This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ckatz. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 13

Hi Ckatz! I noticed that you removed the website procon.org as a source from the article Dore Gold. I don't know where it would satisfy all criteria under WP:RS, but it's not a clearly unreliable source (not self-published, not affiliated, etc.), so the removal seems strange. What is the reason for it? —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

There has been a clear and definite effort by several IPs and SPAs to add this link to as many articles as possible. In some cases, valid references were removed in favour of this site's links, while in other cases the links were added as references for reprinted material that should be sourced from the original author. --Ckatz^chat_spy 11:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)r

I agree with your assessment. This site is a tertiary source with unknown quality control and usually no named author. Zero^talk 12:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it isn't always so bad. I restored it where it was more or less accurate on one point in United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 (and the other ref - a LoC Country Study said something (not quoted in article) completely wrong.) There it was acting as a convenience link for works of Rashid Khalidi and Michael Oren, so I think is acceptable in that case.John Z (talk) 22:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Problem is, the site has a demonstrated history of being spammed over a period stretching back at least a year. In such cases, it is desirable to avoid using the site at all. From what I've seen, the text it has been used to reference can all be replaced with more appropriate, more direct, and non-spammed sites. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand the specifics above, but got here from a similar edit, and tend to agree with John. There are many instances where procon is a melding ref for both POVs. In the general arena where pro and con are so evident and exclusionary, this site tends to place them as part of the whole, and says so. I also somewhat question the passive usage 'of being spammed'. What does that mean, that some are citing it more regularly on Wikipedia? Is that a valid reason to delete a ref and replace it with a fact-tag? It might be seen as less-than-adequate AGF. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 00:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I see ProCon as a Wikipedia-like source. It is someone's compilation of things that are interesting to them. The reason we shouldn't cite it much is the same as the reason we aren't supposed to cite other Wikipedia articles. Most of what I can see there is reasonable quality and well intentioned, but in almost all cases we can ourselves cite the sources that ProCon cites. Zero^talk 01:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, by "being spammed", I mean that there are several IP and SPA accounts whose edits consist solely of adding links to the ProCon site on a host of articles. When I first discovered the links, there were well over 150 of them. Many were in the external links sections, added one after another by the same account. Others were tossed into articles on text tha tcould easily be sourced more directly, or (in some cases) even used to replace more direct sources. Are some added by well-intentioned editors? In all likelihood, yes. However, based on what I have seen, these are a tiny minority of the total number of links, compared to the huge list of spammed links. Assuming good faith is important, of course, but when an account's entire history involves nothing other than adding ProCon links, and when those same format links appear throughout other articles, AGF has its limits in the face of a definite effort to spam the links. --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: your removal of ProCon from the "medical marijuana" page at Wikipedia. The Medical Marijuana page at Wiki is known to have low quality. Not only is it confusing in its layout but the content is biased and has biased sources like NORML, PUFMM, and other clear proponents of medical marijuana. The ProCon link seems to have good, sourced, unbiased information. I even Googled that specific page and saw links to it from several media outlets. ProCon shows 140 media outlets referencing their content (http://www.procon.org/viewbackgroundresource.asp?resourceID=001519). Don't you want to make Wiki better? You've made your point about some IPs linking to ProCon more than you like. I get it. That's no reason to punish Wikipedia users by denying access to good content. No govt. agency has reported the 13 states with legal medical marijuana. Who else you gonna quote? You'd have to do the research yourself and compile it onto a webpage. Oh wait, ProCon already did that. You seem to have a vendetta against anything from ProCon and that is not a responsible attitude for an unbiased editor to have. For the sake of a useful encyclopedia, please reconsider your bias again ProCon. (oh and sorry for not using the proper format on this Talk page; I am still learning the ropes) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redondomax (talk • contribs) 22:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

With respect to the IPs, it's not a question of "more than I would like". It is instead the fact that several IPs and accounts came to Wikipedia for no other purpose than to add dozens and dozens of links to the ProCon site. Furthermore, many of those links were added as external links in a manner contrary to what is permitted under the external links guideline, or used to replace existing references that in some cases were to more direct sources. It is a simple reality that any time you have a site that is being spammed by single-purpose accounts, or an editor whose primary role on Wikipedia involves promoting or using one particular source, you have to take a very close look at the site. In this case, the site itself is questionable as a reference source; any material they post without explanations of where they sourced it can't be verified by us, and any information they post from referenced sources should really be sourced here to that primary source (rather than the ProCon intermediary). --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You ignored my point and made your same stubborn and tired arguments. There is no other source for the citation you deleted. By denying the citation you are allowing your ego and bias to trump access to good information for the public's benefit. Your stated logic of linking back to primary sources only would negate half of all the references in Wikipedia. Many newspaper and magazine articles are writers rehashing primary information. If you applied your claimed standard even to the same page on medical marijuana, you would have to replace many more references with "citation needed." Fix the page in a manner consistent with your stated editorial standards or restore the citation. Anything less is being inconsistent and biased, and therefore exercising your editorial power in an inappropriate manner. You don't like ProCon and because of your position you get to manipulate the public perception of that organization. That is not right. No wonder I don't use Wikipedia. I've sat on the sidelines for years and complained about Wiki and when I finally try to do the right thing and make improvements to the encyclopedia, I get someone like you whose got an agenda. Sheesh. Restore the citation or apply your standard consistently on the medical marijuana and remove many more citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redondomax (talk • contribs) 22:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You wrote that ProCon paid to have a Wiki entry and that's why you removed it from the medical cannabis page. Your statement seems misleading and inaccurate. ProCon hosted a contest to encourage its readers to write a good Wiki article. Several people entered. It then held a random drawing to select one of the participants for a $100 prize. That is not at all the same as paying for a Wiki article as you wrote. BTW, since I am relatively new to Wiki, can you tell me how exactly I can file a formal complaint against you for your removal of 100+ links to ProCon? Would you agree to arbitration? User:Redondomax 7 October 2009

Re: Ckatz repeated removal of ProCon.org from medical cannabis page, I just found that USA Today referenced the same chart of 13 states with medical marijuana (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-09-29-medical-marijuana_N.htm) and cited ProCon.org as the source of information. In this scenario, are you suggesting that it would be better to reference USA Today (the secondary source) vs. ProCon.org (the primary source with more relevant information to the topic of medical cannabis)? User: Redondomax 7 October 2009

To whom it may concern,

I recently placed a link to the Environmental and Energy Study Institute "High Performance Green Buildings" page on the "Green Building" Wikipedia page. I wish to respectfully inquire as to why the link was removed. The EESI is a non-profit, non-partisan environmental study group, not a think tank or a lobbying firm. Its mission is purely to educate. The group's website contains a great deal of knowledge that cannot be found on Wikipedia or any other source. EESI has a staff of highly qualified experts who study tirelessly to make sure all of the information on the EESI web site is factually true.In addition, the web site contains videos and overviews of the many briefings EESI holds on Capitol Hill in Washington DC. These briefings are attended by congressional staffers and policy experts from around the world, and their testimony contributes greatly to the public's understanding of environmental and energy issues. The link that I posted offers interested users of Wikipedia additional insight that the could not get from the wiki page alone. Please be assured that I had no intention of spamming, but the EESI has a great deal of useful knowledge has information on all environmental and energy issues. Thus, there are appropriate EESI links for almost every wiki page having to do with environmental and energy issues. This might seem like spamming, but the links I post are relevant and offer insight not available on Wikipedia pages. Please feel free to visit the website (eesi.org)and watch one of the briefings or read about an issue and. In any case, I will abide by your ultimate decision, but I must respectfully ask that you reconsider. Thank you for you time.

Intern8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Intern8 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

In March 2009 there was a discussion at WikiProject Tokusatsu where it was agreed that number of episodes in infoboxes are OK. On October 4, 2009 User:Ryulong (the only user in that discussion who thinks number of episodes should not be in infoboxes) removed the number of episodes in the infobox in the Kamen Rider Double article, so I reverted has edit per the discussion at WikiProject Tokusatsu[1] then he reverted my edit saying "Nothing came about it"[2] so I reverted has edit again "I think you need to look at that discussion again as it was agreed that number of episodes in infoboxes are OK"[3] but he reverted my edit again saying "New show, and no weekly updates"[4] So what do you think about this? Powergate92Talk 22:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hiya. Earlier today you removed all information from the Jon Gettman article sourced by ProCon.org (without giving a reason). While it is not the best source, and I did find replacements, I would like to know why you did that, so I can avoid repeating whatever error I made in the future.

Also, one replacement source I found is Gettman's personal resume, which is especially useful as it is the only page where I have found his birth date.[5] It is apparently hosted on a lawyer's website who has worked with Gettman.[6] Is this a reliable source?

Thanks, Mnation2 (talk) 22:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Please stop removing information about Cantinflas personal life. He has relatives in Houston Texas and Miami, Florida. I would appreciate if you respect my family from removing this information from my uncle's page. Best regards, Carlo Moreno —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjmoreno79 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem lies in the fact that the material is unreferenced. You may say that it is true - and it may well be true - but Wikipedia requires sources that can be verified by readers. If you can provide proof from reliable, verifiable sources, then it would help in allowing the material to remain. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

My word is more than facts cause that is my relative that Wikipedia is reporting. Like I mentioned before THE NAME AND IMAGE OF CANTINFLAS IS PROTECTED BY INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHTS LAWS, WHICH WE HAVE RIGHTS TO AND NO ONE ELSE. If you don't comply I will ask to have my relative's information deleted from this website.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjmoreno79 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Please stop deleting properly referenced information on the use of the GMC Yukon by self-described "environmentalist" politicians such as Congressman David Wu. Whether an individual editor likes it or not, the particular automobile model is an integral part of this developing story. Maybe you're unaware that this story is in dozens of newspapers around the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.199.178 (talk) 13:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you are the one who needs to stop your repeated efforts to add Wu-related material to articles where it does not belong. The class' of vehicle is relevant, but the make is completely irrelevant to the story, as evidenced by the news article you've linked to. (In the Times article, "SUV" is mentioned four times, in the headline and the first, third and ninth paragraphs, whereas "Yukon" is only a passing mention in paragraph seven.) Note that your terminology ("self-described "environmentalists") strongly suggests a POV on your part, one that cannot form a part of an article. --Ckatz^chat_spy 14:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You're being ridiculous. You apparently believe that no one beside me reads the news and believes the matter to be notable, which is not a reasonable assumption since I copied most of the new section from another article (David Wu) on the day I heard this on the news. The term "self-described environmentalist" is not offensive. It was the most neutral accurate term I could think of. If you believe "self-described environmentalist" in an unacceptable term, why not just replace it with a term you like better? Instead you pretend the term is "vandalism" and necessitates semiprotecting the article. The fact is that two or three or four users apparently agree that this matter is appropriate for this article and you are abusing your administrator authority by calling it "vandalism" (which it is not), refusing to explain yourself (though explicitly asked to do so), and personally semiprotecting the article despite your obvious conflict of interest.

Per [7], since you are apparently "the protecting admin" I'll state this explicitly to you first: Please unprotect Chevrolet Tahoe. --24.187.199.178 (talk) 19:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, I could add another 50 or 100 articles about the incident which have since been published. It's ignorant to challenge the matter's worthiness to be included. --24.187.199.178 (talk) 19:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to open discussion regarding the matter on the article's talk page. However, I would point out that you are making several presumptions in your statements that are not grounded in fact. First and foremost, please do not presume that anyone who does not embrace your perspective on the matter is trying to cover something up, or that they hold an opposing view with regards to Wu. Simply put, an article was being repeatedly changed by IPs whose edits served only to further one and the same purpose, that is to add material only tangentially related to the subject of the article. Secondly, note that no-one is "challenging the matter's worthiness to be included" in the Wu article, where it belongs. However, the focus of the controversy is not that Wu specifically drives a Yukon, but that he drives a SUV when making statements about environmental issues. The make of the SUV does not matter; for that matter, the fact he drives an SUV is irrelevant to the article about SUVs, and as such we don't add details on Wu to that article either. Beyond that, you were repeatedly adding the material despite being advised it was not appropriate to this article, a pattern that was proving disruptive to the article. Hence, semi-protection. If you can achieve consensus to add the material here, it can certainly return - but keep in mind that you would have to convince others that this abstract reference to a Yukon is more relevant than any other cultural reference to it. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You're being hypocritical.

I'm the one who has been writing at the article's discussion page. You're ignoring others' request to do that.

You've accused me of "vandalism" when you and I know well that there was no vandalism. Your baseless accusations seem far worse than my innocent use of the term "self-described environmentalist".

I haven't previously accused you or anyone of a "cover up" in this controversy. The act of "hiding" connotes results rather than motives, whereas "cover up" connotes motives. Maybe you do have motives; that would explain certain things, but I'm not making that accusation. Throwing baseless accusations is a sign of intellectual dishonesty.

I'd agree that the make (GM) is of lesser importance than the model (Yukon), since GM makes many vehicles that do conform to David Wu's advocacy of what Americans should be allowed to drive. You are lyingly stating that I've argued to include the make when I believe readers benefit much more from learning the exact model. Without knowing the model, how could a reader compare its statistics with those Wu has voted for or against?

Another lie: I have not been "repeatedly adding the material". I added it the first time, and restored it once. Your accusations would be more persuasive if they weren't based on lies. --24.187.199.178 (talk) 21:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

If you have concerns, discuss them on the article's talk page, so that all editors can participate. As for your actions, I must say that your decision to go through my recent contributions and look for problems with them is an interesting course of action. It may not, however, help you in your desire to appear innocent in all of this. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You're paranoid, and you're continuing to pretend that I haven't done what I already had and have done what I haven't. You're a bad admin. By the way, what is your studied alternative to the term you claim is unacceptable: "self-described environmentalist"? If you haven't come up with one by now, it's clear you "blurted" an empty excuse of a criticism. --24.187.199.178 (talk) 13:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to apologize for my misuse of Wikipedia's External Links sections and my ignorance of the guidelines for including them. I am a student who was hired part time to assist in generating traffic for a publication by distributing their articles to related forums, blogs, and interested parties, and in my efforts I did include relevant links in the External Links sections of relevant Wiki articles. Please be assured that my intention was not to spam or disrupt Wikipedia at all--I love Wikipedia, and I experience and hate spam like any avid Internet user--but to provide interested parties visiting those Wikipedia articles to related quality extra reading or watching material. But after receiving your message and reviewing the Guidelines I understand what I've done was a violation thereof and I will cease immediately. As far as I know, the warning this IP address received should have been the work of only one person (me), so any additional suspicious activity is not the work of my department or publication, and because I am on my university's network, blocking this IP would likely affect many innocent people. Again, I'm very sorry for any trouble I might have caused you or Wikipedia's community in general, and I will cease immediately and let my supervisors know about Wikipedia's guidelines. Thank you! -SN

128.197.210.89 (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I see you've been deleting lots of links to Remote Goat reviews. I'm sure that some of these deletions were justified, but I think some of them might not be. If I explain how the site works, perhaps you'd let me know whether you'd still consider them all to be spam/inappropriate links.

Remote Goat is a bit like IMDb in that any visitor to the site can create an account and post a review of an event. Unquestionably, I think such reviews should be deleted as self-published/personal reviews. However, there are also "official Remote Goat" reviews which are submitted by an official reviewer and edited by he Remote Goat staff before publication. You can tell these reviews from the personal reviews because the review says "by X for remotegoat". Compare this "official" review [8] with this personal one [9].

I know remotegoat is not well known, but there are so few sites that review theatre productions, particularly fringe/amateur/local, theatre that it would be a shame to lose this resource which, for the official reviews at least, appears to me to meet the requirements for being a reliable source.

Let me know what you think. GDallimore (Talk) 09:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I have restored some of the links that you removed, confirming theatre listings and officially published theatre reviews for which there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of the source and no other source available. GDallimore (Talk) 15:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello Ckatz, I'm finally writing you to explain my latest activities. If possible, I beg you to not remove my external links: I'm not spamming at all, nor promoting or advertising, just putting appropriate sources of information related to those Wikipedia enties. If it is a matter of guidelines, I'll be going further into that, thank you. Matmi (talk) 08:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Why my article RenderX has been deleted? It had enough references showing the importance of the subject. Siringa (talk) 07:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, you removed an edit regarding "Janitor's" name on the Scrubs TV series entry. You stated "no implying, speculation, guessing, etc" as the reason. The word imply does not mean speculating or guessing. It means "To express or indicate indirectly". The edit I made was part of the joke when Neil Flynn's character reveals his "fake" name to Zach Braff's character J.D. which everyone leaves out of the article. The Janitor in fact never reveals his true name and is known to be a consistent liar, especially to J.D. This is not speculation, the "extra" that calls him Tony "implies" this fact and it is not speculation or guessing, as you cite in your reason for removing my edit.

My edit: As J.D. walks away, an orderly (played by an extra) passes and exclaims, "Hey Tony!", implying "Janitor" was lying to J.D about his true identity.

This is an integral part of the character "revealing" his name to J.D. and therefore is not speculation or guessing. The current information about Janitor revealing his name to J.D. shouldn't even be in the article (if the article isn't amended) as it is misleading information (a lie from Janitor). It makes people think the character's name IS in fact Glenn Matthews unless you've actually seen the final episode, which until the DVD comes out, not everybody has. DLake31565 11:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Tire is an older spelling than tyre, but both were used in the 15th and 16th centuries for a metal tire; tire became the settled spelling in the 17th century. In the UK, tyre was revived in the 19th century for pneumatic tires, possibly, though many continued to use tire for the iron variety. The Times newspaper was still using tire as late as 1905.

In addition to that, the article on "Tire"s in general is spelled "Tire". Why change the spelling of a specific type of tire when the article on all "Tires" is spelled with an "i"? This is basically a sub-article, if you will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamezero05 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello... thanks for the note. You raise some valid points - and personally, I don't really care either way. (Keep in mind that I'm Canadian, so I use "tire", not "tyre".) However, the important consideration here is that per WP:ENGVAR we don't arbitrarily change the spelling of an article without discussion first, and (more importantly) in the case of this article, the title uses "tyre". We would not change the spelling of the article without first changing the title to "slick tire". If you feel strongly about the spelling, you are welcome to open a discussion to move the page and change the spelling. I can provide tips if you like, but it should not be done before such a discussion is complete. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 16:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

How do you go about getting the title changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamezero05 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Since you are semi-protecting ANI, please consider doing the same for AN. It is getting the same amount and same style of IP hopping vandalism ANI is. Thanks...NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

[10]. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you can move it back now. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I notice that you requested this page's deletion by WP:PROD, and the page was duly deleted. This is to notify you that the article has been requested for restoration at WP:DRV today and was duly restored. You may wish to list it at WP:AFD. Stifle (talk) 11:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

As the admin that insists on a full discussion on the future of the Dog sex article, when will you 'feel' that the discussion is complete? I do not want to revert your over-zealous reverts for fear of starting yet another edit war with you. So far I have noted that you, yourself, have not chimed in on the merits of Dog sex, so assume you are abstaining. As it has now been discussed for little less than a month, with several editors giving either implicit or explicit support for Dog sex, I think you are in the wrong and that it will be a disambig page. But, again, I am waiting for you to stay your hand so as to be prepared that you will not revert future contributions. Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 21:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI, it's not an article, it's a redirect page that you've proposed for conversion to a disambiguation page. So far, the serious arguments seem to lean toward keeping the redirect; the 24.* IP is just a disgruntled IP that is hounding my edits, and another editor has already commented that the entries you've proposed aren't especially necessary. Myself, I don't care either way what the page is, as long as proper procedure is followed. That is why I'm acting in an administrative role there, rather than as an editor with a particular preference. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I assumed Dog sex was an article because the first little tab on the left says article and not redirect page. Maybe it is all sementics, but i believe that currently Dog sex is an article that is currently a redirect, but will soon be a disambig. Regardless, it is still and article and unless Dog sex is completely deleted it will remain an article. Regardless of your problems with 24*, he does support the change and i believe he has come to his colclusion based upon good reasoning. There are other editors who edited [[Dog sex] before it was reverted by you, thereby giving their implecit agreement that the disambig page was valid. the Cp user also admits that: "I didn't even think of dogging but that is another one that I would also imagine people would be looking for if people are trying to reach an article entitled "dog sex"" So he admits that people who are looking for dogging might type in dog sex. I am bascially looking out for the type of people that hear about dogging, or zoophilia, etc., and don't have all the facts so they come to wikipedia looking for information on dogging or sex with dogs. They are unlikely to type in dog sex to figure out how dogs have sex with eachother. But the glrious thing about disabmigauous page is that they will also find the information about Canine reproduction along with information about dogging and bestiality. It is for the ever-growing number of people who turn to wikipedia as their first source of information that I am concerend about, not people who know EXACTLY what it is they want to look at, but those who might overhear about dogging on the bus, and come to wikipedia with a degraded memory of the actual term for the thing. Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 21:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, Ckatz, we're all lawyers picking at the exact name of a Wikipedia entry. Well, if we're lawyers then forgive us for looking at the evidence (...does so and returns...). No, Ckatz claims are unsupported by the evidence. She is the only editor who advocates reverting to a redirect. Ckatz has insisted on doing so following at least five editors who have moved to reinstate or improve the disambiguation page. No one but Ckatz has advocated a redirect. [11][12][13][14][15][16][17]. --24.187.199.178 (talk) 21:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Most if not all the editors are newer editors with not that many contributions. I personally agree with the redirect design, no one's going to look up "Dog sex" to find a professor.Abce2|This isnot a test 22:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a meritocracy, the number of edits a user has should not trump the points they bring. Further, you point to the fact that "no one" (over generalization) would use Dog sex to find a professor, maybe so. But, you'll have a hard time conviencing most people that Dog sex is a rational mishearing of doggy style, dogging, or bestiality, and people might try to find information on the SEXUAL position of Doggy Style by looking up dog sex. You have taken the weakest example on the Dog sex disambig as an argument. I think that's refered to as a straw man.Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 23:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean that way. I meant that users that have been here longer and edit regularly tend to know policy. Also, may they search, "dog sex postion", but feel free to criticize me all you want.Abce2|This isnot a test 23:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, I wasn't refering too you.Abce2|This isnot a test 23:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

If "the professor" is the notable author of a book entitled Dog Love with a well-known chapter about bestiality called "Sex and the Single Dog", of course a researcher might Wikisearch "Dog sex" to help find Marjorie Garber. --24dot (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not "just a disgruntled IP that is hounding" anyone. If I really "hounded", then Ckatz would show a few examples, which she cannot do. --24dot (talk) 20:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC) formerly 24.187.199.178

All anyone needs to do is to look at your contribution history, which parallels mine. Funny how you "just happen" to edit articles I've edited, in many cases in exactly the same order I've edited them in. Funny, too, how that pattern appears to be transferring itself from your IP account to your shiny new registered account. (I could, of course, just be paranoid. I'm sure it is just a complete and utter coincidence that you chose to edit Jackie Tyler, arachnophobia and flashlight earlier today as 24.dot, or J.D. (Scrubs), click-through rate and Quebec City under your IP account on the 14th, each of those edits immediately following mine in the respective article histories.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Laughably disingenuous! Every edit of mine is worthwhile and useful. If an edit is warranted, should others avoid making it because Ckatz might object for purely personal reasons? --24dot (talk) 14:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I've never said you shouldn't make the specific edits. More to the point, if you had come across the articles in a purely random manner, or through a normal progression of editing, I wouldn't have anything to complain about. The troublesome factor lies in the way you are obviously monitoring the contributions list of an editor you've had a disagreement with, and then following that editor around the project to edit the same articles. You can attempt to dismiss this with more spurious claims, as you have done previously, but a simple comparison of our respective contribution histories will demonstrate my concerns regarding your activities on Wikipedia. --Ckatz^chat_spy 16:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Would Ckatz pretend that her edit here was a total coincidence? If User talk:24dot actually breaks a rule rather than Ckatz's pet peeve, that future incident might be worth discussing. --24dot (talk) 18:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Ckatz, you also cleared the obviously legitimate disambiguation page for "SG1", replacing it with a redirect. Would you call my legitimate re-creation of it an example of "hounding" or "vandalism" or "harassment" or "trolling" or some other pejorative prevarication? You throw around your empty accusations and too-hasty deletions in a way that costs you credibility and costs Wikipedia useful work. Please stop it. --24dot (talk) 14:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Because it is not needed. There was already a page for it. SG1 (disambugition) or however you spell it. Now please, just drop it. Abce2|This isnot a test 14:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

A dab was and is needed, dear Abce2. Also, your chronology is mistaken. Ckatz too-hastily cleared SG1 on 2009-10-05 to a redirect. Why didn't Ckatz simply "move" that disambiguation article to a "disambiguation" title? Perhaps because it would have taken fifteen seconds? It wasn't until ten days later that a conscientious editor and conscientious admin created SG1 (disambiguation) together. A typical editor/admin who did as Ckatz did with SG1 would acknowledge it and simply say, "My bad!" and personally resolve to do better. Ckatz instead accuses those who edit after her of "hounding" and "vandalism" and "trolling" and "harassment" (yes, those are quotes of Ckatz). An accused editor should certainly cite the facts, no? Too, in the case of Ckatz, this incident is just one in a string of incidents which reflect a pattern of behavior that needs improvement.

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

• "Unthinking vandalism..." "Ckatz persistent reverts..." "Ckatz misleads..."

My hope is that Ckatz will recognize what others recognize, and resolve to improve. --24dot (talk) 15:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

What the hell is this supposed to do anyway? Prove Ckatz guilty of something? What? Abce2|This isnot a test 21:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello Ckatz, I was wondering if you could expand on your rationale for declining the speedy deletion of Category:2010s American television series and Category:2010 television series endings. More specifically, what exception to WP:CSD#C1 they fall under. "Going to be used in a few weeks" (and and I would describe 2010 as more than a few weeks away, and even then nothing is likely to go into the categories for a while) is not an exception to C1. In fact, C1 is there to specifically delete these categories that aren't likely to be populated within 4 days of creation. Thanks, 70.150.94.194 (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The categories have already been vetted through a deletion debate, and the resulting consensus was to keep them. These are not "possible" categories, they definitely will be populated (as are their predecessors). --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but them becoming empty makes them elligible for speedy deletion regardless of them being kept via a previous deletion discussion. Are you saying that no category, after being kept via CfD, can become elligible for C1? If so, I don't think the wording of C1 supports that. It says anything involved in a current deletion debate, not a previous one. Also, such categories for 2011, 2012, etc. are also more or less guaranteed to be populated. Does that mean we should create them now as well? I thought the C1 criteria was there to prevent premature creation of a bunch of categories like this.70.150.94.194 (talk) 18:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

If you would like, I can seek a third opinion. 70.150.94.194 (talk) 15:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:SNOW, further effort to delete these obvious categories is a waste of time and good will. According to my calendar, 2010 really is only weeks from now (just over ten weeks). --24dot (talk) 15:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Wave strategy, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wave strategy. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Atama頭 16:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to understand why you marked the SlideRocket page for quick deletion citing notability. There are a good number of references from non trivial secondary resources and certainly more available. Thanks. --Natrobinson (talk) 01:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Television program has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 16:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Too funny.  7  01:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - it was G11, but you cleaned it up enough and it is a borderline case for a good enough cause... figure we can give it the benefit of the doubt for a few days.  7  01:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is GiveVaccines.org. 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 Wikipedia:Notability and "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(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GiveVaccines.org. 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.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed; I didn't like the way that looked and was considering making the edit you did. Cheers, Abrazame (talk) 07:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I feel that the link to the review of the Stereophonics album should be allowed to remain for now as it currently offers more information than the wikipedia page itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.139.138 (talk) 23:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure which article you're talking about. I deleted a lot of additions of the Razzie templates that were added yesterday. None of the Razzie templates were in use until a new editor added them, so I'm waiting for the Templates for deletion page to get straightened out and I'm going to nominate them. I would venture to say that Razzies are the only total agreement ever reached at WP:ACTOR. Let me know what page you're talking about and I'll give you my opinion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't have much of an opinion on the inclusion of photographer credits with the image in articles. I've seen it mentioned that the credit requirement is met by it being posted on the actual image page. Sorry, I don't really have much else to say about it. I think if the photographer is notable, a mention is certainly valid. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

In this edit you removed a reference noting that it is a "FAQ based on UseNet posts; not a reliable source". However, in this particular case, the issue has been debated quite a lot and there is wide agreement that talkorigins.org is a RS. For example, see this RSN archive. This is just FYI (and I understand that you may not find it authoritative). Johnuniq (talk) 08:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Thanks for the tip. Glancing through that archive, it seems to support the use of Talkorigins as a RS when the cite is to a particular article and the author can be verified. However, the page I reviewed is a FAQ with no indication as to where the material comes form. If you have a chance to look over the page in question, I'd appreciate your thoughts on it. Thanks in advance. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean. That particular page looks like a typical (good) personal website with no particular reliability. I have seen several other talkorigins pages that were by a particular person and were supported with references (example used at Archaeopteryx). At any rate, the particular issue in the edit that you reverted does not seem sufficiently important to me to warrant further attention, and since it is a detailed technical point (did something occur 5–7 million years ago, or was it 7 million years?), we would probably want a gold-plated reference so I intend leaving the article as is. Johnuniq (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, this page has been nominated for deletion. You may be interested in participating in the discussion, located here. Thanks, GlassCobra 18:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

Sometime earlier this year, I ask the editor of TV On Media, does he have anybody that submits his content to Wikipedia? He said he used to do it himself, but Wikipedia said he could not, because it was against there guidelines, because it was a conflict of interest. So I asked him, I do not know much about wikis, but I will learn it, so I can add stories from time to time to relevant articles on Wikipedia. He said that would be fine, since I have no affiliation with TV On Media. So what you are telling me, what I need to do, is to add other things in addition to TV On Media on Wikipedia. Well, I like sports, so I guess I can add edits to sports articles here on Wikipedia. Will that make you guys happy?

Jay Rogers TV On Media Fan —Preceding unsigned comment added by RogersTV (talk • contribs) 01:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

One More Thing - I am going to undo you edits. College Basketball starts soon, I can add edit other than at TV On Media,

Jay Rogers

Thank you for your note. Unfortunately, Wikipedia has some very strict guidelines with respect to the use of external sites as either references or external links. The "TVonMedia" site does not meet the requirements of our reliable sources guideline, and we do not generally permit external links to sites unless they provide a definitive benefit to the article. This should not be misinterpreted as a slight against the site; simply put, there are millions of web sites around the planet, and we cannot act as a directory service for them. As such, I would ask that you avoid adding links to the TVonMedia site. You are, of course, encouraged to contribute to the site in other ways. Please feel free to ask more questions if you would like. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I decided it is best for you to undo the edits. I only did one. Jay Rogers —Preceding unsigned comment added by RogersTV (talk • contribs) 02:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see the preceding note, which explains why the URLs are not suitable for inclusion. --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I decided it is best for you to undo the edits. I only did one. TV On Media is a neat web site, I have been reading it for years. I feel it is just as good as any web site out there regarding TV shows on DVD. If anything, you should at least leave my edits! And to think I was going to donate to the Wikipedia Foundation. I am glad I kind of didn't now. Jay RogersRogersTV (talk) 02:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that you feel that way, but our guidelines on external links exist for a good reason, and they are based on years of discussion and debate. You are certainly welcome to contribute in other ways, of course. --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear CKatz,

Thank you for your response to our note about Movie Review Intelligence. I am the editor and publisher of the site, with 25 years experience as an executive, consultant and researcher at the movie studios. We are an industry site that provides a professional approach to movies and movie reviews. We cover many independent movies that are covered no where else. We are an established resource for industry professionals and serious moviegoers, having been profiled in the New York Times and Los Angeles Times. We would simply like a page on Wikipedia. We made mistakes on posting our information because we did not understand the guidelines -- we regret that and we understand the guidelines now. Is there a way you would consider reinstating us? Thank you.

David Gross Dagrossla (talk) 18:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear Ckatz, I am a university student doing an assignment on Wikipedia. Through your years writing for Wikipedia, how do you feel they are doing in maintaining a neutral point of view with accurate information on their web pages?

Also, I am particularly interested in the Pluto page that you have edited a few times. Do you feel this page has a neutral point of view and is as accurate as other online encyclopaedias such as Encyclopaedia Britannica?

Thank you very much for time,

cclar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cclar (talk • contribs) 18:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Francisco Rivera Rosa is the creator of the website I listed there. We are working on buying a .com domain or something. Until then we will use this one as official web. Sorry for my bad english.

I a working with him on this —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellowcoffee (talk • contribs) 01:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, I noticed you deleted a few references to podcasts related to Buffy the Vampire Slayer and its spinoff Angel, noting that these need to “establish notability above and beyond the creators”, which is fair. But to avoid future confusion, can you clarify how the Wikipedia community defines notability? Would 2,000 regular listeners be sufficient? Would it take 5,000 or 10,000...or are other criteria applied? Thanks much. alsd2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alsd2 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the FYI concerning the links I added to the Star Trek pages and the suggestion, which I had already taken into consideration. My question, however, is how does one know to look at the main Star Trek page to find the external link? Also, is there someplace that states that these links are unnecessary? I spent some time looking into the matter before making the edits; what I found indicates that it is okay. Please excuse me if I sound a little put out, but this isn't the first time I've put a lot of effort into something like this and an admin states "We don't do that" and reverts it all, with no reference or further discussion. I understand the role of admins and how Wikipedia works, but I find unclear or unstated policies frustrating and it invariably drives me away from Wikipedia for periods of time or dashes my desire to "be bold".

Sorry to vent at you; my frustration is with the system/culture, and not you personally. Rest assured that I am not questioning your integrity or motivations. Paxsimius (talk) 04:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note Ckatz. I can see you are a very busy Wikipedian! I'm new here as you can see!

I know for example many city pages are updated by the people in City Government. I understood that it was fine, as long as I cited my interest. The reason we add the references is there are no other rankings on innovation for cities, and most cities don't have an innovation section. There are rankings on the more focussed patents and innovation by McKinseys but 2thinknow are the main reference.

It's part of my job to do social media, and update any references to cities and innovation, write occasional articles, post help files, etc. And as wikipedia is the dominant place that people may go, it would help them to know about their cities performance, so I edit here. My job is to edit content where people find it.

Of course, if I can't do these edits here, then this is OK. I understand that. I thought it was OK.

Anna. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnaDidic (talk • contribs) 12:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Why did you remove all my edits? I was honest, and properly cited my sources which add value. Should I have been like all the PR agencies hired? They ALL edit clients entries, and do not disclose them. You have NO RIGHT to simply remove all my entries arbitrarily just to exercise power over me. You are punishing me for being honest and open, unlike all the others. I understand your point, but as I said, the pages are edited by people who have a vested interest in that city. So this is just your opinion. I will stop editing Wikipedia, it is obviously not a 'democracy'. Anna —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnaDidic (talk • contribs) 22:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You have to correct the csi ny because vanessa ferlito is not the main cast anymore and can you please put her character in former character section. Thanks!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.230.200.185 (talk) 23:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

While it may seem confusing, you need to understand that Wikipedia does not treat fictional works as being "in the moment". A series is viewed in its entirety, and as such we list all actors who have had main character status at any point during the run of the series. We do not use "former" or similar subsections, and likewise we do not write about characters who have died or otherwise left as being in the past tense. This is a standard across all fictional works. --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you tell me why the edit was removed, other than we don't list polls like this. I did not see in the Wiki editing pages where polls were not listed. The source was verifiable, and was of a site that is recognized in the entertainment community. I have been trying to follow the editing guidelines, so if you would please point out exactly what was wrong. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadienhits (talk • contribs) 11:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, no problems, happy to help! GiantSnowman 22:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey. I recently reverted someone's addition of incorrect information to the article iCarly, and they responded with this. Looking at his talk page, he seems to have a history of being uncivil. I was wondering what the policy was to deal with this. Thanks. Ωphois 12:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. The user has been warned accordingly. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for reverting the link spam posted to Talk:Medical_cannabis just now, and thanks even more for your immense and ongoing dedication to the wikignomish cause of reverting such across so many articles. I honor you for it, sir. ( Or "miss", or "madam", as the case may be. ) Btw, I'll also just mention your comments there about ProCon.org were perfect, imo. It's useful as a resource to help find primary or secondary sources, but not as a citable source in itself. Best, Ohiostandard (talk) 03:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh so we cannot add blogs as external links.....??? but i see few websites are given as external links in few articles... I dont understand... any how.. i dont do the same... unless i get understand fully...--JAIKAYY 20:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jai Kumara Yesappa (talk • contribs)

Could you please explain this edit of yours and clarify why an alternate source is required? Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 08:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand - in fact, after posting on your talk page, I wiki-ed the author's name and had a look at his page, which rang a bell - there had been a discussion on his apparent COI edits on the WP:India noticeboard sometime in the past. However, the article in question seems to fit within WP:RS, as it is not a self-published work of the said author, and the journal itself does not appear to be of questionable reputation. Since it has been peer-reviewed, and supported by a government grant (as the last page of the article seems to suggest), would it not be appropriate to use it in this case? Also, as a matter of policy, is there a blanket discouragement of referencing works by this author on WP, or is the restriction applied on a case-to-case basis? Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 09:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications. I guess that in the present case, it would be better to avoid feeding the troll and keep the reference out of the article. I will try and locate an alternate reference. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 09:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

In the film Captain Robau is asked "What is the current stardate?" His response was "Twenty-two thirty-three zero-four." I referenced the DVD two disk copy as my source. (Star Trek 2-disk digital copy special edition. ISBN 1-4157-5066-1) Note that it is stardate 223304 in an alternative timeline. -- allen四names 10:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

2233.04 per reply at my talk. -- allen四names 18:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

		WikiProject Vancouver
		You have been invited to participate in Operation Schadenfreude to restore the article Vancouver back to featured article status.

- Mkdw^talk 12:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to have a chance to help us out a little? We could really use your =) Mkdw^talk 06:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Many thanks for the never ending, mostly thankless job of keeping articles clear of spam and other nonsense. Wikipedia is a better quality project because of hardworking Admin's like you! --Hu12 (talk) 16:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

cheers--Hu12 (talk) 16:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks very much, Hu. Very kind of you indeed. And, of course, thanks to you in return for your tireless work on the spam frontier. Cheers! --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Ckatz! As you know, I´m updating ZQ´s wikipedia page. Please let me do my work and stop undoing it. I´m not erasing other people´s contributions. Why do you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loyd59 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been editing grammatical errors on Wikipedia pages and you are already removing my edits for no reason. Please refrain from doing so as I am using correct grammar in my edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob Birk (talk • contribs) 04:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you help me out with this. This editor seems very persistent in making the dates MDY despite several other editors wanting it to be in the Canadian style of DMY. User:Nousernamesleft, User:OlEnglish, yourself, and myself have all expressed our desires for that date format either on Talk:Vancouver or Operation Schadenfreude. JimWae does stand outside of those and opposes what would generally be consensus. I can't seem to reason with him and feel someone else needs to step in before I say something I regret. Mkdw^talk 21:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

This is starting to almost feel like harassment. Perhaps we should take this to a mediation committee? Mkdw^talk 08:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Just for your information, this user is a sock puppet of banned Philbox17. We've been having terrible POV editing problems with him on French wikipedia. He and his sock puppets are banned indefinitely from French wikipedia as a result. You can find a list of sock puppets here. (A sock puppet is called a "faux-nez" in French, which means a fake nose.) Vincent (talk) 02:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Merci. I appreciate the information. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup.

It's worth noting the rules have changed, likely after you signed up. The changes made thus far are:

• Mainspace and/or portal edits will not be awarded points at all.
• Did you know? articles (which were worth 5 points last year) will now be worth 10 points.
• Good articles (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
• Valued pictures will be now awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.
• Featured lists (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
• Featured portals (which were worth 25 points last year) will now be worth 35 points.
• Featured articles (which were worth 50 points last year) will now be worth 100 points.
• Featured topics (which were worth 10 points per article last year) will now be worth 15 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
• Good topics (which were worth 5 points per article last year) will now be worth 10 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
• In the news will still be awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.

If you have any final concerns about the WikiCup's rules and regulations, please ask them now, before the Cup begins to avoid last minute problems. You may come to the WikiCup's talk page, or any of the judge's user talk pages. We're looking forwards to a great 2010 WikiCup! On behalf of the WikiCup judges, iMatthew ^talk at 03:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Ckatz Thanks for picking this up! I have just edited Marco Aponte's page and deleted your last note given that yesterday I verified the entries signed by user marcoaponte, checked their validity, and included the references. Will notify user that editing the page involves conflict of interest issue. Best Carlo de Lima —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlo de lima (talk • contribs) 10:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ckatz, Thanks for your swift reply. I understand the reasoning, however, I personally think that the style should be changed. It personally helps me more when I look at the introduction to a TV series to know whether or not it is currently in production. However, I understand that this is a board decision and should be kept uniform across Wikipedia. I guess it's just something to think about in the future. Tokyocolumbia (talk) 23:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello there! As an editor who has posted a comment in one of the recent Peer Reviews, GANs or FACs of International Space Station, or who has contributed to the article recently, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind commenting in the current Featured Article Candidacy with any suggestions you have for article improvements (and being bold and making those changes), whether or not you feel any issues you have previously raised have been dealt with, and, ultimately, if you believe the article meets the Featured Article guidelines. This is the fourth FAC for this article, and it'd be great to have it pass. Many thanks in advance, Colds7ream (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Way to be Johnny on-the-Spot with the vandalism on Jonathan Mostow & Surrogates! If I had one of those awards to give, I'd paste it right here! --Williamsburgland (talk) 21:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I wan't to react to your allegation on me. You should have provided an evidence. --Destinero (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate your apology for your false claims. --Destinero (talk) 21:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You've pasted the same text into multiple articles, you've placed it in the lead (as opposed to properly integrating it into the body of the articles), and the text needs a rewrite to avoid what appears to be exaggerated language. In addition, a review of your contributions revealed some history of issues with POV and lack of discussion prior to contentious edits. If you wish to post the material, the best route would be to discuss it first. --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yan Zi (album) is an album with the same name as the singer. The page contains information of the tracks in the album. Please do not redirect to the singer's page. 155.69.171.203 (talk) 08:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Per the editor who redirected this article back in March 2009, the page is little more than a track listing and fails the guidelines established by the Music project. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup. Note: this is the same message from last week, but you are receiving it because you have not removed your name from the list yet! Please do so if you still plan on participating. iMatthew ^talk at 22:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Please cite the policy that justifies this. Something more specific than WP:RS. Please, let's continue this discussion on the talk page.--Elvey (talk) 08:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

CTJF83 chat 03:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I live in Ottawa -- I know for a fact that the bill has passed Senate with a few amendment. I would also like to point out that I work in harm reduction and participated in many of those protests. It's very difficult to cite these things and provide a balacing viewpoint, because there isn't one! MMs have been scientifically proven to fail and many states in the US are replealing legislation based on the "War on Drugs". I'm not exactly sure how to cite that, I mean I can cite the studies but I'm not sure I could live with myself if I said that C-15 was in any way good for Canada, because clearly it is not. AC (talk) 10:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Please provide explanation that justifies your deletion of an external link. I suggest continuing this discussion on the article discussion page. Thank you. FrancoisDM (talk) 21:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I've provided links to the relevant policies and guidelines on your talk page. In a nutshell, Wikipedia is not a directory service; the simple fact that a link exists is not reason to link to it. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand but the link provided "primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable" (see WP:ELOFFICIAL) and should be added to the External Link section since it is considered as being the "official" wiki site of this notion per the community. Please visit DegrowthPedia to state that it is supported by recognized partners. Therefore, this link is considered being essential to be added at the end of the article. Thank you. FrancoisDM (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you were thinking when you changed it from "died" to "passed away" (seriously, what was the point?), but you might want to read this subsection of a policy, which specifically forbids it. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 12:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Kindly explain why listing the title, publisher and isbn of a book on "The perseverance of the saints" page is deleted when the book is obviously dealing appropriately and completely with the subject.

Simply listing the title, publisher and isbn is not "promotion" or "advertising" or giving "an inappropriate external link" anymore than it is for any of the other books on the subject that you allow to be listed.

Your reason for rejecting it (as pasted in below) is completely inappropriate, but is actually religious "discrimination," something wikipedia claims to stand opposed to in their "values."

With all due respect, we ask that you treat us in accordance with your values as you would any other publisher.Wikifixerz (talk) 16:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it.

Kindly explain why a link to a religious non-profit organization's information on the subject is deleted while inappropriate links to web pages and opinion's remain.

On the subject page under "External links" we find the following which you allow:

THIS ONLY LINKS TO A PAGE OF LINKS Correcting the Errors of Imputed Righteousness http://www.libraryoftheology.com/imputedrighteousnesswritings.html

THIS ONLY LINKS TO AN ARTICLE WRITTEN BY SOMEBODY WITH AN OPINION Exposing the Errors of Imputed Righteousness: by Mike Desario http://standingthegap.org/Imputation%20Doc.htm

THIS ONLY LINKS TO A WEB PAGE NOT DEALING WITH IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS Imputed Righteousness Defended by William Romaine, preached in London, 1759. http://www.gospeldefense.com/romaine_impute.html

More inappropriate information could be cited.

We respectfully ask for the same consideration you give to others, without discrimination. Thank you for your attention to this matter.Wikifixerz (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to know why you keep on erasing a link to the InstaBook page, which is a US Manufacturing company referenced in at least 2 of the most important printing encyclopedias, such as the The Handbook of Digital Publishing” of the Rochester Institute of Technology; it holds some crucial patents in the process known as Book on Demand, and has been reviewed by dozens of articles in the most important and relevant media, including the Seybold Report, The New York Times, Forbes, etc.

It is important historically, since it was the first company in the world to place print on demand equipment in bookstores, both here in the US and in other countries. Several companies that are mentioned in this article have licensed InstaBook's technology. So...what is going on? Why do you erase that link? Llambert (talk) 14:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Llambert (talk • contribs)

Ckatz, the fact is, Time is constant. When seeking truth, one should avoid confusion:-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nancy Danielson (talk • contribs) 00:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your note regarding Nimbkar Agricultural Research Institute. Rather than deleting the reference to the award entirely, we could say "a staff member at the institute" without giving the person's name. I don't feel strongly about this issue, but a second reference from a reliable source would help the article. I haven't reverted your change, although I did add the institute's URL under "External links"). - Eastmain (talk) 10:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Just want to call your attention to some cleanup of The Hurt Locker's award section. I've outlined what I'm thinking about doing on the talk page here, and would appreciate your thoughts and comments! There's been some contentious editing on this article in the past, and I'd like to avoid that here if at all possible. Thanks! Ravensfire (talk) 20:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Sacred Heart Hospital (Scrubs). 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 Wikipedia:Notability and "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(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sacred Heart Hospital (Scrubs). 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.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ckatz! This is the last message that will go out to remind you that in order to participate in the 2010 WikiCup, you MUST remove your name from this list! Again, the reason for this reconfirmation is to ensure you've looked over the updated point values (which were different at the time you signed up) and to ensure that you are still interested in competing! If you don't have time to participate or no longer wish to, ignore this message and leave your name on the list. All names on the list will be removed from the contestants list before the Cup starts. Cheers! iMatthew ^talk at 14:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I added the recent law review article, "The Men Who Would Be King: Forgotten Challenges to U.S. Sovereignty" to the micronations "further reading section." The academic article put out by UCLA looks at U.S. federal case law discussing (and rejecting the legitimacy of) micronations found on US soil, including "Atlantis, Isle of Gold," "Republic of New Afrika," "Republic of Rough and Ready," and the "Republic of Enenkio" among others. It looks at different ways in which a micronation can be formed, including discovery, secession, and conquest, and then, looking at actual legal cases, discusses the probability that the micronation will be able to achieve legal legitimacy.

The article is available on well-known legal databases including Lexis, Westlaw, and HeinOnline and is available in hardcopy at law libraries around the U.S. I figured that if the further reading section already includes a law review article from California Western University from 1994, a 2008 law review article from UCLA devoted to micronations also deserves reference.

If you are curious about the content of the article, Lexis provides a summary at:

https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&doctype=cite&docid=26+UCLA+PAC.+BASIN+L.J.+1&key=0b35345303e7cee0bea78a9d14d9dd46 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.93.229.219 (talk) 08:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I just reverted a whole bunch of unsourced how-to text added to ATA Carnet added by newly-registered user WCFATA (talk · contribs). When I looked at the history of the article I was interested to see that you had just a few minutes earlier reverted several identical edits by Jerome.auchere (talk · contribs). It looks like the new user might well be a sockpuppet of the latter, although I fail to see what could be gained by a non-blocked user creating another account. Anyway, it might be worth keeping an eye on the article for a while. --Biker Biker (talk) 10:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I undid the removal of the edit that I did on the flash mob page and added more information. I have no desire to get in an edit war with you as I see no need for that. Reaction to flash mobs are growing with several cites in the US writing laws to ban them. You edit summer stated "Opinion, narrow focus, would need to have world-wide perspective to establish notability)" My edits were not opinion or narrow focus. If you would have looked at some of the cites you would have seen coverage from major news networks on them. Also world-wide notability is not need for wiki please see WP:NOT. Notability requires verifiable evidence, where there was for all material that I posted. Notability was not temporary, there is a history of government action/police action on flash mobs now. Also notability states that your claim of notability would apply to a topic not the content per WP:NOT Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content
Under the article content police they were wrote with a neutral point of view and they were not original research. There for I have placed them back on the flash mob page, as the government reaction to flash mob is part of the content of the article and works to make wiki better not work.

Thank you for your time on this matter. Jsgoodrich (talk) 11:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

This has spilled over to Talk:Flash mob and I would appreciate both your participation if you have the time. Some very serious allegations and I would like to find a working compromise, or if the allegations are also the views of others I have volunteered to step away. Thanks for your time. Mkdw^talk 20:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ckatz! Firstly, I want to apologize if I'm breaking any unofficial etiquette by undo-ing your undo of the "Zines" page. I was looking up zines, and noticed that while Quimby's was listed, they didn't have a link. Long-time wikipedia user, first-time editing. While I was at it, I added a link to Atomic books as that seemed like a major oversight. I'm not affiliated with either. Not sure if you had a problem with my formatting, or with one of those famous zine businesses, but wanted to let you know that no offense is meant with undoing your undos. Richard —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard.p.saunders (talk • contribs) 06:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for the note. No offence taken at all, and no worries about etiquette - first-timers are as welcome as anyone else. As for the links, I thought I'd commented on it, but apparently not. Generally speaking, we avoid external links unless they add significantly to the article. As well, we do not use what are referred to as "inline" external links; that is to say, regular copy in the body of an article that is marked up with an external link. (Yes, there are thousands of them in articles, but cleanup is a slow process...) External links are for the most part used only in "External links" sections, references, and some infoboxes. As such, I've gone through the section you were working on and removed all of the external links. I've left the name of the store you added, though, as that is useful. (Thanks!) Please feel free to ask if you have more questions about this or any other aspect of the project. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Template:Geographic Location has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Gnevin (talk) 10:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Just perusing your contribs and I realise you might just be the person I am after - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/61.8.223.226 this blocked user was going into articles that are more opaque to me than my teenagers lingo - or hungarian or polish are to me - I had asked for a check of the edits after absurd rubbish was added to TVRI - I havent gone back to check whether any or all of the more absurd edits were reverted - I would be very appreciative if you could do just a very short random check to see if they look as crazy as I think they might be - thanks if you can - sorry to have bothered if you cannot - cheers SatuSuro 10:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks - I tell you the edits looked like deliberate deceptive changes in part and legitimate improvements at same time - ultimate nightmare for non-literate in those strange subjects areas if TVRI was anything to go by SatuSuro 06:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Ckatz, While I agree they were minor, my recent edits were not unnecessary. As with any written source grammar and consistency are important. In the several pages there were a few cases of british english spelling of units (i.e. kilometre) while there were MORE uses of American English. As of right now there are 5 uses of kilometer and only 1 of kilometre. If you want to change all of the American English usages to british english usages, that's fine. It should be consistent. That's all. Friedlad (talk) 03:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

In addition, I put a note in the Sun's page... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sun#Use_of_kilometres_versus_kilometers Maybe you could answer my question? Thanks! Friedlad (talk) 04:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You lost your chance. This note seems to make it clear that what I've done in the Sun article is okay. Additionally, since the page is Center of Mass, I've made consistent the Planet page. Thanks! Friedlad (talk) 05:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Amy particular reason why you deleted the recent references in the Nuclear Debate and Hydrogen Economy articles? I've just read that reference and it is pertinent. 123.211.29.68 (talk) 12:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Ckatz, please could you explain why you reverted my recent edit to Southern Ocean? The 4th edition of the IHO's Limits of Oceans and Seas was never ratified or published - I tried to explain this and give a neutral POV. I would appreciate discussion rather than reversion. Regards Bazonka (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I've re-reworked that section, and would also appreciate it if it could remain stable until we resolve this. Your changes there (and in other ocean articles) are problematic in that they suggest the Southern Ocean is still a "work in progress", when in fact it is an active concept in use by the IHO and other world bodies. Any changes would need to reflect that fact, which is evidenced by the IHO's working groups, other marine organizations, and even the CIA World Factbook, all of which use the Southern Ocean terminology. (You are correct in that the 1953 guide does not include the Southern Ocean, but the problem lies in that your rewrites suggest the Southern Ocean term will not take effect until the 4th editon is published, which does not reflect the actual use today.) Given that the Oceans project has already seen fit to implement the Southern Ocean, it would help if we could seek consensus for the best wording on all the ocean articles before making changes of the nature you have done to date. (As it is, there is now also a fair bit of rewording necessary in the changes you've made to the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian Ocean articles.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

and also the use by other bodies such as the CIA World Fact Book - see also Australia_and_the_Southern_Ocean - I can see you are both an established user and admin - but I fail to see why you should refer to the CIA World Fact book as an example of a usage of a term - perhaps I am indeed missing something - I thought it had been established years ago on wikipedia that it is not a reliable source - specially of usage of terms and so called facts - and to use it as a reason for reverting something you dont agree with in an edit summary? Perhaps you might explain further? We have had some very weird arguments about the ocean south of Australia as being the Indian Ocean despite Australian geographic names authorities saying otherwise - I am not convinced that you have the issue solved in your reversions or comments so far - perhaps I have missed something by having had the southern ocean off my watch list for almost a year SatuSuro 12:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

active concept in use by the IHO and other world bodies - could you please provide a diff or source for that - please not the southern ocean talk page standard of i read it in britannica, my school teacher, my atlas - thanks SatuSuro 12:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Reply - there have been as many threads in the past (prehaps earlier on in the project) that have shown gross inaccuracies such as the article cited above SatuSuro 00:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Where was it stated that the CIA publication isn't considered a reliable source? It's certainly in widespread use as a reference source in many articles across the project, and I can't see any discussions at the WP:RS noticeboard that conclude it is unreliable. (The topic has certainly been brought up, for example here, here and here, but the consensus is that the book is an acceptable source.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

But the definition (and existence) of the Southern Ocean is a work in progress. The official line of the IHO is that given in the 3rd edition of Limits, though they may well unofficially use the definitions in the 4th edition. Your edits largely make it seem as though the 4th ed. definition is a fait accomplis, and so they're therefore not quite right. This article needs to clearly show what's de jure and what's de facto - both sides of the debate without undue weight given to either. The sentences referring to the IHO should be kept to a minimum. I propose the following amendments:

• Amend the first paragraph to read "...southernmost waters of the World Ocean, generally taken to be south of 60°S latitude and encircling Antarctica. It is usually regarded as the fourth-largest of the five principal oceanic divisions. Geographers disagree on..."
• Remove "The International Hydrographic Organization has designated the Southern Ocean as an oceanic division" from the lead paragraph. It's difficult to succinctly reword this sentence without simply slapping an "unofficially" in the middle of it, which would look odd. I don't think the sentence is really necessary.
• Remove the paragraph beginning "The International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) regards the Southern Ocean as..." from the lead section. Much of this information is duplicated later in the article, and the rest would sit better elsewhere.
• Rename the History section to Existence and definitions (or something along those lines). Replace the text in this section (the last two paragraphs about National Geographic and Australia can remain unchanged) with:

Different organizations and nations have differing points of view over the extents and existence of the Southern Ocean, though many mariners have long regarded the term as traditional.

The 1937 second edition of the International Hydrographic Organization's (IHO) Limits of Oceans and Seas publication included a definition of an ocean around Antarctica. However, this ocean did not appear in the 1953 third edition because "the northern limits ... are difficult to lay down owing to their seasonal change" - instead the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans were extended southward.^[1]

The IHO readdressed the question of the ocean's existence in a survey in 2000. Of its 68 member nations, 28 responded, and all responding members except Argentina agreed to define a new ocean, reflecting the importance placed by oceanographers on ocean currents. The proposal for the name Southern Ocean won 18 votes, beating the alternative Antarctic Ocean. Half of the votes supported a definition of the ocean's northern limit at 60°S (with no land interruptions at this latitude), with the other 14 votes cast for other definitions, mostly 50°S, but a few for as far north as 35°S. However, the 4th edition of Limits of Oceans and Seas was never ratified or published due to a reservation lodged by Australia.^[2] Therefore, the 3rd edition (which does not delineate a separate Southern Ocean) is still the IHO's official position. If and when the 4th edition is published, it will restore the Southern Ocean as originally outlined in the 2nd edition and subsequently omitted from the 3rd.

Despite this, the unofficial 4th edition definition has de facto usage by many organisations, scientists and nations - even by the IHO^{[citation needed]}. Some nations' hydrographic offices have defined their own boundaries; the United Kingdom used the 55°S parallel for example^[1].

Your comments and thoughts please. Bazonka (talk) 18:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the resolution of this lies in finding a way to present all aspects of the matter. With regard to the IHO, I'd disagree that that text should be completely removed from the lead. We have to consider the fact that they are the defining body for these matters. We certainly need to present conflicting viewpoints, but we also cannot merely lump them in as "just another viewpoint". (This is similar to Pluto's recent re-categorization as a dwarf planet; while we present alternative views, the definition from the defining body - the IAU - is regarded as the scientific standard.) I think you've put forward some good ideas, though, and will try to respond to them in more detail later today. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

As for examples of current usage, here are several links:

• IHO Hydrographic Committee on Antarctica (HCA)
• International Bathymetric Chart of the Southern Ocean
• CIA World Factbook

--Ckatz^chat_spy 19:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

OK then, I think the reference to IHO in the intro should be something like: "The International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) has variously defined the Southern Ocean as being non-existent, or being south of 60°S; the former being the IHO's official position, the latter being the most commonly used (see below)". Despite your latest edit and reference, you cannot just say that they have "designated the Southern Ocean as an oceanic division encircling Antarctica" - this is POV. Bazonka (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but what?!? How exactly is it POV? They originally defined the Southern Ocean in the 2nd edition, removed it for various reasons in the 3rd, then voted (and passed) a motion to restore it in 2000. They have announced their intention to publish it in the upcoming 4th edition, and it is in use by them and by other reliable sources. Your rewrite strongly suggests the IHO does not officially endorse their own plans, which is not an accurate depiction of what is going on at all. While the 3rd edition is still active pending the introduction of the 4th, the IHO has clearly demonstrated their intention to move forward with the reintroduction of the term, and other reputable international bodies have acknowledged this and are proceeding in a similar manner. Our wording must reflect this reality, not obscure it. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It's POV because you are presenting the 2000 definition as a done deal - it isn't. And it's clear that the IHO wants that to be their official definition - but it's not. The intro must succinctly reflect this, showing both sides of the story. Perhaps the following wording is better: "The International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) officially does not recognize the existence of the Southern Ocean, but has agreed on an as-yet unratified definition of the ocean as being south of 60°S; this definition is widely used by the IHO and others." Bazonka (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Whatever you folks come up with there is and will a steady steam of news stories running like this http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/06/2786732.htm?section=justin - I am very sure that the average journalist is not going to stick to any arbitrary 60 degree story whatever you two might sort out - most journalists are inherently geographically challenged and lazy - and because of that alone - a lack of both sides of the story - will be to the detriment of wikipedia as the curious will see the sea shepherd story and - if they are not careful they are going to find a wikipedia article that tells them that whales and lives are at risk in an ocean that does not exist! Take care SatuSuro 08:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have been bold and made the amendments as discussed above. Hopefully they are acceptable to all, but if not, then please discuss. Thanks. Bazonka (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the previous version for now. (Apologies for being away from this for a few days.) While this discussion is moving along, the text is still not ready for implementation. Your version still has issues in that it strongly suggests the IHO doesn't support its own concept, which is not the case. Realistically, we need to research the status better; we know the Southern Ocean definition has passed a vote, and we know the 4th edition publication hasn't been ratified. The question is whether the lack of publication changes the status of the vote; does the IHO consider the Southern Ocean to be official at this time. Again, we need to hash this out - probably on the SO talk page for greater input - and then have an RfC to get more opinions (given that this has ramifications beyond just the one article.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I've had one more go at reworking the text. If you're still not happy then we'll take it to a wider debate. But I'm reasonably confident that you won't object too much to this one - I've removed all reference to "official" and "unofficial" definitions, instead referring to "latest published" and "more recent" definitions. Bazonka (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Drive-by comment: I like the most recent version as it expresses the ambiguity well. A related debate has occurred a few times over whether Hudson Bay is part of the Arctic Ocean. IHO 3rd edition doesn't group water bodies as part of other bodies, but apparently the unratified IHO 4th edition does, or will do. CIA World Factbook apparently is using the 4th ed. definitions but we generally end up using 3rd ed. because we're absolutely sure of its status. The same situation applies here, latest-but-unratified or known-but-out-of-date? The difference is that "Southern Ocean" is a term in undoubted broad use, we're just not exactly sure what the heck it precisely means. Franamax (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Franamax. I've just updated the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Ocean articles using similar wording. Also hopefully acceptable. Let me know if not. Bazonka (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. Regarding this issue:
WP:TENSE- and the MOS state the present tense would be correct when discussing works of fiction, but I see no defined policy for works not in the realm of fiction. In fact, in my experience, the opposite would be true here. Can you point one out a policy that states otherwise? Please leave a TB message on my page (my watchlist is getting ridiculous). Thanks. —DMCer™ 11:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ckatz, You've reverted one of my edits regarding kilograms and Newtons. What was listed in the table for the [S-IC] page was wrong by physics standards. Mass is measured in kilograms (or slugs if you want to talk imperial, but nobody wants that) and weight is measured in Newtons. While most people would be able to tell you their 'weight' in kilograms, they're only able to do so on the surface of the Earth. In the context of rocketry, the weight of the payload changes as the height of the rocket changes. Therefore, the distinction between mass and weight was necessary. I'm about to go change it to something different that should be more clear. What really bothers me, though, is that you didn't bother with the talk page. I consider myself an expert in the field-I teach physics-and know that it's important for these things to be clearly communicated. I'm trying to improve this resource and sometimes miss the mark and therefore remember that guidance is always beneficial but I disagree with your policy of reverting to an inferior version without actually making a concrete change to something that is wrong. Anyway, back to fixing up grammar on science pages. I hope that you don't feel the need to roll back any of them again. Friedlad (talk) 05:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Ckatz, although I agree with your edit to List of awards and nominations received by Up in the Air, I would like to get a better understanding of why you consider the excised text spam. I may be missing the point due lack of sleep. Also, do I understand you correctly, that the excised text would be fine if Up in the Air (film) is nominated for an Academy Award? --Dan Dassow (talk) 12:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello... thanks for the note. Spam, in this sense, referred to the way in which this identical material was used into a series of film articles by an IP editor, without providing any real context or benefit to any of them. The text merely notes that the film is one of 174 films that qualify to be considered for an award nomination, which is not notable. (All that means is that it was released within the correct time period, screened in the US, and so on, not that it has achieved some special status.) Hope this helps. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The entry on Noel Browne is based entirely on a shoddy biography written by one of his political opponents, and evidently amplified since by others. It apparently is low-enough temperature scurrility to make it onto the Wikipedia page.

How is it that "public opinion" - all of it ! - turns against Noel Browne's book 'Against The Tide' when it happened to be the biggest non-fiction bestseller in Ireland that year? Gill and MacMillan, his publisher, were over the moon with its success. Check it.

How is it too that every single criticism (without evidence) is deemed correct and Browne in every single instance wrong? A little skepticism toward both sides in a clash would be warranted. The entry is unrelievedly denigratory and needs to be balanced. Jkjacobs (talk) 06:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll avoid removing his comments in the future. Personally I believe this editor is an evangelical Christian POV-pusher and possibly a sockpuppet of a banned editor based on his edits, including his 1st edit which was a well-formed AFD for Secular Student Alliance (I've already notified an admin about this and added my evidence to a WP:AN/I thread started by Seregain). His comments in his latest AFD were essentially trying to discredit sources by attacking their owners personally, so I considered them disruptive. But in the future I won't remove them (on the same note, I think it's fair to warn Seregain not to remove my comments from talk pages as well). Thanks.--SuaveArt (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I wrote you concerning this article via Wiki email, and pursuant to the Wiki suggestions, am posting you a note advising that the email was sent.--LexVacPac3 (talk) 05:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I noticed your edit to the {{Overlinked}} and its documentation. I was not really necessary to warn against using this template only in severe cases, since I have been monitoring its use for the last half year, and it has been used less than 10 times, and only in severe cases. Debresser (talk) 12:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

http://www.zionism-israel.com/ is an excellent hasbarah source, Why don't you let my addition stay? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasbraun321 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

I have noted that you have deleted a number of my edits, I think most of them. Is the Wikipedia policy that one cannot cite one's own work on a page? You have attributed my edits to self promotion, but I do not see it that way at all. Academic texts are not a product in the sense of a trade book. They are not written for profits--rarely make one in fact--and help extend the subject matter on an issue. In the Amusement Park page, as one example, you deleted my Theme Park reference. This is the only text that has been written in terms of covering the entirety of the theme park form. Perhaps you deleted it because it did not directly address a section in the article, but I searched for Futrell's four books (which are listed in the further readings as well) and they are not referenced in the article. My sense is that you are selectively targeting my edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xrhetor (talk • contribs) 17:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

On the page for Theming, you deleted my reference that was cited in the main article.

It now reads:

Theming is the "the use of an overarching theme, such as western, to create a holistic and integrated spatial organization of a consumer venue."[citation needed] Theme

The citation needed is a result of your deletion of the source that accompanies it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xrhetor (talk • contribs) 17:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in, I agree with you protecting the article (regardless of who's revision was in place) so that civil talk page discussion could take place. You are welcome to join the discussion if you like, as it appears we need another opinion on the matter. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 18:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I recently reviewed the policy on citations from Wikipedia:

"Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies. Excessive self-citation is strongly discouraged. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion."

In terms of my edits on Amusement Parks: (1) Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest.

• I do not see this as a violation.

(2) Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason.

• This seems to be subjective as you have not allowed it to be 'within reason'

(3) "if it is notable"

• It's one of the few books on the topics that considers the subject in an exclusive sense.

I question your objectivity on these reedits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xrhetor (talk • contribs) 18:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I just reviewed this Wikipedia policy:

"This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing reliable sources. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our neutrality policy. See also Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest."

As I see it,

(1) This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia

• I have specialist knowledge

(2) but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing reliable sources

• I have cited reliable sources

(3) If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication

• These are peer-reviewed publications (not web sites or personal blogs)

(4) the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our neutrality policy

• I have written all in a third-person format.

Xrhetor (talk) 19:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This IP [18], whom you recently blocked for being a sock of indef blocked User:Lceliku, has been giving out barnstars to encourage his fellow nationals [19]. Is this acceptable? The way I see it, as Lceliku was indefed for TOV, he shouldn't be allowed to go around evading his block and giving out barnstars or making any other kinds of edits. Otherwise we are encouraging the block evasion. Thanks, Athenean (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The IP above mentioned gave me a barnstar and after that was deemed a SUSPECTED sock of Lceliku and blocked for two weeks. There is no proof that this user IS Lceliku, in addition he got blocked after he gave the barnstar. I accepted the barnstar even though Athenean tried to revert my user page and discussion page breaking the 3RR rule through these edits: [20] and [21]. I think it's in my right to accept a barnstar from a user who has not been blocked yet, and also report who trolls my user page and talk page, i.e. Athenean.sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 21:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I have filed an SPI here [22]. Athenean (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Your actions at The Sun are a complete abuse of power. As an involved administrator you have not right to protect page to maintain your preferred versions of pages. The original move discussion was evenly split and the amended proposal, which didn't take any of the oppositions objections into account, was closed two days after it was proposed. Face it, there was never any consensus for the move. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 23:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I really do not appreciate such unfair accusations, especially since they do not accurately reflect the true nature of the situation. I can understand if you disagree, but from my perspective this was simply a matter of choosing the best path to avoid an undesirable outcome. As you are aware, a move discussion was held that led to the outcome that is presently in place. Keep in mind that this move discussion was closed by an administrator with far more experience in these matters than you or I. (In fact, that admin chooses to spent a vast majority of his time on Wikipedia "specializing", if you will, in assessing the outcome of move discussions and the relevant consensus that develops.) If you have an issue with his decision, by all means take it up with him - or re-open the discussion, as I've repeatedly advised you to do. Regardless of my own perspective on the matter, my actions are based solely on maintaining an existing consensus. The alternative, doing nothing and waiting to see if you would cross the line with respect to 3RR, was not a viable option in my opinion; I would much prefer to try to allow the situation to cool down rather than see an established contributor move into a position where he ends up with a suspension of editing privileges. This is possible in situations such as The Sun, where there is an extremely low number of edits; page protection in this case does not interfere with an actively edited page. Note, too, that the page protection is temporary, not permanent; if you are prepared to agree to stop reverting against the existing consensus, and instead discuss the matter, I'd be amenable to opening up the page again. I'm also fine with pointing you toward places where you can seek a second opinion, if you wish, and will assist you in that respect if you so desire. --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I saw that you removed my portion for community based geotagging.

I still think its a valid addition to this article, so it would be nice if you could help me make a "approvable" addition there.

My point is that geotagging has moved beyond just adding locations to a photo etc., but is used in a more and more social/community context, and especially smartphones and AR enhance this trend (e.g. as in junaio). Kind of an extension to mobile blogging.

Thanks, FrankAngermann (talk) 10:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed this. Any reason why we need to have multiple links to well-known countries on this article? I don't see it myself. --John (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I took a look at Wikipedia talk:Linking and didn't see any discussion about removing links to countries as you implied here. Can you please explain what you meant by "The drive to strip out links to so-called "well-known countries" is not without controversy, nor is it universally accepted." Thanks. --John (talk) 04:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Why did you undo my change to 24 re. the clock? They display the 24h time incorrectly from 1pm to midnight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.96.183 (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. We've had some shakeups regarding late entries, flag changes and early dropouts, but the competition is now established- there will be no more flag changes or new competitors. Congratulations to Sasata (submissions), our current leader, who, at the time of writing, has more listed points than Hunter Kahn (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions) (second and third place respectively) combined. A special well done also goes to Fetchcomms (submissions)- his artcle Jewel Box (St. Louis, Missouri) was the first content to score points in the competition.

Around half of competitors are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. 64 of the 149 current competitors will advance to round 2- if you currently have no points, do not worry, as over half of the current top 64 have under 50 points. Everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places in round 2! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! J Milburn, Garden, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

I was just wondering why you took out the external link to the Business Valuation Performance Management Methodology image? The methodology shows steps in how to strategically increase business value. I am a new user so if I missed some guidelines in adding external links, please explain why it was not a valid entry. Jdrew9 (talk) 09:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)Jdrew9

Hi,

I'm curious why the addition of the AAXA Laser-LCOS projector was removed from the handheld projector link?

The technology employed by AAXA's laser-LCOS projector is quite relevant to the handheld projector market and in fact can be considered to be a game-changer. While most handheld projectors are using white LED or colored LED light sources, the only companies using laser light sources in handheld projector applications are Microvision (mentioned) and the now defunct Explay (mentioned). In fact because Microvision has not yet released the PicoP for sale, the only existing laser handheld projector currently available for sale is the AAXA laser-LCOS projector. I think this deserves a mention as it is extremely relevant to the "handheld projector" topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.56.200.187 (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• The observation doesn't need a "third party" source. Only an idiot would dispute that most space opera scifi stories take place in the future. As for why the text is similar to text found on Battlestarwiki...I'm actually a contributor to that site and I added the observation to both Battlestarwiki and Wikipedia. -- Evans1982 (talk) 03:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added an edited version of the observation without the reference to the overall genre of space operas taking place in the future. I hope this settles the matter. -- Evans1982 (talk)

User_talk:Tony1#RE:_My_WP:LINK_Edit_-_germane. Can we see what others say? Tony (talk) 10:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ckatz. I've been doing some cleanup work trying to pull the condition limit hit rate down on the edit filter, because we've been hitting it a bit lately. I came across filter 263 which you worked on. It hasn't had a hit since mid-December. Is this still an ongoing problem? Do you think it's OK to disable this filter? Thanks, --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 01:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 02:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Ckatz...

I removed an item from the RUE MORGUE RADIO Wikipedia page that stated that 'Chris Alexander left Rue Morgue Radio' following a very public on air dispute with Andrews. This simply isn't true. Thanks, - Stuart —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.61.113 (talk) 04:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Stuart - thank you for the note, and for correcting the matter. The text was probably initially reverted because of the external links that were added. Wikipedia has fairly stringent standards for external links, as outlined in the external links guideline. As such, i have had to remove the links you added today as well. Please do not take this as a commentary on the quality of your site; it is merely a reflection of the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory service. Please feel free to ask if you have additional questions about hits matter. Thank you again. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi again Ckatz! Twice in two days, who would have thought. Anyway, I came across this reversion you did. Just wanted to drop a line asking if you happen to see any more of these "sanders conspiracy" edits (and remember this message), just (1) block on sight (as listed at WP:Long-term abuse#Sanders conspiracy vandal) and drop me a line so I can adapt the filter that's managing him. Note I think User:Saiyan82 is OK, but the one with whom you left a talk page message, User:Agent K 99, was a definite sock of User:JI Hawkins. Of course, I'm sure you have a ton to remember and wouldn't hold it against you if you totally forgot this message in the future, I just wanted to make sure you were aware. Anyway, thanks for your hard work! --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ckatz! I noticed that you removed my contribution to the Motor Oil page and other pages claiming that my "recent contributions seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes". I am genuinely surprised since the site I added doesn't sell anything and it is the single most comprehensive site on the web about oil specifications. There is no other free source where you could find all this information in one place. I work with lubricants on daily basis and for a long time I was looking for a site where I could find explanations about what these specifications actually mean. Access to this kind of information is invaluable to the people who want to choose the right oil. This is especially true for Europe where most of the new cars demand special oils that have to meet certain specifications. If you know any other website on oil specifications which is as detailed as this one then please suggest and I'll link that one. But until then I think we shouldn't deny such relevant information from the public. I hope that with this explanation I can make you reconsider your decision and you enable once again the content I added. (Sorry if my English is not ok, it's not my native language). Pkarsai (talk) 14:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I keep running into you! Anyway, if you need I do see potential for a filter to be devised regarding the harassment you noted at WP:ANI. It's been done in the past, so there doesn't seem to be any objections. Please let me know (or leave a note on ANI, as I left a note there as well) if it's persisting and I'll be glad to help out. Regards, Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 16:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

From the "What Wikipedia is Not" page, section about self-promotion point number 5: "External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify major organizations associated with a topic." The Center On Executive Compensation (www.execcomp.org) is the leading place for news, commentary, and fast facts related to all things Executive Compensation. Clearly the site is a valuable resource for anyone looking to learn more about executive compensation practices, and given language on the "What Wikipedia is Not" page, an external link to the site clearly falls within the purview of the "Executive Compensation" Wikipedia entry. Could you please further explain your reasons for deleting the link?

Thanks,

iButterfield —Preceding unsigned comment added by IButterfield (talk • contribs) 19:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. Unfortunately, the link has been removed because Wikipedia is not a directory service, and we do not exist merely to list other web sites. You've said that Execcomp is "the leading place" for compensation information. Who, exactly, has identified it as such? What does the site offer that would benefit Wikipedia readers, and how is that benefit greater than the boost Execcomp would receive from being listed here? --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

They were indeed the right ones at the Antarctic article. It would be great if you uploaded Greg U's excellent script for fixing the dash issue, which is present to some extent in most articles. Please let me know if you want the link. It's very well designed, in my non-expert's opinion. Tony (talk) 08:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand this edit of yours. Offhand I'm unfamiliar with the last item on the list and of course don't know the ISBNs, but the rest is certainly correct. (Indeed, I possess one of the books myself, and very entertaining it is.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I note that you removed the "Fan Reaction" addition to the Anita Blake page as being unsourced. Please review a similar section which is shown on the Laurell K. Hamilton wikipedia entry.

Scyllabear (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)ScyllaBear

Hi there. I'm hopelessly overwhelmed by the Cole Smithey article. The references are poorly formatted, but I'm having trouble deciphering which ones might establish notability. I think he might be notable, but I can't confirm the validity of the sources. Can you advise? The article is being edited by, it seems, Colesmithey (talk · contribs) himself. Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Barry Lynn and his opinion on child pornography

I fail to see why you insist on deleting the section and have now locked down the article. I was willing to retitle it as his 1993 opinion on child pornography, which would not give pause if these are his current views (which we don't know). The source is a transcript that contains his own words. Unless you can prove that it's the wrong Barry Lynn or that the transcript is in error, I don't see why it's being deleted. This is a transcript, not some anonymous comment on some blog. The section, quoting from the transcript, also gives his personal condemnation of child pornography. Like Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robertson, Al Sharpton, Barry is a controversial figure who has said controversial things in the past. If it's his own words, it's enough.JohnScott2 (talk) 06:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I have some additional information, which is relevant to the discussion.

When he was employed by the ACLU, Lynn worked on First Amendment issues, and how they related to censorship and pornography. See these references in Google Books Though conservative, this book cites Lynn's testimony to Congress in the mid-1980s that the constitution also protecs child pornography. The book's source is the congressional record. It seems it cited his 1986 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee's subcommitte on juvenile justice. His report on the Meese Commission report on pornography see the first book, his, on the list, affirms the ACLU's view (during the mid-1980s) that the distribution of child pornography is protected by the Constiution. Clearly, his comments in the Firing Line debate, which you do not dispute, are hardly an isolated example of his belief that the Constitution protects the distribution of child pornography.JohnScott2 (talk) 01:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

the template is fully protected and requests for additional fields have been ignored because no one has been paying attention. Fred the happy man (talk) 14:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious about your unexplained deletion of the link to the European Environmental Bureau in the article on Biodiversity. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You dispensed with the elementary courtesy of bothering to reply, so, well after your return to editing I reinstated what seems to me a useful link. It is up to you to establish why the link should not be there, since you are the one trying to remove it. Now you have reverted my reinstatement, again with no specific reason apart from a vague wave at link farms. This seems... inappropriate behaviour... for someone who should be behaving like an administrator.

The "harsh" edit summary was a response to you not acknowledging my query. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I respectfully disagree. I've written that we have too many links, but I don't think any one editor should be decide unilaterally which links to delete. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you know anyone who might like to take on the project of cleaning up Ryan Wolfe. An IP editor, while I believe it was in good faith, has added a lot of info for a secondary character that needs to be fixed up a bit. I do not want to take it on, as I have not seen the most recent season (CBS not on my satellite dish) and I have not gotten the DVDs as of yet (*sigh* - not that I will have time to watch them when they arrive!). Since you know much more about the CSI programs than most people, I just thought you might know of someone who would enjoy making the page a better one rather than looking like a fansite or copied almost directly from other sites. Thank you, Ckatz. Trista (Triste Tierra - cannot log in at work) 24.176.191.234 (talk) 00:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Tell me where i am not neutral ? Tell me why you don't want this mentioned.

"Richard Perle-One of Bush's foreign policy advisors, he is the chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board. A very likely Israeli government agent, Perle was expelled from Senator Henry Jackson's office in the 1970's after the National Security Agency (NSA) caught him passing Highly-Classified (National Security) documents to the Israeli Embassy. He later worked for the Israeli weapons firm, Soltam. Perle came from one the above mentioned pro-Israel thinktanks, the AEI. Perle is one of the leading pro-Israeli fanatics leading this Iraq war mongering within the administration and now in the media. "

--Ericg33 (talk) 03:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Why did you undo my addition of an internal link to Doors Open Ottawa on the Ottawa page? It is a relevant link to a relevant page. --Robkelk (talk) 16:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Round one is over, and round two has begun! Congratulations to the 64 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our first round. A special well done goes to Sasata (submissions), our round one winner (1010 points), and to Hunter Kahn (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions), who were second and third respectively (640 points/605 points). Sasata was awarded the most points for both good articles (300 points) and featured articles (600 points), and TonyTheTiger was awarded the most for featured topics (225 points), while Hunter Kahn claimed the most for good topics (70). Staxringold (submissions) claimed the most featured lists (240 points) and featured pictures (35 points), Geschichte (submissions) claimed the most for Did you know? entries (490 points), Jujutacular (submissions) claimed the most for featured sounds (70 points) and Candlewicke (submissions) claimed the most for In the news entries (40 points). No one claimed a featured portal or valued picture.

Credits awarded after the end of round one but before round two may be claimed in round two, but remember the rule that content must have been worked on in some significant way during 2010 by you for you to claim points. The groups for round two will be placed up shortly, and the submissions' pages will be blanked. This round will continue until 28 April, when the top two users from each group, as well as 16 wildcards, will progress to round three. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup; thank you to all doing this last round, and particularly to those helping at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I put a link in Extraterrestrial real estate to an article which sums up the history of property claims in outer space. These all used to be listed in the actual wiki article for the past 4 years, but were recently removed. I figured they needed to be at least referenced, albeit with a mere link.

Why delete my source? Is statemaster.com not a credible site? Wes.faires (talk) at 09:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Might you have made a mistake? Chensiyuan (talk) 02:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Providing link since you contributed (even if only by tagging) the article. Please weigh in if you get a chance. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 18:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Ckatz. One of these accounts is blocked and the other appears inactive, so the point may be moot, but I suspect User:Brittany Ringer and User:Noah Ringer were likely additional socks of this editor. I say this in particular because of this edit and the fact that the user had also edited Madama Butterfly. Noting the similarity in the usernames, compare this edit by User:Noah Ringer, as well as his/her vandalism of the talk page of an editor who had had a run-in with one of Shamhat456's other blocked socks. That's quite a sock drawer: I wonder if CU might flush out some more. --Rrburke^ekrubrR 18:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and good catch. I looked at the contribution, the user page, and other aspects of the account, and your assessment seems bang on. Please let me know if you come across other similar cases; this user seems quite persistent. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, again. Just a followup: I think the user's IP was probably 92.237.212.178, judging by the contribs. --Rrburke^ekrubrR 18:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ckatz

I have been using Wikipedia for so long that I really wanted to make a contribution myself, which I did by posting a page about Thinkers 50 last October. Somehow I made a mistake, and you pulled a page that I truly felt met all the criteria and standards that I studied for weeks. I'm a writer who has been published in journals such as HR Focus and my local newspaper. I became interested in management thinking about 10 years ago and have come to admire many who make it onto the Thinkers 50 list. Some of my favorites are Howard Gardner, Chris Anderson (TED curator), and Malcolm Gladwell. Some thinkers I didn’t know, but I know of their ideas like micro credit founder Muhammad Yunus. About the time Thinkers 50 was going to publish the 2009 list, I noticed that Wikipedia did not have a Thinkers 50 page. I thought that was strange since the list has been published since 2001. I am not much of a computer programmer, but I decided to try to put up a page. The Thinkers 50 is a major bi-annual award given to the top management thinkers of our time. These ideas and these people often reflect the zeitgeist of business for decades. I know of no other list or website that allows the average non-business person to go to one place for a snapshot of these leaders’ thoughts and to see a video interview. CK Prahalad, Malcolm Gladwell, Paul Krugman and Steve Jobs lead the list. Thinkers of the top business schools appeared on the 2009 awards list, including the Michigan Business School, Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth and Harvard Business School. Forbes Online, The (London) Times, and The Times of India among others reported the results, thus corroborated the authenticity and news value of the awards. I made sure that I listed the most important news organizations on the Thinkers 50 page that was just pulled. Since I am doing this on my own time, I didn’t get around to placing links on the Wikipedia pages of those receiving the award for several months. Thinking it would be helpful to Wikipedia readers to be able to hop directly to the Wikipedia page on Thinkers 50, I decided the easiest thing to do was make an internal link. Please know that if I erred in any way on trying to be a good Wikipedia contributor, I am sorry. I would very much like to correct any mistakes, if I could just understand the line I seemed to have crossed unintentionally. I do realize how hard it must be to make sure that all content meets Wikipedia's high standards -- and that's why you are such a prized resource throughout the world. If you could guide me on how to fix my posting, or in how to manage links to the Thinkers 50 page on Wikipedia, I would be happy to make things right immediately. This was my first attempt at trying to expand the scope and depth of Wikipedia, but I hope -- with your coaching -- that I can be a regular resource for you.

Thank You Kpbizbuzz (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)kpBizBuzz

Thank you for sparing my blushes :) Serendi^podous 22:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

What's the deal with removing the category? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Understood. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but it does not appear as self-promotion for me, as these packages contribute to the open-source world. Furthermore, Amsmath also exists here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merciadriluca (talk • contribs) 20:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You cannot write text about your own work, and reference it with your own pages; it is a conflict of interest. Keep in mind that this is not a commentary on the quality of your work, but a reflection of the need to have independent editors assess it for inclusion. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Please explian in what im doing wrong! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liampenn (talk • contribs) 18:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

One of the editors involved in the merge discussion has decided he will go ahead and merge the two articles on March 15 if no further objections are brought forth. I've commented in that section about how to appropriately merge the articles, and I'm not sure if this editor would be willing to do so properly. I was wondering, if by March 15 the consensus is to merge the articles, you would be so kind as to help us out by courteously deleting the current namespace The Tonight Show with Jay Leno to make way for a move of The Tonight Show with Jay Leno (1992 TV series) back to that namespace, to retain the article's history back to 2006. I feel this is the appropriate way to go about it, and if it isn't done this way, I'm sure the editor in question (Mwhayes) will just end up blanking The Tonight Show with Jay Leno (1992 TV series) and redirecting it, copy-pasting the content from the 1992 TV series page to the original TSWJL page, and redirecting the 2010 TV series page to The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, which would have the history back to 2006 lost. Thanks in advance for any assistance. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 18:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

My plan is to edit at around 8:00 ET on March 15th. If The Tonight Show disamb. page has not been deleted by then, I would be willing to wait for admin. action. I do understand your worry though, as I would be also if another user were to have my plan. So, please do this next Monday, but, if it is not completed by my wishful time I would be willing to kindly wait. I also agree it is important to keep history dating back to 2006. Thank you for bringing up the issue, though, because I am still relatively new to Wikipedia and would have copy/pasted without warning. Mwhayes1995 (talk) 01:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Chatz, How do I find out what I need to do to get the Thinkers 50 back up? You said it may or may not meet the standard of notability. Since it was stated that way, it sounds like it might be in a review process. I was unable to email you. Kpbizbuzz (talk) 19:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)kpbizbuzz

Why are you reverting all of Tony1's edits? They're great, productive, and necessary edits. What exactly about them do you object to? DKqwerty (talk) 05:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see the detailed discussion regarding this matter on Tony1's talk page. Tony had noted his intention to modify his script to avoid the counterproductive removal of beneficial links while cleaning up overlinking, but the script changes appear to have not registered with the system. As such, the long list of changes continued to introduce more problems by removing beneficial links. As it is far easier to redo the valid script-based changes once the script is repaired than it is for other editors to manually edit each and every article to repair the errors, the appropriate course of action is to undo the problem edits until OTny1 can implement his proposed fixes. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I didn't see any overt errors with the two I reverted back. Maybe NBC should be re-linked, but other than that they seemed good. But I won't poke my nose into other articles I normally don't edit. Thanks for the info. DKqwerty (talk) 06:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for asking. I'd thought I was adding comments to the changes, but apparently I wasn't - so your questions were certainly justified. Yes, the problem lies in the useful links - such as the NBC one you've mentioned - that are erroneously removed along with the legitimate changes. I've restored the Friends version, but have left the ST:TNG changes as per Tony1's version; after double-checking, it appears that no network info was lost in the shuffle. Thanks again. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You say nothing specific about whatever personal objection you have. I have no problem restoring the TV network link. This is rather a waste of two people's time, isn't it. Tony (talk) 06:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Unless you are planning on ensuring that the problems your script is introducing are all dealt with - problems that are detailed on your talk page - than your actions are merely creating extra work for other editors who then have to clean up after your changes. In addition, you have yet to address the same problems that were introduced into the previous batch of edit you made a few days back. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I am prepared to re-add links to network names. In fact, on second time through, which you are forcing me into, I am discovering linked items such as "wine" and "human". Do you really want to dilute our wikilinking system with these? Why are you re-adding them? Why "English"? These reversions simply ensure that readers are very unlikely to click on anything. You appear to be trying to bring to a head this personal agenda you've been writing at length about on my talk page, both currently and in the recent archives. Apparently other people are objecting to what appears to be destructive intervention. I am trying to improve these articles. You appear to be intent on dragging them back down. Tony (talk) 06:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not at all trying to embarrass you; but it is plain to me and everyone else that this is a WP:POINTY exercise by you to stop the work of gnoming editors who are trying to improve these articles. Do you really want to ruin the wikilinking by diluting it with utterly useless links such as "English"? And "Television"? It beggars belief. All you had to do was to raise the network name issue. It would have saved me and everyone else a lot of trouble. Tony (talk) 06:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Tony, as I've clearly and repeatedly outlined on your talk page, what you've described as a "second pass" was in fact the result of errors introduced in the first pass. I clearly explained my actions on your talk page, I clearly outlined the rationale behind them, and I even offered to help. You may have good intentions, but if the script is introducing new problems at the same time it is correcting existing ones, then measures are needed to rectify the situation. I did ask you about this a day or so ago, when I posted "your recent edits to dozens of television series articles have stripped out links to various television networks, links which are certainly relevant in articles about series produced by and for those networks." Unfortunately, you resumed use of the script without addressing the problems. Please note that the articles are certainly not going to suffer from a temporary delay in processing, whereas it is unrealistic to expect other editors to have to check over every article to clean up introduced problems. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I notice that you have been following Tony around, and reverting all his work. While you appear to be in discussion with him about your concern about one particular aspect of the work - the linking of television networks, there are other valuable component parts of his edits which you doubtlessly do not object to. Yet you are engaged in blanket reverting. As an admin, you will not need to be reminded that what you are doing may be considered stalking and and harassment. Instead of engaging in edit warring and stalking, you should desist and calmly discuss this. Thank you. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Since we're apparently doing "warnings", you should note that false warnings are frowned upon, and I'd also add that you are a fine one to speak of "stalking" when you seem to appear on pages shortly after Tony does in an apparent effort to "tag-team" him (such as your recent post here). One of the reasons why it is important to research events rather than just leap in with fake, unsubstantiated "warnings" is that it helps to avoid posts that make you look foolish. Even the most cursory of examination of my contributions list - freely and easily accessible through my signature in addition to the usual methods - would demonstrate thousands upon thousands of edits to television-related articles, especially to the main articles for individual series. It is hardly "stalking" when Tony1's actions tonight caused my watchlist to light up like a Christmas tree. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

And thank you for adding the link to CBS at NCIS, which is on my watchlist. Had I realised you frequently edited TV-related articles, it might have made me think twice about improving the wikilinking and dashes on them, lest it upset you; however, they need to be brought up to modern standards at some stage, so best now. I do intend to move through more of them, so please let me know if there's anything more that you want to raise as specific issues. Tony (talk) 10:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

thanks for zapping it! Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ckatz, it appears that you reverted within about a 2 minute period a series of EL's I had added to various historical articles on watch companies. Note that some of these EL's had been in place for well over a year. In each case your revert was made with the highly prejudicial comment "rm. spam from repair shop site per WP:EL". This behavior might appear to some to be "stalking". I asked you to explain your reverts on the talk page of one of the articles (WP:Rolex), but no explanation was forthcoming. My edits were not violations of WP:EL, and were not spam. I would respectfully request that either you engage in a calm and civil discussion of your reasons for the reverts, or please stop searching out my edits and blanket reverting them. Time-further-out (talk) 16:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a comment from a WP:TPS who has this talk page on my watch list ...

FYI - here are links to related discussions:

• Talk:Rolex#Repeated deletion of external links to useful table of serial numbers and production dates...
• Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#pocketwatchrepair.com

--- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Some users keep changing this to Lt in the CSI: Miami, CSI: Trilogy and Calleigh Duquesne pages, even though the only time this was a one off reference by Dan Cooper up was when Calleigh was filling in for Caine. There is no citation she is anything above a Level 3 CSI, and CBS still calls her "Officer". I do not want to violate 3RR, so I'm asking for help from you. Thank you Ckatz. Trista 24.176.191.234 (talk) 21:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello CKatz,

what's wrong about Earth's name? Gaia / Tellus were both mythological goddesses who represent our planet.

Hoosier1989 (talk) 08:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated Moon for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why he notified me; I've never edited that article in my life. I've barely even looked at it. Not sure what to do at this point. Ruslik isn't interested and Lunokhod hasn't made a substantial edit since 2007. I'll do what I can but I think really it's up to you. Serendi^podous 13:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The reason that I notified you was because (correct me if I'm wrong here) you were/are one of the major contributors to the Solar System FT. Consider how much work has been put into creating and expanding that FT, I figured you would want to know that one of its most important assets is at risk for being demoted. I have attempted to notify as many people as I could think of, though so far only Iridia has stepped up to do some work on the article. Do you have anyone else in mind that I might have missed? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 06:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I saw some of your merging ideas on the former 2010 talk page and was wondering if you would add them to The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. Mwhayes1995 (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Ckatz, please delete List of The Tonight Show with Jay Leno episodes to make way for a move of List of The Tonight Show with Jay Leno episodes (1992-present) to that namespace, thank you. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 23:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I just read it on the ABC Website that Scrubs is cancelled. It said SERIES FINALE WEDNESDAY MAR 17 8|7c. --FetchFan21 (talk) 17:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for locating that information. It was temporarily removed for verification, rewritten and reformatted, then replaced in the article just prior to your posting this. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ckatz. This user keeps targetting me in their replies on the Rolex talkpage and keeps insulting me. Please do something about that or alternatively tell me what I can do. Thank you very much. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Latest example: diff. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes, the best response is none at all. Some users have an overwhelming need to feel they got in the last word; let him, and see if he walks away. If he continues, you could always return at a later point. --67.183.232.99 (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much anon. You are very kind and I will follow your advice. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

He just returned months after your last block expired. Making tons of edits with minimal use of references, deleting tons of content he deems "vacuous", etc. I'm don't think it is blockworthy at present (he hasn't had time to edit war), but I was hoping you could keep an eye on this. I reverted a few edits, but much of the subject matter is a little beyond me; it looks like he is taking articles that present multiple scientific viewpoints on a subject, removing all of them and substituting his own. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 18:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It's over the top: I'm sure it's the same person who was ranting on my talk page, and who is now becoming a social problem. I'm removing it now. Perhaps you'd like to call in another admin to investigate, although I see the user account is now red. diff. Tony (talk) 11:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

In line with this, I've marked Creati1 (talk · contribs) as a sock of Akraj (talk · contribs). From what I can tell, this is the same individual referenced in an OR war, which I noticed on Dew, last committed by an IP user with the same apparent agenda. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for this. Akraj's abuse of Wikipedia for personal benefit goes back several years. While he is primarily targeting me at this time, he and his socks have also attacked other Wikipedians who objected to his self-promotional edits (for example, at Talk:Sustainability) and his efforts at vanity spam were also rejected by the India Wikiproject. --Ckatz^chat_spy 16:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I had an AGF conversation with him on his latest talk page, but in light of this history, it seems like he was simply humoring me. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Review of indefinite rangeblocks. –xeno^talk 17:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

You left a message in respect to inappropriate links. The link is most appropriate as it is a comprehensive reference site for the Omega vintage watches. Other links to reference site have been deleted over time too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mondodec (talk • contribs) 01:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated Degrassi: The Next Generation for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. 117Avenue (talk) 03:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

CKatz –

Recently, you undid an edit of mine on the Jonathan Mostow page. I’m curious why you did that. I readily admit to being a fan of Mostow, but I edited the page because I felt the previous users had phrased it in a way that was unfairly negative. I used unambiguous language, as well as footnotes to back up everything I said. I know T3 was a divisive film, but to call it a failure when it earned $433 million worldwide and is registered Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes seems inappropriate. Similarly, while the critical reception to Surrogates was mixed at best, the film has made $120 million worldwide which, let's be honest, is also not the benchmark of a failure. Disappointing, sure, but not a failure.

Mainly, my problem is that it seems one person is trying to influence how Mostow is portrayed on Wikipedia, and that's not what Wiki is supposed to be about. Wikipedia is supposed to be a balanced presentation. Sure, there will always be those who try to influence matters, but that's what administrators are for - to maintain that balance.

Thank you for your time and attention, I look forward to hearing from you.

AdamLLC (talk) 00:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)AdamLLCAdamLLC (talk) 00:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand when a blog from a mostly gossip site referring to a Twitter reference became a valid citation, as you recently used on Eric Delko on CSI: Miami. I thought no blogs, Twitter, Facebook (and several sites such as SpoilerTV, TV.com, IMDB.com etc) or anything else that could be edited by anyone were valid third party citations. Isn't this just like editing one page on Wikipedia, and then insisting it's validation for another edit? Do you see what I mean? I'm not trying to be a witch here, CKatz.I really just would like to know when this became accepted and where Wikipedia says it's alright to use them. Trista 24.176.191.234 (talk) 21:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I found the following while attempting to research this myself. WP:ELNO

10.Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace and Facebook), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, USENET newsgroups or e-mail lists.

11.Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies.)

Please tell me what is correct. Thank you. Trista (User Triste Tierra - cannot log in at work) 24.176.191.234 (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I hadn't seen the several changes listed as spelling. No argument with your edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Denorris (talk • contribs) 15:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned your name in a new discussion thread at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Conflict_regarding_non-breaking_spaces. You might want to weigh in with your opinion. Binksternet (talk) 21:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

We're half way through round two, and everything is running smoothly. Hunter Kahn (submissions) leads overall with 650 points this round, and heads pool B. TonyTheTiger (submissions) currently leads pool C, dubbed the "Group of Death", which has a only a single contestant yet to score this round (the fewest of any group), as well five contestants over 100 points (the most). With a month still to go, as well as 16 wildcard places, everything is still to play for. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Although unrelated to the WikiCup, April sees a Good Article Nominations backlog elimination drive, formulated as a friendly competition with small awards, as the Cup is. Several WikiCup contestants and judges have already signed up, but regular reviewers and those who hope to do more reviewing are more than welcome to join at the drive page. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I need help doing something about a IP User who has made changes on List of Pepsi types. I am pretty sure he has done so in the past but HE changed that pepsi vanilla is still produced but did not link proof that it is.

Please guide me in what to do with this user. Thank You --Kopicz (talk) 03:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I apologise for our edits getting crossed. I would actually point out that my revert was timestamped before your post to the talk page. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I certainly appreciate the note; thank you and likewise for vocalizing my frustrations. While I obviously disagree with the changes you made, consensus could certainly go either way. However, my bigger concern is that we (the collective "we" in general, not just you and I and this one case) exercise more discretion in changing guidelines and policies than we might use in article space. (A emphasis on discussion before changes would help in this respect; that way, you and I could have agreed or disagreed on the talk page, others could hae chimed in, and then the final language could go in with a minimum of back-and-forth editing.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You have a point about the potential disruption to fellow editors. My edit was actually inspired by your revert, and I actually didn't think the merger would be controversial, as it was a bit of simple copyediting where nothing of substance was changed. The insertion of 'germane', although substantive, is unlikely to change behaviour overnight. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am the admin who was requested to intervene in a content dispute, or at least I was last week - but by the time I had worked enough to figure out who was at fault, I was too sucked in to the content dispute to feel it appropriate asking for one party to be sanctioned!

One user was attempting to add sourced material; the other was repeatedly reverting it out claiming they were making it up, conducting a hoax, deeply partisan, slandering the subject, etc etc. I came along after Caracharoth requested someone to confirm the source existed and said what it claimed, but have been met with the same sort of accusations for a week. You are more than welcome to start intervening if you feel like it; the talkpage is a bit of a morass, though. Shimgray | talk | 08:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem - it's good to know someone's keeping an eye on these things! He did helpfully leave me a 3rr warning just before you did - and just before making his fourth revert, which I found quite amusing. ;-) Shimgray | talk | 17:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You have stated that the new template makes things more complicated, but you have not explained why. It is, in my opinion, less complicated and less error-prone. Please explain on the article's talk page rather than simply reverting outright. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Your note summarizes the problem. It is your opinion that your method is better; at least two other editors disagree. Per the long-established "bold-revert-discuss" concept, the onus is now on you to make the case for it on the talk page, not to simply keep restoring your preferred version. Note that you have now reverted your version back in three times in less than 24 hours. --'Ckatz^chat_spy 06:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It is considered bad mannered to place warnings on pages of established editors. You have still not explained yourself and you and now becoming a vandal by performing unexplained, or at least, unreasoned deletion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm trying to find a way to make the intro a little more neutral. As of now, it's only a repository of 4-months old, anti-Leno, pro-Conan point of view. If you can help me make it neutral, that would be awesome! GiuseppeMassimo (talk) 19:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

It's actually not too bad. I've tweaked it a bit and moved some text further down; hopefully that will address your concerns. As for the "New Coke" link, the two are really apples and oranges, I'm afraid. Changes to hosts, rapid cancellations, and the like are not uncommon in television, whereas the New Coke debacle was something unique in terms of corporate icons and product marketing. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Calling fentanyl a sedative, ketamine a barbituate, or Odessa a Russian city is just plain old writer error. It has to be documented, you say? Oh, but it is - see pages fentanyl, ketamine, [Odessa]] for the facts, vs. the season DVDs or reruns of CSI for the mistakes. And these aren't just the accidental slip, either, but just the first three of literally hundreds of errors that come to mind. Please refrain from reverting what you aren't knowledgeable about! Aadieu (talk) 22:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I've explained this on your talk page, but in short it has nothing to do with the accuracy of your comments. Instead, it is the fact that you (not you personally, but you as a Wikipedia editor and series viewer) are the one making the observations. Generally speaking, we do not note continuity, production, or other such errors with regard to television series and other works of fiction. Thee only exception is if said errors become notable in the real world through the observations of [[WP:RS}reliable sources]] such as an expert in the respective field. --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Ckatz, why did you delete the Felt mansion hyperlink to the Felt Mansion Historic Preservation and Restoration site? I just visited there on Thursday and was given a tour by the founder of the project; I contacted her the following day about possibly helping her contribute an article on the Felt Mansion, but, for now, I think the link should remain until she creates the page--I'm going to edit the hyperlink again; if you have a serious problem with this, please contact me first on my user talk page or my email. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfeen (talk • contribs) 23:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

You might find this thread to be of some interest. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ckatz, it's seems as if you have deleted my yesterday's contribution to Television program? I had added (1) an international perspective and (2) the article's first references at all - both was asked for in the article's banner and in various discussion statements over the years. The sources I've cited are internationally accepted and the information I've added are expanding the article beyond a pure US/UK/CA perspective. I would therefore kindly ask to undelete this passage. What do you think? Many thanks for your consideration! Mentalmoses (talk) 13:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I have now added the removed passage to my User page where you may want to check it: Mentalmoses (talk) 14:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello- I see you had erased a paragraph that I had added. The information was not promotional but only factual in nature from my viewpoint. If you have issues with specific things in the paragraph I would be happy to change, but if you want to talk I can give you call to explain as well. I will also be creating a page soon for Fair for Life Fair Trade certification, so it would be good to know if that is ok by you, as well.

Thanks! ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arruda1 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

During the period 19:15-16, 19 April 2010, you reverted my improvements to WYTIWis, EPUB, Comparison of e-book formats. Because these are substantially different articles and present a wide variety of contexts, I can only assume your speedy revisions came from mistaking my work for malfeasance. I have reinstated my improvements to these articles and invite you to address the issue in the individual discussion pages. I respect the work you do and hope we can engage in a well-considered exchange. jk (talk) 09:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)