User talk:Ckatz/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← [[../Archive Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character "{"|Archive Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character "{"]] |
Archive {{{1}}}
| [[../Archive Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character "{"|Archive Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character "{"]] →


Contents

deleted article

hello. I'm the contributor of "Dan Pena" article which was deleted. :( Can you provide me a copy of it? I want to improve its content and hopefully stay on wikipedia.

thanks gommez —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gommez (talk • contribs) 07:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Need big help

I've come across a user (Ahoalton1 currently) that needs more help than I can give. He seems (seems) to have a valid argument: He is editing the Order of the Arrow article and he's getting pushback from a couple of admins that are admittedly OA members and appear to be trying to keep the "secret" ceremonies secret (1, 2, 3... and more). Well, this guy stuck his foot in it when he started IP hopping (I don't know that this was his fault, might be a dynamic IP) then he ended up in a couple of edit wars (being with admins he was blocked instantly), he then went on to get a user name (Ahoalton) but was blocked for having a user name that is a secret word to these OA guys (he never got a single edit in the mainspace before getting blocked ). No edits, no help, no introduction to WP just hit him with an indefinite block instantly! Now he's gone and got a second user name and the namehopping is not looking good. What can I do to help this guy? Where can we go to get this reviewed and resolved? And what do you suggest I do with the user himself to get him to stop acting this way? Any help would be a big help. Yet more of the argument can be summed up on this users talk page, it's pretty blatant that at least some editors are trying to keep the secrets. Now, I don't give a tinkers cusp what the secrets are but any editor that has sworn to keep information secret is obviously in a conflict of interest when they start editing WP to keep those sworn secrets. Like I say, anything you can do to help, any direction would be a big deal. Padillah (talk) 19:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input but it looks like this guy was just bound and determined to torpedo himself. I've never seen a user try harder to ruin their own argument. Well, we tried. Thanks a million. Padillah (talk) 13:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations

Hi, i don't know if you remember me, but i just wanted to say congratulations on becoming an admin, i wish i'd noticed your RFA, purely because i cannot think of a better candidate for adminship, and i would have liked to add my support, even though you didn't need it. I'm clearly not alone in my views. You're going to make a great administrator. Good Luck--Jac16888 (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Alternative titles for Smallville

See Talk:Smallville (TV series). Simply south (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Blog for English Words with Sanskrit Etymology

My Sanskrit Blog - showing English words in Sanskrit forms.

This is a non promotional and non profit endeavor of mine and I show how some of the English words are connected to Sanskrit, by following well known rules.

So why are you saying that this is promotional? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunilsrivastava (talk • contribs) 11:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

My Disruptive Editing

Sorry 'bout all that. Someone found out my password and thought they'd have some fun with it. Don't worry I've changed it now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seantrac (talk • contribs) 20:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Copy of Characters in Stargate

Hello. You are listed in Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles. Could you please copy Characters in Stargate to my userspace, i.e. User:Sgeureka/Characters in Stargate? Thank you. – sgeureka t•c 00:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Done - I've restored the version immediately prior to the posting of the AfD notice. (There were no revisions after that point.) The only change I've made is to comment out the categories and the interwiki links. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 00:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Why did you remove Jaslene's Elite Model Management External link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.147.207 (talk) 18:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Jaslene External Link

Why did you remove Jaslene's Elite Model Management External link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.147.207 (talk) 18:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks:Six Nations

Sorry.I thought I was using the sandbox.I will watch where I put it from now on.--86.41.85.203 (talk) 10:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I see you are an admin, can you please protect the six nation page for a couple of hours.
This guy has been making random edits for a while now. Thanks FFMG (talk) 10:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for letting me know. --Ckatzchatspy 10:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the page protection. --Snowdog (talk) 10:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem - please let me know if this persists after the protection is released. --Ckatzchatspy 10:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible semi-protection?

Hey, sorry to just drop this here, but, since I notice you've done some of the same reversions, I thought I'd ask - any chance I can get a semi-protection of my user page for, oh, a couple days maybe, in the last few hours it's been hit with the same edit by a couple different IPs [1] and [2] (think I got this diff thing right, first attempt at some), presumably in response to this reversion I made a few days back: [3]. Anyway, checking WHOIS on both IPs resolved to ISPs in Ireland. I reverted both, first go-round I dropped a note on the IP [4] talk page saying please don't do that, and to take discussion to my talk page. I'd rather not do that to every IP that keeps putting the same thing back up (and feeding the trolls)... and I'd also like to avoid constant reverting. (If it weren't multiple IPs, I'd simply go to AIV, but...) Anyway, thanks for whatever assistance you can provide. --Umrguy42 (talk) 07:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an eye on it, and I understand. (I was just wondering what I might find when I woke up today, more vandalism or not. Fortunately, the latter.) Hopefully, those two edits will be all, and it'll blow over soon. All the best, --Umrguy42 (talk) 15:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
My little troll is back, with two new edits to my userpage in the past hour (within a half hour of each other, and the second three minutes after my reversion of the first). Both edits from different IP addresses, although the first one is within the same subnet as the original vandalism. Using WHOIS, all of them indicate ownership by a subsidiary (or something like that) of BT Ireland. --Umrguy42 (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Order of the Arrow

You were recently involved in discussions on the article Order of the Arrow. Some of the issues brought up then were not resolved. If you are interested, please participate in the continued discussion at Talk:Order of the Arrow#Safeguarded material. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 13:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The Puerto Rican Parade

Dude the parade is in New York. Not Chicago!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.147.207 (talk) 05:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sliders article - External Links

Just wanted to chime in that I believe your addition of DMOZ is the fair and equitable solution to the fan site listings; I will help you enforce that if fan site links are added further. DBHughes (talk) 07:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've found the "DMOZ" link to be pretty useful so far... the Sliders page most definitely wasn't an "issue" by any stretch, but there are other pages (in TV, cars, etc.) that have had real problems with external links. It seems to address several concerns, especially complaints along the lines of "why isn't my site here if that one is", while still providing easy links to fan pages. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 07:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

reverting uncited edits

Hello Ckatz, you reverted my edit on Terraforming of Mars. I agree with the idea of not to insert original research in Wikipedia. As you can see, the information is (mostly) available in other pages on Wikipedia, already. Some of the information was moved from one page to another, and your reverting destroyed the information. So, I would kindly ask you not to revert whole paragraphs without checking the contents in detail. -- The Cascade (talk) 09:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

There is still a need to provide proper references, and a check of the other pages shows that it wasn't referenced there either. Please try to provide some, as much of the article is unreferenced. --Ckatzchatspy 09:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The date

Hi. I'm trying to bring Degrassi: The Next Generation up to FA status, and I'm having problems with date formatting. I've been doing it the American way as I have been assuming that is the way Canadians do it, but Calendar date#dd/mm/yyyy or dd-mm-yyyy (day, month, year) says either is used. I also noticed you warned User:Robinepowell back in June about changing date formatting (she removes commas in this article so "March 19, 2008" becomes "March 19 2008"). As a Canadian I'm sure you'll be able to help me on this, which format is more widely used? -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 20:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The warnings to RP were a part of a larger issue, rather than any specifics about formatting. (Good to check, though, if you're aiming for FA - hope it goes well!) For your question, I would suggest going with 01 January 2001, and then applying wiki markup to the date as [[01 January]] [[2001]]. That will allow it to appear based on a user's preferences. Hope this helps. --Ckatzchatspy 21:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
But were her edits warranted? Wikipedia:DATE#Full date formatting says "Commas are not required to be used in full format American dates, such as February 14, 1976. Their inclusion or exclusion is a stylistic and editorial preference. Either style is acceptable so long as articles are internally consistent. Editors should follow the method already established in an article, so that if the article has dates with commas, then the commas should be left alone and new dates added to the article should have commas. If the dates in the article do not have commas, then they should not be added to existing dates and new dates should not have them. Where there is disagreement or the article currently has a mix of commas and no commas, then the earliest format used should be respected and the article changed to be consistent with that format." But IrishLass0128 is saying the removal is the right way to go, and placing a warning template on her page was wrong. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh! And thanks for answering about the correct formatting. Is the British version used more than the American way, then? -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Question about copying/moving page histories

Hey again, Ckatz... technical question for you. A while back, when I was still (even more) inexperienced and all, I found that someone had changed information in the article Adam Russell from its current form of a redirect to Story of the Year, to information on a baseball player. Not wanting to just cut-and-paste move that information (especially assuming that those editors interested in the baseball player would be looking for it again), I did a page move to Adam W. Russell (which has since been moved to Adam Russell (baseball)). Anyway, long story short - I didn't realize that ALL of the page history went with the move. Since there used to be a fair amount of information on the original Adam Russell before his page was changed to a redirect to the band he's in, I was wondering if there's any way to copy the page history (either all, or up to and including November 13, 2007) (or split it) back to Adam Russell from Adam Russell (baseball). If not, okay, but I just wanted to check. (I admit to a little personal interest in the case, as I went to high school with the guy.) (My current "remedy" was to leave a note on the Talk page for the original Adam Russell mentioning where the history was, but...) Thanks, --Umrguy42 (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look. It should be possible to split the history, but I'll have to double-check. Might take a while before I can get to it, but I will let you know either way. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 19:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Great, thanks! --Umrguy42 (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Planet of the Odd

Frankly, CK, I did it because I suggested creating the articles several times over the last couple of weeks and each time was told no. Nothing changed since. Obviously it was a silly idea, though. —TreasuryTag—t—c 08:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at WT:WHO which you can contribute to. —TreasuryTag—t—c 09:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we all need to decide on a policy (WT:WHO) and have it written down, because from series to series personal policies seem to change and new people take the reins of artical writing, at the moment TT and I seem to be conflicting.--Wiggs (talk) 11:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:

Hi, thank you. When I asked for the move I didn't realize that there are hundreds of pages. It seemed to be a pretty good idea, but apparently it wasn't so good :) Anyway thank you for fix. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 21:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Jericho the TV series and the Tom Tooman tie in

All due respect- but how is the Tom Tooman saga "not notable," but "Beyond Jericho" is? Tom Tooman was 8 months of follow along the Jericho universe for us fans. There were thousands of players scattered across the globe. I think the Tom Tooman information is pertinent and should stay. I'm open for discussion about this, but deleting the page is unnecessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tygr20 (talk • contribs) 12:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The section (not page) was removed initially because of questions over its notability. Keep in mind that while the game may have had a fair number of players, that does not necessarily mean it warrants inclusion. Given that the series is now over, you may find that a lot of material that is currently in the article (Tom Tooman, Beyond Jericho, etc.) ends up being removed by the editors if there is no indication of lasting importance. However, I've left it in for now after cleaning it up a bit. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 16:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Moving/Copying Page Histories (Pt. 2)

Hey, Ckatz, don't think I'm unhappy with you (I'm not), but I just decided to go ahead and ask about the page history issue for Adam Russell over on WP:ANI. (It's not you, I'm just an impatient type ;D) All the best, and thanks for your help and consideration --Umrguy42 (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Links left on "Concept Schools" "Horizon Science Academy" and "Charter Schools"

Hello, You blocked links that I left on these three pages. I believe that the link is valid. It has everything to do with Horizon Science Academy. Look at the link for yourself.

http://oseasnain.blogspot.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miguelfyi (talk • contribs) 08:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

p.s.

I didn't realize that you were sending me messages. I thought there was an error. I did put the link on one of those pages with spacing. If you still think the link does not belong, you may remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miguelfyi (talk • contribs) 08:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Image Copyright Violations

Hi. I was hoping you could help me with some copyright violations. User:Decumanus/images Most of the images on that page seem to be scanned maps and in use by articles. However, the user seems to have put GNU free licenses on all the images. I don't know where to post them, so I found your name on Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images. XcepticZP (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Request to block user

Hi Ckatz, I've been undoing User talk:24.74.241.111 from continually adding a fan site to the external links in the Jim Sturgess article and was wondering if you could please give a stricter warning to him or her, and perhaps issue a block. I noticed that you have messaged the user several times before but it seems that he or she is making a nuisance on other articles as well. Thank you. IndulgentReader (talk) 06:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the explanation and help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liam.grue (talk • contribs) 02:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

regarding citations on Location scouting

I am the main source for the location scouting page and much of what is on that page has never been written down in one place before.

I would be happy to cite myself and the several location professionals I know who use the the wikipedia location scouting article as an explanation of what they do on their homepages but pointing to my website leaves a lot to be interpreted in the way of self promotion.

The last edit before yours author made several editorial "adjustments" to the page, that judging by the syntax used gives clues the author has little or no expert knowledge of the subject and leads me to ask why other than perhaps boredom and or a personality flaw that individual might have been motivated to seemingly go on a witch hunt on the page including the first citation challenge.

Wikipedia is new territory and there are not 200 years of trade practices related to location scouting - in fact it may be one of a very few trades left where the knowledge is passed on by doing and learning by watching others - as far as I know much of what is on that page hadnt really been written down in one place before

I must say my level of motivation for contributing to Wikipedia has dropped considerably after reviewing the recent edits there on the location scouting page I and others have worked so hard on that seemed to be just fine for many years now till very recently.

rrhobbsR. Richard Hobbs (talk) 02:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Block User Request

Hello Ckatz, I messaged you before about issuing a warning to User talk:24.74.241.111 for which you did, and I'm grateful for it. However, I noticed the user is continuing to vandalize the Jim Sturgess article by continually adding the same fan site despite your warning. Could you please issue a block if possible? Thank you. 17:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


Hi Ckatz, I'm sorry if I'm continually bothering you with all of these requests, but I believe User talk:Moonset is a sock puppet to User talk:24.74.241.111. Both have been continually adding the same spam link on the Jim Sturgess article. Could you please issue a warning or a block? Thanks! IndulgentReader (talk) 01:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No bother - and done. (I'd noticed the connection between the two as well. Thanks for keeping an eye on it.) --Ckatzchatspy 05:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Couple Things

1. Important question - do you know, is it WP *policy* that images on articles MUST BE uploaded to wikipedia (or commons)? I was just wondering, as I removed an IP user's attempt to place a link to an external image into an article, and I left them (what I hope) was a friendly message on their talk encouraging them, assuming the licensing is good, to upload the image to WP. I didn't say it was policy, I said it was "usually a good idea (maybe policy?)". I just thought I'd check on that. (I skimmed through WP:IUP and a couple related pages, didn't see anything explicitly on the subject there.)

According to Wikipedia:Images#Using images (a guideline):
Images on external sites can no longer be linked inline to be publicized on Wikipedia. This is due to several reasons:
* inline linking to images on other sites is often considered "leeching" and is thus rude
* allowing inline image linking makes it easier for vandals to post images from shock sites
* allowing inline image linking makes it easier to introduce copyrighted images in Wikipedia.
* external images are often unreliable
Instead, to place an image on Wikipedia, you will need to upload it.

2. I know you're likely busy and all, with other WP stuff, with stuff IRL... but if you can still be looking at the whole page history issue I mentioned with Adam Russell and Adam Russell (baseball), I'm much obliged.

No problem - thought you;d taken this elsewhere. It is now done. (Always good to learn a new trick!)

3. Thanks. (for everything) --Umrguy42 (talk) 07:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, no problem - feel free to ask any time. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 07:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
1. Okay. Appears to be guideline-shading-to-policy. Good to know, just for future reference. 2. Definitely appreciate it, and glad I could provide a learning experience :D 3. And for that, thanks again --Umrguy42 (talk) 08:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Trivia of Amherst College

I see that you reverted my change to the Amherst College page removing the piece of trivia about the asteroid named after the college. Can you explain why it's relevant to keep it on the article? And perhaps suggest where in the article you think it should go? Thanks! Npdoty (talk) 07:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If you could respond on the Talk:Amherst College page in the appropriate section (at the bottom), that would be great. Thanks. Npdoty (talk) 07:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't delete my page!!! I was in the middle of creating and you deleted my work in less than a minute from the time i created it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20wide (talk • contribs) 05:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

EHC Shenanigans

You may wish to act on the most recent result posted at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/EverybodyHatesChris. As someone familiar with EHC's editing patterns, you'll hear the quacking louder than most. BicMacDad18 (talk · contribs) first edits were to Hogan Knows Best, and he has that same can't bother to preview style and a habit of acting chummy with his other socks when administrators are keeping them down. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 15:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Doctor Who newsletter, March 2008

The Space-Time Telegraph
The WikiProject Doctor Who newsletter
Issue 1 March 2008
Project News
We have five new participants: Sm9800, Seanor3, T saston, Type 40, Jammy0002.
One editor has left the project: StuartDD.
The Doctor Who portal has expanded to increase the number of selected stories to 33.
Articles of note
New featured articles
None
New featured article candidates
New good articles
Delisted articles
None
Proposals
A proposal for changing the layout of the episode pages is under way here.
A discussion about the formatting of the cast lists in episode pages is under way here.
A discussion to move United Nations Intelligence Taskforce to UNIT is under way here.
News
The Torchwood project has become a task-force under the project's scope.
The Torchwood series 2 finale airs on 4th April, and the 4th series of Doctor Who will start to air on 5th April.

For the Doctor Who project, Sceptre (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
You have received this letter because you are on the newsletter recipients list. To opt-out, please remove your name.

Possible stalking by 65.31.98.71

Hello. Recently, I have noticed that this IP has been leaving disruptive comments as you did not respond to an "apology" by him. He has threatened to revealed your personal information. Please take a look at it. If you would like to reply to this message, please do so on my talk page on Simple Wiki. Chenzw (talk · contribs) 11:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

warnings

When you revert link additions as you did here, you might wanna warn the person adding the link. In this case this guy was adding the same link quite extensively, and it helps if they get warned about it somewhere. You can see the full details at m:User:SpamReportBot/cw/iasa.ir. —— nixeagle 19:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Ckatz

Hi There CKatz... i'm responding back to the Telus/TELUS discussion. There is specific documentation within TELUS Legal documents that require TELUS to be be spelt with all CAPS, no matter where it is being used. So i believe that Wikipedia should take this into context and edit appropriately. Just my view, no hard feelings on this but can we not have Wikipedia show this to be correct in their rules? or maybe Wikipedia needs to adjust their editing rules if the company that it is encyclopeding has those rules as a part of their legal constitution.

Can we look into having this changed? That is why TELUS needs to be capitalized....

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coryrob1979 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...!!!

Hey thanks...that was really helpful. I will start using it in the future when I add lazy refs...thanks a lot...i never knew that gadget existed...it makes things much easier.--ChrisisinChrist comments and complaints here! 16:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

i did not make any edit of music of germany how come it sent to me i just started to make a user on wikipedia i never even went on music of germany before! please respond, thanks Halfgirl65 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halfgirl65 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

IP address 159.130.64.3

You were the last person to block this IP for vandalism, and (s)he's been up to it again. Dunno if you have time to do anything about it, but thanks if you do! -Yupik (talk) 13:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

User talk:65.31.98.71

This guy wants to talk to you about his block, apparently. I think he's User:EverybodyHatesChris using his IP again, but I said I'd call you over... Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Vancouver

You are receiveing this message because your name appears on the WikiProject Vancouver Members List. The WikiProject Vancouver is currently having a roll-call; if you are still interested in participating, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Vancouver/Members and remove the asterisk (*) from your name on the list. If you are unavailable your name will be moved to the inactive list on Monday, April 28, 2008. Also the WikiProject is currently discussing some proposed changes on the talk page. Thank you for your time. Mkdwtalk 08:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Vancouver meetup

It is being organized at Wikipedia:WikiProject Vancouver/Meetup 2008. It looks like it will take place on Monday, May 5 evening at Benny's Bagels at Broadway and Larch. Please comment and we hope that you can attend. –thedemonhog talk • edits 03:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, think you could come over to Talk: Planet?

It's getting really weird. I don't want to be doing this alone. I'd rather have a second opinion, whatever it is. Serendipodous 19:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I lost my cool after a while. This guy was beginning to sound a bit like David Irving. Once you realise that the person you are arguing with is basing his beliefs on a totally separate line of inquiry to the one you are familiar with, you cease to be sure of anything. Serendipodous 09:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Who to speak to re page deletion

Hi Ckatz,

I created a page for We7 an ad-supported music service that has been gaining a lot of traction in the recent month, a music service that is easily comparable to other services like Last.fm, SpiralFrog. We7 is one of the first music site, to offer free legal and DRM-free music and therefore has stirred a lot of discussions and interests in the music industry.

Unfortunately, it has been taken down today due to following reason.

A tag has been placed on We7 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content.

I understand your policy I just wanted to point out to you or other admins here that you already have Last.fm SpiralFrog on wikipedia, which makes me think why We7 page can't be equally represented on Wikipedia.

I'd be grateful if you can give me some sort of guidance on this.

Many thanks,

JCummins —Preceding unsigned comment added by JCummuns (talk • contribs) 15:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Technical Surveillance Counter-Measures

Ckatz, I see from your user page that you are an experienced editor; therefore, I'm a bit hesitant to leave the standard Uw-delete1 template in response to your recent edit to Technical Surveillance Counter-Measures. Still, I trust you realize why removing 2,431 bytes from an article while marking it as a "minor edit" and leaving a cryptic edit summary of "rm. EL" would be problematic, to say the least. Could you explain your rational for the edit in Talk:Technical Surveillance Counter-Measures, and then we can work to improve the article? Thanks! -- JeffBillman (talk) 15:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow... glad you caught that, as it certainly wasn't what was intended; I'd only meant to undo a spammed external link in that article and several others. Seems the utility I was using did something other than what it reported, so I'll review the other edits as well. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, and sorry for the inconvenience. --Ckatzchatspy 19:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, understood. No worries, then. Happy editing! -- JeffBillman (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Question about a page

Hey Ckatz... I brought this to you, knowing that you're an admin and having interacted with you before, since I wasn't sure what the appropriate noticeboard might be (possibly ANI, but not sure)... so, feel free to move this there if you figure it out.

Anyway, here's the scoop:

My watchlist includes Doctor Who (as well as a few associated articles). I've noticed several times in the past few weeks the move-vandalism of that page to some incredibly long name, but which includes the term "Britfags". After finding a discussion on WP:AN, in which the title blacklist is being discussed, I went and looked at the current listing, wondering about other terms that might improve things by their improvement (profanities, etc.) (I realize such inclusions might be problematic in light of reasonable uses, i.e., album and song names, book titles, etc.). Anyway...

So (coming to my point) - wondering about that term being used, I decided to see if there was in fact a page on Britfag - there is, and of more concern, it's a redirect to British people, which would make it seem an attack page to me. Is this possibly a candidate for speedy deletion? Or even regular deletion? (Possibly followed by "salting" the page against recreation to prevent future abuse?)

Anyway, for now, I'm gonna hang a CSD tag on it for the G10 (attack page) criteria, but I'd appreciate a more experienced set of eyes & opinion on it. Thanks, --Umrguy42 (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, it looks like another admin thought so too, it's since been speedied. But anyway, would appreciate your thoughts on situations like these, whether to keep going to WP:CSD, or what (not that I normally go looking, but...). Anyway, thanks again. --Umrguy42 (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Claude (Heroes)

To: Tone, The no erz, Ckatz

Hi. Can someone please merge Claude to List of minor Heroes characters with special abilities ? I think we agreed with that but never happened. The article lacks any real world information and its mainly plot description.

Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 07:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I performed the merge today. -- 19:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Pluto.jpg

Re this edit, what pending discussion are you referring to? As a new administrator, are you aware of WP:NFCC and how it is applicable? Specifically, I point you to criteria 1: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." We have Image:Hst pluto cropped.png, a free equivalent. It's a far suckier image, but it's free, and in most of the articles it serves the same purpose: displaying Pluto. Thus, we are required to use that one instead. I left the pretty image in the Pluto article, if you notice, since that's really the only place where its use can be justified. Please feel free to revert your reverts when you read this. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 16:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

With respect to the image, it is important to discuss a change of this nature first because there are several issues with regards to the replacement. The replacement images have been retouched (by a Wikipedia editor) and cropped, and were actually mislabelled in some instances as being "Pluto and Charon". (According to the official source, the two discs are both Pluto.) Furthermore, this is not a question of using a "prettier" image, as evidenced by the number of comments about the "disco ball" (Image:Pluto.jpg). Despite these complaints, we have used that image because it does better serve the "encyclopedic purpose". The original is a more accurate representation of Pluto, being a true-colour image. --Ckatzchatspy 19:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes it is a more accurate representation, but it's non-free so you can't just use it across articles willy-nilly. In most of these articles, it's just in a table and its purpose is to just show Pluto. Well, the suckier image also does the same job; the licensing of the photo takes precedence over the encyclopedic purpose. howcheng {chat} 20:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Contact juggling page Undo

Good Day,

I am newish to Wikipedia and as such get easily confused.
I recently made a single change to the Contact juggling page to give proper credit to Sphereplay which is trademarked.
I discussed it in the discussion page and then later made the edit.
Today I stop by and my edit has resulted in someone else removing all references to other names for the art form.
Since I am new to updating pages I would love to find out if there is an actual reason that a nameless IP address removed everything in the 'Names' section because I added the proper trademark notification. I would also like to find out how I can change it back without it being removed 2 minutes later by another nameless IP address
Thanks for your help.--RichShumaker (talk) 23:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit war regarding use of flags

This message is being left for both parties - please stop edit warring over the use of flags in the television template. This is a content dispute; reverting one another over and over is more detrimental to the project than the presence (or lack thereof) of an image. Both of you are in danger of violating the [[WP:3RR|three-revert guideline today; CJ2005B may already have done so. As well, to correct Islander, the template instructions are simply that - instructions for use. They do not mandate the use of a flag icon, nor should they be considered as being on the same level as an official guideline. --Ckatzchatspy 23:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL, Your a bit late! Already over, sorry! CJ2005B (talk) 23:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh and for the record, I made sure I didnt break 3RR. Note to Islander - Loved your edit summary when you removed that warning from your talk page! It was really funny. I would give a barnstar for it, but I fear you might not accept it! Anyway, it was bloody funny! Nice one CJ2005B (talk) 23:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I somehow don't think that a barnstar would be appropriate here :P. Still, I thank you for your kind sentiments ;). We're going to have to agree to disagree when it comes to this matter (and, for the record, I completely disagree with Ckatz, but there you go). You seem a decent chap, and I know I am ( :P ), so here's hoping we just got off to an appalling start, and can put this behind us ;). TalkIslander 00:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
The edit war being "already over" (and Islander's being a sysop) aren't really relevant - the note was still valid. I'll emphasize, however, that it was just a note, not a warning or a template. If you've resolved it between yourselves, great, I was only trying to stop the back-and-forth on the page. However, since it has been brought up, I'm curious to ask Islander why he/she (sorry) "completely disagrees" with me. (I'm presuming it is in regards to the template-guideline comparison.) --Ckatzchatspy 08:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I only referenced my sysop status to make obvious the fact that I know 3RR, and don't need to be told about it. I certainly didn't mean to imply that I am immune to 3RR, or anything like that, so sorry for any confusion there. As for the edit war being over, it is kinda relevant - if there the problems have ended on their own, no need to jump in. In response to your question (and, for your reference, I'm a 'he' :P ), take a look at WP:GUIDE. "...guidelines are more advisory in nature". To me, this suggests that in general guidelines should be followed, but common sense should also be used. In this instance, common sense suggests that the template instructions should be followed. You state "...official guidelines..." - they're no more or less official than the template instructions, both are written by the users of Wikipedia. Appologies CJ2005B for taking over your talk page. TalkIslander 10:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, but guidelines do have a higher status (if you will) than template instructions, as a guideline must reach consensus to become a guideline. (The template documentation is just that - instructions on how to use the code - and does not have the same weight. (As well, the template instructions do not say onemust use a flag, or even that flags are recommended. They only give a link to where you can find flag templates.) --Ckatzchatspy 15:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Islander's admin status may not be relevent at the moment, but should this escalate, more than likely it would come into play (based on experience). And an edit war is an issue whether or not it is currently active - does anyone really think this issue is over? Also, there is still obvious disagreement on some other matters, i.e. guidelines vs. templates etc.72.92.4.157 (talk) 13:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys...I bumped into this conversation on another user's page, and because I've done the same thing myself I want to ask--am I correct in my interpretation that flag icons are generally NOT supposed to be used in infoboxes?? I've removed quite a few, so if I'm doing something wrongly I'd like to know about it! Gladys J Cortez 01:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Was/Is

Hello Ckatz

How are you doing? Despite guide lines I think it would be in the articles interest to have was, apart from what Wikipedia says by the book what is your personal opinion on the matter? Regards Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 21:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Saw Loser Wiki

Hello,

I am contacting you because Ive been trying to make a Wiki page for a band called Saw Loser. I had gotten your message that I need to contact and ask for advice through the Wikipedia Music project page. I am completely new to WIki and was wondering if you could tell me how to do this.

Thank you :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reneerenee88 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Mark Crysell

I Really appreaciate the job admin do on wikipedia but i fell Canadians would not want to look at N.Z media articles though Newzealanders do —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tshiels1 (talk • contribs) 06:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Canadian units

Hi. All I saw in the references was a the equivalent in Canadian units of a U.S. fl. oz. That might conceivably be there as a convenience rather than an indication that U.S. units are authorized. I think it's likely U.S. units are allowed, but I don't see where that's mentioned in the references given. Joeldl (talk) 08:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It is in Section 11.2, stated as "Metric units must be used or, metric units and any other equivalent unit of measurement, provided that the metric units are displayed more prominently." (The relevant text is in bold text for emphasis.) Hope this helps. --Ckatzchatspy 08:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
All right then, but that means there's nothing special about U.S. measures, then. One could use customary Chinese measures, it seems. Joeldl (talk) 09:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Dave McRae

Hello:

With the explanation, I see some of the areas of concern that you are talking about. However, it was written this way to reflect a lot of Wikipedia's articles reflecting people with in the entertainment industry.

Non the less, It would be greatly appreciated of a better angle and suggestions.. perhaps an example..

Linda Randall —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.151.137 (talk) 22:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Emily Sullivan

An article that you have been involved in editing, Emily Sullivan, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Sullivan. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Magioladitis (talk) 06:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


Jarothbart (talk) 05:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC) Hello. You deleted GroupSwim Collaboration while I was adding information to the Talk section. Can you please undelete the article and/or review the talk page. You did not give me a chance to explain the entry.

List of BC uni's

I thought we weren't putting any of them on the list. GreenJoe 20:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for copy of article "Rice!"

Hello, I am Neod4000, and I joint created an article about a band which got speedily deleted, and due to time zones and things, I was not able to respond or do anything as it got deleted when it was 3 o clokc in the morning over here. However, all this aside, I would like to request a copy of the (ex)-page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice%21 if this is at all possible. I would not be intending to remake the article myself, and only want it for archival purposes, namely due to the fact that it was my first artile written, even if it did contradict guidelines.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neod4000 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Because they are either of poor quality or have really nothing to do with things. If you think there should be license plate image replace them with the ones from Canadian license plate designs and serial formats since they aren't garbage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fail Fail Fail Fail (talk • contribs) 21:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, some of those images were stolen from elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fail Fail Fail Fail (talk • contribs) 21:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I am replacing the images from the aforementioned page and putting them in a more relevant section of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fail Fail Fail Fail (talk • contribs) 21:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Spam Link

Hi,

I have been engaged in an effort to revert a series of edits that link to [5]. As you can see from Special:Contributions/70.79.114.83 this link has been added to a variety of articles that seem to be calculated to promote the outside web page rather than to develop Wikipedia. Seems to me to violate WP:LINKSPAM. You added the link back to Steveston, British Columbia when the source of this link added it and then deleted it. You commented that there was no explanation given for the deletion. I am not sure why the spammer backed down. My own view is that such sites are link farms under the guise of information sources and that wikipedia should not be used to promote them. Could you have a look at the situation and let me know what you think? Thanks. -- ````

Hello... yes, we've been tracking and reverting the same person/link. However, the revert you're referring to actually involved the URL www.steveston.bc.ca; the spammer (after having his/her handiwork removed yet again) deleted that link out of what I can only assume is spite. --Ckatzchatspy 08:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I see that. So you have added it back after he deleted it. Why?--KenWalker | Talk 08:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I see, it is a different site. Scrap my questions/concerns. Sorry! --KenWalker | Talk 08:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
No problem, always happy to answer questions. Thanks for getting rid of today's spam, by the way. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 08:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If I understand all this back and forth spam talk, which seems to involve me and my site, let me clarify the situation. First off, I kept re-adding my link because I assumed it was being removed by my competition at [6] as she's repeatedly sent me threatening and abusive emails. It wasn't until yesterday, May 19, while searching for someone with whom to file a complaint (still haven't found it), that I discovered all this social stuff, which I had no knowledge, interest or time for. I've never ventured beyond the main Steveston page, and others, other than to post paragraphs to the main article or add my external link. Every link posted had a right to be there, especially for the Steveston page. I have subject matter relating to each and every page linked to, though admittedly, didn't link to the page which directly related to each and every Wikipedia page, where I sometimes used my home link.

As for the Steveston page, if anyone had ever taken the time to click and look, it is COMPLETELY involved with everything Steveston to a degree that even my more entrenched--21 years to my 3--colleague who you allow to link, can't match.

You allow my link to remain on the Richmond, BC page--Steveston is a historic neighborhood of Richmond--but keep nixing it on the page it most closely relates to, which is Steveston. So, before running around Wikipedia labeling myself as a spammer, and my website as a link farm, try clicking on the link to see what kind of site it truly is.

I DO NOT SPAM knowingly, nor is this site or any I own a link farm. My links were added to provide more information on the page subject and to make Wikipedia an even more informative resource on various topics covered by my website. It wasn't for the traffic I receive from such links, as it is minimal. I apologize for the confusion in assuming it was my competition deleting my links, as she wishes to retire and my site has not helped her situation--has devaluated hers as it's so all encompassing--but seeing as I can't even use my Wikipedia account, as the login refuses to let me in, and when I try to create a new account using my login data I'm told the account is taken or in use, I was in the dark as to what was really happening.

Now, how does one clean up this mess so one can link to provide up-to-date info in an external site, or would you prefer to remain with the link to what has degraded, in comparison, to a second-grade resource on the subject of Steveston. I have no problem with her site being listed, as well, but when my superior resource link kept disappearing I just assumed it was her removing my link, given the nasty emails received from her. Dave Davis--70.79.114.83 (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

external link removal

I added an external link which you deleted

As I read the policy

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links

the external link was well behaved. It does point to a great deal of 3D mapping for the region. Also, while the target is not GPL, it is free of any charge and so less commercial than, say,

 http://www.whistlerblackcomb.com/

a totally commercial site designed to promote and accept payment for Intrawest's resort services.

Could you please explain if I misunderstand the policy?

Ata. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.66.227 (talk) 17:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I now realize you have also removed this link:

  *EarthDetails.com Canadian Topographic Maps in 3D

from

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_peaks_of_Canada

Do you realize that there is an external link to

  http://www.bivouac.com/

This is a website that totally charges for its content. On EarthDetails everything is free of charge and every mountain in Canada is mapped in 3D, none of that available on Bivouac. Why so biased. Please explain and please post a comment explaining the reason when you remove things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.66.227 (talk) 02:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Gatchaman Titles

  • I believe that Eagle Riders (1996 TV series) should have the new title Eagle Riders as it keeps redirecting to Battle of the Planets. Since I have written an article about the show and shown provided evidence of its existence. Dwanyewest (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

jacque parizeau article

there is a consensus on the jacques parizeau page about the edits I made, stop changing it please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.172.154 (talk) 21:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Superbird Links

I saw that briefly there were links added on the Plymouth Superbird page to the aerowarriors website, and then removed. I'm curious why they were removed. The Aerowarriors site is a non-profit, private-run site which is by far the best archive of Superbird/Daytona/Talladega information on the web...I'm not affiliated with that site but have met the guy who runs it and there's not a person out there with more pictures, videos, Nascar rule books, etc on their site...

Just wondering why the edit.

198.97.67.59 (talk) 17:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC) Jason Snowden darkmage@gmail.com http://www.geekpinions.com/

Spam Link

Hi,

I have been engaged in an effort to revert a series of edits that link to [7]. As you can see from Special:Contributions/70.79.114.83 this link has been added to a variety of articles that seem to be calculated to promote the outside web page rather than to develop Wikipedia. Seems to me to violate WP:LINKSPAM. You added the link back to Steveston, British Columbia when the source of this link added it and then deleted it. You commented that there was no explanation given for the deletion. I am not sure why the spammer backed down. My own view is that such sites are link farms under the guise of information sources and that wikipedia should not be used to promote them. Could you have a look at the situation and let me know what you think? Thanks. -- ````

Hello... yes, we've been tracking and reverting the same person/link. However, the revert you're referring to actually involved the URL www.steveston.bc.ca; the spammer (after having his/her handiwork removed yet again) deleted that link out of what I can only assume is spite. --Ckatzchatspy 08:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I see that. So you have added it back after he deleted it. Why?--KenWalker | Talk 08:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I see, it is a different site. Scrap my questions/concerns. Sorry! --KenWalker | Talk 08:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
No problem, always happy to answer questions. Thanks for getting rid of today's spam, by the way. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 08:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If I understand all this back and forth spam talk, which seems to involve me and my site, let me clarify the situation. First off, I kept re-adding my link because I assumed it was being removed by my competition at [8] as she's repeatedly sent me threatening and abusive emails. It wasn't until yesterday, May 19, while searching for someone with whom to file a complaint (still haven't found it), that I discovered all this social stuff, which I had no knowledge, interest or time for. I've never ventured beyond the main Steveston page, and others, other than to post paragraphs to the main article or add my external link. Every link posted had a right to be there, especially for the Steveston page. I have subject matter relating to each and every page linked to, though admittedly, didn't link to the page which directly related to each and every Wikipedia page, where I sometimes used my home link.

As for the Steveston page, if anyone had ever taken the time to click and look, it is COMPLETELY involved with everything Steveston to a degree that even my more entrenched--21 years to my 3--colleague who you allow to link, can't match.

You allow my link to remain on the Richmond, BC page--Steveston is a historic neighborhood of Richmond--but keep nixing it on the page it most closely relates to, which is Steveston. So, before running around Wikipedia labeling myself as a spammer, and my website as a link farm, try clicking on the link to see what kind of site it truly is.

I DO NOT SPAM knowingly, nor is this site or any I own a link farm. My links were added to provide more information on the page subject and to make Wikipedia an even more informative resource on various topics covered by my website. It wasn't for the traffic I receive from such links, as it is minimal. I apologize for the confusion in assuming it was my competition deleting my links, as she wishes to retire and my site has not helped her situation--has devaluated hers as it's so all encompassing--but seeing as I can't even use my Wikipedia account, as the login refuses to let me in, and when I try to create a new account using my login data I'm told the account is taken or in use, I was in the dark as to what was really happening.

Now, how does one clean up this mess so one can link to provide up-to-date info in an external site, or would you prefer to remain with the link to what has degraded, in comparison, to a second-grade resource on the subject of Steveston. I have no problem with her site being listed, as well, but when my superior resource link kept disappearing I just assumed it was her removing my link, given the nasty emails received from her. Dave Davis--70.79.114.83 (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

external link removal

I added an external link which you deleted

As I read the policy

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links

the external link was well behaved. It does point to a great deal of 3D mapping for the region. Also, while the target is not GPL, it is free of any charge and so less commercial than, say,

 http://www.whistlerblackcomb.com/

a totally commercial site designed to promote and accept payment for Intrawest's resort services.

Could you please explain if I misunderstand the policy?

Ata. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.66.227 (talk) 17:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I now realize you have also removed this link:

  *EarthDetails.com Canadian Topographic Maps in 3D

from

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_peaks_of_Canada

Do you realize that there is an external link to

  http://www.bivouac.com/

This is a website that totally charges for its content. On EarthDetails everything is free of charge and every mountain in Canada is mapped in 3D, none of that available on Bivouac. Why so biased. Please explain and please post a comment explaining the reason when you remove things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.66.227 (talk) 02:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Gatchaman Titles

  • I believe that Eagle Riders (1996 TV series) should have the new title Eagle Riders as it keeps redirecting to Battle of the Planets. Since I have written an article about the show and shown provided evidence of its existence. Dwanyewest (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

jacque parizeau article

there is a consensus on the jacques parizeau page about the edits I made, stop changing it please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.172.154 (talk) 21:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Superbird Links

I saw that briefly there were links added on the Plymouth Superbird page to the aerowarriors website, and then removed. I'm curious why they were removed. The Aerowarriors site is a non-profit, private-run site which is by far the best archive of Superbird/Daytona/Talladega information on the web...I'm not affiliated with that site but have met the guy who runs it and there's not a person out there with more pictures, videos, Nascar rule books, etc on their site...

Just wondering why the edit.

198.97.67.59 (talk) 17:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC) Jason Snowden darkmage@gmail.com http://www.geekpinions.com/

Monotone (common) Help

Hi, sorry to bother you. User Orangemike deleted the stub on this topic that I started, so that we would have a place to define some (the most) common uses of "monotone" none of which are covered in any of our articles. I tried to explain in detail where it was headed and don't seem to be getting anywhere. Could you kindly help and explain to me how I should proceed. I don't try to be contentious. But apparently I'm being told that this word "doesn't mean" what is described in the dictionary, (?!) while it does mean something that try as I might I can't fit to any of the uses that I've spent (wasted) many of my working hours on? BTW just looking at the dictionary definition doesn't help with figuring out exactly what features make something monotonous. What am I getting wrong? How could I help create the space for answers to common questions on "monotony" to be collected/presented in wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisa4edit (talk • contribs) 01:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC) Lisa4edit (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Scrubs redirect

In reply to [9], you said:

Hello... regarding your message, I appreciate your concern - but it would have been more appropriate to enquire as to the situation rather than just assuming the worst. I'm certainly not interested in edit warring, nor do I personally care about where the redirect goes. However, there was an established consensus as to where the redirect should go, and the page has been plagued with multiple changes since then (usually from newer editors who aren't aware of the consensus.) Part of an administrator's role is to ensure consensus reached through discussion is maintained, and that involves using our discretion to do so. In this case, it is clear that leaving the page redirected to the TV series will not achieve that goal. Accordingly, the best choice is to protect the consensus version. If you disagree, I'm happy to discuss it with you - and I do apologize if my edit summary wasn't clear as to my intentions. However, I still feel that there is no need whatsoever to suggest a "misuse" of the admin bit when a thorough examination of the details clearly reveals it is not. --Ckatzchatspy 20:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The details are exceptionally clear: you have reverted all-comers Scrubs since August 2007, on 5 separate occasions. Most recently, you did so to a version which you have repeatedly preferred and you did so through a full protection. The protection policy is absolutely clear on the point, at WP:PROT#Content disputes. It is also clear that the most recent version is the one that should be protected unless it contains vandalism or other overtly unacceptable content.
I would be interested in seeing the truly extraordinary discussion that you think licenses such an opposite approach as the one you are taking - in neither of the two discussions (Talk:Scrub#scrubS should undoubtably redirect and Talk:Scrubs (TV series)#Scrubs) I can find on the matter is such an exceptional position displayed. You should not have edited the article using your admin tools when it was fully protected, and I am rather shocked that you have just "yes, I should have". Again, I'm going to invite you to undo yourself and respect the policy. If you do not, I will enforce the policy myself until a discussion settles on a particular destination for the redirect. Splash - tk 21:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC) (PS, this being about you, I would prefer to have the conversation on your talk page.)
There was a decision to move the article about clothing and redirect Scrubs to the disambiguation page Scrub in 2006, with no objection from the regulars on the medical article. There was also a decision in 2007 at the TV article to keep Scrubs pointing to the disambiguation page. While those were both short conversations, there has not been any pressure from the regulars at either article to change the redirect/disambiguation setup. There also been a consistent pattern in which regular editors have reverted to maintain the redirect/disambiguation after it was changed without discussion to the TV show by a series of IPs and newer editors.
Look, this really shouldn't be such a big deal. I can assure you that it is certainly not meant as any sort of comment on your move to protect the page. I'll revert myself if you wish, but I really think you should open a discussion on the matter - or at least make some sort of mention of it - on the talk page. Otherwise, the page remains locked, there's no clear explanation of why, and the regulars who have been working under consensus are left in the dark. --Ckatzchatspy 22:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
There's an explanation for why in the protection log, so noone is in the dark. I know your edit is no comment on my protection of the page; but that's also not what I'm talking about. You just must not edit through protection in the way that you did. I'm going to leave this now, and unprotect it. Splash - tk 12:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

From Jreconomy

Hi CKatz I received your message The research from IBISWorld reports is completely objective (based on econmic trends and research so I'm not trying to promote any product in particular). I have access to IBISWorld's economic/encyclopedic information when it is published so it is simple for me to upload it.

I understand your criticism though so I will refrain from writing "IBISWorld' when uploading content on to wiki pages.

--Jreconomy (talk) 07:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC) Thanks Jreconomy

Template:Geographic Location

I am not sure why you reverted my edits. I made those changes because I found them useful. I am sure others will as well. Additionally, they did not take up any extra space, since that space had been blank beforehand. Please revert back. --Eliyak T·C 21:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

In principle, the idea is interesting. However, the template itself is not designed for such a fine degree of directional input, nor is it appropriate given the constraints imposed by the typial Wikipedia page. (For example, while you've squeezed in the directions you did, there's not really any room to add their counterparts that require horizontal space.) This template is only intended to give an approximate indication of where other cities are. --Ckatzchatspy 22:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not advocating expanding the template size. I only want to make better use of the space available. The other four direction possibilities need not be available at all, but people will still benefit from being able to use these four. What does it matter what the template is "intended" to do? That is open to change. --Eliyak T·C 22:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I have re-reverted. --Eliyak T·C 14:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The changes have been removed again, pending discussion. (I've asked the other editor who maintains the template to comment as well.) Again, the addition of the additional points is not necessary, and does not improve the template in its current form. In fact, it actually complicates the design, as it is nearly impossible to differentiate between the different positions given the coarse resolution possible with a text-based template system. (This is especially true with longer entries that tend to wrap.) If you still feel strongly about his, I would suggest you open a discussion on the template page to get input from other editors. --Ckatzchatspy 17:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Screenplay software article consistency

Hi Ckatz,

I noticed your edits to the Scripped article and removal of information you described as "trivial." I understand that the article cannot be used for advertising, but if you look at the field of other articles on screenwriting software, such practice is very common. For examples, please see the company articles linked from: List_of_screenwriting_software and especially Zhura, which I largely based my Scripped article on.

Have you found trivial information on these articles as well?

I would appreciate your thoughts. Thanks. Rbucks (talk) 13:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Mount Seymour

Why did you remove my Mount Seymour link to ShredBC?

www.shredbc.com/resorts/seymour/


-D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.196.240 (talk) 18:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Reverting Scripped page

Hi Ckatz,

Not sure what was meant by your silence, but now nonvocalscream has posted us for deletion, presumably because you took a bunch of content off our page and now it lacks purpose.

Furthermore, there are a bunch of other screenwriting software pages on Wikipedia. You can see them at List_of_Screenwriting_Software. Will you guys delete all of us?

I hope to hear from you soon. Thanks. Rbucks (talk) 02:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Ckatz, I feel like a squeaky wheel, but I'm confused. Check out Celtx, Movie Magic Screenwriter and Zhura and you'll see feature sections with same material that I described. What makes their features more notable than ours? You'll see it's the same stuff. Rbucks (talk) 05:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Is/Was in The Black Donnellys

I reverted your edit back to was. After chatting with a few editors to make sure, the proper way to state a show that formerly aired is using "was". Have a good day :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 17:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. However, the correct wording (per Wikipedia convention) is to retain the present tense. Creative works are considered to exist even after ceasing production. --Ckatzchatspy 17:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Ahh kay, I started a talk page discussion, and came here to tell you about it then saw this. Can you link me to that naming convention? I gotta go for right now. I will keep this page up for when I get home from work.<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 18:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

why did you remove the BowenTV link?

please explain... do you own this site?

sincerely BowenTV www.bowenislandtv.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.82.101.100 (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The link was removed because it does not meet the external links guideline. Ths is not a comment on the quality of your site, merely a reflection of the fact that Wikipedia is not intended to serve as a directory service. Hope this helps. --Ckatzchatspy 22:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

link removal

Hi, you removed the link to my site from your newsletter entry. If you look at the site - http://www.internal-communications.info there's actually a useful guide on how to write and produce newsletters and other communications materials. Considering your entry consists of nothing more than a brief dictionary definition, then I would have thought this was a useful link as many people who look up your entry will be looking for the sort of advice that my site provides. I shall be grateful if you will reconsider and replace the link.

Thanks

Harris Johns

81.174.162.37 (talk) 07:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Date formatting in Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood

Sir,

You recently reverted several changes I made in date formats in Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood. I feel that the reversion was unwarranted. I have replied to your assertion on the talk page.
At the least I maintain that the date in the quotation should not be subject to autoformatting.
The date ranges were recently changed from a compact form, to a form with repetition of month names, which reduces readability. The MOS seems to imply that this is not preferred.
The single dates are another matter; the MOS suggests that articles of localized interest may use a single fixed format throughout, though there is no suggestion that this is preferred.
Please reply with a further explication of which changes you will allow and which you won't. Cstaffa (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Just curious...

Why did you block the article for The Sound of Drums (Doctor Who)? I was actually making useful, non-warring edits. Mael-Num (talk) 23:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC) ...And more importantly, why a week? That's highly irregular. Mael-Num (talk) 00:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I figured it would be more appropriate to answer your question here. It's from a song. I didn't mean that you were levelling an ultimatum at anyone, and I hope you didn't take it to mean I was making an ultimatum to you.

Would have been a pretty lame ultimatum if it were.  ;)

Thanks again for the reply. Mael-Num (talk) 00:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi; as a side-note to that, could I ask you to read through the talkpage discussion if you've not done so? I know it's a lot, but the comments and edit-summaries left by Mael are atrociously rude, attempting to score minor debating points ("if you're going to point at the founder of Wikipedia at least spell his name right"/"In the interests of AGF, I'll assume that you're actually a moron, and not willfully ignorant").
While I'm grateful for you to (perhaps accidentally) protecting what is undoubtedly the "right version" :p I honestly don't believe that a meaningful and constructive discussion can take place with Mael's attitude. Aside from anything, while you're obviously not allowed to comment on the issue at hand having protected it, I'm sure you'll reach an opinion on the issue, and it will be similar to either mine or Mael's... And I can guess which one :-) That wasn't too obsequious, was it? ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 07:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I really don't mind if Ckatz offers an opinion, even if he (?) blocked the article. Despite my ability to prattle on about WP:This and WP:That, I'm not much of a stickler for rules, particularly ones which exclude people from participating. The more the merrier. Mael-Num (talk) 08:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The X-Files: I Want to Believe

Hi, Ckatz! Could you explain to me why you keep reverting the page about The X-Files: I Want to Believe? Your first deletion was acceptable, as you were removing speculation (I'd forgotten that speculation was discouraged at Wikipedia, as I'm much more used to Wikia and Memory Alpha - being an administrator at the latter and the iniator of currently the only Wiki about The X-Files). There was absolutely no reason for your latest revert of the page, however, as I rewrote the text without speculation and you provided no explanation for your revert. What's going on with you?! --Scififan714 (talk) 10:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Regarding the revert, keep in mind that it was a case of an anonymous IP editor whose only two edits were to 1) add speculative trivia, then 2) restore that trivia without explanation after it was removed. As for the information, it is non-notable trivia, as explained by the other editor who reverted your text. Hope this helps. --Ckatzchatspy 18:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I had a feeling we'd be able to settle this amicably and we have, so that's cool! :-) Is there someplace I can learn about the guidelines of what is acceptable here? Wikipedia seems a lot stricter on what is acceptable than Wikia sites (perhaps due to the quantity of users making edits to Wikipedia pages)! Also, I have realized that registered users are more "respected" than unregistered ones, so I have signed up for Wikipedia as, though I don't make many edits to this site, it still has its uses (which I would say are limited as, IMHO, it's incomplete - for example, the information I tried to add was removed)! Are there any help pages for Wikipedia? Your assistance would be much appreciated (sorry if I'm rambling)! --Scififan714 (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Grrr!

WHY IS WIKIPEDIA PREDATORIZING ME WITH MY IP ADDRESS?! SHOULDN'T THAT BE ILLEGAL TO PREDATORIZE OTHER USERS WITH THEIR IP ADDRESS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.235.74 (talk) 20:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your question is. I'll presume that you are referring to the fact that your edits are listed under your IP address. That is because you have chosen to edit anonymously, without registering. All edits must be logged under the licence used for Wikipedia's content; if you prefer not to display your IP, just click on the "Log in/Create account" button. (Registering also allows you to have a personal talk page, create a watchlist for pages you've edited and/or wish to follow, and so on.) Please feel free to ask if you have any questions about this. --Ckatzchatspy 22:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)