User talk:Ckatz/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions about 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 8

Annoying Orange

Re your edit summary [1] - Yes there is indeed reason to remove the full section- actually multiple reasons: WP:V there are no sources cited for any of the information, WP:NPOV/WP:OR without any sources cited, the commentaries are strictly wikipedia editors personal opinions and therefore original research an POV violations; the excessive detail is WP:FANCRUFT with the sections going into excessive detail appropriate for a fansite, but not an encyclopedia article. Please revert yourself or address the concerns by providing appropriate third party sources and analysis. Active Banana (^bananaphone 18:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I have to disagree with certain aspects of what you have said. While I can appreciate the issues you've identified, this is not a trivia section, but a section about the characters presented in a series. Most well-developed articles about series will incorporate such a section, which is why I felt that the wholesale deletion of the material was not appropriate. As you may have noted by now, I have started trimming and cleaning up the individual entries to remove commentary and focus on facts. I will need assistance from editors who are more familiar with the show in verifying some details from show content. --Ckatz^chat _spy 18:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Optimussolo

Hey Ckatz, I have tried contacting you three or four times over the last 5 months or so and still have not had a response, have you not received any of the messages??

Optimussolo (talk) 08:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This is a message to inform you that your name has been removed from from the list of Wikipedia Signpost subscribers. Do not worry; this is simply a method of reforming the Signpost so that automated bots do not fill up retired users' talk pages with Signpost subscriptions (see discussion here) and to make life easier for the Signpost. If you wish to re-receive subscriptions, please send a reconfirmation edit to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Subscribe by signing with

MessageDeliveryBot [you can also use a user talk subpage (like
MessageDeliveryBot, replacing SUBPAGE with the subpage for the delivery), but this won't trigger your "New messages" bar.] Thank you for understanding.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of TeleComNasSprVen (talk) at 06:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC).

You removed 80% of my writeup on HP EliteBook on Dec 17.

It took me several hours to fill this dead beat article about the HP EliteBook family. Important and "encyclopaedic" details such as the DreamColor 2 IPS screens and other features were removed. What sort of editing is this? Compare this article to the Dell Latitude article filled with excruciating level of details. The HP EliteBook series are the premium laptops, and there are details that set them apart from the average business class machines. These details are important. I hope that you can spend some quality time bringing back the pertinent details. My contribution was cut like 80% and then again by another user shortly after. Such editing (from the admin) is discouraging for content contributors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.148.190.26 (talk) 14:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You responded but not to the right part

Ok, you finally responded :) but you responded to the original post and not to all of these that were made later...

Hey Ckatz thanks for getting back to me. As I am basically new here I tried reading up on some of the rules and guidlines but kind of find wiki to not be th emost user friendly place in the world unless you want to read novels j/k. But in all seriousness I apologize for any hassle myself or the site has given you.

It was my understanding that wiki allows external links that provide content that wiki cannot and since we provide both visual and audio samples of all these voice actors that you cannot find anywhere else on the web that it would be worth a link. We are much different than your everday voice actor database like voicechasers etc in that respect. That being said I do understand the conflict of interest angle. However, I notice that IMDB is linked on just about every voice actors page which begs the question.

1. How do we eventually find a way to get that priviledge when our content is usually much more extensive and accurate than IMDB for voice acting since they are so broad and we focus solely on the voice actors.

I appreciate and thank you in advance for any help you can provide.

Can you help me out at all here Ckatz with any additional information?

98.213.114.196 (talk) 22:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Ckatz I am not trying to be rude but it has been about a month since I posted these questions and I am very anxiously awaiting your response.

Optimussolo (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It has been almost 6 months now...

Optimussolo (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The Sliders article and user 144.230.191.36

I see you've noticed the change on the Doorways article, but user 144.230.191.36 seems to be taking sole ownership of the Sliders article by making massive changes and guarding them. I agree with some of the changes, but it's becoming apparent that he or she doesn't seem to care what others think; and it's a little alarming that this attitude is coupled with a wish to be completely anonymous. I think it's verging on vandalism at the most and edit warring at the least. DBHughes (talk) 19:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Canadian provincial infoboxes

Please join the discussions, instead of just reverting. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you were the one removing them; it would have been best to stop when you were initially reverted, instead of removing the names repeatedly. --Ckatz^chat _spy 20:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

French isn't an official provincinal language of PEI or BC, so the provincial names shouldn't be in French 'until' a provincial source is provided. GoodDay (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The section in the infobox doesn't say official provincial langauges, it says official languages. In Canada, both are official. -DJSasso (talk) 20:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

In that case, English should be added to Quebec infobox official languages section. GoodDay (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

hello

i reverted an edit of yours (that reverted one of mine) on fluoride. i think you are confusing someone's identity. not sure what your edit summary meant. thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 02:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

it appears you thought i was accusing Smokefoot of vandalism. But I was questioning his labeling of "vandalism" (on the diff) from the talk page. Best. -Shootbamboo (talk) 02:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

2011 Vancouver Whitecaps FC season

The only change to the page from two days ago is changing Colombia to Columbia. Your comment doesn't make sense in like of that change. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? The change I fixed was to link the terms separately, in order to avoid using Vancouver, British Columbia (which is a redirect to Vancouver). Note that you then self-reverted without noting your error. --Ckatz^chat _spy 03:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

LGBT articles of Brazil

Hello! I am Brazilian and I need of you to correct my translation edits, please help me in the Changing legal gender assignment in Brazil, LGBT rights in Brazil, Recognition of same-sex unions in Brazil, Age of consent in Brazil, Prejudice in the Brazilian LGBT community. 28 December 2010 (UTC) User: Hentzer

Ckatz, This is is a section from Voice Acting:

Training and how-to classes

Instruction in how to enter the voiceovers marketplace and how to market one's services is offered at various acting schools and also at adult learning facilities such as Voices For All or Chicago's Discovery Center.

Many VO coaches who have had success in commercial, narration, and animation offer private training, tele-seminars and weekend workshops for both novice and experienced voice actors. The VoiceOver International Creative Experience (VOICE) in Los Angeles is an annual global conference open to all voice actors, coaches, agents, and producers whose goal is to promote community, education, and technology within the VO industry.

Steady work as a voiceover talent in the US is normally possible in major metro areas such as New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles. However, with the rise of online databases and hiring websites, voicing from home is becoming the norm for a lot of voice actors.

How is this NOT self-promoting? The people involved with these companies do not have more relevant experience than me, yet you did not delete this?

Please explain?

Max McGill — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxtoo (talk • contribs) 21:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011

Hello. You are being contacted because you have previously shown interest in the WikiCup but have not yet signed up for the 2011 WikiCup, which starts at midnight. It is not too late to sign up! The competition will remain open until at least January 31, and so it is not too late to enter. If you are interested, simply follow the instructions to add your username to the signup page, and a judge will contact you as soon as possible with an explanation of how to participate. The WikiCup is a friendly competition open to all Wikipedians, old and new, experienced and inexperienced, providing a fun and rewarding way to contribute quality content to Wikipedia. If you do not want to receive any further messages about the WikiCup, or you want to start receiving messages about the WikiCup, you may add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the WikiCup talk page or contact the judges directly. J Milburn and The ed17 06:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Your revert

I was not surprised that the collapse was reversed, but I was taken aback that you of all people would be the reverter. We have our difference, but this passage I tried to collapse is but general nastiness and personal slanging, of no benefit to the discussion. The implication of the revert is that you somehow thought it was positive. The mind boggles. I'm sure you don't care what I think about you, but I would just like to state that what positive estimation I had of you is now further diminished. Good day. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh stop being such a prig. Your hide was rather selective, in that it covered over the rationale. Please try and be a bit more objective and a bit less censorial. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 09:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

OC, your hide was unwarranted and also rather selective. So, too, was your post at AN/I, especially since you chose to ignore the incivility and sidetracking perpetrated by some of your compatriots on the linking page. However, I do welcome any outside attention that the AN/I post might bring to the real problems on that page. --Ckatz^chat _spy 10:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification; I have responded there. --Ckatz^chat _spy 10:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Letoya

I have not edit LeToya's page by "adding external links" twice at the same time. I'm simply just returning to page to it's ORIGINAL state. I see you have not visit the view history. Today was my 1st time changing it. * LeToyaOnline.com — Official LeToya website has ALWAYS been under the external links. Since you've been up here since 2006 you would have known that it has been up here. Associated Acts has been changed as well. For years it has always been LaTavia Roberson, Beyonce Knowles, & Kelly Rowland. Since when did LeToya worked with Michelle Williams? Just because they're friends does not mean she belong there. If that's the case then ALL of LeToya friends would have been on the list.--Jayy4life (talk) 23:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Cast lists and current/former splits

Your expertise regarding current/former splits in cast lists would be greatly appreciated at Primeval. A minor edit war has broken out there since you last edited. I know we've been over this at length elsewhere and you wrote a really great explanation but I'll be stuffed if I can find it and I don't think I can adequately reproduce it from memory. In any case, I've had issues with one of the editors there and there's at least one more who seems a little stubborn. they might be more responsive to an uninvolved editor. Maybe MOS:TV should specifically state that we don't split cast lists between current and former, since there are seemingly more editors around who need everything written down. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Semiprotecting Georgia Moffett

May I suggest that it's not necessary to have both pending changes and semiprotection, and it's better to just have 'pending changes'? It's useful to have such articles unprotected, if they're attracting attention, because new and anonymous users may still make useful edits. That's what the pending changes is for; so that we can keep only the good edits. Shreevatsa (talk) 05:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The page was set up with indef. pending and short-term semi due to a rash of unsourced/poorly sourced changes. However, given the discussion at Talk:David Tennant, it is worth ending SP early to see what transpires. Thanks for bringing it up. --Ckatz^chat _spy 05:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

a question about a deletion

I tried to edit a paragraph I see as misleading in the "digital divide" entry, in "overcoming the digital divide" True, technology leapfroging can be of real value but people still need access to PC's or they will be cut out as if second class digital citizens. Yes, I cited what the nonprofit I work with is doing in underserved communities and it looks like you objected to how I did this, but even with our "impressive numbers" our efforts only represent a tiny drop in a still very large bucket - and even here in one of the developed countries, the United States. How would you recommend that I or someone else address this?

I will add that the article on "computer literacy" needs to connect more effectively to this issue too and to the problems of the digital divide in general.

Thanks, AZ5461 (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello... thanks for posting. I've since restored a mention of the organization, minus the overly PR-sounding parts. If you can find third-party analysis or commentary on their work, it may warrant expansion. Please feel free to let me know if you need assistance or have any other questions. Thanks again, and welcome to Wikipedia! --Ckatz^chat _spy 19:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Tennant and Moffett

Hi Ckatz,

I'll defer to you on the Tennant/Moffett issue since you seem to be paying closer attention to it, but I think that most editors would accept the Daily Mail as a source (or a number of similar ones). Obviously we do not accept gossip blogs or fan sites, but I would say the the Daily Mail has a pretty strong presumption of reliability as a professionally-edited, mass circulation daily paper, unless there is some specific reason to be suspicious of its reporting. The consensus points from the noticeboard discussions about the Daily Mail you mention seem to be: (1) it is generally factual and accurate, except that (2) its science reporting is poor, (2) it has a political slant, and (3) its opinion pieces should not be taken as journalism. There is no reason to doubt an ordinary entertainment news story, and the fact that we cannot determine the exact sources the DM used is not crucial -- we are not really competent to sit in judgment of the internal processes of generally-accepted, professionally-edited media outlets.

I would also note that the Tennant/Moffett story has also been reported in The Telegraph [2], The Scotsman [3], a Wired News WP:NEWSBLOG [4], and a BBC America newsblog [5]. The first three of those are generally reliable sources, and the last is presumptively reliable as to matters involving BBC personalities.

At this point I don't think it can be considered a remotely controversial report, even in a BLP. You may wish to consider restoring the edit. Best, MCB (talk) 03:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello... thanks for the follow-up. Actually, we did end up restoring the text once the Times report appeared, along with the qualifier that neither Tennant or Moffett had confirmed it. There's still uncertainty as to the accuracy, given that all the reliable ones - Times, Wired, etc - seem to be basing their reports on the original Sun and Mail reports. You can see the discussion at Talk:David Tennant. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat _spy 03:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Positive Psychology

You deleted my post and citations about atheism, yet you left the post about spirituality without citations undisturbed. I can get you primary sources for what I wrote, but I don't want to waste my time if you're just going to delete them. If I get you primary sources for my comments, will you delete them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronwayneodonahue (talk • contribs) 10:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and a suggestion

Hey, thanks for dealing with the anon Special:Contributions/189.112.215.186. She is the banned user User:InkHeart, who often comes back to vandalize using anons. I saw that you blocked the anon for 3 days. Since it is a proxy used by her, however, can you please block it indefinitely? Also, at the same time as the attacks against me, she made a massive revert to all of her old edits using several other proxy anons. Could you please indefinitely block these proxies? If you check the contributions, you can see that it's the same person, and the edits exactly follow InkHeart's.

Thanks. Ω phois 18:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Halloween 6: Director's Cut

Okay, like I told Erik there aren't any other sources I can use to support the scenes featured in this version besides movie-censorship.com. Trust me, I've seen this version and is even available on the bootleg 5-disk DVD with the Producer's Cut, Rough Cut, and Television Cut. The website is helpful, but if that can't be used then I feel as though the Director's Cut section should still remain up on the page so people could know about it. It's a very little known version of this movie. Removing the section altogether makes it seem as though this version does not really exist at all. - Jabrona (talk 21:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Movie-censorship.com

I have started a larger discussion about movie-censorship.com at WT:FILM. Your thoughts are welcome. The discussion can be found here. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

PwC

Hi Ckatz. I don't want to revert your edit again on 2010 Winter Olympics as I don't want to get into an edit war, especially over something so trivial. However, I think WP:MOSTM suggests the capital 'C' should be included. While readability is debatable (I think without capitalization the name becomes a wall of awkward lowercase letters, and you obviously don't), "where it reflects general usage" is a more impartial measure. The company's legal name includes a capitalized 'C', and in popular usage the name is rendered "PwC". I won't edit it again, so you get the final word. -Gump Stump (talk) 22:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

No, shouldn't end that way. I'll post to the talk page and we can see what the result is. Fair enough? --Ckatz^chat _spy 03:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, that sounds good. Thanks, -Gump Stump (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit filter

I'm just posting to let you know this edit was meant for you but was erroneously stopped by an edit filter. —Soap— 11:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

"Paid editing"

Hi, just a word to explain the 'paid editing' section you correctly removed as 'promotional' from Online reputation management. Once I read the backing citations I guess I got so incensed that I forgot other people read these articles besides regular editors. My intent was to post a pointer in WP:COIN once the article had settled down. Now I'll just post the text straight in. Regards, CliffC (talk) 19:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

33rd Avenue Station

Noticed you removed the PROD on 33rd Avenue Station saying that deletion was inappropriate. Not entirely sure what you mean, but I agree that a redirect is a better solution, so I've been bold and gone ahead and done that. This is in line with YVR 3 Station which is also a redirect to the Canada Line. If you have disagreements let me know. Ravendrop (talk) 04:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

No objections, I should have been clearer in saying that a redirect would preserve the work done so far - formatting, userbox, etc. - that a deletion would eliminate. Thanks for doing the redirect. --Ckatz^chat _spy 04:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Ken Mansfield's Privacy

Hello,

Please respect Ken Mansfield's wishes (see below):

Ckatz, I have been the victim of identity theft 3 times already. The information that you keep adding to my page is just what they need to do it again. Giving these people the exact time and place to go to records opens even more info about me and my family. I try to keep this info private everywhere else - I do know that because I am an author that this has not been totally possible but a Wiki page is one of the first places thieves will look to begin putting the pieces together. This is my page and it seems I have should have the right to decide what personal info is offered. The specific info you add is only pertinent to someone who could misuse it. I am asking you to respect my wishes and have asked my associate who takes care of this page, to once again delete the extra info. Thank you for your consideration. I would do the same for you. KM

Wikipedia

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

says it this way:

Privacy of personal information and using primary sources"

With identity theft on the rise, people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth where these have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. Where the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or where the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year. In a similar vein, articles should not include postal addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons, though links to websites maintained by the subject are generally permitted. See above regarding the misuse of primary sources to obtain personal information about subjects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beatlesfan1969 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

While you have cited certain aspects of the BLP policy, please note that you err in saying that it is your page. Wikipedia pages are not the same as personal pages on a subject's own web site, and the subject cannot dictate what information is and is not displayed. (Otherwise - and please let it be perfectly clear that I am not in any way suggesting you are trying to do this - a subject could for example simply reject any content that they feel portrays them in a negative manner.) Also, this request is somewhat complicated by the fact that you have presented some of this information, such as your place of birth, in your own books. Finally, while they may possibly be room to accommodate your request, any such request would need to go through the Foundation so as to privately verify that you are actually who you say you are. (Nothing personal, but it is an anonymous system here - anyone could claim to be anyone in the absence of proof to the contrary.) --Ckatz^chat _spy 05:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Galactic center

Why do you keep deleting the link to the Marcus Chown article? Please give a reason, either here or on the Galactic center talk page. Thank you, 66.195.235.242 (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Lack of authoritative sources for film plots and director's cut, etc.

Generally, for the Wikipedia articles about films, the plots can be 700 words long, but unfortunately, in most cases there are no authoritative sources that write such detailed summaries, at best they write a few brief lines about what the film contains.

In the case of Salt, the plots of Extended Cut and the Director's Cut also do not have detailed authoritative sources.

Thus in the case of both the Theatrical Cut as well as the Extended Cut and the Director's Cut, our only source is the actual film or the DVD, and what we can remember from viewing these. This is how the plot itself was written, but there is no complaint that the general plot of the Theatrical Version is lacking sources and that it must be deleted unless an authoritative article is found where the entire plot is written in detail. Objectivecorrector (talk) 04:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Southern Ocean

As indicated in Southern Ocean, Australia considers the Southern Ocean to be immediately south of the continent. The Indian Ocean is considered to be generally west of Western Australia. Bass Strait, which is immediately south of Victoria, and north of Tasmania, is the western most part of the Tasman Sea. Although not language, the spirit of MOS:TIES really applies here. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

However, as per past discussions, the encyclopaedia uses the international IHO terminology, as evidenced by the respective articles. It would be confusing to have the newly added navbox using a different term from the articles. I have reworked your note to reflect what the related Australian articles use. Would it help with your concerns if we put "(Southern Ocean)" under the Indian Ocean entry? --Ckatz^chat _spy 20:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I went ahead and tested such an entry. I then reverted it out, but you can see it here. --Ckatz^chat _spy 20:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Your Warning?

MySQL ID: 215502

I do not at all understand how my edits to the FRC page are disruptive. I added small additions to the page that WERE CITED. I find it unacceptable that you simply revert my changes and warn me when my content adds accurate and cited information to the page. How could my actions possibly be disruptive. It is as if you simply disagree with me on ideological grounds... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.81.50 (talk) 06:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

FRC Page

On the Family Research Council page there appears to be consensus about the inclusion of the SPLC designation as a hate group in the article lead. Yet, warnings are being issued for edits including info on this designation are being issued for disruptive editing and vandalism. Why? ThisJustInTime (talk) 07:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

One, you need to let others make that call; as a new editor (and one whose only contributions involve trying to add the material) you'll need to work to avoid being considered a single-purpose editor. --Ckatz^chat _spy 07:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It appears that others have made that call. No one is currently disputing wording similar to what I added, and a super-majority of those who discussed past wording support wording similar to mine. It makes sense that new editors would faced increased scrutiny, but the scrutiny should be based on the content rather than on the fact that an editor is new. Considering that my content simply provided a slightly expanded explanation of the SPLC hate group status that is already noted in the lead, that the discussion on the inclusion of similar wording is hugely in support of wording such as mine, and that no current editor is actively disputing such wording, I do not understand what the issue is. I should also note that the FRC page is not the first page I have edited and nor were my other edits in the same topic area. Perhaps I am mistaken, but it appears you basically are saying I can't edit the FRC page because I am new? Everyone is new at some point, and I certainly hope most new editors do not face what I consider to be undue burdens to editing. ThisJustInTime (talk) 23:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey Ckatz I need your opinion on an edit I made that I'm confused about, here http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ckatz . Your input would be very much appreciated. Feel free to revert it if you disagree. If you think the edit is legitimately correct, I assume it will remain unreverted by you. By the way, I've been editing on this site for some time for the last 6 or 7 months or so. I've learned that all I have to do is pretty much avoid my old television interests and it is pretty much smooth sailing from there. I see you're still doing your troublemaking above. You're a person who thrives himself on bickering with others and if it's not going on, you're bored. This is because you have no life. Anyways, bye for now. Oh and don't forget to videotape for me both your cat as its dying for me. I hope the manner in which it dies is something brutal so it looks all funny and mangled. Hopefully, your parents and the woman who's pussy hole you came out of will die a similar brutal death. Unfortunately because I don't really know you or care to, I won't be there to see it. I'll probably partying with friends as your mother's dying and during her funeral service, you know, because I have a life unlike you. Your life will be limited to this website. Nothing more. This is it. This is as good as it gets for you. Anyways, because I will be preoccupied with a life, don't forget to videotape your mother as she dies and add it to youtube so I can view it and add to my favorites. Bye! I'll go hop onto my other IP of which you haven't found yet and continue editing while you block this one, thinking you have got the edge. ;) Btw, I've looked at my EverybodyHatesChris sockpuppet page and I see you've blocked a slew of people that weren't me. BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I love it. Bye and REMEMBER WHAT I SAY ABOUT THAT CAT AND THOSE PARENTS OF YOURS, PARTICULAR THE MOM.

Edits removed

Hi Ckatz,

I am contacting you from Next Green Car, our Wikipedia username is Editorial90. Last week I edited some pages that were related to the kind of information that we include on our website. The information that I wrote has all been deleted, some by yourself, and I just wanted to understand the reasoning for this.

nextgreenccar.com is powered by a unique database and provides information that is very relevant to certain vehicle pages on Wikipedia - I believed that some of the edits were valuable to those reading the pages in question. I just wanted to ask why my information was removed, and would you be able to suggest an alternative way that we may be able to provide such information to your Wikipedia page readers.

I notice that other companies in our sector have done similar things through Wikipedia, and even have their own Wikipedia pages. Is there a reason why some organisations are able to have pages and others are not?

I can fully understand that you have to maintain quality at Wikipedia, and this must be done by deleting unwanted content. I would much appreciate some pointers as to how I may be able to share some of Next Green Car's information to Wikipedia readers of related pages.

I look forward to your reply,

Kind Regards,

John Ironmonger, from Next Green Car — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editorial90 (talk • contribs) 11:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Hispanic Marketing

Not sure why you deleted the article. It had valid references and even a couple of edits after I created it. Many thanks for your response. Feeps490 (talk) 04:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

You responded but not to the right part

Ok, you finally responded :) but you responded to the original post and not to all of these that were made later...

Hey Ckatz thanks for getting back to me. As I am basically new here I tried reading up on some of the rules and guidlines but kind of find wiki to not be th emost user friendly place in the world unless you want to read novels j/k. But in all seriousness I apologize for any hassle myself or the site has given you.

It was my understanding that wiki allows external links that provide content that wiki cannot and since we provide both visual and audio samples of all these voice actors that you cannot find anywhere else on the web that it would be worth a link. We are much different than your everday voice actor database like voicechasers etc in that respect. That being said I do understand the conflict of interest angle. However, I notice that IMDB is linked on just about every voice actors page which begs the question.

1. How do we eventually find a way to get that priviledge when our content is usually much more extensive and accurate than IMDB for voice acting since they are so broad and we focus solely on the voice actors.

I appreciate and thank you in advance for any help you can provide.

Can you help me out at all here Ckatz with any additional information?

98.213.114.196 (talk) 22:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Ckatz I am not trying to be rude but it has been about a month since I posted these questions and I am very anxiously awaiting your response.

Optimussolo (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It has been almost 6 months now...

Optimussolo (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Does this make sense now?

05:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

/* External links */

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ComiColor_Cartoons&action=history

What did I do wrong? I did not link to my own website. I did not post any of the videos in the playlist linked to. The playlist is obviously of interest to the page reader. This is undeniable. If you are going to remove this kind of contribution, I will never contribute to Wikipedia again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webdev17 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Free Studio

Hi Ckatz, I'm not too bothered about this, but you just ~~deleted~~ nominated this as C4 but there hasn't been an AfD AFAICT: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Studio. SmartSE (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It appears to closely resemble Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DVDVideoSoft. --Ckatz^chat _spy 20:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ah, I see. I had noticed that AfD, but didn't realise it was essentially about the same thing. Out of interest, since I may soon be able to do it myself, would a {{Uw-adblock}} be justified here or not? Cheers SmartSE (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

First of all, i was pointed to the fact that my previous article DVDVideoSoft is written about the company, not the software (the comment was given on DVDVideoSoft Talkpage by Fleet Command). This is why i had to follow his advice and make a new article. The article still needs to be improved, however the new article differs a lot from the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DVDVideoSoft article, written in August 2010. It has been revised and redone quite substantially. Yes, its' quite the same subject but not quite the same article! Noelle pozzi (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

"It has been revised and redone quite substantially" amounts to an acceptance that it is a reworking of the same article, not a new article, even though its ostensible subject is different. Yes, it was rewritten and expanded, but the rewriting did not address the reason for deletion. A fact which editors who come here to write about a subject dear to their heart (or their pocket) often fail to grasp is that notability is a property of the subject of the article, not of the article itself. No amount of rewriting an article will turn a non-notable subject into a notable one. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Ckatz. You have new messages at Talk:Free Studio.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Marsden

The Marsden page violates both BLP and the arbcomm decision. It may be sourced, but it is completely selectiove and negative. Consensus on a bad article does not make it better. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 16:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Hispanic Marketing

Still do not know why you removed the article. still awaiting an explanation. Thanks Feeps490 (talk) 18:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 January newsletter

We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. Signups are now closed, and we have 129 listed competitors, 64 of whom will make it to round two. Congratulations to The Bushranger (submissions), who, at the time of writing, has a comfortable lead with 228 points, followed by Hurricanehink (submissions), with 144 points. Four others have over 100 points. Congratulations also go to Yellow Evan (submissions), who scored the first points in the competition, claiming for Talk:Hurricane King/GA1, Miyagawa (submissions), who scored the first non-review points in the competition, claiming for Dognapping, and Jarry1250 (submissions) who was the first in the competition to use our new "multiplier" mechanic (explanation), claiming for Grigory Potemkin, a subject covered on numerous Wikipedias. Thanks must also go to Jarry1250 for dealing with all bot work- without you, the competition wouldn't be happening!

A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round two is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! 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, or by email. 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 and The ed17 22:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Just wondering why you reverted to a previous verison of 'list of voice actors' reverting actions by Jorge Pupo. Thank you. Jorge Pupo (talk) 23:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Steve Coleman (wushu)

Hi,

Can i ask why you removed the pictures I added to my wikipage about Steve Coleman (wushu). they are relevant to the article.

Thank you Steve — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevewushu (talk • contribs) 17:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Qwiki

Hello Ckatz, I don't understand why Qwiki links are not allowed. I read the manual, I could not find anything regarding this issue. Maybe I am not seeing it, I would appreciate if you could be more specific. Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

In Fear and Faith

Since I wanna go to bed, and you're the only admin I know up right now, can you protect the article for In Fear and Faith? It's under heavy vandalism and I'm refreshing the page like every second just to revert an edit like every 5 minutes or even less. A request was sent to RPP but I really need it protected now so I can sleep. And make it long, because this vandal continously hops from IP to IP, and the only way to really end it now is to protect the pages that he vandalizes through a long-protect. • GunMetal Angel 09:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected for two weeks, can be extended if the problem returns. Thanks, and sleep well... --Ckatz^chat _spy 09:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Aha, thanks. =) And what that IP was doing wasn't edit warring or content disputes. That was sheer vandalism just put in sarcastic form. Just letting you know since I read the description you filed it under • GunMetal Angel 09:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Noted, and I've updated the rationale. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat _spy 09:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Next time, delete your request at RPP too :p Ged UK 11:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Ckatz. Thanks for helping me remove the spam link on video production. I didn't realize that I was just reverting it back to another revision that the spammer had added. --BurtAlert (talk) 17:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding my addition of a sentence and a reference to Pluto's origins

I have noted that you have deleted that addition, stating that

======

From a statistical points of view, using both parametric and non-parametric methods, very strong evidence was found that the nebular hypothesis does not hold for Pluto, and thus that the orbit of Pluto has a different origin than the orbits of other planets in the solar system.[112]

[112] Vic Patrangenaru et al. (August 2002). "A bootstrap approach to Pluto's origin". Journal of Applied Statistics 29 (4): 935-943.

========

I have reinstated the addition, as no reason for the deletion was provided. Please give specific reasons why you deem that addition to be irrelevant. Thank you.

Thanks for pointing out the "nofollow" guideline. I was surprised to know about this as many other certifications on this page have external links.

Please note that my aim was neither advertising nor promotion. The certifications that I had added are pretty notable/credible in Insurance industry and DataWarehousing world.

Based on your message, I believe that the issue was addition of external links. Please share your thoughts about adding information on these in list of Professional certification (Business) without exteranl links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.128.27.162 (talk) 02:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

LXG

Dude, stop removing Ian Fleming from LXG's page. It says right on the page that Richard Roxburgh protrayed "The Fantom/'M'/Professor James Moriarty". He also played a character called "M" according to the RottenTomatoes page [6]. And anyone who has seen any of the Connery-era James bond films knows that Quartermain is heavily based on Bond, especially considering that he's played by a former Bond actor! Woknam66 (talk) 03:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

recent edits on Waco siege

Under the heading Child abuse allegations editor IP 76.186.27.145 added the two paragraphs 23:53 6 Feb 2011.

You excised the addition 07:50 7 Feb 2011 with comment (Uncited).

The paragraph left standing is also uncited. It had been added 03:32 15 Feb 2009 by user Anyone77 with the comment (This edit was made to increase the accuracy of the article, Koresh and his group being an abberation of the Branch church.) Anyone77 was active from 14 Dec 2008 to July 2009.

I restored the deleted two paragraphs and flagged the three as citation needed with the comment (whole section is uncited; citation need flag more appropriate; all three paragraphs could be cited)

19:05 7 Feb 2011 you removed the entire section with the comment (rm - we cannot simply expand a section about child abuse if no citations are present)

Looking at the article history, I recognize that challenging an inactive editor (Anyone77 last active July 2009) and a single-purpose IP editor (76.186.27.145) to produce citations for their additions to the article could be a waste of our time.

I also had posted a snarky comment: "The applied standard appears to be that incriminatory accusations against the Davidians can stand uncited, but exculpatory evidence requires citations and all the rules on verifiable sources considered reliable." While that is my assessment of the history of the article as a whole, it would be grossly unfair to apply that assessment to you personally. Naaman Brown (talk) 12:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Canada

Your presence is requested here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Mass_delinking_of_United_States. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost

wants to interview three members of the Solar System Wikiproject. Since there are only about 5 of us, I thought I'd check round to see if anyone was interested. Serendi ^pod ous 20:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, why not? Maybe it will get some more regulars involved... --Ckatz^chat _spy 04:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Sneakygreek (talk) 10:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)Hi, Vlogging began way before 2000, Geogodley youtube channel has vlogs dating back to 1990 and will be uploading more with proof of dates in the actual videos to prove it. Since user Ckatz removed this information and link, another attempt will be made without the link, is that okay?Sneakygreek (talk) 10:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)Sneakygreek (talk) 10 Feb 2011 (UTC)

AAFM UNESCO CLAIM

Hi Ckatz

please advise why article regarding American Academy of Financial management falsely claiming UNESCO recognition was removed when it was recommended by RJC to put it on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dickietr (talk • contribs) 12:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

INTERAC (JAPAN)

Hi Ckatz

This page needs an admin to help it. Basically, while some of the content is true and representative of Interac as a company, a large portion of it is spam from anti-Interac unions.

It cannot be NPOV is the only POV is the union's?

A major point that needs to be fixed is the issue of ownership. The so-called 'Selnate Group' (which never was) was dissolved last year, and the school in Utah, while sharing a name, was owned by part of the former entity. Now, Interac is a single company, and while those other companies may conduct business in the same areas, they are neither owners nor subsidiaries. In that case, each deserves their own unique entry, and they could be linked to each other, but they are not 'group companies' nor part of some greater group. In short, there is no evidence to show that 'Interac is owned by the Selnate Group of Companies in Provo, Utah in the United States.' This would be impossible since: 1) There is no Selnate Group, 2) Interac is a Japanese company. The type of logic holding that argument together is like saying that a fish is a bird because they both come from eggs.

The sections on Controversy, the Contract System, and Union Presence would be better moved to the Assistant Language Teacher entry as part of 3 Union Activity and ALTs. These types of issues are not unique to Interac alone, as there are several dozen companies involved in the same type of business in Japan.

I am afraid that without a serious edit, this page may be subject to action for any number of a dozen types of NP violations. I'm willing to research and do edits to keep that from happening. KeroroGunso (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Stop deleting content.

You just deleted an entire sentence from the Top_Gear_(2002_TV_series) article because you didn't 'like' the reference.

1)You haven't explained why you felt the reference wasn't valid either in your edit or the page's discussion page. Reading through Wikipedia:Citing_sources, I see nothing that applies, and especially if you're going to delete content, the burden is on you to explain yourself better.

2)You deleted the entire sentence, in violation of Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Dealing_with_unsourced_material.

I've undone your deletion. If you remove the edit again, I'll figure out who to report you to for destructive edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.174.140.200 (talk) 17:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I've just restored your deletion. The source is unreliable, the information is far from notable enough for inclusion and it's four years old. You were right to remove it. Discussion is now open here: [7] Drmargi (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Robonaut

Hi, you recently removed a sourced statement on the Robonaut article, claiming that the source "wasn't notable"? Wikipedia's notability policy doesn't cover content, if I understand correctly.. maybe you meant that the source wasn't reliable? Since the statement was a statement of opinion, my understanding was this is okay (since the BLP exception doesn't apply), even though the source is a fan-site. It seems like a perfectly good sourced statement to me. Mlm42 (talk) 21:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering why I couldn't edit the list of micronations article to correct the alphabetical order. was I blocked? Austreneland (talk) 02:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Ckatz. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Brian Aitken

In your two most recent edits of the page Brian Aitken you deleted a section titled 'Jury Requests' as being 'not related'; however, they are just as related as the sections 'Arrest'and 'Release'and was comprised solely on facts provided by sources including ABC News and the Daily Caller. This information was also in the FOX News Article 'New Jersey Gun Case Exposes Patchwork of State Laws, Experts Say' and nearly every article and television show about this case. To say it is 'not related' is to ignore hundreds, if not thousands, of related media contributions that cite this factual information when discussing Aitkens case.

The other edit, deleting the information about the Judge being removed from the bench based on his decisions in two other cases, you cite being removed as an attempt to make a 'case against the judge' and that the 'wrong article' was cited. I've double checked the entry and it is strictly a factual entry with the correct source cited. However, I am not undoing your edit because I don't believe it meets the biographical standards.

You also edited a link backs from the NRA where I directly quoted Wayne LaPierre on how they supported Aitken's case and are financing his appeal. You also edited a link back from Mount Laurel Township, New Jersey where I added Aitken as a Notable Resident. Given Aitkens share of international media compared to the other 'Notable Residents' and the fact that Aitken was the only Clemency issued by Gov. Chris Christie I believe he belongs there.

For strictly these reasons I have reversed some of your edits and maintained others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.200.153.14 (talk) 16:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem lies in some of the language used, as it was non-encyclopedic and (in some cased) rather loaded. (For example, the description of Aitken as a "political prisoner".) As well, several of the references used were unacceptable as they were from blogs and/or opinion pieces. I have now reworked the material to bring it into line. --Ckatz^chat _spy 20:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Chuck

Just noticed that you reverted my addition of a Section "Technology" as in Technology behind the show Chuck back in 2009. The information I provided was simple to understand, clearly written, factually based, and linked only to other wikipedia articles. Please explain by contacting me directly. --Lookmomnohands (talk) 13:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

iMail

you have deleted the article about iMail.

According to you it was advertizing. So please do delete the article about email as well, and very specially the articles about Thunderbird (it's pure propaganda), Happy Meal, Enigmail, Thawte, ....

I really fail to see how an article about an alternative e-mail system is more commercial than an article about emails, and about big company's products like Happy Meal.

iMail is not a commercial product, there is no company behind it, nobody earns money with it, but it is a very useful tool. It is open source and open protocol, anyone is free to implent it.

It is a useful article, as it describes a communication method on the internet, just like email or instant messaging. I did not include it into the original email article, becaue it is not compatible to email services out in the wild, you can already tell that by the different protocol used.

It the only article on wikipedia I know of covering untraceable p2p email, there is no company behind it. It is informative and also mentioning drawback,

If you still insist in it being commercial, please tell me which parts to remove or what to add, since it can really be useful information for the interested reader. there are no untruts stated. I see the need for a no propaganda policy, but I repeat: this article is not about a company's product but about a protocol. There are other articles, about http, about irc. By your definition they'd all need be deleted for the same reason.

I don't wanna be a dickhead, but I really fail to see in how far this case is different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michiyoo (talk • contribs) 22:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Seems my wording was not the very best. Michiyoo (talk) 02:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Red Dwarf

Can you please delete the Lost in Space section on the Red Dwarf discussion page. I basically a couple of months ago wrote how similar red dwarf was to lost in sapce and how we should include that in the wikipedia article. No one agreed with me however, and now I am doing a review of Lost in Space and I would really like to mention the similarities it has to Red Dwarf in my review. Obviously it would look like I just took it from the discussion page and I really want to use it. I tried to delete that section a couple of times but everyone thought I was vandalising the page and now it is protected so can you please do something. We don't need to keep that bit the discussion was closed it has no importance please I need help with this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.13.198 (talk) 23:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I've already replied to this request at user talk:Barek several minutes before you posted here. If you don't like the answer from one editor, don't keep going to other editors until you get the answer you want. See WP:FORUMSHOPPING. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

external links

Hi Ckatz:

Regarding the use of external links: If an artist was voted into an online hall of fame (example - Michigan Rock and Roll Legends)and that fact is already part of the Wikipedia article on that artist, why would including the link to that hall of fame's website be deemed inappropriate?

Thanks, Michrrleg (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC) Feb. 21, 2011

Flag of the Falkland Islands

You of course protected the WP:WRONG version, seriously though Moncho has had 3 editors try to discuss and he doesn't listen. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

ChrisComerRadio.com on blacklist??

It took me forever to figure out how this works.

Listeners to my former radio show and current web page archive of my radio show told me my site was "blacklisted" from Wikipedia but nobody knows why. Research led us to your page, I was told you were the person who blacklisted ChrisComerRadio.com.

I hosted a radio show from the 1980's until 2008 in Cincinnati Ohio on various radio stations. In the course of my radio career we interviewed many artists, musicians and even a few movie stars. These interviews have been archived as MP3's on my website. My site is called www.ChrisComerRadio.com if you log on you'll see dozens of interviews with rock stars, movie actors, jazz musicians, composers, all pretty famous people in their respective fields. So over the years links were gradually added to each person's wikipedia page, down at the bottom of the page where additional links are posted. Many times I see links to other interviews besides my own, even commercial entities like Rolling Stone Magazine, and in many cases my interviews were longer, more informative and more in-depth. Certainly these links are appropriate to the content of the page they were posted on.

I am no longer affiliated with any commercial or public radio station, I make no money off my site, in fact I pay for the site myself, and I sell no banner ads. I even say on my site that "This broadcast archive is posted for enjoyment, education and research." At the TOP. Nobody from wikipedia ever took the time to notice this, they just added me to the black list.

Please remove my site from your blacklist. There is no 'spamming' on my end, and again, I gain no commercial or financial benefit from my website or any links. There are no copyrights on any of this material including the audio content. I presume the only benefit is that those people interested in further information or research on the person or artist associated with these wikipedia pages can gain further knowledge or information from the posted interviews.

Thank you for your time!

Chris Comer www.ChrisComerRadio.com (513) 351-7502 Chris@ChrisComerRadio.com

65.27.199.222 (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

change to MLS supporters group page.

Please give me an idea as to the reason you returned this page to list only one supporters group http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Major_League_Soccer_Supporters_Groups Please see http://www.phillysoccerpage.net/local-soccer/supporters-groups/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnionPhanone (talk • contribs) 22:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Holocaust denial

Hi Ckatz, I wonder why you reverted my edit. I know you disagree with the content. However, the article deals with holocaust denial, and these books give the best overview about the topic. Anyway, in the article itself are links to debunking sources, so it should not be a problem to include all of these books. Regards. 78.16.201.24 (talk) 10:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Reversion on Eliza Dushku

Hiya, I'm not sure why you made this reversion on the Eliza Dushku article. It certainly doesn't seem to have been obvious vandalism. Could you let me know your thinking here? --rpeh •T•C•E• 10:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

In fact, I see several places where you've reverted edits that weren't clear vandalism. Please can you start using "Undo" rather than revert in such cases? --rpeh •T•C•E• 10:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Why spam?

Hello Ckatz

You removed my external links on some airport pages, writing they are spam. These links point to a site showing the arrivals and departures in real time at these airports. The links (each of them!) were clicked daily by 10-15 people. In my opinion it means that it is a useful information, not spam. People are looking for this kind of info. I know that Wikipedia links are nofollow links, I am not interested in page ranking. I want to offer useful information, like you too.

Regards, Gy.fischer (talk) 11:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Please see the external links guideline. Wikipedia is not a directory service. Thanks. --Ckatz^chat _spy 01:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Reversion on prefab homes page

I'm unsure as to why you believe the two sources I cited were for promotional purposes. I know I'm new here, but they point to a well-researched, reliable article and I adhered closely to WP's guidelines re: POV, spam, external links etc. I've undone the reversions and await your response. With kind regards. GregoryHughes (talk) 07:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The promotional aspect appears because you appear to be connected to the articles, given that your account name is the same as the reference name you chose. If this was simply a case of using your own name to name the reference, then please disregard. However, the site you linked to - "Clickheredummy" - does not constitute a reliable source and cannot serve as a reference. We have no way of knowing if the article is in fact from Popular Mechanics, as they claim, nor do we know if they even have permission to republish said article. If you can find a source that meets the reliable source protocol. by all means add it (and please feel free to ask if you have questions about any potential sources you may find). --Ckatz^chat _spy 08:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Intelligence

Would you like to join the Wikiproject Intelligence. If so go to the pending section of the project page and place your name there. Gabriele449 (talk) 15:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 February newsletter

So begins round two of the WikiCup! We now have eight pools, each with eight random contestants. This round will continue until the end of April, when the top two of each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers of those remaining, will make it to round three. Congratulations to The Bushranger (submissions) (first, with 487 points) and Hurricanehink (submissions) (second, with 459), who stormed the first round. Casliber (submissions) finished third with 223. Twelve others finished with over 100 points- well done to all of you! The final standings in round one can be seen here. A mere 8 points were required to reach round two; competition will no doubt be much more fierce this round, so be ready for a challenge! A special thanks goes, again, to Jarry1250 (submissions) for dealing with all bot work. This year's bot, as well as running smoothly, is doing some very helpful things that last year's did not. Also, thanks to Stone (submissions) for some helpful behind-the-scenes updating and number crunching.

Some news for those who are interested- March will see a GAN backlog elimination drive, which you are still free to join. Organised by WikiProject Good articles, the drive aims to minimise the GAN backlog and offers prizes to those who help out. Of course, you may well be able to claim WikiCup points for the articles you review as part of the drive. Also ongoing is the Great Backlog Drive, looking to work on clearing all of the backlogs on Wikipedia; again, incentives are offered, and the spirit of friendly competition is alive, while helping the encyclopedia is the ultimate aim. Though unrelated to the WikiCup, these may well be of interest to some of you.

Just a reminder of the rules; if you have done significant work on content this year and it is promoted in this round, you may claim for it. Also, anything that was promoted after the end of round one but before the beginning of round two may be claimed for in round two. Details of the rules can be found on this page. For those interested in statistics, a running total of claims can be seen here, and a very interesting table of that information (along with the highest scorers in each category) can be seen here. 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, or by email. 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 and The ed17 23:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Ckatz. You have new messages at TomCat4680's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nomination of season one episode articles of House for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the articles Paternity (House), Occam's Razor (House), Maternity (House), Damned If You Do, The Socratic Method (House), Fidelity (House), Poison (House), DNR (House), Histories (House), Detox (House), Sports Medicine (House), Cursed (House), Control (House), Mob Rules (House), Heavy (House), Role Model (House), Babies & Bathwater, Kids (House), Love Hurts (House) and Honeymoon (House) are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paternity (House) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 10:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

BC Hydro

I don't have time to take it up in depth just now, I just got in, it's late and I have to get up early. I knew when I put that in that the tone (from the sources) was going to get adjusted, or needed to be; hard facts are hard to soften the tone of, however. I was actually expecting SPA activity and we may see it yet, given the conduct seen on various political and corporate (major and minor) articles. The absence of this information is not encyclopedic; otherwise the page is just a p.r. sell job, and reads like a portfolio or prospectus; it's a common problem across all WP:Companies and WP:Business articlesm, and certain other kinds, as "they" tend to work on their own articles, and those in their industry; certainly as you know this is the case on political articles. "They" can be the company or whomever themselves, or the public relations firm working for them. Give it a thought for a second in terms of WP:No paid editing which of course is collorary to WP:COI and well as intrinsic to WP:SPAM, which is what any "sanitized" version of any of these articles is, if the "other side" (of potentially many in some cases) is not told. WP:NPOV requires that it be included. BC Hydro has a political history as well as a corporate one - the soft-soaping and pitching of the "conservation" etc (buzzwords from their own material); and then there's the consistent use of first-party sources, often the complete absence of any other, in fact. It's like only citing the BC government's own website on BC government articles. I've previously added balance on things like Site C, as have others, but the current state of BC Hydro and what's been done to it is not a matter of small consequence in the company's iconic history here, and its importance to the civil economy and the province's economic and settlement history; the issue of ownership of the IPPs (which is a common acronym and should be restored, and the phrase "independent power producer" is typically capitalized, even in the MSM) in political terms is a hot-button item, yes, but that's why it has to be included; everything in the first edit you made should be restored, it's all cited and it says what the sources says, and both McMartin and Mair are writers and political critics of note same as Vaughan Palmer or any other crew at the main papers; the Tyee in fact exists, as does the political wing of the Georgia Straight, because many reporters cannot conscionably write for the Sun or Province etc....that's about the credentials of the sources on that point, the important bit is that - if you need to add "has been criticized" to validate its inclusion do so - these companies were created by a party which then filled their boards with the ranks; pork-barrel on a grand scale, being given whole power licenses without capital behind them, just connections to their own group which wrote their now brand-new-companies, which have the exclusive right to do what was previously only the people of British Columbia's right (because Hydro is owned by the people of British Columbia). There had been a moratorium in major hdro construction since the failure of Site C in the '80s - and Hydro was the main fovce in power construction in the province, guaranteeing us lower rates; suddenly they were fobi9dden to build anythign new, and dozens of places around the province (150) that had been left fallow and it was known that conservation alone would provide enough power, even for export. So suddenly there's all these new companies able to do what Hydro was simultaneously forbidden from doing, and the company boards filled with people who wrote the policy that created their new goldmines. And they didn't have credit, many like Naikun and Toba cut a deal with native governments in order to access their huge lines of credit; some deals were good some bad, many ecologically destructive of the first order, despite the buzzwords 'conservation" and the notion that they are low-impact; some are much larger than Ruskin-Stave Falls or Clowhom or Daisy Lake-Cheakamus. It's only just now, as Mair points out, that the province's newspaper monopoly has begun to acknowledge that the jacking of power rates comes directly from these. He's a journalist, I could name ten others who've also written about this, and about the fact also that despite the Liberal composition of the boards, many companies are American-owned, with Plutonic a Canadian shell for GE (Warren Buffet), and Gates is involved in there in some way (also in CN since the BCR takeover). I don't mean to soapbox at all, I'm just telling it like it is; I didn't mean to go this deep tonight but it's important to explain the context, and also the potency of the issue in current affairs in British Columbia; it's not just blogs that are out there about this, there's independent journalists, and some of the bloggers have "news credibility" - because of the way news coverage went during CanWest ownership. And not just about Hydro and what's being done to it - you're Canadian I think but maybe not from BC - ? - and this is why what happened to the Utilities Commission of BC last year, when it issued a report condemning government policy on Hydro and the IPPs as unworkable; Campbell emasculated their powers, they are a shell of what they had been, and he's appointed new people to it. Business as usual in British Columbia.

Site C

That there's a citation tag on the Site C decision is kinda pathetic; that's a well-known reason, just as it's well-known that environmental opposition blocked it in the '80s (in no small part by federal power when the Trudeau Liberals were still in control, and their Environment Ministry taken seriously; and also under when Bouchard was environment ministers. The Mulroney government environment ministers, including Siddon, were all good environmentalists, quite surprisingly...they became converts. BC history is self-sanitizing partly because of hte political controls on the newspapers, so that "environmental opposition" doesn't appear at first glance to have anything to do with federal power; but as with the Prosperity Mine in the Chilcotin which Clark wants to overturn the federal decision on, it's a typical BC provincial-vs-federal situation and was also the case with Site C; if you'd read the newspapers and watched the news in those years as I did, you'd know that; how to dig through media archives or take the time to I don't know but "the truth is out there" and it's a wel-known truth, power is big politics in BC, electric power I mean, it's one of our major resources and was also an underpinning of a certain way of life; not mentioning this and just presenting a company-written broadsheet, and sanitizing an account in any way to make it sound "more neutral" - when the facts are not neutral - is a disservice to the facts. however you want to word it, this is important material and there's more of it; it's to the point where, though no media have yet used the term BC Hydro Scandal (Hydrogate is taken, from the previous Clark era), it might almost be time to start such an article. Saying it should be in a separate articles Controversies and concerns about BC Hydro, a la what was done by way of POV forking from the 2010 Winter Olympics article (I copied the name of that POV fork for the previous redlink) strikes me as POV, and a way of making sure the corporate article only reflects the company's argot, or neutralizes any criticism of it, even taking out cited figures (as you did) and generalizing them; that's reverse weaseling, my friend, come to think of it. Anyways I didn't mean to ramble so long. This is obviously important to me, and 'tis true I'm from a Hydro family (if you looked over the userpage you'd find that) and a bit stunned that privatization plans for my "home project" include the tearing down of the townsite I was raised in, but that's not the reason for this; it's material I know is of importance toe the subject, which so far has been allowed to be a COI playpen and company prospectus; that this is a politically-run company means that teh politics of it are important, and so given it's a big issue out there that all these new companies are nearly all going to either party insiders of companies which are subsidiaries of foreign (US) companies, including some of the largest. As a Canadian, please think about that, and tell me it's not important that a political party created a policy, destroying a public asset and public institution adnd flogging off the country's water power resources to friends and donors, is all staffed by the same people who wrote the policy, and they're doing it for the benefit of foreign owners, with a resulting "free market" in power pricing which has nothing to do with conservative and renewables but everything to do with jacking prices here, and allowing the US industrial base to control our water and power resources...are you old enough to remember the Free Trade Election? It was promised over and over by Mulroney that the deal protected water and energy; but Reisman (not unincidentally relaed to NAWAPA) had included a clause such that if anything Canada retained national rights to was ever sold off once, in any way, the market was wide open and no longer restricted. Hydro power in BC was a sacred cow, even of previous right-wing governments (it being of course started by WAC Bennett, a free enterpriser who believed certain assets and services should be state monopolies; but it allowed BC to control its own destiny; as also with his negotiating over the Columbia River Treaty and the guarantee he won, among others, including control provincially and also downstream benefits (aha, not residual rights, that's what I'd meant), was that the Columbia and Kootenay Rivers wouldn't be sunk under one huge lake - which was the American post-war plan for that era, and Ottawa was willing to settle for it; Bennett threatened to secede if he did not get his way and stood up to the US at the peak of the post-war boom. This is why, in addition to the BC Liberal (and Hydro and ministry insiders) composition of the beneficiaries of the IPP policy, the matter of American ownership is so sensitive - and why the anger and harsh facts from Rafe Mair and his followers (who are legion and almost on the scale of the HST revolt - and it may come to that during the election, or Christy's byelection). NOT having anything but an investment pitch and p.r. brochure and nothing at all about current policy - how is that encyclopedic? How is it NPOV? Hw is sanitizing facts NPOV? This isn't SOAP, nor is the stuff I added; it may need its own section, surely (as that section title stinks as obvious p.r. pitch). "Independent Power Producer (IPP) is a category of company created in the Canadian province of British Columbia created in 20xx which allowed private investment in previously public-owned water power and other energy sources which had been under the jurisdiction and untapped asset of BC Hydro, a Crown corporation....." could well be the start of an article, and there's enough companies already with articles to justify List of Independent Power Producers in British Columbia (Naikun, Plutonic, Finavera, tons more - Teck and Rio Tinto are not in the same category), as these are now part of Lists of Dams and Powerhouses, or should be (there are so many the notion of "Conservation" is turned on its head; and you should see the pristine country some of them are in, some even farther in than where logging has ever gone, and what they will do to it). I have to go to bed, but if hte Liberals remain in power look for Stikine, Moran, Har Creek and other long-shelved major projects to get dusted off and given to somebody from away, with party appointees and ministry appartchiks getting handed big, fat companies. All out of thin air, with somebody else's money, and assets that used to belong to all British Columbians. Democracy? LOL Nobody voted for that, nor was it ever admitted it was going to be done until it was done (same with the BCR/CN thing). Anyway g'tnie, so much for getting to bed pronto, wanted to explain why I included what I included, and give you some background and an explanation of why it can't be left out, and indications of what else there is out there to be added - NPOV does not mean sanitizing something; you can't water down truth and still be NPOV, it's that simple; you're surrendering to the notion that controversies should be watered down; that's not "balance", that's neutralizing the debate and allowing the p.r. people to have their way by default. Untruth cannot be given equal weight to the truth, "spun" language is not plain language, and waht I added was plain language, even neutralizing somewhat the tone of the sources; both are op-ed yes, but informed op-ed citing facts, and it's the facts I repeated, not the interpretations of them, which is the op part; hes' given news figures that the so-called reliable sources won't even print, much less talk about these issues - until some bombshell hits and they have to; this is not the only BC article where this kind of matter is at play, there's Seaspan/Southern Railway (WAshington Group), Teck Cominco, Rio Tinto needs material on its operations in BC (not just technical stats and economic figures and p.r. pitchlines). I'm being repetitive, sorry this has been long; the whole article needs revision, I just needed material that needs adding (reworded more perhaps, but watering it down of its facts by generalizing some thigns is a form of, again, weaseling). And batten down the hathces, COI SPAs will come along, big companies do it as well as little ones; I don't know if you were around for the Saltspring Coffee Company article problems.....other than political material and public controversy about any company, the whole companies article hierarchy needs a long hard look at how to keep themn from being p.r. dept playpens and brochures; "no paid editing" and "COI" remember?Skookum1 (talk) 10:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

AppStore comment on Personal Computer

Can you discuss this on the talk page? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

stop scam

Hello, Ckatz. You have new messages at Thomas888b's talk page.
Message added 16:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

hi you spammed me love USER:MIMO777 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.99.119 (talk • contribs) 09:55, 16 March 2011

Talkback

Hello, Ckatz. You have new messages at Thomas888b's talk page.
Message added 16:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please could you confirm your interest in being interviewed by the signpost. Thomas888b (Say Hi) 16:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, would you be able to answer these questions? -- Thomas888b (Say Hi) 17:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you answer the questions please? -- Thomas888b (Say Hi) 20:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Reversion of your reversion of South Australia

Hi Ckatz, I've reverted your reversion to this article - I'm sure that you just meant to revert the unnecessary blank paragraphs added by User:Shurlocksam86 - but in doing so you also deleted the legitimate edit that he had previously made (although it did need some minor re-editing and clarification, and I've added an additional reference). Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 03:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

young and the restless

Hi there,

You reverted an edit I made to "the Young and the Restless" page regarding broadcasts outside the US. The original text read "It also airs on NTV in Newfoundland and Labrador which airs the program on a same-day-as-CBS basis." However this is not true...I watch NTV via satellite TV and that channel airs the "day ahead" episode the same as the rest of Canada.

I don't know where the idea that NTV airs the US episode came from but it's not correct :)

Cheers, Jessica — Preceding unsigned comment added by Applejackmuffin (talk • contribs) 12:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Articles

Hello Ckatz, I verified what I added to the Wikipedia articles on IMDB. How can I prove that it's real so that my addition will not get deleted again ?

Pausecafé (talk) 14:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The Middle.

Hi. You rv my edit without explanation. I restored most of my version with a reflink to IMDb showing the show's actual name is The Middle. (not The Middle); on TV the name is shown as the middle.
I know it's a small thing but I think an encylopaedia should have the exact info. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

We would need a definitive source (i.e. ABC or the production company) to illustrate that the period is in fact considered a part of the title (as opposed to a stylistic matter). ABC's official schedule does not incorporate the period as part of the title. I have reworked the lead accordingly. --Ckatz^chat _spy 20:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

OK. Fair enough. I'll try to come up with something. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking to add a page for "The Script Lab"

I noticed that you had previously deleted a page for "The Script Lab" when i was about to create one. As you know Wikipedia suggests I talk to you first.

I find it to be a very relevant topic since they are offering something much greater than even your screenwriting section offers, for the same cost - nothing. I'm a big fan and think they need to be referenced more than many of the other companies that link from the screenwriting page that are nothing more than ads.

I'd love to work with you or another editor to make sure this of course is done in a matter in line with Wikipedias practices. I'm beginning a page privately in my account to begin with since it's my first. Thanks. Alex Alexcarson001 (talk) 00:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The site does not appear to meet the requirements for an article, and there have been more than half a dozen accounts created solely to promote this site. Unfortunately, yours appears to be yet another one. --Ckatz^chat _spy 02:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

On the buses

Hello- as a recent new member to the wiki family i posted an insert on this page as i came across information regarding some of the guest appearances made on this show by other actors who went on to other things. when i checked back the segment named guest appearances, had been removed and some other wording that did not convey my information terms including "political correctness" were seen instead. that is twaddle - especially when the show was produced, and Britain was facing the beginning of the arrival of other nations that was very confronting. programs like "love thy neighbour and on the buses", replaced stoogery such as the "black & white minstrel show". I know because I witnessed it. what was wrong with my edit on the page yesterday? because it appears to me that whoever did that counter edit didn't understand what i was trying to contribute, and removed my positive input, that given time, would have expanded as more actors, were seen in the series now being broadcast in aust from the beginning. steptoe and son had many of the actors/extras from "are you being served" as they were on a roster at the BBC. so what is the reason that my little contribution was cut and reworked so as to make no sense at all?

if policy was contravened i should have whatever it was explained to me. I do have a few things i can fill in the gaps on so your page gets a more complete information base.

regards Kuzunkinuts (talk) 03:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC) kuzunkinuts Kuzunkinuts (talk) 03:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very very much

That should make my life a LOT easier... Serendi ^pod ous 09:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Pacific NW

Hello,

I added Tacoma to the list of largest cities in the Pacific NW and you removed my edit, saying that it was a part of Seattle. Tacoma isn't a part of Seattle at all. It is a 40 minutes drive away, south of Seattle. Why do you think it is a part of Seattle? They are 2 separate cities. I am just confused. Tacoma should be on that list. By that logic, you should just clump Olympia in there too...that was a joke. Don't clump Olympia in. There is just no way Seattle covers Tacoma. Please help me understand.

75.149.173.155 (talk) 19:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Kelly

External-link removal

Ckatz,

I wanted to link you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Reincarnation_research#External_Youtube_link

Same as the user two posts above, "I believe this is a worthwhile contribution and link."

Thanks in advance, Twipley (talk) 13:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 March newsletter

We are half way through round two of the WikiCup, which will end on 28 April. Of the 64 current contestants, 32 will make it through to the next round; the two highest in each pool, and the 16 next highest scorers. At the time of writing, our current overall leader is Hurricanehink (submissions) with 231 points, who leads Pool H. Piotrus (submissions) (Pool G) also has over 200 points, while 9 others (three of whom are in Pool D) have over 100 points. Remember that certain content (specifically, articles/portals included in at least 20 Wikipedias as of 31 December 2010 or articles which are considered "vital") is worth double points if promoted to good or featured status, or if it appears on the main page in the Did You Know column. There were some articles last round which were eligible for double points, but which were not claimed for. For more details, see Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring.

A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round three is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! 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, or by email. 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 and The ed17 00:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Emmy categories

The SAG and Golden Globe TV winners have their own subcategories, so why can't the Emmys? Of course the categories are "over-specific" -- the Emmys divide their nominees into three fields: drama, comedy, and miniseries/movie. Lumping them all together in one umbrella category seems overly vague. JackalLantern (talk) 04:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

How isn't that a refutable source-Terry Bradshaw-, that's an official website.. I'm a huge steelers fan and that's definitely his nickname. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.29.108.124 (talk) 23:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

A Question about Air Bud and Uday Hussein

Can you please define what "trivial and non-encyclopedic" mean? The link you included had no mention of either of those words. Indeed, we even went to the section on what Wikipedia is not, thinking that would answer our question, but that was a wrong expectation, as neither word is used in that section. Please, tell us what a trivial fact is. A definition, not a series of examples, would be most helpful. We only ask because we learned from Wikipedia that the favorite food of Yashichi, a character from Mirmo!, is karinto, which seems rather trivial to us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.136.193.250 (talk) 02:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Upon closer inspection, there is a section on non-encyclopedic matters, but that has to do with making intersecting categories, such as people of group X that do activity Y, and has nothing to do with "triviality." We would ask, in the future, when deleting our edits, to use the proper terminology.

A March 2009 edit to MOSNUM

I've just been trying to trace some changes to the NBSP section(s) of MOSNUM, and came across this edit. The diff surprisingly fails to show the introduction of a second block of NBSP text. Please be clear that I'm not making any accusations that this change was done by you without consensus, just that I'm mystified how it doesn't show up. I can see MOSNUM was a mess at the time of your edit. SandyGeorgia said to me there was a discussion that nbsp were never considered as necessary or desirable... do you recall such a discussion? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that edit... that was when I transcluded part of the guideline so that we could lock it (and leave the rest open). Unfortunately, what was revealed afterward was that it can make the diffs rather hard to read, because you seem to end up with a mix of the diff from that date for the material in the page you're reading and the diff for today's date from the page that is trancluded (or something like that - basically, it's a mess, and I avoid doing it unless absolutely necessary). Edits seem to disappear from the history, even though they are clear in the actual page content. (Unfortunately, I can't help with your question about any discussions; I don't recall anything about NBSPs, but then again I wasn't pondering them at the time and as such wouldn't have been looking for any such discussions. Sorry...) --Ckatz^chat _spy 06:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Great Scott

Opened thread at Talk:Great Scott. If you still don't agree about the notability of that establishment, then I'll hold the matter closed. But please consider the notability of items already in that section before simply writing it off. Also, that dickhead IP going around reverting all your edits is just a random dick, and I hope you don't imagine I'm pleased he reverted your reversion of my reversion of your reversion. Thanks! ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 15:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Site C Dam

Are we gonna have to get into a citation war here? Since this project was first proposed - and I've been BC media follower and also environmental politics follower for over thirty years - and it's always capitalized, whether in the mainstream media or in environmental politics pieces. The lower-case rule is too casually applied/enforced in Wikipedia, and it looks....stupid.Skookum1 (talk) 06:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

What you've reverted to has no more basis in reality than W.A.C. Bennett dam or Moran dam or Lajoie dam or Terzaghi dam or Mica dam or Daisy Lake dam (OK, there's no article yet for that last one).Skookum1 (talk) 06:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Provincial Government Services in Princeton & Merritt

Why did you undo my edits to the Princeton, British Columbia and Merritt British Columbia pages?

I can answer this, don't mean to butt in on CKatz, but your additions are clearly WP:SPAM and are not about Princeton or Merrittbut about your company's services; and that it's now a private company outsourced by the BC Government rather than a crown agency anymore makes your additions clearly promotional and advertising in nature. There can be an article Service BC - but if written it should not be in a promotional manner and not a "pitch". See WP:What Wikipedia is not.Skookum1 (talk) 22:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit war

There's a low-scale spelling conflict between two other users on the War of 1812 article; it might turn ugly if more nationalistic editors come into the brawl. KentuckyFriedRamen (talk) 22:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I've left notices for the two editors in question and am trying to start a discussion about which spelling and usage rules to follow on War of 1812 here (at Talk:War of 1812). --Shearonink (talk) 22:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up; I've added the page to my watchlist and will monitor developments. --Ckatz^chat _spy 06:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

65-something

I have seldom seen a banned user admit to socking in an unblock request. That makes things so much easier. Because of its honesty, I recommend you subtract 1 day from its indefinite ban. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Explanation Please

It is generally considered rude to fail to address questions which raise valid points. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.96.51 (talk) 18:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

nip tuck reversion

you reverted an edit of nip tuck. Reverting it back to 6 seasons 100 episodes from 7 season 109 nine episodes. There are actually 7 season to nip tuck and the 7th season dvd is all ready for sale i have a copy and have watched the episodes personally. You can buy it off amazon.com here.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0032JEI1S/ref=pd_sxp_grid_pt_2_0

I would have finished the edit on the episodes page to add the 7th season episodes, names, dates, ect... but i was unsure how to format it. So i pasted the info in the discussion area for a more experienced editor to add.

cheers

65.13.127.41 (talk) 03:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

See the list of episodes, which describes how the nine episodes intended as a seventh season were merged into the sixth season. You are double-counting those nine episodes. --Ckatz^chat _spy 07:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Twinkle goofed, can you do me a quick favour?

I was in the process of adding Dennis deen to AFD when someone CSD'd it (I thought the article, however poorly written, made assertions of notability so in my mind it didn't qualify for CSD). I hit Cancel on Twinkle but it looks like it had already posted the article to AFD... can you remove Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dennis_deen? Sorry for the mess... XXX antiuser ^eh? 19:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the note. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat _spy 20:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit on Lee Purcell page

You performed this edit: 19:42, 14 April 2011 Ckatz (talk | contribs) m (15,199 bytes) (Sorry, can you provide a link to this interview?) (undo)

I would be more than happy to. Unfortunately, examiner.com is blacklisted by Wikipedia's spam filter. So, I thought I would merely list the title to the interview. Calm Seas101 (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. FYI, the regs for sourcing material for biographies tend to be much stricter than for other articles, and thus there is more likelihood that material will be pulled until a citation can be found (as opposed to tagging). With respect to your edit, I'd suggest that you apply at the spam whitelist to see if you can get that particular page whitelisted for that article. As an aside, it would seem that the second set of text - "at an early age..." - is not needed and a bit PR-ish. (For encyclopaedic purposes, the reader can come to that conclusion by the fact that she started so early.) Cheers. --Ckatz^chat _spy 20:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Essay

Care to explain why you tagged an essay that was already tagged?Cptnono (talk) 11:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

fDi Intelligence American Cities of the Future

Hi Ckatz, Thanks for your message - sorry i didn't notice it straight away. The messages I added related to the foreign direct investment activity in different regions and is based on comprehensive analysis and research from a dedicated fDi Intelligence team in the Financial Times group.

This information should be very valuable to people interested in these regions as it basically covers their economic viability. We were rushing to get the information out but if we reviewed the messages, reduced the scope and added more background/stats to the message would this be acceptable? Kind regards Tinathebanker (talk) 16:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Chuck (TV series)

Hi CKatz. I helped ip 86 find sources from the IRC channel. The first one to E online checked out. The second one, to Michael Ausiello was a bit shaky but the best we could find. The ip obviously wants to promote the show and the site to do so, but I thought that ref was borderline. (On TVRockstars.com, TV commentator Michael Ausiello made note of a fan campaign to save Chuck at www.wegiveachuck.com.ref http://www.tvrockstars.com/chuck-spoilers-chuck-and-sarah-be-heading-for-the-altar-before-seasons-end/ ). However you want to handle it--I explained the unlikelihood of it remaining. Cheers, Ocaasi ^c 20:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

2001 American television endings

If Oprah is on that list and her show isn't over yet, there's no reason why All My Children shouldn't be on that list.24.130.115.108 (talk) 09:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I've fixed the Oprah article. The category is only applied once the final episode has aired. --Ckatz^chat _spy 09:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I edited that page and how is Nyland insignificant, i am more then sure he is,,,, Signed, has a major release coming out and that was typed very carefully. So please explain to me Why the page was deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nylandbookings (talk • contribs) 09:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

YorkU murder

Sir, I've responded to the comment you made on the YorkU murder on its talkpage, but i've yet to hear a response from you.Sleetman (talk) 06:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Sir, again, you've yet to respond to my response to your response on the yorku talk page. i urge you to do so in order to resolve this matter.Sleetman (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Edits

Hi Ckatz,

How are you? I'm new to Wikipedia editing and certainly don't want to break any rules. The links I've posted are in-depth examinations of these author's respective works. Also, I looked at previous messages sent to me here and had difficulty finding the way to respond, hence my communication with you here.

By the way, I'm not sure if this helps, but I am a recognized expert in the field of literature, and I critique books for numerous publishing venues.

Thanks for your consideration.

Take care,

Johnmadera (talk) 15:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC) John

Your undo Maglev wind turbine

Hello, what's wrong with my contribution? I know my English is not good. But wikipedia should warn readers that the whole thought of MagLev wind turbine is nonsense.

The statement that "One of the biggest inefficiencies in a wind turbine is friction" is absurd and is the base of why many trust that some breakthrough was achieved. There is no reason to develop any better bearings, neither magnetic nor another. The other statements also does not hold, see for instance http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2007/07/the_new_new_thi_1.html and this: Posted by: ttyler5 at July 29, 2007 08:20 PM .

So, will you try to express this in some wiki compatible manner? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.113.228.67 (talk) 15:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: User Sleetman

This user seems to be a flagrant abuser ofWP: NPOV and 3RR policies. He has behaved the same way regarding the Robert Spencer (author) page, claiming "consensus" where none exists. Have you caught this person reverting the page you warned him about? Just curious. Jemiljan (talk) 07:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

JG

CKatz,

Re Jonathan Glatzer's page. I do represent his professional interests. Most every page for a director or actor is posted by their agent, manager, PR person, etc. I was in error for initially posting it with just the positive reviews quoted. But by trying to balance out the equation with RT scores (incorrect ones) or negative reviews, you are adding to my mistake, not correcting it. No other comparable director (1st timer) has RT scores - actually I couldn't find RT scores on any director - and in this case, the critical response to the film is appropriately covered on the film's page. I represent lots of directors and not one of their pages has been treated this way. You say I'm single purposed, but I am no longer pushing the positive reviews, you seem hell bent on putting in something negative. I feel strongly that by removing ALL reviews, all RT scores, etc., no one's agenda is being pushed and the page further resembles like pages. Seems eminently fair. As it is now, there is nothing indisputable.

Sheldonsheldrake (talk) 06:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Note that, while pages may sometimes initially be posted by an agent or other such representative, once posted they are subject to the standards expected of all articles. There is no "ownership" permitted, and articles cannot be rewritten to suit the desires of the subject or their PR representatives. --Ckatz^chat _spy 06:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Note that, in full understanding of Wiki's neutrality policies, I removed all the positive reviews. I am asking that you to respect the neutrality and not push the negative. You have also failed to show any other comparable director's page that quotes RT numbers.

I negotiate for a living. When there is something controversial, that is covered in other arenas (other pages in this case), that is going against established norms and practices, it is the first thing taken off the table. I urge you to consider taking a truly neutral approach as I did and remove the RT scores, unless you wish to research and insert the same information into every other director's biographical page. Thomkruze (talk) 06:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm presuming that you are one-and-the same as User:Sheldonsheldrake. If so, you would be better served in sticking to just one account. Also note that we are not "pushing the negative"; if you check the reviews I went to the trouble of adding as references, you'll see that it includes a positive review. Also note that we're not highlighting direct quotes from the reviews any more, but instead simply stating a basic fact about the reception. I'm sure that, if the RT rating was exceptionally high, you'd expect that detail to be mentioned. Also, please note that it is very likely that many of the articles about "newer" directors and producers are largely contributed by their representatives. However, the probability that those articles - which would tend to be rather low-traffic - have not been properly reviewed by uninvolved editors does not warrant taking similar actions in one that has. --Ckatz^chat _spy 06:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Then you should include the entire critical response from the films' page. It contains all the negative scores as well as quotes from bad reviews, middling reviews and positive ones. Either that, or leave it ALL out and stick to the facts about Mr. Glatzer's life. That you link one positive review is irrelevant to the reader who is unlikely to click on 6 different articles. Sheldonsheldrake (talk) 06:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, the first link is to the RT page, which includes all of the reviews. By the way, the fact that his film had such an exceptionally low critical reception is certainly a relevant fact about Mr. Glatzer's life, one that is certainly more notable than the release date for the DVD. --Ckatz^chat _spy 07:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Here’s what I think happened: You saw that JG’s page contained positive reviews with quotes and wanted to correct the record, and that’s legitimate, but I believe you allowed your annoyance to guide you and as a result, you overcompensated. Why mention the 8% RT score instead of Metacritic’s 22%, is that because Metacritic only surveys 10 reviewers? If that’s the case, then why use RT’s “Top Critics” rating when their larger pool of reviewers has a 17% rating? Why not, for that matter, talk about audience response, such as IMDB’s rating of 6.4 out of 10 or Netflix’s (2.6 out of 5)? Or that the film has attained a cult status despite the negative reviews (top 10 VOD rentals of indie titles in 2010)? There are many metrics, yet you chose the lowest possible one.

The producer of the movie told me he had a drawn-out battle with you over the language describing the critical response on the film’s page and in the end, you both agreed to language which was fair and balanced, language that acknowledged the mostly unfavorable reviews while pointing out there were notable exceptions. My suggestion for JG’s page is that we say the following: “The critical response to the film was mostly negative with a few notable exceptions. More on this topic can be found here.” And then link to the film’s page.

I hope this meets with your approval, and for my part, I apologize for continuously undoing your revisions. I believed at the time by removing all reviews, good and bad, I had put forth a reasonable solution. When you insisted on maintaining only a negative slant (the footnote to one good review notwithstanding), I felt my good faith gesture had been disregarded. I do, however, see that the topic is relevant and should be linked to a larger discussion. An alternative would be to paste the entire section from the film’s page onto JG’s, but I think we both agree, that would overwhelm the purpose of a bio. Sheldonsheldrake (talk) 18:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk:TuneUp Utilities/GA2

Hello, Ckatz.

Sorry to be reverting your contributions in TuneUp Utilities again, but GA reviewer says he wants more "elaboration", so I added them. If he arrived and saw that I had said "I added them" and found none (since you removed them) he'd have thought I am a liar. Believe me, I don't want to spark intentional discontent.

But why don't you participate and say what you have to say? After all, I don't want to monopolize the article. Fleet Command (talk) 13:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I've restored the changes, with the rationale noted in he edit summary. It may not have been clear, but my edits did not remove all of your changes. Some were kept, some were reverted, and others were trimmed for brevity. No-one will doubt your efforts. --Ckatz^chat _spy 16:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 April newsletter

Round 2 of the 2011 WikiCup is over, and the new round will begin on 1 May. Note that any points scored in the interim (that is, for content promoted or reviews completed on 29-30 April) can be claimed in the next round, but please do not start updating your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. Fewer than a quarter of our original contestants remain; 32 enter round 3, and, in two months' time, only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. Casliber (submissions), who led Pool F, was our round champion, with 411 points, while 7 contestants scored between 200 and 300 points. At the other end of the scale, a score of 41 was high enough to reach round 3; more than five times the score required to reach round 2, and competition will no doubt become tighter now we're approaching the later rounds. Those progressing to round 3 were spread fairly evenly across the pools; 4 progressed from each of pools A, B, E and H, while 3 progressed from both pools C and F. Pools D and G were the most successful; each had 5 contestants advancing.

This round saw our first good topic points this year; congratulations to Hurricanehink (submissions) and Nergaal (submissions) who also led pool H and pool B respectively. However, there remain content types for which no points have yet been scored; featured sounds, featured portals and featured topics. In addition to prizes for leaderboard positions, the WikiCup awards other prizes; for instance, last year, a prize was awarded to Candlewicke (submissions) (who has been eliminated) for his work on In The News. For this reason, working on more unusual content could be even more rewarding than usual!

Sorry this newsletter is going out a little earlier than expected- there is a busy weekend coming up! A running total of claims can be seen here. 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, or by email. 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 and The ed17 19:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Unify my account

Dear Ckatz,

I'm a French contributor, with login Druth. I tried for months to unify my account but only on behalf of WP: EN does not unified. I discovered that the account Druth was blocked for vandalism. Is it possible to rename this account so I can unify the mine? and if so, could you direct me to that? Thank you very much.

PS: sorry for the English, I use google translate because I am not bilingual, so it's probably not very understandable. 92.142.158.212 (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I will look into the matter and let you know where to apply for the change. Please feel free to leave me a reminder if you have not had a reply in a week or so, in case I am busy. Cheers. Your translation was not a problem, by the way; I hope mine is also acceptable:

"Merci pour cette note. Je vais étudier la question et vous laisser savoir à qui s'adresser pour le changement. S'il vous plaît n'hésitez pas à me laisser un rappel si vous n'avez pas eu une réponse dans une semaine ou deux, au cas où je suis occupé. Cheers. Votre traduction n'était pas un problème, soit dit en passant, j'espère que le mien est acceptable."

--Ckatz^chat _spy 20:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you help me?

Ckatz you are the only one who can help me. This guy named Millahnna keeps changing the Notable abilities that I put up in Rupert Giles's infobox and he keeps changing it saying it is a fancruft or "infobox bloat" after I have constantly told him to stop. I even put a <---- Do not delete Notable abilities ----> sign in the infobox but he still did it and I come to you wondering if you could maybe tell him to stop. Could you please? I can't take anymore, he is just driving to my breaking point, so please tell him and get back to me as soon as possible. Thanks.173.72.83.190 (talk) 21:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

.

Hi,

Reading the Geotagging page I noticed that several commercial software programs are mentioned, but one freeware program not. GeoSetter is free and used around the world a lot. It is spoken highly of. I have been using it now for several years and am very happy with it.

SO I added it. I see that you reverted the edit. Could you please tell me why my addition was not correct?

Regards Wiki03052011 (talk) 08:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Grouse Mountain Wikipedia Page

Hi Ckatz, thanks for your feedback and edits. Could you clarify your removal of recently posted content on the Grouse Mountain Wikipedia page? The award that was added to the wind turbine section to add credibility to the project and to identify it’s significance to the Grouse Mountain Resort. I understand that you feel this was a PR edit. How would you suggest that I identify an award was won for this very unique project? Should I create an entirely new Wikipedia page about the "Eye of the Wind" and link it to the Grouse Mountain page? If you could let me know your thoughts it would be very much appreciated. I am simply trying to highlight the significance and value of this project and an award with a 3rd party reference I thought would certainly do this. Thanks, Joe Fielder (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The information about the award was in fact retained; however, it was reduced to the essential details that relate to the tower, and moved up a bit. The other material was more related to your company and was not needed. Please keep in mind that, as an employee of the company, you do have a conflict of interest with respect to adding said material. It is better to ask on the talk page as to the encyclopaedic nature of the material rather than simply adding it. (This is not to discourage you from contributing; however, it would be more appropriate to add material that you can draw upon from a more general experience with engineering rather than text specific to your company and its projects.) --Ckatz^chat _spy 18:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate Content?

Sorry, I thought I was leaving a link to appropriate content since the entire website is devoted to the same subject matter of the Wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizbee403 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Waterloo Road edit

Hiya, sorry about that, I hadn't looked at your previous comment regarding the Waterloo Road cast, Thanks for changing it but surely its pointless having cast there that haven't been in the show since 07 ? ... Not moaning just saying :), Thanks tho, Davey2010 Talk 15:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I appreciate you taking the time to reply. Wikipedia articles treat a series as a complete body of work, instead of a collection of individual events. Essentially, we document the entire run instead of being "in the moment". (Fictional works exist in what has been described as a "perpetual present" in that the current reality is entirely dependent upon which episode you are watching.) An actor who serves in a main role is thus always represented as such, and is not relegated to "former" status. Hope this helps. --Ckatz^chat _spy 21:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow never knew that ... It all makes sense now, And actually I guess its better too as its aired in different countrys ... but yup definitely makes sense :) , thanks for reply and teaching me something new :) , Davey2010 Talk 23:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Removing blacklisted references

When removing <ref>s using blacklisted links, as you did in this edit, please be sure not to leave orphaned refs behind (e.g. these). An easy way to check is to see if the page ends up in the hidden category Category:Pages with broken reference names after your edit. Thanks! Anomie ⚔ 17:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Unprotection request of Bureaucracy

Courtesy notice. Cheers, theFace 19:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Question about your deletion of the section "2010s: Successors to High-Definition Video Announced to Likely Arrive in Near Future"

Hello, Ckatz. I apologize for referring to only one company's viewpoints regarding the future of the successors for high-definition video. However, I can source link many other company's, including NHK world and some other American and Japanese production companies, viewpoints on this matter. Most of them expect 2160p or 4320p video or television to start hitting the consumer market in the 2015-2016 time period, with widespread adaption after 2020. I respect your decision to delete my entire contribution section in that article; though, it would be appreciated if you would permit me to add some more supporting citations and text to that article if you decide to undo your deletion of my contribution in that article. Please respond to me in this Talk page with your decision when you get the chance. Thanks for your cooperation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AntiLiberalist (talk • contribs) 06:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Request

I gave some advice to a user you recently blocked to encourage constructive edits and avoid a perceived WP:BITE case. If you have any more advice to give this user, it would be appreciated. --Tathar (talk) 02:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

ITC external link

Hello Ckatz, I have seen that you have recently removed all the ITC external links that I have added. I definetly understand your point and from now on I will wait for feedbacks before adding the link. By the way, in the case of Economy of Uganda I have posted a discussion on the 18th of April and then added my link on the 27th. How long do I have to wait before adding the link? I didn't receive any answers to my discussion post for more than a week, so I thought it was ok. Do I have to wait more? Thank you in advance for your availability. Divoc (talk) 14:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Unrecorded record breaking contributions of the Imafidons to educational achievements

Dear Hon Editor/Moderator,

The world record set by Anne-Marie Imafidon and the other siblings are now common knowledge. But your pages do not reflect this. Hence the urgent need to update your entry on Anne-Marie Imafidon, and create a separate page for the Imafidon siblings. See a list of independent sources before you agree, or disagree with me.

Here are the initial findings of my research: Anne-Marie Imafidon is widely known as a computing, mathematics and language child prodigy. She set a new British record of being the youngest to pass two GCSEs in two different subjects while in primary school. She passed two GCSE Examinations (in Mathematics and Information technology) at the tender age of ten, six years ahead of her peers. Imafidon holds the record as the youngest girl ever to pass Advanced Level (A-level) in computing at the age of eleven. She also passed Pure Mathematics at Advanced Supplementary Level at the same sitting. At 12 she was offered a scholarship to study at a private Oxford college (unaffiliated with the University of Oxford). At 13 she accepted a British government scholarship to study Mathematics at undergraduate level at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. At 14 she was offered a place to study for a Masters degree in Mathematical Computing by two leading British Universities. Anne-Marie has recently co-authored a Mathematics book with her siblings. She mentored her junior sibling, Samantha Imafidon who broke all records and became the youngest person ever to be admitted into senior school at the age of 9. Samantha is also the world record holder of the youngest person to get an 'A' grade in a Cambridge University Advanced Mathematics paper at the age of 9. In June 2010 she became one of the youngest ever Masters degree graduate of the University of Oxford. She was honoured at the palace of Westminster in London by The British Parliament, UK equivalent of the house of Senate. [edit] References References Gary Eason (2001-08-16). "BBC NEWS | UK | Education | A-level for 11 year old". Newsrss.bbc.co.uk. http://newsrss.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/1494503.stm. Retrieved 2010-04-23. Bill Goodwin (2001-08-23). "Computing A-level makes 11-year-old record-breaker - 23/08/2001". Computer Weekly. http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2001/08/23/182076/ComputingA-levelmakes11-year-oldrecord-breaker.htm. Retrieved 2010-04-23. Rebecca Smithers, education correspondent. "IT success for boy aged 12 | UK news | The Guardian". Education.guardian.co.uk. http://education.guardian.co.uk/alevels2003/story/0,13394,1019261,00.html. Retrieved 2010-04-23. July 21, 2009 (2009-07-21). "CNN's ireport reveals the best ever college student (African American in Britain?) - CNN iReport". Ireport.com. http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-301497. Retrieved 2010-04-23. Beckford, Martin (2007-09-06). "Scholarship for girl who passed GCSEs aged 7". Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1562315/Scholarship-for-girl-who-passed-GCSEs-aged-7.html. Retrieved 2010-04-23. "HISTORIC EXAM PASS BY 9-Y-O SAMANTHA". Voice Online. 2009-04-17. http://www.voice-online.co.uk/content.php?show=10997. Retrieved 2010-04-23. "Brainy duo make the grade - News - Roundup - Articles". Reading Chronicle. 2008-09-05. http://www.readingchronicle.co.uk/articles/1/4577. Retrieved 2010-04-23 [edit] References [edit] External links • Official website

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne-Marie_Imafidon" Categories: Calculating prodigies | Living people Hidden categories: Orphaned articles from May 2009 | All orphaned articles | Use dmy dates from September 2010 | Year of birth missing (living people)

OTHER SIBLINGS

They were on BBC News - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/1494503.stm Last year, University of Oxford gave them an award - http://www.comlab.ox.ac.uk/news/246-full.html CNN - http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-380486, and CNN http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-468045

I know of no other person that is more qualified to inform/inspire/speak to students. The Americans, British, Afro-Carribean, Chinese, Liberian are all honouring him and asking him for advice. He and his family have been invited to Western Parliament several times. Watch how the British media worship a man. I got my children to watch this video once a term. SKYNews: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVl0KtUlvQo&feature=related GMTV News: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2zcNty-TRI, http://www.youtube.com/user/eieprogramme#p/a/u/2/d2zcNty-TRI GMTV Interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trP1DYZqykI BBC TV News- Kids http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adkAEfzy8J0 BBC TV News - http://www.youtube.com/user/imafidons#p/u/0/lXsu-pmWesk Breakfast TV News http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHHw6M2-Gwc New York Times: http://straightsets.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/04/williams-sisters-are-under-way-in-womens-final-at-wimbledon/ CNN - http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-380486 BBC - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/8211160.stm

The UK government are already benefiting from their success. See the evidence of a meeting with the British Education Minister http://www.excell3.com/images/uploads/doc_30.pdf

The Church of England are celebrating him them.

Telegraph - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1562315/Scholarship-for-girl-who-passed-GCSEs-aged-7.html Computer Weekly News - http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2003/08/19/196654/Twelve-year-old-passes-IT-A-level.htm USA - University http://yegs.org/yegs-hall-of-fame-anne-marie-imafidon-1990/ Reading News -http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/education/s/2077762_maths_is_easy_its_just_a_game_with_numbers

Re; Dr. Who reverts

You have made four reverts within a 24-hour period (0, 1, 2, 3, 4), placing you in violation of 3RR. I would urge you to undo your last revet and remain engaged on the discussion page; if you choose not to do so, I will be forced to escalate the matter. You cannot convince anyone of the strength of your arguments via revert; indeed, if anything it simply clouds the issue with a strong desire to put another person into a very small box and kick it around the room. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I would say that it is really a mistake to resort to heavy-handed threats like that; not only are you somewhat misrepresenting the situation, but it unnecessarily adds tension to the discussion. Please note that you are the one who removed the long-standing text that is in fact supported by the reference, because you erroneously thought the link was dead, and you are the one who repeatedly deleted text three times after that. While I may have restored my attempt at compromise a second time, my subsequent edit involved rolling back to the existing consensus version (consensus in this case meaning the one that had been accepted for quite some time) so that we could discuss the matter on an even footing. (Your rationale for removal was predicated on the assumption that the link in question was dead; it was not, but even if it was it could easily have been tagged as dead given that the source - the BBC - is certainly reliable. Also note - and I say this while recognizing the spirit of 3RR - that I did not actually revert 4 times in 24 hours.) Honestly, the best and most proper approach on both our parts should have been to properly respect WP:BRD: you removed some text, I restore it, then we discuss. Unfortunately, neither of us took that route; while we are discussing it now (and hopefully getting additional voices as well) please leave aside the needlessly provocative threats. --Ckatz^chat _spy 00:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

My apologies if you thought I was heavy-handed; I simply asked you to revert. Had I been what I consider to be heavy-handed, I'd have simply asked you to revert, wait 1 hour and report you to AN:EW - note that I did not do that (even though you have refused to self-revert), but instead came here, privately, to allow you to self-correct. Trust me, had I felt the need for provocation, we wouldn't be talking here. Now, even though you chose to forego that gentle reminder, I am going to still work with you in discussion to resolve the problem. This despite the bit of Good faith that you have lost here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Removal of sourced info from Awards table

Please, discuss at the article's talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 03:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Mail! part two

Hello, Ckatz. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Sadly, i have not received a single answer from the email i previously sent you. On the Template:Canadian mobile phone companies talk page, i've listed my numerous problems with the template and how its information is presented. Please address my concerns promptly. Thank you. --LABcrabs (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for interview

Gregory Kohs, a freelance reporter for Examiner.com who covers wikis as his news beat, is very interested in interviewing you for an Examiner article that he is writing about how the Examiner.com domain came to be "blacklisted" on the English Wikipedia. He is obtaining an interview with a senior employee of Examiner and, in order to keep the article balanced and factual, he would also like one or more points of view from the Wikipedia team that manages the blacklist. You may contact him by telephone (at 484-NEW-WIKI), or by e-mail at ResearchBiz@gmail.com. He asked that I contact you this way because he did not want to log in to English Wikipedia due to a ban on his account here. Regards, Lara 14:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for passing that along. However, after looking at Mr. Kohs' work on that site, I have significant concerns about whether he is actually intending to write a balanced piece. His writing seems heavily skewed to a particular POV with regard to Wikipedia, one that I can't help but wonder may be influenced by the fact he is trying to promote his own for-profit wiki. --Ckatz^chat _spy 16:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... having reviewed more of his work, I don't trust him at all. Highly sensationalized, lacking in any apparent journalistic standards, apparently just trying to stir up the muck. No thanks. --Ckatz^chat _spy 16:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Revert in child actor article

You reverted my changes in the article and requested for sources, but I don't get for what sentences sources are needed. Could you explain?--Cannot (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. Wikipedia has very specific rules for verifying material, and those are especially important when making statements about living persons. This is outlined in the verifiability, reliable sources, and (most importantly in this case) biography of living persons policies. With respect to your edits, you've made several statements that have to be sourced to reliable third-party commentators:

Very seldom a former child star can be successful again;
Among good examples is Alanis Morissette;
After one successful album in Canadian market, she was considered a "has been seen in many" at 18;
by the age of 21 she managed to reinvent her music career into a different perspective with Jagged Little Pill, which ... made Morissette a household name;

--Ckatz^chat _spy 00:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Template:Canadian mobile phone companies

We'll need to keep an eye on LABcrabs (talk · contribs). He renamed the template, but I reverted it back and edited the re-direct so it can't be moved again without consensus. But yeah, he's being frustrating, LOL. Me-123567-Me (talk) 22:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

No, you are being frustrating. At least admit that there is a difference between Bell Mobility and DMTS Mobility. They do NOT belong in the same category. Is DMTS a billion-dollar company? Is their service bilingual? Do they serve all of Canada? Do you understand?
Also, lots of "companies" in the list are subsidaries of Bell Canada, so why include and duplicate information?
Why not get real and provide facts, rather than confusing information, about the Canadian mobile industry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LABcrabs (talk • contribs) 14:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Directory:Logic Museum

Your futile block My IP is dynamic and changes twice daily, so I don't see the point of your block. Other users of that IP may want to edit Wikipedia, so you are hardly furthering the objectives of 'anyone can edit'. You could try a range block, but that would disable most users in central London, which would hardly furthering the objectives of the project. You are a useful waste of space. 109.148.210.127 (talk) 12:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

To avoid the drama Which seems to be growing from Peter Damien above, I just want to ask a question. Per this discussion and this edit, was the Logic Museum link being spammed across multiple pages? As it being a site by a banned user is not a legitimate reason for being added to the blacklist and it has been previously considered legitimate. I have the feeling, because of Damien's actions above, that he has been spamming it and is obscuring the truth over on WR, but I wanted some proof for such and you're the logical person to ask. Silver seren^C 20:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Directory:Logic Museum Re [12]. What is the justification for the blacklisting? PD is banned as an editor, but is there reason to believe those pages have been abused? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: the above, Damian has repeatedly used IP socks (as well as sock accounts, apparently) to edit the "Sum of Logic" page. He has also indicated, through his actions and his posts, that he has no intention of stopping this behaviour or to stop trying to get links to his site. --Ckatz^chat _spy 19:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. My apologies for not reading upwards. I'll need to be less trusting William M. Connolley (talk) 20:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

earliest film to use "Great Scott"

Hi Ckatz, you removed my inclusion of an earlier film to use the exclamation "Great Scott." That would have been the first film to use that expression cited. Did you not like it because it was a humorous use, not supporting your definition? Since it was the earliest use cited, it seemed appropriate to me. Why did you remove it? Greg Dixon (talk) 22:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Falkland Islands Article in Arbitration

Having briefly reviewed the article's discussion history, I've identified you as a potentially aggrieved editor whose contributions may have been negatively impacted by the actions of a group of editors who are alleged to be POV-pushing and engaging in WP:GAMES. I invite you to peruse the arbcom request and voice your opinion and experiences, at your leisure. The link is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#WP:NPOV_and_WP:GAMES_in_.22Falkland_Islands.22_and_related_articles

Thank you.Alex79818 (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Frequently asked questions

Where can I learn more about editing Wikipedia?
- The best place to start is at the Help Desk. Other useful links include the style guide, the list of policies and guidelines, and the guide to editing. Please feel free to ask on my talk page if you have any questions.
Why was the link I added removed from an article?
- Typically, links are removed because they fail the external links guideline. Although many links are deleted because they were placed by spammers, links to good sites are also removed on a regular basis. This is because Wikipedia isn't a directory service; the mere fact a site exists does not mean it warrants a link.
Why was my article deleted?
- Pages can be deleted for many reasons; there are very specific criteria that govern the process. Please review this article for more information.
Why was information relating to my company or organization removed?
- This is a very common question, based on a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's purpose. This project is not a directory, forum, or search engine, and as such it is not a place for you to post advertisements about your company or your product.
Why were my spelling changes reverted?

Wikipedia's Manual of Style recommends the use of regional varieties of English, based on the topic and the article's contribution history. Please avoid changing spellings unless they differ from the appropriate version. Most spell checking software can be configured to use British and American English; some extend this to include other varieties such as Canadian or Australian English.

Contents

himym wikia

Hi, I noted your comments on the himym discussion page about notability of Wikia links. Destron Commander is putting them all wholesale. Assist in removing if you can. Thanks. --Eaglestorm (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 May newsletter

We're half way through round 3 of the 2011 WikiCup. There are currently 32 remaining in the competition, but only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. Casliber (submissions), of pool D, is our overall leader with nearly 200 points, while pools A, B and C are led by Racepacket (submissions), Hurricanehink (submissions) and Canada Hky (submissions) respectively. The score required to reach the next round is 35, though this will no doubt go up significantly as the round progresses. We have a good number of high scorers, but also a considerable number who are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. Also, an important note concerning nominations at featured article candidates: if you are nominating content for which you intend to claim WikiCup points, please make this clear in the nomination statement so that the FAC director and his delegates are aware of the fact.

A running total of claims can be seen here. 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, or by email. 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 and The ed17 23:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Internet Explorer 6

Why was this an improper reference?--Luca Ghio (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Concerning April 16, 1966

Hello CKatz

I have made an editorial contribution of a verifiable date (April 16, 1966) concerning the production period of The Prisoner (TV 1969) and have included the source as the "Daily Express' article by the reporter Martin Jackson. This was been removed. In that this is a verifiable source that adds new information to the body of the article (The Prisoner: Origins and Production) I would like to know upon what basis this has been removed. If you need as an editor to verify this for yourself you can do so at the digital archive UK Press Online.

Thank you in advance for your prompt reply.

Sincerely

A Contributor

66.235.14.67 (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Ckatz

Thank you for your reply over at The Prisoner talk.

Sincerely

A Contributor

66.235.14.67 (talk) 22:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey Mr. Katz,

This is Jonathan Glatzer. My publicity rep informed of the back and forth antics you and he engaged in about a month ago. I told him not to worry about it and to drop it. But today, I had reason to look up the page and couldn't believe you would insist on 6 references to the statement, "the film received mostly negative reviews." Frankly, it seemed punitive. Perhaps my PR guy got under your skin and you wanted to let him know he didn't hold the keys to his client's wiki page. Fine. Point made. But now, I am asking you directly, personally to not take out your ire on me. There should be one reference for a simple statement such as that. Make it Rotten Tomatoes if you want - that ought to do it. But please don't pile on. For work purposes, I have looked up lots of fellow directors with similar resumes to mine and none contain this sort of finger in the eye type of thing - let alone a reference to any reviews good or bad. It would be my preference to not even reference the critics since I think the film shouldn't be defined by them but by audience response which has been decidedly positive - moreover, since it is a page about me, not the film, I would not want the critics to define me either. (Also, the critical response is discussed on the film's page.)

I have no quarrel with you at this time. However, if you ignore this request for fairness or engage in a similar back and forth with me, I will be compelled to take further action as this page, for better or worse, has a direct relationship on my career and my ability to earn a living for my family. Please, make it one reference or remove the sentence entirely.

Lastly, I was never on the Men's Olympic Fencing Team. It's hysterical - and illustrative - that this petulant argument over reviews was occurring a half inch away from a complete falsehood dealing with a major international event. I have no idea how that info came to be on my bio.

Thank you,

Jonathan Glatzer

Jkyleg (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The Walking Dead

Here are some examples of shows that have the year in the section headings:

I will investigate through the television project, but the convention is (as far as I am aware) to avoid years. Furthermore, we would not use "Season One" but instead "Season one". --Ckatz^chat _spy 03:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there any consensus on whether or not the year can be added to the section headings in television articles? Ryanlively (talk) 22:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

ISS

Sorry to put up another section named ISS, I see you deleted the other one where I praised your work, oh well.

I've requested, or am trying to make an application, so I can get help to assist us in making the ISS page better. I hope you'll participate. Looking forward to working with you.

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#International Space Station and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, Penyulap_talk 17:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Your "praise" was sarcastic in nature, or at least that is how it read. If you meant differently, I'm prepared to assume good faith. However, the escalation of this minor, minor matter to arbcom is - IMHO - way over the top, and I have responded there accordingly. --Ckatz^chat _spy 18:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Milestone Episodes

Hi!! I'm going to be in the processes of making pages again for those episodes, if your willing, we could work together! B.Davis2003 (talk) 05:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Your domain, as I'm not a viewer. However, note that you'll have to source the articles and establish notability for them from independent sources. Also, note that you should only add article titles to the template once an article exists. We avoid red links in templates. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat _spy 06:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

St. John's

I noticed you fixed the first sentence in the Newfoundland and Labrador, it sounds much better, and was wondering if you'd be interested in re-writing the introduction for St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador. The intro is the only reason St. John's isn't a Good Article, I'm know good at writing intros and have been unable to get someone to help. So it'd be great if you were interested in helping. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 19:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback; I'm glad that the tweaked version works for you. I'd be happy to take a look at the intro you mentioned over the next few days; please feel free to remind me if I forget. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat _spy 22:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Just giving you a reminder. :) Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 21:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks... check out the rewrite, and let me know if it works for you. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat _spy 08:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I should have mentioned looking in the talk page at the assessment of the article that was done. The person who assessed gave some tips and said the lead needed to be expanded with more information, I wasn't sure what to be putting in though. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Please help

Hello,

I received an e-mail notifying me that you have deleted my page edits to POW! Entertainment on Wikipedia. The edits I made are not advertizing, it's correcting outdated, old & incorrect information. Most of the stuff on that page is outdated as well the web sites and the people working for POW! such as the CFO have been updated/changed/replaced.

I'm the official New Media & Social Media Specialist for POW! Entertainment & Stan Lee's Online Representative, I was mearly making the changes on the POW! Entertainment Wiki page to reflect the changes made in our company. If you will not allow me to make the correct changes and updates, can you please advise me on how I would go about getting these specific updates made. Please & thank you. You can contact me at: Dpassarello@powentertainment.com . I look forward to your response.

-Darren Passarello POW! Entertainment New Media Specialist POW! Entertainment Administrator Dpassarello@powentertainment.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpass (talk • contribs) 01:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Persons Places and Dates

Hello Ckatz

You have removed this edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Prisoner&diff=435494589&oldid=435490049

You state that this was done because of material being 'repeated". Persons, places and dates are all essential to communicate a timeline for the origins and production components communicated in the edit. The article 'Origins and Production' section is lacking any such dates. The section where similar persons or places are mentioned is in a different context, commenting on McGoohan's 'surrealistic' creative process, an entirely different issue.

Please let me know your suggested edit. I look forward to your contributions. I will also see if the edit can be improved in the intention it was posted which is to add dates to the article from a RS.

Thank you in advance for your prompt reply.

Sincerely

A Contributor 66.235.14.67 (talk) 18:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Ckatz

Here is my suggested edit:

Patrick McGoohan said he had had the desire within in him to express his feelings on imprisonment and lack of individuality from a very early age. Towards the end of production of the third season of 'Danger Man', an ITC ,ATV film subsidiary, action series being shot at Shepperton Studios in late 1965 to early 1966, McGoohan wrote up a format as an ideal show for Everyman Films to make for ITC. He took the papers early one morning to see Lew Grade, the chairman of ITC. Grade had faith in McGoohan and told him to tell him about the idea personally, rather than read the paperwork. McGoohan did so and Grade agreed the idea was so crazy it could just work. The money was paid into Everyman Films Ltd. bank account, and production could begin.

Danger Man had begun work in 1959 with thirty-nine half-hour episodes which screened in the UK from September 1960 and by CBS in America from April 1961. Amongst the locations visited for the show Danger Man was a Welsh hamlet called Portmeirion and amongst the people McGoohan met was David Tomblin, an assistant director who had worked on shows like H.G. Well's Invisible Man. McGoohan and Tomblin found their ideas on personal freedom and creative expression were very similar, and soon formed a production company called Everyman Films Ltd.

With production of Danger Man beginning in 1964, again at MGM Borehamwood, thirty-two episodes of Danger Man were now made to fill an hour long commercial slot and premiered on ITV the following October, becoming one of the top-rated shows. Drake was now attached to MI9 and the show was sold to CBS as Secret Agent and shown in France as Destination Danger. After a break in Summer 1965, the crew moved to Shepperton to make an additional thirteen episodes in black and white, finishing on 4th March 1966 with Not So Jolly Roger. After a break of a fortnight, work resumed on two experimental episodes in color, Koroshi and Shinda Shima, which could be edited together as a feature film for the American market called KOROSHI, and form part of a fourth color season in the UK. Dating the third season around January 1966, George Markstein joined the team as the script consultant and later script editor for Shinda Shima and Koroshi.

Some crew members remained under the impression that the show, The Prisoner, would be a continuation of 'Danger Man' and felt that McGoohan would continue playing the character of John Drake. Drake's last adventure, KOROSHI completed work in late April 1966.^[1]

I look forward to your comments.

Sincerely

A Contributor 66.235.14.67 (talk) 21:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hello! I noticed you contributed to Middlesex University entry on Wikipedia. If you studied at that University, please consider including this userbox on your userpage. Simply paste {{User:Invest in knowledge/mdx}} to your userpage. Thank you. Invest in knowledge (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Touch

Hello, I'm leaving this message in response to you're revert of my edition to the Heroes page. If you would have checked the discussion page, then you would have noticed that I asked the question of whether or not to of add the Touch link. Nobody responded. Therefore I added it myself.
Firstly, just to argue why it should be listed, is because it's created by Tim Kring. The format of the shows (ensemble cast) is the same, as well as themes (Somewhat speculative, but really likely if you read the synopsis). Also, in the Touch page, Heroes is listed as a related show. This conversation should continue in the discussion page.
I would also like to add that because of the way how this happened, I was quite a little frustrated, but I'm assuming good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgforbes (talk • contribs) 00:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

ThunderCats External Links

Hi, I've been trying to cite information that I've been adding (albeit not while I was logged in) to the ThunderCats Wiki pages and you keep removing them. I don't understand how ThunderCatsNOW references are being removed while "fan sites" such as ThunderCats Lair (which I helped found) and http://www.thundercatsanimated.blogspot.com/ stay on as links? If you are going to remove the references I add, then please be fair, that's all I ask. Please see He-Man and remove the "DVD Reviews" links as well.

Thanks.

Emmanuel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eflorendo (talk • contribs) 19:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The Virginian

Hello, Ckatz. I was wondering exactly why you re-posted the Copy-edit and Clean-up disclaimers to The Virginian (TV series) page? It doesn't really make sense to me. I went through and edited it out, made all the tone the same, took out unnecessary information, and several other things. You'll find that the page is actually quite smaller than either Gunsmoke or Bonanza, (neither of which contain disclaimers) and since it is of the same status, (well known, general favorite, western TV series ect...) I really don't think it should be as small as you seem to want it to be. I didn't remove the tags for no reason. I actually did what they were requesting. However, to take out even more information, I think would be a bit unnecessary. f you have a reason for this, could you please explain it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meltoncub (talk • contribs) 22:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Dental Spa

Hi I write a post similar in wording to the 2009 dental spa update as I am the first dental spa in Australia as I am also one of the first dentists to be approved for the use of Botox & Dermal Filler. I would appreciate your help to correct this post so that I can submit it properly and factually. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drsgupta (talk • contribs) 02:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Simply put, it is not suitable content. The page is intended as an overview of the concept, not as a site to highlight specific businesses. (Wikipedia is not a promotional tool.) However, you are encouraged to contribute in areas where you do not have a direct conflict of interest. Please feel free to ask if you would like assistance in doing so. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat _spy 03:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

re User:TheKohser userpage

The above editor is indefinitely blocked by ArbCom, who have made no comment on the preferred state of the Userpage. I suggest that you request guidance from that body before changing the page. I would also note that you edited through protection, where you should have found consensus before making non controversial edits. For the sake of clarity, I am the admin who placed this protection - to stop exactly this sort of edit warring - and have reverted your edit. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to revert, if you must. A few thoughts, though. One, it is most certainly not uncommon to blank or otherwise remove that sort of information from blocked or banned users. Two, the edit in question can in no possible way be defined as an "edit war". Alison changed the material, someone else reverted her good-faith change, it drew my attention (having had to block one of the user's socks) and I removed his contact information. I think a more appropriate question would be why it is necessary to keep a series of links for a banned user. --Ckatz^chat _spy 16:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Kohs is blocked, indefinitely, per the notice on his page - not banned. Indefinitely blocked editors may return, providing they are deemed to be able to be useful editors again. The page has was left in the state it was following the ArbCom decision, and it was the subsequent edit wars (an editor blanking it, being reverted) that lead me to protecting it. Of import, more than the unilateral(ish) decision to remove the content, was that your action was made through a protected page - where it is expected for there to be consensus before making a controversial action (although, per AGF, you may not have known it to be controversial action.) LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Note that an indef user who no admin will unblock is effectively banned, especially when one factors in that Kohs was unblocked and then reblocked several times. There is also nothing out of the ordinary in blanking off-site links from the pages of such a user. After all, the external links and sites were a definite factor in the original blocks. --Ckatz^chat _spy 19:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

There are those admins who would unblock Kohs, if he were to undertake to comport himself according to Wikipedia practices... Kohs was blocked, indefinitely, again because after a trial he declared himself not bound by WP policy, practice and guidelines - some of the links he desired to be allowed were a symptom of that rejection, but it was his rejection of the conditions that allowed him to resume editing that was the primary reason for his editing privileges being withdrawn. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe an MFD would be appropriate. Will Beback talk 20:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Probably, although my participation would be to question what leverage any community consensus would have on an ArbCom ruling. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Did the ArbCom rule on his user page? I see that the ArbCom "provisionally suspended" the community ban back in 2009,[13] but given later events it looks like that ban was essentially reinstated. whether banned or blocked, it seems like the community is still allowed to discuss deleting the user page. We've deleted user pages of unblocked editors before. Will Beback talk 21:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Quite; what I am saying above is that that would be the aspect I would include in the discussion, informing rather restricting the breadth of any review. I would welcome the process, because then the prot can be lifted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

On the issue of whether the user is banned or merely blocked, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Thekohser. Will Beback talk 23:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ckatz

Thank you for your informative email, and your great advice of how to edit future Wikipedia pages. As to your query, I am “not” Dee Marie, nor am I associated with Dee Marie, or with Conceptual Images Publishing.

I am however, (as well as many of my friends), an admirer of Dee Marie’s writing, and of her “Sons of Avalon” saga. Although I have never met Dee Marie in person, I did send her an email, asking if she had any objections to me creating a Wikipedia article for her. She wrote back, stating that she was very flattered that I would be willing to create a Wiki page for her. She also said that she would be happy to provide any information that I might need in the creation and validation of her page.

As to her credibility, Dee Marie has been a constant supporter of her readers and an advocate of novice writers…and has a large, and growing, following of YA readers, as well as the admiration of her fellow authors (as can be seen on Goodreads.com, the NaNoWriMo site, and through her Twitter page).

Not only is she a novelist, but, she is also well-respected as a journalist, and has interviewed many important people in the entertainment industry (as can be seen on Renderosity.com). She has also worked as a Managing Editor, and later as Editor-in-Chief of an international printed CG magazine.

Thank you again, for “cleaning” up the article that I created for her. Thank you also for your thoughtful consideration in allowing me to continue to add to her page, as well as to allow others in the Wikipedia community to add additional information (which I’m sure they will do once they discover her Wiki page). Next, I would like to add a bibliography of Dee Marie’s works with the following information, please advise if this is in the proper Wiki formula:

==Bibliography= [new section]

Sons of Avalon, Merlin’s Prophecy (2008), Conceptual Images Publishing, ISBN 978-0615150529
Sons of Avalon, Lot’s Revenge, (2011) Conceptual Images Publishing (forthcoming, December 2011)

=Journalism= [new section]

Renderosity Magazine Bondware Inc. Publisher, Managing Editor (2002-2003)
Renderosity Magazine, Bondware Inc. Publisher, Editor-in-Chief (2004)
“The Rim (Renderosity Interactive Magazine)” Bondware Inc. Publisher, Editor-in-Chief (2005-2006)
“Renderosity Front Page News,” Bondware Inc. Publisher, Contributing Columnist (2006 – present)

Thanks again for your help and your patience, Spunxter (talk) 19:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ckatz, You have recently deleted my article regarding Infibeam. The Article is about an e commerce company which was even ranked in the top five ecommerce firms in India by the major Financial daily, Economic Times.(http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2010-09-01/news/27615919_1_yahoo-indiatimes-linkedin) If inclusion of specifications about its Digital Devices amounts to advertising, please let me know. I would remove the specification part. I would be editing the article further so as to make it more presentable. Please have a look at it again. I am new to editing in Wikipedia, so I might have missed out on some specifics. If those are the reason for article deletion, please let me know. There is no intention of advertising or promotion, and anything that is suggestive of that, I am ready to remove that from the article. Thanks a ton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Articleonline (talk • contribs) 05:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Im sorry...forgot to include the four ~ int he end. Hi Ckatz, You have recently deleted my article regarding Infibeam. The Article is about an e commerce company which was even ranked in the top five ecommerce firms in India by the major Financial daily, Economic Times.(http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2010-09-01/news/27615919_1_yahoo-indiatimes-linkedin) If inclusion of specifications about its Digital Devices amounts to advertising, please let me know. I would remove the specification part. I would be editing the article further so as to make it more presentable. Please have a look at it again. I am new to editing in Wikipedia, so I might have missed out on some specifics. If those are the reason for article deletion, please let me know. There is no intention of advertising or promotion, and anything that is suggestive of that, I am ready to remove that from the article. Thanks a ton. Articleonline (talk) 05:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Why are you removing my posts?

I am including external references for additional corporate information and images on the relevant topic? These are also similar or enhanced references to the existing external references. Please explain if you could, as I do not understand the difference. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timjustin (talk • contribs) 17:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Changes made to "Victoria, British Columbia"

Hello,

I am wondering about additions that were made to the above Wiki piece that were taken down. The material added is widely-know public knowledge. Is it just the case that a citation is needed? Apparently I am now being blocked from adding useful material to the entry.

Thanking you in advance . . . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knarnie (talk • contribs) 21:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Can I please express my opinion on the x Factor bars you are putting up for deletion, I found them very interesting to read and I think that the user that created them should get credit as it probably(by the looks of things) makes it much easier to read, and much easier to follow the series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.217.121.88 (talk) 23:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Telus reverts

Why did you revert my edits on the Telus article? Mobility is a separate division of Telus Communications, and Koodo/Clearnet/Mike are part of Mobility, which is part of Communications. --TELUS freak again (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

American Cities of the future conversation

Hi Ckatz, thanks for the explanation. I am connected with The FT so if it is viewed as a conflict of interests then apologies, I wasn't familiar with all the rules. I've skimmed a lot of the guidelines today but it would be great to have the posts assessed. I'd have no problem reducing them right down to a few of the headline stats if that would help? The findings are from a detailed report, rather than survey, with the full methodology listed on the page, including a panel mostly made up of neutral experts. Hopefully that will display the neutral point of view. I'll certainly be more selective and careful with anything I submit in future posts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinathebanker (talk • contribs) 10:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletion

{{ygm}} I have also pinged Courcelles :) no major rush, but if you get chance to reply, thanks --Errant ^(chat!) 17:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll check it now. --Ckatz^chat _spy 18:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Economy of India

Hi,

you have undid this edit with edit summary "resolve in talk page". Actually i believe the issue is resolved. The user is a new user - he has used the "undo" button and then followed by suggestion to summarize and add his earlier addition. The text he has added now needs copyediting and formatting, but it is basically what i adviced him to do. Can you self revert if you have no objection to the edit contentwise?--Sodabottle (talk) 17:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, as long as there's someone on top of it as it needs a good copy edit. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat _spy 18:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Penyulap again (sorry)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mlm42 (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Any reply?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:In_vitro_meat#deletion_by_Ckatz --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 June newsletter

We are half way through 2011, and entering the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; the semi-finals are upon us! Points scored in the interim (29/30 June) may be counted towards next round, but please do not update your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. 16 contestants remain, and all have shown dedication to the project to reach this far. Our round leader was Casliber (submissions) who, among other things, successfully passed three articles through featured article candidates and claimed an impressive 29 articles at Did You Know, scoring 555 points. Casliber led pool D. Pool A was led by Wizardman (submissions), claiming points for a featured article, a featured list and seven good article reviews, while pool C was led by Eisfbnore (submissions), who claimed for two good articles, ten articles at Did You Know and four good article reviews. They scored 154 and 118 respectively. Pool B was by far our most competitive pool; six of the eight competitors made it through to round 4, with all of them scoring over 100 points. The pool was led by Hurricanehink (submissions), who claimed for, among other things, three featured articles and five good articles. In addition to the four pool leaders, 12 others (the four second places, and the 8 next highest overall) make up our final 16. The lowest scorer who reached round 4 scored 76 points; a significant increase on the 41 needed to reach round 3. Eight of our semi-finalists scored at least twice as much as this.

No points were awarded this round for featured pictures, good topics or In the News, and no points have been awarded in the whole competition for featured topics, featured portals or featured sounds. Instead, the highest percentage of points has come from good articles. Featured articles, despite their high point cost, are low in number, and so, overall, share a comparable number of points with Did You Know, which are high in number but low in cost. A comparatively small but still considerable number of points come from featured lists and good article reviews, rounding out this round's overall scores.

We would again like to thank Jarry1250 (submissions) and Stone (submissions) for invaluable background work, as well as all of those helping to provide reviews for the articles listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Please do keep using it, and please do help by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup.

Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here, for those interested, though it appears that neither are completely accurate at this time. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. 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 and The ed17 23:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

^ Time Screen No.11 Spring 1988 The Prisoner: Every Man's Production an article by Andrew Pixley

[1] Time Screen No.11 Spring 1988 The Prisoner: Every Man's Production an article by Andrew Pixley

[1]

Annoying Orange

Optimussolo

Reconfirmation diff to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Subscribe

You removed 80% of my writeup on HP EliteBook on Dec 17.

You responded but not to the right part

The Sliders article and user 144.230.191.36

Canadian provincial infoboxes

hello

2011 Vancouver Whitecaps FC season

LGBT articles of Brazil

Training and how-to classes

Your revert

Letoya

Cast lists and current/former splits

Semiprotecting Georgia Moffett

a question about a deletion

Tennant and Moffett

Positive Psychology

Thanks, and a suggestion

Halloween 6: Director's Cut

Movie-censorship.com

PwC

Edit filter

"Paid editing"

Ken Mansfield's Privacy

Galactic center

Lack of authoritative sources for film plots and director's cut, etc.

Southern Ocean

Your Warning?

FRC Page

Edits removed

Hispanic Marketing

You responded but not to the right part

/* External links */

Marsden

Hispanic Marketing

WikiCup 2011 January newsletter

Steve Coleman (wushu)

Qwiki

In Fear and Faith

Thanks

Regarding my addition of a sentence and a reference to Pluto's origins

======

========

LXG

recent edits on Waco siege

Canada

The Signpost

AAFM UNESCO CLAIM

INTERAC (JAPAN)

Stop deleting content.

Robonaut

Brian Aitken

Chuck

iMail

Red Dwarf

external links

Flag of the Falkland Islands

ChrisComerRadio.com on blacklist??

change to MLS supporters group page.

Reversion on Eliza Dushku

Why spam?

Reversion on prefab homes page

WikiProject Intelligence

WikiCup 2011 February newsletter

Nomination of season one episode articles of House for deletion

BC Hydro

Site C

AppStore comment on Personal Computer

stop scam

Talkback

Reversion of your reversion of South Australia

young and the restless

Articles

Looking to add a page for "The Script Lab"

On the buses

Thank you very very much

Pacific NW

External-link removal

WikiCup 2011 March newsletter