that supports you? As it stands I'm not able to see a line of text that supports you remotely. Matthew 17:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I don't know...the fact that the polices and guidelines require real world notability established by reliable sources for all topics, and that if topics cannot establish that notability, it's removed, regardless of how many people like the topic? TTN 17:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To quote the guideline itself "Articles about fictional topics that are notable should be given time to develop.", and several users have established notability for multiple articles… even so I notice these are being redirected anyway. The consensus on the talk page (whether you wish to accept it or not) is that these articles can be improved with secondary sources, ergo will be given the time to be improved. I'd say one year is a reasonable allotment of time :-). Matthew 17:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing has shown that all the episodes can be improved. Only the first episode has anything going for it, and what it has barely does a thing for it. Four or five episodes random episodes would have to be completely fleshed out (more than a few sentences in each section) for all to be safe. What you're talking about is just a silly fan blanket that holds no water. TTN 17:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Sorry to be repetitive, but consensus is apparently misunderstood by Matthew, CKatz and others. When consensus is referred to in Wikipedia discussion, it always means 'within the framework of established policy and practice'. Editors weighing in on a specific topic on a talk page does not trump the larger community consensus. Matthew and Ckatz, you should bring up your views at the ongoing debates on Fiction & notability. !Voting against a merge at the talk page is of no consequence as long as those guidelines and policies are extant and supported. Eusebeus 15:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Eusebeus for providing a reply that supports me, because these policies clearly don't support you :-)! Please also remember that we don't "vote" on Wikipedia. Matthew 16:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you need any help with the Farscape issue, ckatz? I don't think that the episodes should be deleted--I've made a number of contributions to the pages--so I am happy to add links to show relevance or whatever, though that will take a lot more time than just adding summaries and such, which is what I was doing before. I think it's silly to get rid of all the work we have already done, just because we haven't added those extra supporting bits yet.QuizzicalBee 19:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Matthew, I think you are being deliberately obtuse with this mindless gainsaying. I quoted the key provision in the Consensus policy: it always means 'within the framework of established policy and practice'. Unfortunately, your desire to retain individual episode articles contravenes established practice and policy, which requires real-world notability and reliable third party sources. I am not suggesting that this cannot change (per WP:CONSENSUS), but you need to take up the discussion at the main policy page. Grousing on the Farscape talk page (or your other fave tv series pages) is not meaningful. You need to change community-wide views on notability through the presentation of a limpid argument as to why tv episodes should not be subject to the same standard of notability. I also agree with TTN's point above. There is no compelling evidence that, as the guidelines and polciies currently stand, any of these episodes can satisfy the criteria. Eusebeus 18:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Well, I am sorry I misspoke and you are right to note the discrepancy between my two comments, but I suspect nonetheless that you know what I mean. More importantly, would you care to address the actual issue at hand: namely, have you attempted to amend the notability guidelines in the relevant fora and if so with what result? If you haven't I would appreciate not having policy-driven actions (redirects) reverted simply because you happen to be a fan of the series. Eusebeus 06:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is another case of Eusebeus using wikilawyering and his length of time editing wikipedia to manipulate wikipedia policy to suit his own opinion. His recent involvement at Chris Conley and continual reversion (against community consensus) while failing to comment or discuss edits on the articles talk page, are direct evidence of his arrogance. It seems that causing conflict in his eyes far outways the benefits of the encycopedia. Hal 18:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

the page exsist now. I finished it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ckatz,

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

Why are they being deleted?

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

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

There are several issues with regards to how you restructured the section. First off, there is no need whatsoever to separate "former" and "current" cast members. We treat the series as a whole, and the cast list reflects it as such. (Both of the examples you've used, Veronica Mars and X-Files, avoid separate sections.) Similarly, your use of years isn't the most effective way of representing cast information, as a) viewers tend to think in terms of seasons rather than years, and b) the series is broadcast internationally, and Wikipedia itself is international. What North America sees as "current" is not necessarily so for other regions. Personally, I have no problem with indicating when a character joined or left a series, but given the problems with your changes as a whole, the only viable option was a revert. Hope this answers your questions - please feel free to ask if you have more. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'm not American, and yeah, I considered using Seasons instead. Would it be okay if I didn't seperate them into sections, and instead of putting in Years, I add Seasons next to former and new cast members? I mean just keeping it the way it the way it is except also adding dates to people who joined in season 2/were recurring previously and people who have left. Will it be alright? Mrmoocow 05:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something simple, such as "(season one)" or "(season two, recurring in season one)" might be suitable. (FYI, I never presumed you were American; I was only referring to the fact that the series airs in North America ahead of many other parts of the world.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are the characters organized in a specific structure currently? If so, what is it, and if not I've hardly made it harder to read. Mrmoocow 08:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetical order, as per most other series articles. With your list, there was no easy way to find characters - some were alphabetical, others were grouped at the bottom. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Therefore could you please re-add these links.

Thank you for your consideration.

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

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

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

2 - 2 links to HalifaxInfo.com

3. Halifax Travel Guide - HalifaxKiosk.ca

Thanks, Robert Exell [email protected] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Villagelynx (talk • contribs) 15:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Thanks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ckatz,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You still have not gotten back to me, but you had time to remove it once again. Every page, old shows and new, have a Nielsen Ratings page. I believe it should stay because it presents info about the show. --Yankeesrj12 02:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are many bits of information about shows that do not qualify for inclusion. Countless bits of trivia are added on a daily basis across the television articles; some are deemed suitable for an encyclopedia article, while many others are removed. Does it mean the subject material isn't interesting? Not necessarily - just that it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Take a look at the the articles for mature series - those such as The Simpsons and Doctor Who, with strong Wikiprojects and hundreds of editors. Then, take a look at the articles for the newer, "hit" series such as Heroes and Lost. You'll see that they do not include week-to-week ratings information. Ratings, when included, are treated on a season-to-season basis. Hope this helps. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see why you deleted ratings for Traveler, but I think ratings for new series, such as Pushing Daisies, and Back To You should have week to week because they are new and you dont have seasonal info yet, but after the first season its only season-to-season info. --Yankeesrj12 19:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

I've had to remove the text again. While I appreciate the coincidence (and do find it interesting), the reality is that without some form of proof as to a connection, it is not considered to be encyclopedic. Are the game's creators Stargate fans? Perhaps - but computer games are released around this time anyways to meet the Christmas season. Are Stargate Atlantis producers fans of the game? Again, perhaps - but it is highly unlikely that they would alter the plot development of a season to match a game release date that could well change on short notice. However, if you feel strongly about it, please bring it up on the article's talk page. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to say that there is a connection; the fact that they share a release date and an uncommon name is just that: a fact. As a hypothetical situation, say someone is writing a paper on the business dynamics of television show production, and they are taking Stargate Atlantis as a case study. While I don't condone citing Wikipedia as a valid reference, it is most assuredly a good "first-approximation" to whatever you are researching; a kind of jumping-off point. This person comes to WP in search of information regarding these business practices; wouldn't they want to know of this coincidence? This would allow them to dig deeper and do more research and figure out if there actually is a connection or not. If they find one (or don't), they may even be so kind as to update the article along the lines of "The dates were chosen to coincide because of a contract signed on blah blah blah" or even "Despite the coincidence of these dates coinciding, the producers have confirmed that there is no connection to the popular video game", both of which would be useful improvements.

As another hypothetical situation, say a fan (of either the game or the show), or even someone else, has an opportunity to speak with the people in charge. If they are unaware of this connection, they can't ask anything about it. Just because not all the details of a particular fact are known yet (i.e. why, how, when, etc.) doesn't mean that fact is useless. Make a note of it, and SAY that the details aren't known. When someone down the line finds out, they can add in the details as they become available.

Take a look at the article as it is now: "The episode borrows heavily from the Christopher Nolan film Memento." How is this any more "notable"? This person did not reference any proof that there is a connection to the movie. Are the Stargate producers (or whoever) fans of the movie? Who knows? The only real connection to the movie was the concept of memory loss (hardly a unique idea). At the very end, you could say there was ONE reference (but most definitely not a heavy borrowing) when Ronon tells Major Lorne to look in his pocket and he finds the picture of Sheppard with the note "He is your commanding officer."—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.50.145 (talk) 16:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is up...???

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi,

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

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

Cheers,

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

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

Hiya. I'm really sorry but I've declined the speedy of above due to (week) assertions of notability. I'd recommend taking it to WP:AFD or prodding it and watchlisting it. Best. Pedro :  Chat  12:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your revert of the exclusion of Simone Devereaux and inclusion of Bob Bishop. Simone has not made an appearance in season two; she was killed off in season one. Main cast members should be those folk who are a continued presence in the whole series, not just a season-specific occurrence. As well, I re-added Bob Bishop, as his character has had significant screen time in the episodes of eason two - moreso than say, Micah Sanders or even his daughter, Elle. I think that perhaps we are giving preferential treatment to the supers and less to the mundanes. If you want to discuss this further, I would be open to that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, how do I go about doing that? Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit undid the inclusion that the blood was Claire's. It was in accordance with the accompanying citation, which I viewed myself. If you have no objection, perhaps you could add it back in? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hello Ckatz, I just noticed that GreenJoe had changed what admin user:Davewild had determined in the AFD closing. I am absolutely flummuxed why GreenJoe would do it *twice*, thank you for correcting his vandalism - I strongly think this matter should be addressed as it is well outside acceptable WP behavior and just plain common sense. Statisticalregression (talk) 05:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,Why do you keep deleting the external link, chickenminer.com, that I add to the Chicken, Alaska page ? This site shows many photographs of the Chicken and Fortymile country area. Also some great historical photos. Please leave the link alone!Chickenmusher (talk) 20:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was behind the IP the edited the Actors Studio page regarding Kavner's exit. (Boo to me for not being logged in.) I suppose I could be wrong, but I was of the mindset that that was a fairly well known fact about Julie Kavner, in fact, her own article here on wiki (Julie Kavner) points it out without citation, even mentioning her appearance on 'Studio'. Her IMDB and NNDB pages also mention it as well. Thanks for realizing that it was in good faith that I added it, and for being nice about the revert. Cmay632 (talk) 05:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all, and thanks for the note in return. I've restored your edit and added a request for a citation instead. (I saw the note you've pointed out at Julie Kavner. While it too is uncited, the attention to detail of the Simpsons Wikiproject is such that we can put out feelers for a reference rather than just removing it.) Thanks again for the contribution! --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Butting in here - I'm going to undo it again. I was in the audience for this episode, and while it's true that she left, and it's true that she didn't want to be seen performing as Marge, she didn't leave because she didn't want to be seen. She performed on-stage, but she held a cardboard cutout of Marge (and Patty and Selma) over her face when she did their voices. She left because she had another committment - she had a train (or possibly plane, couldn't quite hear her) to catch (although I won't put that in, since I can't cite it.) --Brian Olsen (talk) 16:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You asked for an example of another article or section that used the tag. If you go to the heroes main page, someone has placed the tag. I believe it was placed on the season 2 plot synopsis section. I may be wrong about which section exactly, but if you scroll down the heroes main page, you will find an identical tag. Please write me back and let me know what you discovered. thanks.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 06:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - that was added without discussion by an IP a few days back. It also shouldn't be there, and has been removed. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. Glad we cleared that up. I wont use the tag again.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 16:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question about the tag you placed on the Company page on Heroes. You said to write fiction more clearly in out of universe style. How do you do that? I think I know, but I am not sure...would i write something like this...

In Company Man, Thompson hires Noah Bennet to join the Company

or

In 1992, Thompson hires Noah Bennet to join the Company ^[1]

Do I state the episode name with a wikilink or do I add it as a ref link??

Can you explain this to me? You seem to be really experience on wikipedia, and I know you probably are busy fixing pages, but if you have a minute to respond and give me some advice, I would really like to clean up that page and make it up to wikipedia standards. thanks, i really appreciate it. If you could write your response on my talk page, that would be great...if not, i will check this talk page later...thanks again...let me know if you dont have time to explain it to me...but i am a fast learning so you can make it brief and i would understand --Chrisisinchrist 07:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, about the exit list for Hwy 99, I had reverted some of your edit because I do feel that the on/off ramps north and south of Granville street bridge should be included as they satisfy all criteria of being an interchange according to wikipedia's definition in the interchange (road) article:

• utilizes grade separation
• one or more ramps
• permit traffic on at least one road to pass through the junction without crossing any other traffic stream

Google map of the area: [1]

Images of the area: [2] [3]

64.180.20.46 (talk) 11:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be willing to help you edit the Judge Judy page. I was on that page today and was not happy with the way it is written. I went to the discussion page and saw your comments, all of which I agree with. Please let me know if you would like help. MplsNarco (talk) 00:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To what do you refer? I've never heard of anything besides AfD. AnteaterZot (talk) 23:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a review process for television articles. THe preferred course of action, if article notability is questioned, is to redirect. Deletion is strongly discouraged. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ckatz. Realy thank you for pointing me out recentism. I wasn't aware of this. I think Alejandro must be removed from the infobox. The problem that I see in these Heroes articles is that some users create new articles for characters apperead for only one episode "believing" or "hoping" that they later these characters will become important in the plot. Some people find it as a way to "honor" some characters. Alejandro appeeread in only 4 episodes and I don't think we 'll see him again in the show. Since someone merged the article with Heroes characters with special abilities I just finished the job. :) Friendly, Magioladitis 02:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - at the time, I wasn't aware the article had been merged. Thanks for the note. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would like to archive whatever was written by me, and even about me. Ideally, I do not want interactions with agents of the school, as I believe Damon Torgerson is. Please tell me, when you have a minute, how to archive the talk page which has become very unproductive. Thank you.

--Ok!! I managed to archive the whole page and make it beautiful, too. What do you think? The readability of the old page was questioned and, when I finally concurred, it was a unanimous opinion.

--Now comes the dirty work of fending off the edits of the article itself. I prefer some kind of third-party intervention/mediation and will move forward with that in January. Any suggestions of other dispute-resolution techniques?

Cheers! --COYW

How would you delineate information about Schulich? What is SSoB info and what is not? If one judges the entire university, then Schulich is also being judged. Schulich plus a little something that is not Schulich, right? As for me, I prefer not to throw the baby out with the bath water, so I include rankings of York University and note them as such. That information is certainly about Schulich. For sure. The SSoB is not a wholly independent institution.

What about a ranking of one narrow aspect of Schulich. If one contends that ranking York is not "specifically" ranking Schulich, then one would be hard-pressed to argue that a ranking of, say, the environmental-consciousness of the school deserves inclusion. Is such a narrow lens any way to judge Schulich as a whole? That would be Schulich LESS a little something, would it not? That is a sure thing, too. For that matter, MBA rankings say nothing about SSoB undergraduate education-- where most of its students are.

So, what is and what is not information about the Schulich School of Business? I say, let's put in ALL relevant info from these diverse rankings and let the readers pick what they want to read. Having said that, my true preference is to EXCLUDE all rankings. They have a commercial effect and go against what Wikipedia is about. [We don't include results from the Pepsi Challenge, do we?] Ranking info ought to be added to the Wikipage about the MBA degree itself. Anyhow, I am resigned to the fact that people want to see these numbers on the individual pages.

At least we can separate the comprehensive rankings, that include many criteria, from the overly-narrow rankings or broad (university-wide) ones. It has to be all or nothing; otherwise, the self-interested yahoos come on to pick and choose whatever info shows their school in the best light. Not very Wiki, eh. By the way, some argue that it is impossible to determine what is comprehensive and what is not. OK, a grey zone exists, but that does not mean black and white do not exist. Often it is Very Clear. We can always have a congenial discussion about the delineation of rankings based on a few rather than many criteria. Yet, some rankings have just one! Others, like the Macleans' work investigated dozens of criteria and are clearly comprehensive.

Years ago, all the rankings were of the comprehensive, apples-versus-apples quality. Then schools and (not-so-famous) publications started to get wise to the possibilities of serving their own interests. The increased quantity of rankings can dilute and distort the impact of famous rankings. Famous or not -whatever- I say include them ALL with a bit of organisation (to fight the dilution) and context (to fight distortion).COYW (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two more questions for you: The Macleans work included a section called "Leaders of Tomorrow" and York happened to finish 20th this past year. (#1) Did the study include Schulich students? (#2) If York happened to be within the top two or three institutions, would the fact be absent from Schulich's own homepage? Realistically speaking, Ckatz, Schulich itself would use it as advertising. So, instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, please just add something to the write-up of this ranking. I did. I added contextual information to make it even plainer that York University as a whole was judged. You, on the other hand, chose to strip the page of all of it. Why? Sorry, that is a third question. COYW (talk) 09:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A response to the questions is not required in a hurry. Don't press yourself to respond directly, Editor Ckatz. COYW (talk) 05:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go for the fact that "you" are "you" on Commons too (if not let me know). I've sorted the admin board request, cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comes with the territory - you are welcome, cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the bot automatically removed it (since it's currently blocked). You might want to post to WP:AN? – Luna Santin (talk) 10:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Article " AREA 51 " ::

Ummm. Ckatz I would like you to check your edit history on articles more carefully before making acusations against me. You will find I actually deleted a paragraph by some person with the I.P Address of " 84.197.122.26 " who was posting about jews smashing into the world trade centre, which is racist and completley off the Area 51 topic. If deleting that trash is considered " Vandalising " as you put it I suggest you look long and hard at your personal views on life and the rules of WIKI again. I always use Wiki in a mature and proffesional as I can manner. Check my user name " Neil Of Cardiff " if in doubt and the articles I created. Please dont threaten me with ban warnings in future unless you have genuine reason to otherwise I will make a official complaint to moderators about you.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.95.213 (talk) 05:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to say this, but I believe that you have misunderstood the actual events. If you'll refer to the edit history, it will reveal what really happened. This edit, by IP 84.197.122.26, deleted the "Geography" section and replaced it with the racist material you described. Four minutes later, IP 71.11.128.83 reverted the vandalism, labelling it "racism and spam". Your edit was done over two-and-one-half hours later, and resulted in the second deletion of the entire "Geography" section (which at that point had no racist comments in it) with a thus-misleading edit description "Deleted A Pointless & Stupid Racist Comment." That is what I reverted; an unexplained deletion by a low-edit IP account with an edit description that had no correlation with what was actually done. Given the inherent discrepancy between the comment and the action, and given that you were editing with an IP address, and given that it was the first edit from that IP address in almost two months, I feel my actions were entirely appropriate and justified. The only thing I can think of is that you saw the racist vandalism in the edit history, didn't realize that it had been removed, and thought you were removing it. Why you would delete an entire section, however, I cannot explain. I'm sorry that this happened to you, but I would respectfully state that it is you, in fact, who should have checked the facts before making unsubstantiated and incorrect accusations against me. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see your point then. And yes your correct as I was trying to just delete a racist paragraph that I honestly presumed was still on the article. I never for 1 min knew it had vanished as when I looked at the article it was still on the screen. My vandilism as you call it was never intended to be such, as I always try to enjoy and use WIKI in a mature and responsible manner. I'll try to be more careful in the future, and use WIKI logged in with my user ID.

Sorry about the confusion :) Neil Of Cardiff

You might want to check a bit more closely the citation you reverted back in, as it doesn't speak to cancellation, possible or otherwise. I don't want to revert you again, so you might want to self-revert. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. The infomation that Powerless "may act as the season finale pending the resolution of the dispute" is currently out of date and obviously incorrect according to Greg Beeman and Tim Kring, a Director of Heroes and the creator of Heroes. The quote i placed explains the situation. However, i'd like it if you can please put that large quote into prose so the quote doesn't take up the entire introduction. thanks. dposse 19:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"the blog doesn't describe this as a definite season finale"

Are you joking? Look, i'm as disappointed as the next Heroes fan, but this infomation is straight from a guy who literally works behind the scenes and creates Heroes. He has Directed multiple episodes of Heroes and he writes his blog as an "insider". He works on the set of Heroes. He gets paid to do that. I'm not sure how anyone can disagree with what he said. It's like JK Rowling saying that the 7th book was alwaysmeant to be the last book and you somehow looking for a way that there will be an eightth book or something. They showed "Volume Three: Villains" at the end of the last episode...how more definate do you want to get? We have infomation from the episode stating that it's the season finale and from the Director who it quoting the Creator of Heroes. So, i don't understand what the issue is here. Sources go out of date all the time. That's why we have an "edit" button to update infomation. dposse 19:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Well, that's much better. However, i still disagree with including "and may act as the season finale pending the resolution of the dispute." The infomation from Greg Beeman contradicts that. dposse 20:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The blog doesn't say thisis the season finale, it says that it is "even more resolved and complete if, God forbid, the strike goes on so long that there is no more of season 2 than the first eleven." Beeman also says that they have every intention of producing more episodes for Season two if they are able to. (Sorry for the delay in responding - I was working on the rewrite.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Beeman is one confusing guy, because he also states that "Episode 11 will be (and always was designed to be the end of a chapter.)". I mean, we saw at the end of the episode "Volume Three: Villains", just like what happened at the end of Volume One. Heh. Whatever. The infomation is okay now, but i wouldn't doubt it if there's a disagreement later on by wikipedians over this subject. dposse 20:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm sure the debates will rage on endlessly. The confusion comes because of Kring's desire to make smaller "volumes", or storylines. The season consists of an order of 23 episodes (season one) and 24 episodes (season two). However, this year, the volumes are shorter - last year's "Genesis" ran for 23 episodes - all of season one - while "Generations" was intended to run for 11 episodes and "Villains" for 13 episodes, to make up season two. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Holy shit, that is confusing. God damnit. At first, i loved the concept of a comic book inspired show, but this is bullshit. dposse 20:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're awesome. Thanks for all the help! Magkaz (talk) 13:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question about the tag you placed on the Company page on Heroes. You said to write fiction more clearly in out of universe style. How do you do that? I think I know, but I am not sure...would i write something like this...

In Company Man, Thompson hires Noah Bennet to join the Company

or

In 1992, Thompson hires Noah Bennet to join the Company ^[2]

Do I state the episode name with a wikilink or do I add it as a ref link??

Can you explain this to me? You seem to be really experience on wikipedia, and I know you probably are busy fixing pages, but if you have a minute to respond and give me some advice, I would really like to clean up that page and make it up to wikipedia standards. thanks, i really appreciate it. If you could write your response on my talk page, that would be great...if not, i will check this talk page later...thanks again...let me know if you dont have time to explain it to me...but i am a fast learning so you can make it brief and i would understand --Chrisisinchrist 07:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

You deleted a piece from the article about the so-called Doomsday Seed Vault. My contribution was solely based on F. William Engdahl's article. As a reference I gave his article. That's enough I think. I am only giving a resumee of his article, which I bet, you didn't even bother to read. The inferences are his inferences, not mine. Undue weight? Who are you to decide on the weight of this contribution, if you didn't read Engdahl's article at all, and to decide to scrap the whole entry alltogether? Are you Wikipedia's Head Gatekeeper?

Jangranat —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jangranat (talk • contribs) 10:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Thank you for all your time, expertise and efforts! Magkaz (talk) 00:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

C, I went back to undo my Talk links and noticed you got them for me. Thank you. You are busy enough with a ton of other endeavors without having to check on my edits. A quick check of my userpage would show i am detail-person being an engineer and curator, and would cleanup my honest incorrect wiki-edits. I appreciate your input on User talk:BillCJ#Why? and have learned more about Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid. Best regards, Lance....LanceBarber (talk) 05:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I must say that I'm impressed by your extensive talklist, your anti-vandal history, and especially by the number of evidently heartfelt thanks that editors have posted there. I'm contacting you to ask about your reasoning for the minor Buffalo Wings deletion that you just made - the comment seemed (to my inexperienced eyes) to be fair enough, and I didn't see any comment from you on the talk page. Regards, Centrepull (talk) 00:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi their, thanks for stepping in on my talk page, I have to say I am utterly bemused why this user is so aggressively picked on, the only crime I can see him committing is sock puppetry, and as that is not really against Wiktionary policy (we only block disruptive sockpuppets). Are there more subtle problems with him that I have failed to notice, because most of his edits are either a shuffle forwards or a step sideways, rather than a step back. If you could clarify the situation on my Wiktionary talk page I would be very grateful. Conrad.Irwin 09:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conrad: this is not a constructive user. Screaming "harassment" instantly when something is corrected is simply trolling. It is entirely possible this user is intentionally making bad edits. Robert Ullmann (talk) 10:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ckatz: thank you for the pointers to the background on this user; we certainly don't need this kind of disruption on the wikt, and it is good to forestall it. (wikt:User talk:Robert Ullmann) Robert Ullmann (talk) 10:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also point out that the individual wasn't "aggressively picked on" here. The individual is capable of making reasonable content additions, but they are apparently incapable of taking any level of criticism of their additions, constructive or otherwise... and their response to even good faith suggestions about improvement of their edits tends to degenerate into juvenile trolling. I unblocked the editor at one point to allow them to continue editing after they had been indefinitely blocked; I would not do that again. The level of disruption greatly outweighs the quality of the content they add.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my talk page on en.wikt for an amusing (well, unless you've seen too much of this crap before ;-) post from the troll. (FYI, no reply requested) Robert Ullmann (talk) 05:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

see [4] if there is any remaining doubt. Robert Ullmann (talk) 23:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, first of all thanks for bringing this problem to my attention. As you've now worked out WP:AIV is primarily for simple cases of vandalism, initially this report should have gone to WP:3RR though it's better to try and point editors to dispute resolution read through it and find common ground. As a last resort reports on all matters requiring admin intervention can be reported to WP:ANI and if it's not acted upon there, they will point you in the right direction pretty quickly. I've gone round leaving messages with all involved, and a couple have been warned for 3RR, and have agreed to take anything further to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heroes. I will be looking out, but any further issues and problems don't hesitate to give me a shout. cheers ^Khukri 11:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You removed a par from the Trivia section of Marmite without explanation. Why? It's equally as interesting and accurate as the other trivia entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.64.232 (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further to that. If that par is to remain deleted, then I should delete all of the others too. Right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.64.232 (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you undo the Scrubs episode list talk page archive? I clearly indicated where the earlier debate was, and to say that it is ongoing is wishful thinking. I find this action disruptive and slightly pointy since talk pages are archived from time to time when they get too long. This is not some backdoor attempt to stifle debate. I am going to redo the archive and if you wish to reconsider the archiving, please raise it on the talk page where consensus can coalesce to support your unusual actions. Actually, I will raise it myself and invite comment. Eusebeus (talk) 19:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• K, that's better. I thought you were supposed to be all laid back and stuff out there in BC. We are the ones under 50 cm of goddamn snow. Eusebeus (talk) 19:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but it's not "disruptive" - I really don't think it is appropriate to archive the discussion at this time. The older material, yes, but not the more current material. (Sorry about the snow, too... if it makes you feel any better, the sun is partially obscured by some clouds right now.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strange comment from your site. If you check the mentioned wikipedia sites you´ll find a plenty of links to other companies. Why this? Why is PE INTERNATIONAL who indeed provides expert knowledge in the field of LCA and carbon footprinting removed? By doing so you contribute to hinder the spreading of professional know how. For further infomation you may visit http://www.pe-international.com. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxfrisch (talk • contribs) 09:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Venus has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

I should say that I don't consider this article particularly bad, it's just that the other featured planetary articles (except Mercury) are far longer and have more citations, so I thought as the Featured Topic nears completion it would be a good idea to revisit the old articles and see if they need any work. Serendi^podous 23:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hiya. =) There has been a decent amount of discussion on the Heroes talk page since you last commented in opposition to adding an external link to the Heroes wiki. In an effort to reach consensus I just wanted to make sure you were aware of the recent discussions so that you could check them out and further contribute to the discussion if you're interested. =) --Centish (talk) 04:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. When I last checked, it seemed like you deleted the whole thing, but now I see the sited article. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.88.186.238 (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason why you keep removing not only my External Link but many others under Databases for Tabula Rasa (Game) ?

Do you even play Tabula Rasa? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.57.33 (talk) 18:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you add more to the Article Discussion Section? Theres a TOC, and a much of other sections that has a Edit function .. but talking about External links isnt listed ? I'm lost! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.57.33 (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated Better Halves, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Better Halves and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there!

Recently you undid some changes that I made to the Waco Siege article. You've cited speculation. However, I put it to you that the 'investigation' section of that article is currently very biased towards one side of the argument, and makes a number of unsourced / uncited statements already. My changes were a small attempt to add balance to some of the balder statements. I don't see how it is fair to say "surviving Branch Davidians said they saw others starting the fire" (or somesuch) without any kind of citation or source to back that up (I had added "citation needed"). I also think it is misleading to say that there were "intentionally punctured fuel canisters" found when there were tanks driving all over the area (including bashing into buildings themselves).

After only having recently read and watched about the events at Waco in 1993, I was disappointed in the unbalanced nature of the Wikipedia article, and thus tried to do my part to fix that. If what I have added is speculation, then I posit that much of the "Investigation" section of article is either also speculation or in fact outright fabrication.

I hope you find my comments in good faith, as they are intended to be, and I would enjoy any discussion that ensues. If this should be on the talk page for the article, please do let me know (and in fact, if you could assist with moving it there, I'd be grateful; I don't have that much experience with Wiki-ing!)

Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Septicman (talk • contribs) 21:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The standard convention in astronomy is that the Milky Way Galaxy is a proper noun, whether "Milky Way" is explicitly stated or not. Generically, any old galaxy is a common noun (and not capitalized). I'm happy with the punctuation on planet now; being precise is an improvement. Ashill (talk) 12:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A reference, FYI: "galaxy: A system of about 100 billion stars. Our Sun is a member of the Milky Way Galaxy, which is sometimes just designated by capitalization: Galaxy. There are billions of galaxies in the observable universe. Exactly when and how galaxies formed in the Universe is a topic of current astronomical research." Ashill (talk) 12:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. You might wanna mention to other wikipedians in the appropriate places about all the issues with the episode articles (like how they have notability tags and stuff) . I would, but nobody would probably listen to me and i'm also busy with work. Thanks. dposse (talk) 03:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ckatz... it seems to me that you're un-doing plenty of people's comments, but aren't prepared to discuss your reasons with them? I can see by your pedigree that you're somewhat respected here but how about answering some of the people that you've undone the edits of? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Septicman (talk • contribs) 01:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 16:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TorrentFreak.com isn't a torrent site - it's a news site about torrents, quoted by sites such as Digg, Slashdot and Wired. Just because it has "torrent" in the title doesn't make it a torrent site. Do you see the difference? And where does it say we don't use torrent sites for references anyway? See, for example, the Demonoid or ThePirateBay articles for appropriate uses of torrent sites for references. Neıl ☎ 17:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you reverted saying "no torrent sites". TorrentFreak.com is not a torrent site. It's a news site focussing on P2P and torrent news. But it's moot as I found a more mainstream source - http://www.buddytv.com/articles/jericho/jericho_first_three_season_two-15852.aspx - as Google News use this one ([5]), I think we can consider it reliable. And the morse codes are back in - you can use the episodes themselves as reference for that. Neıl ☎ 09:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello...how are you? I am currently try to place ref links on the area that we are edit conflicting over, yet you are making edits at the same time that I am. I can not improve the section if you continue to go behind my work. the system will not allow us to both change a section at one time. It would be nice if you could cool off for tonight and let me finish the section and finish the ref links, and then in the morning, perhaps you can come behind me and clean up whatever you personally feel needs to be changed. But, the least you can do is let me finish the section, add correct and verified refs and format it correctly. In the morning, you can come back to the section and do what you do. But, neither one of us will get anything done if you and I continue to edit it at the same time. Is this okay with you?--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 06:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, have at it. I've already left you a note on your page... some of the material (as mentioned in my note) needs to go, as it is unencyclopaedic. FYI, I'm only removing text that isn't supported by the references provided, and cleaning up wording that is overly promotional. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as my sentence about the mantra, if you check the link, which links to a verified newpaper in florida, it is verified.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 06:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I did (of course) check the reference first. It is a college newspaper, and it says "With its 2006 debut on NBC, Heroes hooked viewers with its "save the cheerleader, save the world" mantra." That validates the use of mantra, but it does not support your assertion that "In 2006, when Heroes debut on NBC, Save the Cheerleader, Save the World became a very popular mantra for the series". That is why I worked the term "mantra" into the line "The series, along with its mantra "save the cheerleader, save the world", has been referred to, featured and parodied in several other series..." --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think I fixed it. I found a great article from Variety about the impact of the save the cheerleader campaign to verify some of the things i wrote. i reworked the section and I think it is better now and more encyclopedic. go ahead and check it out and let me know what you think.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my bad. I just thought those episodes weren't important enough to be mentioned, but if they are, I'll leave them alone and stop my shamefully disruptive behaviour ;D Thanks for dropping me a note, and have a nice day. Rosenknospe (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avatar means so many things and all are there on the Disambig list. I made a new entry today which you deleted in blink of an eye. There is a book publishing essablishment in Paris by this name which is ( or was ) well-known for publishing Nazi occultism and such other bullshit.

Please note that I am not gloryfing them, just telling the world about these freaks....why do you, sir, so against the idea that they deserve a mention at least. Afterall Wiki mentions Hitler also....no ?

Jon Ascton (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi Ckatz/Archive 4, thank you for your interest in VandalProof. I am happy to announce that you are now one of our authorized users, so if you haven't already simply download VandalProof from our main page, install and you're all set!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Glad to be of help. Are you planning on using the info in the Pegasus article, or should I bother to add it myself, as it's obviously *not* "fancruft"? Sixty Six 06:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [6]. --Maniwar (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(from "Links normally to be avoided")

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

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

• Links mainly intended to promote a website.

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

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

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

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

Hi,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello Ckatz.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Ckatz:

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

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

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

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

Many thanks for the info on which tense to use!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Ckatz,

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

Good luck with your RfA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As you are now an admin, I would like to test your super-powers. :) This [7] strikes me as evidence of spamming and self-promotion on the article. I've asked a couple of admins about this, but haven't really gotten a direct answer. I don't want to just go whacking that info unilaterally. But they're giving inside info on something not yet released, which qualifies as original research; and they're trying to drum up advanced orders, which qualifies as self-promotion, as I see it. It's true I am not buying it because they're not selling it in stores. But I reached the spam conclusion before I called Barnes & Noble and they confirmed it was not available. So I'm offended by this on at least two fronts. What do you think? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Read the following wikipedia rule:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wow, that's bizarre. O_o I'm glad I didn't be bold in this case. -WarthogDemon 19:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spacestevie (talk) 17:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit on 20 March 2008

The latest revision has removed the link to the offending website and as such, satisfies any objection.

Spacestevie (talk) 05:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some sort of notice to place at the talk page of the editor that recreated the article? Cirt (talk) 06:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

Just a short response to the removal of my edits with regard to the time frame discussion on the Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets page. I put them in there as I'm actually listening to the Prisoner of Azkaban book on tape at the moment and had remembered reading about the time frame post a couple of days ago. As Jim Dale read the passage about the students' first divination class, I realized it could be another timeframe reference and so I immediately looked up the calendar years and found through a quick web search that there was a Friday Oct. 16th in 1992 and in 1998. Since Chamber of Secrets is claimed to have occurred in 1992-1993 (presumably the October the 16th would have been the one in 1992 in that book), the timeline is thus perhaps not accurate. In chapter 8 (Flight of the Fat Lady) of Prisoner of Azkaban, Lavendar Brown indeed has that "thing that she's been dreading" happen to her: Her pet rabbit Dinky dies and she claims she should have known...it's Friday Oct. 16th! Hermione thinks it's basically hogwash as Dinky was a young rabbit and thus it's unlikely that Lavender would have feared Dinky's death...

Anyway, please check the books for yourself. I've referenced the chapters and you can easily check the past calendars for the dates. Obviously, feel free to edit the text :)

cheers,

Aaron —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.163.139.68 (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand why an external link to comedy central is allowed and not for the comedy network. Canadians can not view US content on comedy central. I can see how it looks like spam but as a Canadian and a student I feel this link is helpful and resourceful for people interested in such material.Memoemoe (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)memoemoe[reply]

Thanks. What if I made a new headline stating Online episodes and post links to both US and Canadian players. I feel like this is information that people do look for and if there should be more links from Asia or Australia because US content is geo-blocked so be it. It's internet racism.Memoemoe (talk) 16:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Memoemoe[reply]

Also you said you would leave links on the Canadian owned shows but you removed my link on Corner Gas which is a Canadian show. I dont understand. Memoemoe (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Memoemoe[reply]

I believe your removal of the CSD from Abdeslam Boulaich to be inappropriate. Your comment was “Actually, this might be interesting if it can be expanded. Bowles is apparently notable for this sort of work”. This article is about Abdeslam, not Bowles (who has his own article). Further, A7 states speedy deletion is appropriate when an article “does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources”. CSD makes no consideration of what “might be interesting”. The article asserts no importance or significance. Although I question the WP:RS/WP:V compliance of the sources you indicated on the talk page, it is moot, as CSD#A7 explicitly differentiates between "importance or significance" and notability. I’ll inform you if I post this to WP:ANI, as this appears to be an unambiguous judgment error. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the remainder of my comment was cut off; a simple search in English found 1,800 hits on Boulaich. Obviously, not all will be useful, but several of the hits (book on Amazon, part of university-level course reading, etc.) are sufficient to establish that a speedy deletion is in fact inappropriate. Beyond that, I would ask that you assume good faith on the part of your fellow editors, and avoid making unwarranted threats suggestions that this action in any way warrants an AN/I report. Note that the speedy deletion policy explicitly states that "deletion is not required if a page meets these criteria" and "Any editor who is not the creator of a page may remove a speedy tag from it." Speedies are a request for deletion, not a directive. As an administrator, I'm expected to assess your request, determine if it is warranted, and act accordingly. As an editor, I'm entitled to disagree with your opinion. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ANI comment was not a threat. There’s a distinct difference between “if” and “will”. Indicating that I would be honorable and notify you if that is my decision was an extension of courtesy. The comment was made in good faith and it would appear that you need to read not only CSD, but AGF. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 19:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Out of respect for your reply, I've changed "threat" to "suggestion". However, that doesn't change my underlying concern that you would consider this as being even remotely worthy of an AN/I report. Those are generally reserved for serious issues, not minor disagreements over content (which is what this is.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a secondary issue of judgment. You're a relatively new admin exercising, in my opinion, questionable judgment. ANI would be an appropriate forum to confirm or deny, and thus nip potential future problems in the proverbial bud. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 19:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To quote another editor, "The fact that there's a keep !vote here already indicates to me that it would have been inappropriate to speedily delete the article. Speedy deletion is only for those cases that are so obvious that there is no need to waste everyone's time with a debate." (This is from the deletion debate for Regina Freedman; while that article did end up being deleted, it is another instance where you took issue with an editor who disagreed with your use of CSD:A7.) Look, obviously, we're not in agreement on this matter; why not agree to disagree and put this behind us? --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ckatz,

I'm new to wikipedia so I need to try and understand why my post for sliderocket keeps getting removed. How is SlideRocket different from Slideshare which seems to have a post or rather what do I need to do to qualify sliderocket as a legitimate wikipedia entry.

Thanks.

Nat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Natrobinson (talk • contribs) 00:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Your removals of the external links for Dodge Charger registries were inappropriate. Please refrain from deleting/removing useful information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.182.9.42 (talk) 00:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Unfortunately, the links don't meet the external links guideline. I've explained in greater detail on your talk page. --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the linking guidelines and found that the links that I added to in fact meet all of Wikipedia's linking criteria, so in that case, they will remain. Please restrain yourself from unnecessarily removing them again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.182.9.42 (talk) 03:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have already reverted my edits twice. If you revert a third time you will be reported under WP:3RR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.182.9.42 (talk) 03:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, your links do not meet the requirements. However, we cannot disrupt the page over the links section, so I have followed standard practice as per the guideline and inserted a link to the Open Directory Project. The ODP is, to quote their site, "the largest, most comprehensive human-edited directory of the Web." Wikipedia recommends the use of this search engine as a means of avoiding dispites over external links sections in articles. You are free to submit any and all links you wish to that site; the submission page is here. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is this username possibly a violation? Tuna is smelly, after all. And I don't know many tunas who would take offense. Just wondering. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although you seem to be doing a fine job overall, just thought I'd say, could you be a little more careful (if poss) with your reverts (not going back far enough), see here or here for a couple of examples. Thanks :-) Pahari Sahib 10:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Unfortunately, those articles were vandalized by User:Bnationalp and by that user's IP address; hence the complication when reverting. The user and the IP have been temporarily blocked; please let me know if you see more vandalism from either party. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay will do :-), by the way - judging by the types of edits by the user (and the IP address) - I think the user name is short for British National Party - seems to me to be an inappropriate user name. Pahari Sahib 05:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I was glad to do it. I was annoyed at the anon.'s edit on the subject, which seemed designed to make Gilliam look bad: first, that he was disingenuous about his motives for renouncing his citizenship; second, that he was a tax dodge, as you say. We know that this is not the case. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 05:39, 8 March 2008 Ckatz (Talk | contribs) (37 bytes) (moved Template:Infobox Nonstellar body to Template:Infobox Planet over redirect: Revert undiscussed move - should be discussion as to the name, plus a plan for updating the hundreds of pages that call this.)

Hi -- the discussion aside (given the template's use, moving to the more generic name seems uncontroversial to me), did a redirect from "Infobox Planet" to "Infobox Nonstellar body" not work? Seemed to be okay here... Sardanaphalus (talk) 04:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm still here trying to iron out a few wrinkles in (the spacetime of) the template. How about leaving it as "Nonstellar body" and see if anyone objects with reason beyond the principle of having a discussion, unless you already see a problem with the name (I'm assuming an astronomical context) or have a potentially better one? Sardanaphalus (talk) 04:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The name shouldn't have any effect on the tweaks. Okay, if a discussion there must be (still don't see why, in lieu of a non-principled objection) then I guess the template's talk page is the place to start it. So I have. I see, though, that there hasn't been much talk there recently. Sardanaphalus (talk) 05:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...Okay. I was assuming that whatever the outcome, the redirection could handle it. After all, suggesting via the infobox name that Telesto (for example) is a planet is kind of... odd. Coffeetime. Sardanaphalus (talk) 07:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Times like this I wish I hadn't voluntarily given back the mop and bucket. I've been editing this site on and off virtually since its inception and I have never seen a character quite like that Connor guy. I am genuinely creeped out by this user and I am beyond grateful you've blocked him. Please take a look at his photo contribs. They're simply useless. Thank you from the bottom of my heart for shutting him down if even for a few days. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 09:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd walked away due to some nasty abuse I was receiving based on the deletions of nonsense. One guy blew a gasket and tried to run me up on a RfC after I deleted his nonsense dicdef...which has stayed deleted. Same thing happened once before. I'd given back the mop and bucket on a prior occasion, wrote Jimbo some months later to ask to be reinstated - which I was - only to have much the same thing happen again. Once administrative blood hits the water, the trolls go into a feeding frenzy and the community kind of sat back and watched. This last time really was the last time. I requested and received de-adminning once more under my old username of "Lucky 6.9" and walked away for almost two years. I wanted to return and do some work on Veropedia, but the only way to do that was to edit here. So, here I am. I'm having more fun cleaning up old articles and doing some whack-a-vandal patrolling. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it might be a good idea to get Planet X semi-protected? The closer we get to 2012, the more that page is going to get savaged by well-meaning borderline psychotics. I have to say the whole thing really freaks me out, especially when you realise that it all started with a woman who thinks she has an alien implant in her brain. Serendi^podous 18:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just found your re-edit of my restoration of the deleted passage concerning the Doctor and the Declaration of Independence in Doctor (Doctor Who). You have indeed made a better read of it, my compliments. The part which I added and you deleted as, according to your edit summary, opinion was intended to be merely the standard "The canonicity of spin-off fiction is unclear" disclaimer modified because this is actually a scene scripted and even recorded for the official series but left out, presumably to fit the required time slot (a statement I never considered for inclusion in the article because it is no more than my presumption, and I am wide open to correction). That, of course, has more authenticity than something in a novelization that might have been found in one draft or another of the script or came out of the novelist's own imagination. Perhaps leaving that at "It's status as 'deleted' leaves its canonicity unclear, similar to spin-off fiction" would be acceptable. I think the hidden message I included, that many statements from SOFs are discussed in this article, means that deleting this on the grounds given by PMA when he did so is dubious when limited to this one passage, that either a great deal needs to be taken out or this left in. Ted Watson (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to remove links that would be helpful to users to learn more information about a certain famous person. I am considering going to mediation or arbitration with you. You continue to remove sources that would be helpful to people. Interviews are considered good external links. You aren't following your own rules. Pages that include Jaslene Gonzalez and Robin Roberts interviews under external links were good sources. Would you please stop removing things that are good sources. You aren't helping only hurting. I have tried again and again to source real information and real on the record interviews, but you continue to take it down. It is not spam. I am not selling something to anyone. I am only trying to provide good information.

"thesportsinterview" links have been repeatedly spammed across a series of articles for over a year now, and the URL was even on the spam list for a period of time. A host of single-purpose IPs have surfaced, their only goal being to add links to this site to articles. The external links guideline does not condone adding links just because an interview exists; otherwise, we would have hundreds of links on these pages. You have been advised of this repeatedly; please respect the site guidelines. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are not hundreds of interviews on the net with these specific people. If there were others would be sourced and there would be no need to source mine. On many of these biographers there were no other interview links. Many of those links were up for a year and you just come and clean house. That is not fair to me who runs a real outlet with real content that can be helpful to wiki users. I would like to go to mediation with you. This is not fair to me who is trying to provide good information. You have done nothing but cause frustration. I sourced a few dozen pages and I get my head chewed off for it. It's not fair or right. I wish you would cooperate with me.

You are welcome to seek a second opinion, but to be perfectly honest you are in all likelihood going to get exactly the same response. Wikipedia does not exist as a directory for links; furthermore, the fact that your links were "up for a year" does not indicate that they should have been placed to begin with. There are well over two million articles on Wikipedia, so it does take time to clean up problems. You are not the first site owner to question why his or her links are being removed; many, many people have done the same thing, because they do not see the difference between Wikipedia and other web sites. I've said this before, but I'll say it again: do not take it as a comment on your site, merely the reality that the links are not suitable for this project. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. Jackocleebrown (talk) 12:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why myself and the company I work for has been unfairly targeted by you and your team, however, Source One Television is a legitimate television show providing music news and artist interviews. I must call into question your repeated removals of links to Source One... and demand you reinstate those links. From my understanding of Wikipedia policy, your actions are a violation. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmatadeen (talk • contribs) 03:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be glad to move forward, however, you and your colleagues have provided threats, and at no point have provided any positive criticisms as to how to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmatadeen (talk • contribs) 04:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for discussing this matter. First off, I'd just like to state that I have never "threatened" you. I have attempted to explain the situation, and have also provided warnings based on Wikipedia's established procedures for dealing with issues like this. (It is worth noting that some of your actions - repeatedly adding the links, addding multiple copies of the same message to my tal page, and so on - could easily have resulted in a block by now. However, in the spirit of "moving forward", I'd prefer to ignore those for now.)

I think we need to clarify another issue as well. Based on the conversations you've had today, I think that you may be under the wrong impression as to what Wikipedia is. This site is not a public forum, a search engine, or a directory service. The aim of the project is to build an online encyclopedia, one that "anyone can edit". That involves several core principles that govern what sort of content is deemed acceptable; we have to ensure that text is verifiable, obtained from reliable sources, notable, and so on. Companies are not permitted to use Wikipedia for advertising purposes, which is why an article about an organization is expected to avoid resembling that organization's promotional material. Related to this, web site owners are cautioned about contributing information that benefits their interests, and external links to sites are not permitted just because (for example) an interview exists. There are millions of companies world-wide that will never be able to have Wikipedia articles, not because they are bad or because Wikipedians dislike them, but instead because they do not demonstrate sufficient notability for inclusion. Think of it this way - you would expect your company to be permitted to have a listing in the phone directory, alongside CNN or the New York Times. Would you, however, be offended if those organizations were written up in the Encyclopedia Brittanica and yours was not? --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

122.2.96.229 as noted due to vandalsim —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thright (talk • contribs) 07:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ckatz, Why did you remove all of those links? For several of those I'd even posted on the talk pages with no dissenting remarks. Was it inappropriate to post if no one disagreed? How does anything ever achieve approval on Wikipedia? Also, did you even take the time to visit those links and read the content associated with each of the articles? If you had, I don't think you would have deleted them. I'd love to talk to you about this. Andrewmagliozzi (talk) 19:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, per the comments that have been left on your talk page, at least three editors other than myself have reviewed your site and felt that it did not meet the external links guideline. This doesn't mean your site is bad, but Wikipedia is not a links directory or a search engine. We don't link to every site with content. The project works on based on consensus, and the consensus so far has been that your links don't belong. Please see my note on your talk page as well. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, what specific problems were there with the site? If there is any way I could fix them, I'd like to know how. Second, should I just leave some talk on all of those pages with the assumption that someone else may read, follow the link, and repost? Sorry if you think this is spam, but it is a great site that I worked very hard to make for the benefit of others and it seems rather unfortunate that it would be rejected from the entire WP community by three people. Andrewmagliozzi (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I have been persistent with these links because I am certain my site is a better resource than several other external links that appear on these pages. Also, I wonder why links to Sparknotes and other painfully commercial sites appear on these pages. Also, while some editors did criticize these links months ago, I made many changes to the site based on their comments. Please clarify. Andrewmagliozzi (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is understandable that you would feel strongly about your site, and it is also commendable that you are trying to adapt it based on comments from others. However, one key problem lies in you being the one to add links to the site, since there is an obvious conflict of interest. You'd need to convince other editors that the site has something unique and distinct to offer, and let them be the ones to add the site. FYI, blogs and user-edited sites often have a more difficult go of it than other sites with stricter editorial oversight. As for the other links you mention, the general feeling here is that the existence of invalid links (again, using "invalid" as a reflection of WP's links guideline rather than site quality) does not justify the addition of more links. If you feel some existing links aren't appropriate, you are encouraged to suggest they be removed. (Ordinarily, I'd say to remove them yourself, but again the "conflict of interest" issue arises.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I'll just try to convince you. First, a link to a recent article about the site )http://thephoenix.com/article_ektid57117.aspx). Second, the point of the site is to encourage open education and academic discussion, considering the dedicated users of Wikipedia, my goal was not the wide promotion of the site as much as encouraging people like yourself to enjoy the site and contribute your own knowledge. Third, I have looked into every hypertext commentary engine on the web, and I guarantee that none is better than the one on TheFinalClub.org. Furthermore, the content of this hypertext commentary is absolutely fantastic. Read Macbeth or Bartleby for ten minutes and I guarantee you'll agree that there is no other comparable website anywhere on the web.

Keep in mind that I'm not the person you really need to convince; while I am an administrator, that role is more one of enforcing the site's policies and guidelines. When it comes to content, my vote is the same as any other editor's. The better approach would be to ask regular contributors on the talk pages of specific articles. If, for example, you can convince the editors at Romeo and Juliet that your site adds value to the article, they may well put the link in. If there is a consensus, you'll see that editors help to maintain that consensus if someone repeatedly removes the link. Likewise, if the Hamlet editors reject the link, it would stay out at that article. (It is very much a case-by-case assessment.)

One point to consider: the message you're currently posting is too "promotional" in nature, and may well cause additional problems. I would suggest you remove the old text and reword it to briefly describe the site and its features in simple, "hype-free" text. Most importantly, be sure to mention your role, the fact it was deemed unsuitable previously, and that you have reworked it on the basis of comments received here. That way, there is nothing "hidden", you avoid the "hey. look at this great site" spam messaging that is discouraged here, and you put everything out there for editors to assess. Again, you may or may not be successful, and it would probably be case-by-case. Hope this helps. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for the note. Thinking on it, I agree with you that having "known" in the sentence is incorrect. I was originally thinking along the same lines as the intro I wrote for Mars, which has a maximum size for any unknown moons, but in Earth's case I think that limit's sufficiently small that anything discovered wouldn't be called a moon. :) Mike Peel (talk) 22:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the IP addy that continues to revert back the unsourced information is actually Joey 606. Anyway, I put in a request for semi-protection of the article. Do you think that is the right move?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's probably better if you don't protect the page given your most recent revert of the same information. An Admin decline it on the grounds that there hasn't been enough recent activity, and I don't want to continue the edit war with this IP who seems to blindly revert back without providing any source and blanking their talk page when I ask them for one.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I was right about the IP being Joey, they both just blanked their talk pages back-to-back.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bignole, I would appreciate it if you wouldn’t blindly accuse my of continued editing of that page. As far as I’m concerned the matter is finished, the admin has spoken and i respect that. It is not up to you to blindly speculate. I actually find this quite offensive and I would ask Ckatz to take some form of action on this. Bignole please back down, once again you are not an admin, if Ckatz wishes to investigate into if that IP i can see on the page is me, it is entirely his/her decision. It is not however yours, your here to update information on articles and if you should so wish correct other peoples articles. If you could contact me Ckatz re this matter i would apprciate it as i honestly feel that this sort of attitude and "finger pointing" isnt appropriate on a site such as this. Half the problems that are caused with this member are caused by a lack of communication, he doesnt contact anyone before reverting he just does it, this is what he did to me and what got me sligtly angry with the afor mentioned member. I notice i am not the only member to have problems with bignole. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey 606 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, please be realistic. If Bignole hadn't made the comparison, I or any other editor probably would have. "Joey 606" and "86.153.221.218" have both only edited the Smallville page, making very similar changes. The IP account first began editing on March 6th, adding two unreferenced episode titles, and repeatedly reverting when those were removed for lack of sources. Joey 606 first edited on March 9th, doing exactly the same thing. Both have also edited at around the same time, performing similar actions; your first edit on Wikipedia was to the Smallville article, restoring the identical text that the IP had placed hours before. Yesterday, you and the IP blanked your respective talk pages within two minutes of each other. Today, you both post complaints about Bignole within six minutes of each other. If you aren't the same people, fine, but the comments on both talk pages are still valid, the material is still unreferenced, and the accounts are still edit-warring. Please keep that in mind before making accusations about other editors.

Further to this, remember that on Wikipedia, an "administrator" is just an editor with some extra tools to assist in enforcing policies and guidelines established by all editors. Your actions and the IP's actions contravened a long-established requirement for verifiability, and as such can (and should) be removed when discovered. While editors are encouraged to discuss the matter - as Bignole did by posting on the respective talk pages - it would be inappropriate to allow unreferenced material to remain until said discussion is complete. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please check what I have done recently and make sure this change is deemed acceptable.

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

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

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

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

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

Hi there,

Just a short response to the removal of my edits with regard to the time frame discussion on the Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets page. I put them in there as I'm actually listening to the Prisoner of Azkaban book on tape at the moment and had remembered reading about the time frame post a couple of days ago. As Jim Dale read the passage about the students' first divination class, I realized it could be another timeframe reference and so I immediately looked up the calendar years and found through a quick web search that there was a Friday Oct. 16th in 1992 and in 1998. Since Chamber of Secrets is claimed to have occurred in 1992-1993 (presumably the October the 16th would have been the one in 1992 in that book), the timeline is thus perhaps not accurate. In chapter 8 (Flight of the Fat Lady) of Prisoner of Azkaban, Lavendar Brown indeed has that "thing that she's been dreading" happen to her: Her pet rabbit Dinky dies and she claims she should have known...it's Friday Oct. 16th! Hermione thinks it's basically hogwash as Dinky was a young rabbit and thus it's unlikely that Lavender would have feared Dinky's death...

Anyway, please check the books for yourself. I've referenced the chapters and you can easily check the past calendars for the dates. Obviously, feel free to edit the text :)

cheers,

Aaron ([email protected])

Eh, those deletion discussions are a bit old and bit light on participation, but you could have gone either way. However, you've got the prime directive to consider, so I suppose you did good here. Good luck with those tools! east.718 at 09:20, March 7, 2008

Hi - thanks for looking into this. Yes, that user appears to be creating new articles. I don't know the trick, but it's a trick. A couple days ago, those articles were FULL episode descriptions, and now they're gone, along with the edit history. I can show you the original source for the Red Dress article (I saved it long long ago). User TTN had taken them down, and after the Wikipedia team determined that TTN's actions were uncalled for, those episode descriptions were reverted. Again... just a few days ago, those articles were long and descriptive! Geĸrίtz (talk)

I've restored an older version to my user space, User:Gekritzl/Red Dress (Malcolm in the Middle episode). You can see the article used to have lots of detail. Thanks again. I actually retrieved this shortly after TTN deleted it, by using Google and downloading a cached version. Are you an admin? Geĸrίtz (talk)

Thanks for your comments on my talk page, but it wasn't much of a help. The day before Mzaincontributor "created" the Red Dress (Malcolm in the Middle) article, the full article was already there. It is pure speculation on my part that Mzaincontributor was the one who deleted the original, complete article, and replaced it with the skeleton article, and somehow wiped out the edit history. Thanks again... Geĸrίtz (talk)