Jump to content

User talk:Ckatz/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

MoS dates

Hi Ckatz, could I ask you again to unprotect the dates section of the MoS? You seem to have protected it indefinitely, even though there are no issues that I can see, and you were involved in editing it. Is there any reason normal editing can't resume? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello... you asked about this a while back, and I replied on the dates talk page, asking if people wanted the section unprotected. (The section was isolated and protected when consensus was reached to unlock everything except for that section.) Following the request, there was no consensus to unlock the section, especially while the arbitration case is still under way. Hope this helps. --Ckatzchatspy 00:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
(e/c with CKatz) Just a comment here, there is an ArbCom case reaching its late stages, so normal editing should resume soon in any case. And there is an {{editprotected}} template available to accomplish consenus changes via the talk page. Continued protection still helps to prevent any of the protagonists at the AC case from prejudicing themselves further. Franamax (talk) 00:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Halifax

Hi Ckatz.

I've undone your revert on this page, largely because your revert comment suggested you had not read either my comments on the two edits that lead to that point, or the comment on the talk page (although to be fair I was probably still typing that). I'm not against your reasoning, but it seems wrong to condition the Halifax dab page by the complete muddle over the Canadian Halifax. -- Starbois (talk) 10:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Fasach Nua

I have warned this user again against his unexplained deletions. They have a history of unexplained deletions of images throughout Wikipedia, and a seeming refusal to engage in discussions about it, with anyone. I'm having a hard time assuming good faith on an editor who removes content without explanation and then warns people who revert it. Canterbury Tail talk 11:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Literary magazines

Ello Ckatz, I have hit undo on your recent undos of my contributions of the history of lit journals. I can't see what your edit contributes other than to make narrower a general understanding of this subj--other than that it gives an ad-copy sounding boosterism to the Yale journal. My point was that the criteria that decides who is "oldest" is debated. And I think the fact that we're having this discussion is proof of that--yes indeed there is some debate surrounding this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.1.19 (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Unfortunately, you need to supply a citation from a reliable source that indicates there actually is a controversy ovewr this. WE can't publish opinions. Please feel free to ask if you need more information about this. Thanks again. --Ckatzchatspy 16:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I got an email from you today rejecting the external link that I added to the topic of executive compensation today. I added this link because I saw two links from organizations that provide similar services already there. The link that I attached is to a free wizard that allows users to research with no fees, no storage of user information or any other form of solicitation unlike both the Equilar and European Executive Compensation Visualizulizer links. Mercer too sells thier studies and services. Can you explain why these links as well as the one that I saw for Payscale and other profiles of companies are acceptable and a useful and free link that I added is not?

European Executive Compensation Data Visualizer 2006 2007 CEO Compensation from Equilar Executive Remuneration - Analytical article by Mercer/CEO Forum Group

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

Dnsalary (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Deb Nielsen

Fringe

I support your clean-up of my contribution (which I would have cleaned-up myself). Although I think the single source is sufficient in light of the way the sentence is phrased, I will continue adding sources during the next few days. --Loremaster (talk) 07:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain?

Hi, Why did you canceled my last editing? Thanks in advance for the informative answer.Orimosenzon (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Your block

Dear Ckatz, you blocked IP 121.222.226.83 indefinitely on 6 May. IP addresses should almost never be indefinitely blocked. See Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses. I've reduced the block to three months.[1] Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 20:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of White elephant

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

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

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Scrubs Future additions.

Hey, I noticed you reverted my additions to Future. I added a reference and changed an updated caption. Please let me know if this is all done correctly or what I should do to correct these items. Thank you. I am happy to bring this information to the page, so I want to be sure I do it correctly as I am still new to posting. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laddiega (talk • contribs) 01:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

We cannot copy content directly from MySpace, even when sourced. The meat of the blog entry has already been integrated into the section its supposed to be in--Jac16888Talk 01:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

You should be able to quote someone directly from myspace. Why would you change his quote. This is a direct confirmation from Braff himself and should be on this page for it's historical value. I am not sure what the problem is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laddiega (talk • contribs) 02:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

There's a difference between quoting someone and copying the entire blog, that's a violation of copyright. The article references the blog entry, links to it, and tells a reader that Zach Braff has confirmed he will be in 6 episodes of season 9. Nothing more is needed--Jac16888Talk 02:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I see what you are saying. I still think having the actual quote to the fans for historical purposes is important, but I am not the editor. Laddiega (talk) 02:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

High Res Map of Salt Spring Island.

Hello Ckatz. I noticed that you deleted my link from the External Links section of the wikipedia entry on Salt Spring Island. I am curious as to why you did this as it is the most valuable online resource pertaining to Salt Spring Island that is available. It is the most current and accurate map of the island available and is free for anyone to print a copy for their own personal use. It is the only map with a searchable and clickable street index,the only source for info pertaining to hiking trails, routes and trailheads on Salt Spring Island. The map found at http://www.mapofsaltspring.com/mapofsaltspring.pdf is the most encyclopedic source of info pertaining to avian and marine life in and around the island also.

Please let me know why you did this.

sincerely, Kenneth M. Fersht. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GulfIslandMaps (talk • contribs) 20:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

RE: janitor

I'll repeats myself and say that the rollback feature is meant to be used on content that is clearly vandalism. It sounds like it doesn't allow comments to be left.

Also, looking back through the history of the article I can see that it used to be much longer. It is not necessary to list every single lie that Janitor has made, however readers unfamiliar with scrubs might be interested in the types of lies that the Janitor tells. Reub2000 (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

how notable is a reference

This is an issue that does not require a PhD in Communications or Journalism to answer. Many wikipedians go around brandishing this mantra when it is supposed to be a guideline. How useful is an encyclopedia if it only contains information on well known-sources and well-known and established opinions that are available from many sources on the internet? Most people use an encyclopedia in looking up obscure but factual information and that is how a reference source is invaluable. If Wikipedia aspires simply to repeat the information from other websites and only from the well-known sources is there really any reason for it to be there? Please share this comment with your fellow editors at Wikipedia. Thank you for your patience and for thinking through a vital issue before responding. 75.84.21.239 (talk) 08:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

That was the only source that could be found at nearly the time the series was launched that had a differing viewpoint from the mainstream cheers and which had ramifications that were substantiated later on by the manner in which the series producers managed the show. If you can dig up additional sources I did notice there are many pages on wikipedia where a comment made is supported by more than one reference. The point here may boil down to: are you opposing the reference for alleged lack of notability? or are you opposing the comments made in the page that says a few industry watchers had doubts and reservations at the Galactica series and that there is in fact a reference that supports it? Let me break it down for you, the comments added make the article on Galactica more in-depth and the reference is notable in at least one respect that you are ignoring and that is that it was possibly the only dissenting viewpoint at the time. Thank you for paying attention to this aspect of an issue some editors may be unaware of.

75.84.21.239 (talk) 08:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Being "possibly the only dissenting viewpoint at the time" does not make the site or its opinion notable. --Ckatzchatspy 08:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course it does make it notable if you are writing an unbiased and comprehensive info sheet on a particular topic. Did you read the first paragraph or did you only skip through to the last few sentences? At any rate if you persist I will defer to your "expertise" since you obviously have a vested interest and for my part I am a power user of Wikipedia and only moonlight on occasion as an editor/contributor. So hey more power to you if it makes you happy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.21.239 (talk) 09:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Sun

The article seems to contain too many unverified claims. Concerning the fact that this is your scope and you are 2nd biggest contributor to the article, I ask you to help me verify these claims. It will be a very big disappointment to see the article demoted due to this problem... SkyBonTalk\Contributions 18:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

removing Castanet.net from Kelowna

Hello, I understand your directory service comment, so I apologize for adding the link, but why is a competitor of Castanet's allowed to be on the page then? ie. kelowna.com. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.67.253.203 (talk) 00:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not, and thank you for pointing it out. Per our guideline for external links, Wikipedia is not a directory service. Please note that this should in no way be interpreted as a comment on the quality of either your web site or your competitor's. Simply put, it is a reflection of the consensus reached regarding what sites should and should not be listed. Thanks again. --Ckatzchatspy 00:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

So here is my question

The MOS has not been changed regarding delinking of dates and the committee has sat on their collective butt for 5 months doing nothing with their "temporary" injunction. Linking dates like the date a show aired or the date a sneaker was released to the market serves absolutely no purpose. These are not historic dates. Not linking those dates was a good policy. My question is: How long will this "temporary" (and IMHO nonsensical) injunction be in effect? At some point, "temporary" stops being temporar and becomes policy....and policy can't simply be changed the way they did it. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

  • I prodded the Arbcom about this issue. The poll on the topic was concluded over a month ago and the results were overwhelmingly to keep the standard as written (no linking of dates unless relevant). 208 votes compared to a combined total of 84 for the other 3 options. This should have already been handled. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Please Help Us

please help us to make OUG topic we tried many times for this but it got Deleted every time

now it ask for Registered user for create this Page This Page Oug http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oug —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsaini10 (talk • contribs) 09:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: ANI

If I had totally deleted the thread, then either someone would have seen that it's gone, assumed it was a mistake that it was deleted, so reverted my decision, or people would keep adding their own threads since they don't see anything on the board. This solution is an attempt to keep denying attention and keep people informed. DENY's a great thing to do, but not at the expense of keeping people ignorant to the situation. I hope this makes me action clearer. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 19:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The links I posted in the Adam-12 article were not spam and are consistent with how many other articles document the availability of TV series online. I have posted in greater detail on the Adam-12 talk page for discussion. -Ithizar (talk) 04:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I was just wondering...

Why was my autobiography considered vandalism, it was of my stage name, I'm a rapper signed to CrimeLab Ent. in Hillsboro OR, I was told to make a wiki page 'bout myself as a form of "putting myself out there", I apologize if I disrespected the site in anyway. - Jettasin (talk) 06:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Date delinking arbitration

Why are we removing another editors comments? How does WP:TPO not apply here? —Locke Cole • t • c 23:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Locke, I'm undoing your action and asking you to please stay out of it. If there is a problem either way, you are best off allowing the clerks to handle it - that is their job after all. They will either revert HWV258's actions, or remove Pmanderson's comments. I mean you no disrespect, but there really is no need for you to intervene (and it would be best given the tensions that are prevalent if you did not). --Ckatzchatspy 23:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I realise that my removal of the original comments could have been handled better. I guess I should have asked Pmanderson to voluntarily remove his comments before taking action. I'm learning too.  HWV258  23:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm failing to see the logic in this. If it's up to the clerks, then shouldn't it be up to the clerks to remove the comment in the first place? Not up to HWV258 to claim ownership over a page/section which he does not own? WP:TPO is clear as glass that removal of another editors comments is not okay except on your own talk page. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not assessing either HMV258 or Pmanderson's actions, as that is the clerk's domain. Neither am I interested in taking sides. However, in this situation, you are clearly a third party intervening where you should not. There is enough drama on the pages associated with this matter; please let the clerks do their job, without muddying the waters. --Ckatzchatspy 23:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Locke_Cole, please note from Wikipedia:TPO#Others.27_comments—Point 3: "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article...". Point 4: "Removing personal attacks and incivility...". Point 11: "If a thread has veered off its original subject...".  HWV258  23:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
NONE OF THOSE BULLET POINTS APPLIES TO REMOVAL OF COMMENTS. It explicitly says, prior to the very first bullet point, that the following items are exceptions to EDITING another editors comments, not removing them outright as you have done. And even if it DID say remove, I'd still take issue with every point you've listed: 3: we're not discussing an article, we're discussing arbitration, 4: WP:RPA failed to gain consensus and IS CONTROVERSIAL, 11: it remained on topic, the subject being your comment. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ckatz. Could I ask you to consider removing the edit made by Pmanderson (talk · contribs)? My actions that are in question ([2] and [3]) removed edits that didn't belong in my arbitrator-requested section. I then politely encouraged Pmanderson to move his edits to a more suitable location—which he did (I even politely offered to move the edits for him). Any actions I did are outside the scope of the date-delinking proposed decision as they do not relate directly to the linking or delinking or dates. If Pmanderson believes I did wrong, he should pursue action at the appropriate location. Thank you for any assistance you can provide in this matter.  HWV258  07:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel comfortable removing the proposals, given that it is an ArbCom page. However, I have left a comment stating that I feel it should be removed. Hope this helps. --Ckatzchatspy 09:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I understand. Thanks for your input at the page though. What a mess. I can't wait to leave date-delinking issues behind so that I can get back to editing articles. Cheers.  HWV258  09:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

NewBlue page

Friendly greetings Ckatz! Thanks for watching over Wikipedia. The NewBlue page is being updated; it's not meant to be advertising but a legit wiki presence like Red Giant Software, Sony Vegas, and other digital video editor companies have. I'm going to provide citations and update the page — if you have more concerns, let's work together to make it better. Thanks graciously. --Torley (talk) 04:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


Chatz. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.9.168 (talk) 01:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies

Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change. If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 15:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

My edit

Hello, I accidentally tagged the Wikipedia:Notability page with a speedy tag "G1", so I undid that real quick, and the reason it happened was I have Friendly and Twinkle activated in "my preferences" so I click one and it tagged it, and I quickly deleted the tag.--Cubs197 (talk) 21:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Oops!

I had no idea what the heck I just did, I was sorta freaking out, I'm really sorry!--Cubs197 (talk) 21:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No harm done. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 21:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Earth

Can you respond to my question here please? Thanks, CTJF83Talk 23:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Sun FAR

I have nominated Sun for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SkyBonTalk\Contributions 11:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Wolf426

Someone has begun discussing your edits at ANI. Thanks, weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 13:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

  • At this thread, you indicated annoyance with me. Fair enough, but I wanted to take a moment to explain. You have been an active editor on the article in question in this thread. What you were performing were edits that were reverting things that were not clearly vandalism. The line here is not absolutely black and white, but the issue here was a content dispute...not one of pure vandalism. Using admin tools in a content dispute of which an admin is party has resulted in administrators losing their bit before. I'm not threatening you here. I'm pointing out that this has happened. You disagreed with the edits being performed, and thought it worthy of a block. There's no problem with that. But, actually taking the action? That's very well into the grey area, and arbcom has ruled previously that it's sufficient to lose your admin bit over. It would have taken very little effort to request assistance from an uninvolved administrator.
  • There's no issue with an administrator blocking a vandal from a page the administrator frequents. There is a serious issue with regards to an administrator blocking someone over content disputes on an article the administrator frequents. ArbCom has been very clear about this.
  • Note that in all of these cases, the arbitration committee was unanimous in their support of this principle. You would be well advised to stay well away from the grey area on this issue. Taking the additional step of asking another administrator to step in takes little time and entirely avoids this problem. Further to the productive editing of the encyclopedia, having another set of eyes look at the situation is helpful.
  • As to my general assertions that a casual review found other cases where you may have erred in this regard, I did find such. I felt there was enough in what I found that another set of eyes should be alerted to have a look at the record. Further, that the closing of the thread by a user needed to be undone (and it was by the same user). If need be, I can do the research to show you where this has possibly happened before, but it is not necessary to demonstrate to you that it is important to stay well clear of violating this principle of Wikipedia. I've already done that with the links above. I encourage you to seek outside input from another administrator in cases where it is not blatant vandalism (such as "this show was gay", or "i loved this show", etc). --Hammersoft (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Hammersoft, I appreciate your taking the time to reply, and I have reviewed the above cases. One thing that became immediately clear is that this block is in no way whatsoever even remotely similar to the incidents you have referenced. Those cases involved editors (admins) who had been, and remained, directly involved in the articles in question. They had participated in the pages, they were content contributors, and they used their bit to their advantage. The "Wolf426" IP issue here involves the reversal of the repeated deletion of properly referenced material by a single-purpose IP editor. I had no part in the original posting of that material, I had not contributed content to the article, and I had no prior involvement with the IP. My only prior edits to the page involved a few minor style guide issues, so to say I was an "active" editor on the page or that I "frequented" the page is completely incorrect. There is no parallel here at all - as supported by the comments at the AN/I review, wherein at least two other admins have stated that my actions were appropriate given the IP's actions. I could understand your point if I had actually contributed any content to the article, or been a part of the creation process there - but I was not. Again, I appreciate your input, but we will have to agree to disagree with regards to your assertions. --Ckatzchatspy 17:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The point here is that it wasn't vandalism. Multiple people in the thread agree it was a content dispute. Some disagree. But, there's plenty enough that agree that it is obviously not a black/white issue. If it was vandalism, pure and simple, I'd be in perfect agreement with you. But, it wasn't. I'm very disappointed with your answer here. Do you not see the problem inherent in this behavior? I'm trying to keep this amicable. I really am. If you fail to understand how serious this is the behavior is going to be repeated. I'd rather not see that happen, and feel it would be necessary to follow WP:DR to make it clear this behavior is not acceptable. All you had to do was ask another administrator to be involved. It's quite simple. Would you please do so in the future so we avoid this? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Ckatz, I've toned down your title, and I did look before I leapt. Were my comments "damning"? I thought they were a model of politeness, actually, and even hedged by saying "I may be wrong". I was critical of the user on three potential counts. You may be upset, but I was certainly not damning, was I? Please give me that much.
After a few metres of text have been written at ANI on it, and you still hadn't addressed the issue (no one has), is there a protocol (stated or implied) that I should talk-page or email you first? You know that I think a lot of your writing skills and strategic talent: I've said so. And I'm not necessarily against you here—not at all—but why don't you defend yourself, on the only topic that matters [at that location]? I have to go to bed soon. I look forward to hearing from you (calmer); I certainly would like to collaborate with you, if there's ever a topic or project. I'm open to your suggestions. Tony (talk) 18:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I missed commenting at the ANI, so I would like to do so here. I'm sure Hammersoft and Tony are pursuing a noble ideal, but it is too far from reality to be taken seriously. I have followed a number of spammers and their attempts to exploit WP by adding promotional links, and I have noticed a lot of great work by Ckatz in defending WP, both in removing spam and reverting vandalism. A misguided editor (or spammer) can refuse to "get it", and can click "undo" in a few seconds. I hope administrators will be able to take suitable action without thinking "Oh, I did some incidental editing on this page, so I'd better spend five minutes writing a summary of the situation for another admin to review, then they can interrupt their work and spend five minutes reviewing the situation, before deciding that it really is a duck." Of course the community has to be alert for admins who get pushy in an edit war, but this case is far removed from any kind of abuse and I regret that Ckatz has had to expend so much energy on this nonproductive issue. If anyone wants to discuss this further, you are welcome to visit my talk page, although that would not be very satisfying because I am an extremely minor entity. Johnuniq (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

As The World Turns and Days of Our Lives Are Going Into the 2010s

Aren't As The World Turns and Days of Our Lives the 2010s television series? Ericthebrainiac (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The reason that I ask is because I heard that you removed the category 2010s American television series and I wanted to know why you did so. Ericthebrainiac (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem - the rationale is that we generally avoid "crystal-ball" type categories and tags. The series may be scheduled to go into the 2010s, and it probably will do that, but until it actually happens... For the same reason, we don't update episode counts until a new episode actually airs, and we list series as "present" rather than a future, scheduled end date. Hope this helps. --Ckatzchatspy 20:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

My de-adminship

Thanks for the heads-up. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Doctor Who at FAR

I have nominated Doctor Who for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cirt (talk) 02:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

AbuseFilter 181

I deleted your filter (181) as filtering usernames on account creation is the job of the username blacklist (now part of the title blacklist), which can block new usernames more efficiently and effectively than the abusefilter. Prodego talk 06:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The reason why I replaced and removed some is because the stations on the Expo Line that is a transfer station, I thought, should have only the Millennium Line box, not both. Also, if you look at my user page, you'll see that I'm from Vancouver, so telling me that you can transfer on any station is kind of offensive, but I tried not to take it that way. :D

Question: If Commercial Drive has both the M and E boxes, then why does Broadway only have the M one? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 06:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Ehh...I get the logic, but I feel it's too complicate to figure out for someone who just reads it, without having any explanation that you just gave me. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 07:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding 86.153.128.233 et al.

this user is not a new user. They are a sock of Nangparbat. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nangparbat/Archive. Any edits made by this user are to be rolledback on the spot (as you did), but then those page are supposed to be semiprotected (unless it is a page that has a lot of constructive ips editing it)

Anyways, thanks for your help today Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Lockbox

Sure, no problem. Thanks for the note! Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I just wanted to thank for your intervention against that XxxLRKistXxx sock whatever his name is. The disruption in these articles was becoming intolerable. --Athenean (talk) 00:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Ckatz,

I understand and respect the mission of Wikipedia -- and your role as a guardian of its content -- but I am at a loss at how an external link that provides rich and descriptive information about a select subject can be deemed "inappropriate," let alone SPAM!

The links that I added for the Bull and Bear Market entry in Market Trends provide in depth academic-like study of specific Wall Street trends and shine light on information otherwise not available on Wikipedia.

Those links offer: 1) Market data: ie. percentages and point increases and declines in the Dow Jones Industrial Average during the stated periods.

2) Dates & duration of the trends: ie, the start and finish of each market move and the number of days that they lasted.

3) and, a description of the economic, business and political conditions that contributed to the rallies and sell-offs at those given times.

I can go on and on, but after having found SwitchYard Media's stories, first linked to on a Website concerned with economy/market history, I discovered the value of a great many of their articles, and I became an admirer of their concise content and visual presentation.

Now, I suspect that you are wary of these external links because they come from a "commercial" Website. Fair enough. I myself frequently share those suspicions. But I think that if you clicked on these links and read the content, your mind would be changed. And, I'll remind you, The Motley Fool (another link on the same article), is a for profit site as well -- and quite a good one!

Perhaps I have misjudged your intent for removing these links. If so, I sincerely apologize and will cease and desist, my egregious linking behavior will be forever silenced.

Yours sincerely, Portraitsketch —Preceding unsigned comment added by Portraitsketch (talk • contribs) 01:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Google Docs

Hi Ckatz, I noticed your major edit there. Just one thing: "User access to Google Docs is currently supported through Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.12 and newer versions, Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 and 8, Safari 3 and 4 beta, Google Chrome 1.0.154.48, and Opera." Is it necessary to specify the platform for each of these browsers? I guess Safari Version 4 is for the Mac (there's a Windows version, too, but I don't know the numbering). BTW, I think it's no longer a beta version. Tony (talk) 07:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Uh-oh... are we editing the same articles now? Perhaps we're sockpuppets of each other?!? What a concept, after all this time...
<grin>
Anyhow, not sure it was a "major edit", as I was really just trimming and rearranging to pass the time after reverting the spam link. However, since you brought it up, the express details probably aren't needed there either; the article was/still is a bit heavy on minute details that are probably better left to either a comparison table or the software's FAQ pages. (Any thoughts on Google Notebook, seeing as how I was there as well?) Thanks in advance. --Ckatzchatspy 07:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I watchlisted Google Docs because it's transforming my work with international clients. I can't wait for Google Wave, which I hope will be less clunky, more frequent to refresh, and more flexible in formatting. Have you seen the demos on YouTube? Tony (talk) 09:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to have to do this, but ..

I have undone [4] your last change to Neptune. I hope the edit summary makes clear the reason why; if not please let's discuss. Philip Trueman (talk) 13:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

List of free software project directories

Hi Ckatz, I just found that my update to " List of free software project directories" page has been rolled back. Just wanted to check the reason for the roll back. If I have violated any guidelines, knowing that will be helpful for me in my future updates. Thanks. -Balaje Sankar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.225.196.111 (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy note

Replied at my talk page. Orderinchaos 05:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The Notability Issue

Ckatz, following your speedy deletion of almost most of the comments made about notability and the inappropriate means through which you and your colleagues deleted the references and even that independent film festival, I did a little bit of research on your wikipedia pages. Turns out there is a whole section of microbreweries listed that do not meet the notability criteria. I would like to nominate most if not all for a speedy deletion. Otherwise please explain to me and the rest of the reading public how those listings - which are nothing short of a yellow page advertising sheet - are notable?????? I will post this comment at the D'ark Night Film Festival deletion discussion page since you guys were so zealous in wiping out most of the comments that made sense out of the discussion. I will monitor your progress and in the absence of a satifactory and consistent conduct this issue may be brought forth to the attention of a major news outlet. Thanks and keep up the good work. I will keep a box of kleenex tissue ready for you in case you need it.

Contributions/75.84.21.239 (talk) 09:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete file

What do you think about the discussion at Talk:Lunar phase? Should we play it safe and put the file up for deletion? The fact that the Turkish user as gone to such lengths about this matter adds weight to his claim. It is quite plausible that the file was uploaded with the wrong license by a new user. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)WIKIPROJECT ATHLETICS NEEDS YOU! 13:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been monitoring Commons, and it appears the file attribution has now been adjusted to allay his/her concerns. That would seem to address the issue. --Ckatzchatspy 22:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

DVancouver et al.

Hi; I note your 2nd reversal of DVancouver's SPA-spam, and as you probably noticed I reverted one too. There's an increased growth in sites masquerading as legitimate tourism sites which are actually cash-generating ad-hit-based sites, no doubt with web optimization in place to bump them ahead of "official" sites and even Wikipedia pages in google and other search engines; there's another on Salmon Arm, British Columbia - didn't take that one out, as it pretends to be a webzine/online newspaper but its content is really nothing special...we've always made an exception of http://www.britishcolumbia.com as they often are the only source of information on some places and are open to being corrected...and they always play by the rules, or try to. I'm fairly certain at some recent tourism-business conference there must have been a seminar on "how to use Wikipedia to promote your business/town" as there's been an outbreak of this kind of thing lately; see the edit history at Ucluelet and talkpage comments there re User:Tourism Ucluelet. I brought this subject up, indirectly, at the Wikimedia Canada talkpage although spoke of it there in terms of "outreach' to such groups (inclusive of museums and FN govs) to teach them how to contribute properly; I see another editor at Ucluelet has taken an interesting in trimming the peacockery and brochurism, and I tried to be polite with User:Tourism Ucluelet about what's acceptable and what's not and what the MOS is and such, but they clearly haven't listened. In DVancouver's case it's a clear business agenda - especially when you see their link placed ahead off all the official ones, as if it's the most important; the Salmon Arm/Shuswap "contributor" did the same...no doubt that's part of the same course/seminar in how to use Wikipedia to promote your whatever-whatsit as it's a recurrent pattern. I'm thinking that maybe a special template be designed for COI/SPA-spam/CoC users that's both welcoming and stern, cautioning them not to use Wikipedia for purely mercenary efforts and giving links to all the relevant MOS/NOT/OWN/COI-AUTO/peacock/essay etc etc things that if they want to "use Wikipedia to promote themselves", they should do it properly so they don't make more work for less mercenary-minded contributors/editors such as yourself and myself and so many others who wind up cleaning up the garbage (over and over).....RDs and municipalities also seem to be "in on it"....and I know the Public Affairs Bureau has been actively "massaging" all kinds of articles to its own ends, though that's more political than commercial-based....Skookum1 (talk) 17:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ckatz

I see you have made numerous contributions to Wikipedia. Thank you for all your work. I appreciate Wikipedia and took on the challenge of contributing something myself. This is my first article, and I have put considerable effort into it. Generally I have supported my entries with references, where they are most needed. You have interrupted me in the midst of my edit, just as I was about to fix an error in one of my entries. While my change to the lead was significant it does not represent an error. Unless you can show me otherwise, the terminology is consistent with transit usage elsewhere, where track sharing occurs. I used other Wikipedia articles for reference. Since you didn't mention any specific issue it is not possible to go into any further detail. But before you chastise me, I recommend you discuss the issue with me, as I am certainly open to correction, if necessary. You certainly have ample experience. You refer to a serious error. If so, then this should be easy to proof. What discrepancies are you referring to? Whatever2009 (talk) 22:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The error lies in referring to the line as being two lines, and in describing it as the "third and fourth lines" in the area. All Translink information describes the Canada Line as a singular line, and it is not up to us to reinterpret it as "two lines". Furthermore, your description in the lead incorrectly gave the impression that there were two distinct lines totalling 30.2 km of track. --Ckatzchatspy 23:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of what Translink calls it there will be two lines. When people board in Vancouver they will have to pick one or the other. However, the way I put it may initially cause confusion. It will be the same when people get on the train Downtown and realize they have to wait six minutes for the train to Richmond Center, while people who transfer at Bridgeport will at most wait 3 minutes. However, the 19.2 kilometer figure is misleading too, since it suggests that the line is that long, while no line is longer than 15.7 km. An alternate possibly more appropriate description would be to say that the line is 14.5 kilometers long with a 4.7 kilometer airport spur at Bridgeport Station or alternatively a 15.7 kilometer line with 3.4 kilometer spur to Richmond.
But this would still be technically incorrect. Since most people will travel the "main"line and not the airport spur, the 14.5 kilometer length would be preferred. The airport section could be seen as a turnaround for picking up bus riders from Bridgeport. In this sense there would still be a long line and a truncated line 11.0 kilometers long. It is not the job of an encylopedia to put things the way Tranlink states things, but to put it in a way that is consistent within the encyclopedia. Anyways I may try one more edit along these lines later to see if we can come up with something we can both agree on, is correct, and that does not deviate drastically from the way the service has been introduced.

Whatever2009 (talk) 23:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Any revised wording would still have to reflect the "one line" concept, as that is how the line will be described (and though of) by the public. Translink is (in all likelihood) going to be describing runs as "Canada Line to Richmond-Brighouse" and "Canada Line to YVR-Airport", as this would mirror what they do with the other lines. I have reworked the lead to reflect the main/branch/length issues. --Ckatzchatspy 23:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ckatz. Your latest version gives a more accurate reflction of the line and contributes numbers which are not often used in the promotional literature. The more precise measurement of the track length also automatically allows some people to see that the track is now only 19.2 km rather than 19.5 as previously planned. Although the airport branch is not operated as a spur line as had been planned at some point, it is impossible to reflect that easily without appearing confusing. The issue is more than just a nomenclature issue. For example, it is possible to operate a train from the Airport to Richmond also, and this would constitute another line. However, without clear agreement on terms this could also be called a service. If line means track than we could say that two types of service operate on the Canada Line. However, in that case we would run into such terms as express service, or full-stop service along a single line. If service were introduced from Surrey City Center to Lougheed Mall, what would this be called? Millennium Line to Lougheed Mall maybe? and Millenium Line to King George? In this case it would be more elegant to simply give the line a new name to reflect its unique route. Whether we have the imagination to go beyond Surrey-Coquitlam Line, or simply give up on naming lines and just give destinations only, such as Coquitlam via New Westminster, or Surrey City via New Westminster. The former would then change to Vancouver via Lougheed mall after passing New Westminster. We could also resort to numbers such as 1,2,3, etc, like the bus. In bus terminology this would be a route, but I don't think this term is used for railways or metro. I will do some more research, and it may be possible to enhance the Line(disambiguation) entry in Wikipedia. Cheers Whatever2009 (talk) 02:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to comment to this, as this has been been going off like crazy in my watchlist. As far as I'm concerned, Ckatz is right, there is only one line with it splitting up at Bridgeport. There is no spur line. The trains alternate between YVR and Brighouse. A service does not need a unique name, although I would have liked it to be named "Canada Line" and "Airport Line". The Expo Line is eventually have a service running from Metrotown to Waterfront, it WILL not receive a new name. Even if there was a service from Surrey Central to Lougheed Centre (which is very unlikely considering there are no switches from the Skybridge to the M-line, going past Columbia wouldn't solve anything), I don't see why it should have another name because it does not have its exclusive branch.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 04:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Response to (and a question for) Ckatz

Ckatz, 2+2 = 4. Do we need multiple consensus over that fact? Srebrenica genocide was a fact. Why do we need consesus over that? Can you please elaborate? Thank you. Bosniak (talk) 04:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Unblock of Das Ansehnlisch

Hi Ckatz, thanks for the note. I've noted the past behavior and dropped him a little note about that. I see this unblock as either acknowledging a now valuable editor turning over a new leaf and positively contributing to the site....or someone shortly to use the rope they've been given to hang themselves and gain an indefinite block. I've seen it go both ways with editors with their history and will watch with interest - Peripitus (Talk) 08:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

RE: Sam Tyler

I put "or" in because I did not want to run out of text space in the edit summary box by posting the whole lot. Even though I think "hit and run" would be a better term, I am willing to leave it as it is. I have no interest in pointlessly edit warring. Thanks. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 08:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank You!

Been meaning to thank you for undoing that rascal, Stan Shunpike's, edit to my User page on the 17th. Good eye!  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  14:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Vanessa Ferlito and CSI: New York

I was just about to send you a note here, but you replied on the Noticeboard first. Could you please refer me to the TV Guideline section where it says deceased characters belong in the main cast list in both the info box and the following show summary? I only ask because I only see you doing this with Vanessa Ferlito - though I admit I have not check every one of your TV show edits to see if you do it elsewhere. I do not want to get into any dispute with you - which is why I put that I did not want you blocked for a 3RR violation. I personally have been trying to clean up some of the CSI pages of the fictional information and vandalism - which does NOT apply to your edits. If you could please show me where the rule on current/past characters is - I will certainly leave edits such as yours and Vanessa Ferlito alone. Alright? Again, I do not want a dispute with you. Trista (not able to log in at work - please reply by IP as I am NOT the User:Trista already in Wiki) 24.176.191.234 (talk) 17:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, if you could direct me to where it says this, and directs us not to remove former characters - I would be able to understand it better. I am certainly trying to follow all of the Wiki rules, but I have seen much conflicting info on this, none of it official. That is why I am asking for the Wiki Guidelines on this. Thank you, Ckatz. Trista 24.176.191.234 (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Ckatz - Trista here. I am at home and logged in on with the user name I plan to be using whenever possible to make my edits (I'm working on my supervisor to let me log in at work on my lunch breaks. Otherwise bringing my cement block of a laptop in to work as the same rules apply to my work laptop and my IT people do check histories sometimes). On my IP page, you had mentioned my comment about you counselling people "as if" you were an admin. I wanted you to know that it was not apparent to me at that time you indeed were an admin - as I rushed through your archive, and I certainly meant no insult by it. I hope you understand there are a lot of people on Wiki who are not admins who give good advice - and I just thought you might be one of those. So please, accept my apology - as I realise now how insulting it sounded at the time. Okay? Again, if you can find the part in the Television Project about listing former characters, I really want to read it so I will be a good editor. Please understand my confusion, as I don't see this on every CSI page or every TV show..so it did appear it was a "preference" when you replaced Vanessa so many times. I am more than willing to learn from you, as other than this incident - your edits are always right on in my opinion and I have never had a problem finding the Wiki reference behind them. Cheers, Trista TristaBella (talk) 02:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I Agree. You must open up to non - member. Don't think non - member has not brain. Sorry if some sentence is violence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.25.121.250 (talk) 08:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Your edit on the SGA page

Why did you revert the arc sections on the SGA page? --TIAYN (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The previous version was structured better. If you wish to mention the arcs, I would suggest integrating them into the existing season-by-season format and trimming that down. --Ckatzchatspy 21:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
It is structured the same way as the Stargate SG-1, or is my one not clear enough? --TIAYN (talk) 22:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Chuck episode names

Is that better? I don't know how to attach comments to my edits, so I couldn't ask.

I was confused the first time my addition to the page disappeared, so I added it back in its entirety before discovering your comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.248.90 (talk) 22:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Freaks and Geeks

I look forward to your continuation of the discussion. Dlabtot (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I again urge you to discuss your edits at the talk page. Dlabtot (talk) 02:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Strontiumsulfate

Per the e-mail that the user sent me and my quick discussion with Luna, i've unblocked the account. I'll keep a close eye on the user to make sure he's on the right path. Should things go awry, we can always reblock. Cheers, Icestorm815 • Talk 19:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

WHAT GOES UP

Hi there. I saw your corrections for the critical response page. I'm fine with keeping the references to metacritic and rottentomatoes and thank you for respecting my inclusion of the positive quotes. If people want the negative reviews, they are unfortunately, all too easy to find. This was a good place to counter the wave of negativity with the truth that several smart and respected critics liked / loved the movie.

My own opinion is that when a bunch of critics pan a film - but several defy the trend and praise it, there may be something very interesting at hand. In the case of this film, which I thought was wonderful (obviously), I think there will be a backlash toward the positive. But if I hadn't seen the movie or these other reviews and only saw rottentomatoes, I'd never give it a chance.

Thanks,

Abel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abelparish (talk • contribs)

Hello... thanks for the note. Unfortunately, I didn't have the time to finish earlier, and I suspect you may not prefer the rewrite that I've since done. The reality is that we are obligated to include what is said about the film, even if it is negative, as this is an encyclopedia article. I understand that it may be difficult for the cast and crew, but that is what what is required by Wikipedia's policies of neutrality. Please feel free to ask if you have any questions about this. --Ckatzchatspy 21:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

What Goes Up

Understood re. needing to put the negative in along with the positive. I removed the Village Voice quote because it was written by a critic who unfairly saw a rough cut of the film. I also put links at the bottom for other positive reviews, choosing to not overload the thing with a conspicuous amount of positive quotations. I think where it stands now is, as they say, fair and balanced. It's clear the film was "panned" by most leading critics (although the NYTimes was not a 'pan') and it is equally clear that the film had its defenders. Again, the positive quotes are not used elsewhere (like on RT or Meta, other than the Salon quote) and provide a counterweight to all the negative quotes which are very accessible on the other sites. I'm also going to add that the film was picked to show at a special screening at the Breckenridge Film Festival, a small festival, but of note because it is curated by NBC's film critic, Jeffery Lyons. Thanks, Abel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abelparish (talk • contribs)

And as a corrective to other sites which unfairly ignore the positive reviews, inserting links to other positive reviews is not promoting anything. They exist. They're out there. And unfortunately, the other sites which are not guided by the same rules as Wikipedia, ignore them. Shouldn't there be a place where these reviews are accessible? Reading this, I don't think anyone would be under any delusion as to whether the film received mostly negative reviews from various sources. In fact, as compared to your original submission, this version contains many more specific references and links to these negative reviews. Links which I put in the interest of being balanced. Let's please not go back and forth on this. It clearly reads at this point as it should, to wit: There were mostly bad reviews in major publications, but there were several overlooked exceptions which can be seen 'here'. End of story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abelparish (talk • contribs)
Hopefully you have seen my previous note regarding the Village Voice quote. Feel free to quote from The New York Times if you prefer. I have removed the additional citations to other sites as well. It looks about right. I do take exception, however to your accusations that I am offering my own opinions. I am trying to correct the record. Thankfully, Wikipedia exists to do just that. I understand that it may have seemed otherwise to you. Please note the citations to the specific negative reviews were originally added by me. I made the mistake of including the VV article and subsequently corrected it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abelparish (talk • contribs)
Abel, the concerns I expressed about your edits are based on your previous posts, where you have indicated a desire to avoid the negative press. As for the article, we cannot ignore what has been said about the film. If it were only one bad review in a sea of praise, perhaps - but look at the comments from the major press that we didn't use:

"About as cruddy as a cruddy little indie can get, especially given a cast that should've known better. " (Chicago Tribune)

"[Director] Glatzer aims to wring laughter out of this desperation but succeeds only in producing a series of contrived characters and situations that make The Breakfast Club look like an unfiltered documentary." (LA Times)

"An unusually subdued Coogan does his best, but this is the kind of pretentious nonsense he usually satirizes." (New York Daily News)

"Mr. Coogan doesn't seem altogether comfortable with his part, which, like the story, undergoes a number of unconvincing changes." (New York Times)

"Without a trace of tempo or one shred of narrative pacing, What Goes Up is not really a movie; it's the cheapest kind of amateurishness that looks like it was shot with a cell phone. " (New York Observer)

Obviously, we're not here to trash a film - but we also cannot selectively pick-and-choose reviews that only cast it in a positive light. As such, I strongly encourage you to discuss future changes on the article's talk page instead of simply reverting. Otherwise, we run the risk of this devolving into an edit war. If you remain unconvinced as to the role Wikipedia plays in covering material, we can certainly seek additional input regarding the article. --Ckatzchatspy 17:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

CKATZ, All of the quotes you reference are available on one or both of the sites you reference (meta and rotten). All but one of the quotes I reference are included on those sites, and that one, from The AV Club is actually a mixed review and the quote reflects that ambivalence. You are depending on these two other sites as your main source, and that's understandable given their prominence. However, I would hate to think Wikipedia is a slave to conventional wisdom which can be found elsewhere, but is rather a place where a user can find and/or post additional, accurate and elucidating information which cannot be found elsewhere.

Again, I think that anyone reading this post would easily conclude that the majority of opinions were negative. It is in the lead paragraph, the Variety quote the links to several other negative reviews which are deemed "pans", and the statistics from rt and meta speak for themselves.. However, a person wishing to get a fuller picture is now able to do so with the other links I provided, which are all bona fide, but have been largely ignored. The positive reviews are introduced as "some" or a minority. Admittedly, my first posting editorialized and I have dropped all of that language. I appreciate your desire to keep the post neutral and have endeavored to do that by including much of your language as well as adding links to the negative reviews, but obviously, one person's neutral is another's skewed. Thus goes the world... That said, this has been an intelligent conversation, I respect your point of view and truly hope we have reached a place we can both live with. Abelparish (talk) 19:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Abel

I'm sorry, didn't realize that the IP had been spamming (although the links from that IP all look to be relevant external content). As I'm a member of the site linked to, I may have a conflict of interest; it still seems to be a pertinent and appropriate link. I'll leave it for you to decide, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pulpygraymatter (talk • contribs) 20:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Ckatz, just want to get clarification regarding the message you sent. My question is this: All articles are advertisements or promotions in some way or another because the viewpoint gets exposure, the subject gains press and the publisher gets acknowledgment, so why aren't the other reviews from Tv.com or Allmovies or Rottentomatoes that remain on wiki also considered advertisement or promotion? They are in essence free PR tools for the studios, and the large corporations that own those websites. More important, this policy tends to create a monopoly on viewpoints. Thanks. Callisrocks (talk) 23:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: User:VitasV

I notice you've had problems with this user in the past. Just wanted to give you notice I've started a thread at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:VitasV. -- Ϫ 10:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

(Reverted edits by Osturm (talk) to last version by 98.227.156.250)

Hi Ckatz,

I'm curious as to why you removed the link I added - XScriptorium is a valuable asset to the AE community. We cover expresssions and scripts which are integral to working with AE and of all the expressions and scripting resources out there we feature the largest collection. Please note that we are not for profit - there is no advertising whatsoever on our site - it's purely an AE community-driven project.

Best regards,

Ole

Don't take it personally. Many hundreds of people are repeatedly trying to add links to Wikipedia and it is necessary that they be resisted. Your edit summary ("Added a new link") did not establish why the link was desirable, and the site does not strike the casual observer as suiting WP:EL. If you believe the link is useful for Wikipedia readers, a good approach would be to add a section to the talk page of the article and ask if an editor who is familiar with the article would consider adding the link. Johnuniq (talk) 11:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion on Bruno

Hi there,

I think it is important that the public knows that, at least according to one source, Bruno has been generating a critical reaction from the Hollywood gay community. Is it necessary to have more than one source verify this, if we make it clear that the information only comes from one source?

Thanks! Llama623 (talk) 19:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Ben (Llama623)

Vancouver article needs help

Did you know that Vancouver may lose FA status? The article was listed for FAR on June 18 but there wasn't much response. It has since been listed as a Featured Article Removal Candidate. I am contacting you because you are one of the top ten editors of the article by number of edits. Would you be willing to work on improving the article? If so, you may wish to comment on the review page and join the discussion on the talk page here. Sunray (talk) 08:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Entry deleted

Hi - to the Gibraltar entry under "communication" and Newspapers/periodicals I have added a link for The Gibraltar Magazine to the links for other publications in Gibraltar however it has been deleted twice. The Gibraltar Magazine is a legitimate publication which contains a wide variety of features and information on Gibraltar. Apparently it has been deleted because it is 'advertising" The Gibraltar Magazine contains adverts in exactly the same way The Gibraltar Chronicle and all the other publications and radio stations mentioned do so I fail to see why it is considered invalid and 'deleteable' whereas the other listings are legitimate. Please review your policy. Many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meioow (talk • contribs) 14:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay it's now been explained that I shouldn't have put external link in the body text of my entry, so I have added again without the external link (I thought the other link was external but it's to a page). Please please don't delete it this time! The magazine is legitimate and as valid as the other entries! (okay deleted again just saying Gibraltar has a monthly magazine called The Gibraltar Magazine - nolink at all. Why is this less valid than it having a newspaper, radio station etc???? Please tell me— Meioow (talk • contribs) 08:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

What is the right way to handle the promo at User:PeterJames1? No need to reply if you want to handle it yourself; I'll watch with interest. Johnuniq (talk) 11:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Wirtland

Just in case you wondered — the move of the micronation was suggested at AFD. Nyttend (talk) 05:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I noticed that, but given that the micronation was more popular in terms of Google hits, the fact that the hatnote was an aside from someone opposed to even having the micronation article, and that the house doesn't appear especially notable outside of the US (at least, as compared to the micronation) the present arrangement seemed best. Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 05:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with your unilateral move of these articles. As someone had moved them in the first place I'd have thought it would have been obvious that your move would have been contreversial and so should have had some discussion first. Personally I diasagree with your arguement about google hits for two reasons, firstly most of the 'top ten' hits appear not to be independent and second I think that the micronation is much more likely to have hits on the internet than the building possibly skewing results as there may be many offline sources that mention the building. I've started a requested move discussion - something I think you should have done. Dpmuk (talk) 10:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome to disagree, of course, but I felt it was equally fair to correct what appeared to be an improper decision to move the micronation article and replace it with one about a building. The correct procedure would have been to move the micronation article as done, create Wirtland (building), and use Wirtland as a disambiguation page for those two articles. I've proposed just such a move at the move discussion you opened. --Ckatzchatspy 10:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
It's hardly surprising that a Web-based entity wins the ghits argument, which is why we don't use ghits to arbitrate page titles. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Could you perform the move of Wirtland (disambiguation) to Wirtland? There is a speedy tag there, for the 3st time already, and the editor who initiated the move cannot undo it since the page is now protected. Thanks, Witizen (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Witizen

BWB

That's a Big Welcome Back from me and, unfortunately, from UNID. Please look here for a summary of a few things that need fixing. Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 05:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note; I've cleaned up the page per your request. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 05:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The Hurt Locker

Evidently, I've got this stubborn streak in me! Absolutely no connection to all of this, just happened to click from the posting on WP:ANI and just don't like to see someone bull things through and ignore folks.

So, what to do? I can't see a clear guideline (contrary to user:Inurhead) in WP:FilmRelease about this situation. There's the list of release dates to include, but no mention of precedence. I found one film that was released for film festivals in one year, then publically the next, and it used the earlier year for the release date. That was earlier today, so I'll have to try to find it again. I've found several sources that say 2008, and several that say 2009. Most perplexing, even without the drama!

Maybe post this question to WP:Film and see what others might say? For now, I'm going to leave the year as they are. Inurhead's broken 3RR already, but I don't feel the need to join him there. I'm just glad he finally (!) took things to the talk page.

If the All-Star game is boring tonight, I'll try to look through some of the other things he's blindly reverting. The article is a bit on the puffy side right now - only good things allowed by IH and trivial information included. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

stress surfing (was delited‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)

Dear Mr. Ckatz I understand taht you are busy and will really appretiate your unswer promise not to write you again and not to argue, but please help me I really do not understand. It was delited few hour befor you for same suspect. I did not see any advertizing even in that version. So, anyvay I took out anything which is not just factual. This article were put in wiki by request of my collegues as they think that the method of dealing with stress that I developed with my colleagues within last 10 year is really different form any other methods, scientifecly rooted and effective. As I see it in my article I did anything needed: - defined it, - gave the hystory and refferd to others (not related with me) who thinks at the same direction, so rider can make own judgement - described ideas and the methodology

Pleas, help me with yor experience - why do you think it was advertisement? What do I need to change to be adequate with my intention to provide people with the information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivan Kirillov (talk • contribs) 20:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Zilog Z380

I added some references to the Zilog Z380 article but don't really have time to expand it. A quick glance through the revision history seems to indicate the article has been cut down so there may also be some salvageable material in some of the old versions. The same editor also prodded Sharp LH-0080 and I really just don't have time to keep up with these – it's unfortunately much easier to prod than fix or expand articles. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

More attention needed

Please see 124.185.18.187 (UNID) and note spam info in the edit summaries. Johnuniq (talk) 01:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked, edits removed, and I've asked for the URLs to be added to the blacklist at Meta. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 03:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Bowen Island Politics

Hi Ckatz! I understand where you blocked me from editing Bowen Island Politics, although I'm not sure why you blocked me from being able to discuss with you or other administrators...could you please explain that one? It left me with no recourse to follow Wiki guidelines as 1. the deletions were from an anonymous source so I had no way to reach consensus 2. could not appeal to you or a third neutral administrator 3. go to arbitration. Thanks for any explanation.

I'm also stuck trying to figure out why you would delete my section when i re-post it the same...again, there's seemingly no one to reach consensus with. Could you please advise me on what to do (I suppose re-write it, but how, what parts, is there anything crossing Wiki guidelines etc.). I'd really appreciate that as am a bit stumped right now. Again, thanks. --24.82.96.85 (talk) 17:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Bowen Island Politics - sorry, didn't log in

Hi again , Ckatz, The last post was by me but i had forgotten to log in. Sorry! --Wednesday vagabond (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

About Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone release in India

Hi, In the Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone article I stated that the film released in India as harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone in India along with the US but was reverted. It somehow seems that facts are not easily accepted and are changed without verification. I am providing the link to the official home video website for India so that the name can be verified from there. Thanks

Official Website

Parthashome (talk) 11:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Parthashome

Big Home video has exclusive rights to market and distribute movies and DVD/Blu-Rays from Warner catalogues in India. Check the press release from Yahoo!. Another proof wold be the fact that movie channels in India air it as Sorcerer's Stone and not Philosopher's Stone. One example would be the turner channel POGO.

Yahoo! Movies news and

Indiatelevision Press Release

Parthashome (talk) 21:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Parthashome

Editing Pages

Hello, I just tried, a couple of times, to make constructive changes to the article named "Continents" as such article has very notable flaws. For example, the name of the continent is Oceania, and not "Australia" as the article indicates. Anyway, I tried to fix that flaw among others but the page keeps reverting to the previous version, and I've even been told that I'm committing "vandalism." Is this how you treat people who make an intend to help other people to get accurate information from this already-skeptic source?

I would be more than happy to discuss this matter, Hector —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ector2008 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The place to discuss content disputes is on the talk page of the article. You may even find earlier discussions regarding the points that concern you. Johnuniq (talk) 02:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

And by the way, the link to send an e-mail at the top of the page does not work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ector2008 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Image removals

Could you take a look at the image removals going on with Linux by User:Fasach Nua and User:Yworo? It seems Fasach Nua has a history of removing non-free images from articles for no reason and I see a lot of stuff in their talk page history. --Tothwolf (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I also just noticed Yworo reported 85.241.105.44 on AIV and RFPP, even though there seems to be no reason to do so, see [5] [6] [7] While I thought User:Yworo's contribs to be a little strange since they look like bulk (semi?)automated edits [8] this seems to indicate that this editor is certainly not a newbie. --Tothwolf (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

FAO Country Profiles "External links"

Hello!

Thanks for your message. I just work for the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and we are trying to link every Member State information to each country. I know it seems a little bit weird at the begining or not maybe understood at first sight, but as it's stated on our site, it "presents the Organization's vast archive of knowledge on agriculture and food security within a single Web-based portal, with groupings by country and thematic area." And with so many people dying from hunger I thought we could help in some way but letting the world know about the countries situation. Maybe we can analyse together each country and leave some of the links. Please let me know on how to proceed. Thanks again. --MontseBL (talk) 10:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Australia

Regarding this edit that you reverted, I noticed that the changes made were not at all consistent with the edit summary. One particlarly stood out. It was a change from "[[Australian English|English]]" to "[[English language|English]]" and seemed to go completely against the spirit of what the editor was claiming to do so I checked and found a few more items (reversion of an update that I'd made to a citation fairly recently, removal of "US" from some GDP figures that had been discussed on 17 June, removal of some {{cn}} tags that had been discussed on 25 June, etc). A bit more checking revealed that the edit is almost a complete reversion to this much earlier version of the article. The only difference is that "organization" has been changed to "Organisation". I haven't been able to find an exact reversion, but the version that has been reverted to is most certainly before this edit. It's a rather peculiar edit from a well established editor and I can't see why he'd wipe out 280 previous edits. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering if it was a straight revert, given the wide range of changes (many of which did not fit the edit summary). Good work on tracking down the older version. Given what you've said, is there any point in me sifting through the changes, or should I just leave it for the page regulars? --Ckatzchatspy 05:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I've already looked through it and could only find two changes of value, which I've already fixed. The vast majority of the changes in the edit re-inroduced errors that had been corrected in the subsequent 280 edits. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Runaway productions

Hi Ckatz,

Please stop removing the external link I added to stop-runaway-production.com. I don't sell anything or advertise anything. The site is dedicated to the study of runaway production and film policy, and is bias free. The site is the best resource for researching runaway production on the web, a fact that the leading scholars on the subject will attest to, because they praised me for creating it. I authored a Ivy League law review article on the topic which was favorable to Canada, where I know you live.

My forthcoming article is very critical of the U.S. state incentives. By deleting the link, you are depriving people of a comprehensive resource to study the issue, which has a massive library of reports not otherwise available to educate the public

Ir's ironic that you delete my link when the one below it, for FTAC, is a very biased site that hates Canadian policies. I even called them out in my first article.

I read the policies, again, for wikipedia (I am an attorney), and I am well within guidelines. I correspond with the leading academics studying runaways and take the issue very seriously. Most important, I strive to remain objective. Hence my blog is not posted for that reason. I am also trying to get a new URL that removes the "fight" word from the URL.

My work has been cited in other academic journals as well, including an Austrailian professor and a policy advisor to a US Senator. Many of the sources and external links on the page are from groups or reporters that I actually know.

Deleting again will be a disservice to the advancement of film study. In short, I am offended by your actions and can't understand why you would censor information that is educational. We should want people to know about this issue, not be deprived of information sources.

I want to work with you and keep this cordial, but I can't resist pointing out that your pro-Canada stance calls into question your objectivity.


Let's refrain from a dispute. My link furthers knowledge of runaway production at a higher level than most other sources.


The entry, overall, sucks. Let's work together to improve it. Go to the site and see for yourself. If you wish, I will email you the draft of my new piece and you can see for yourself that I am very critical of the U.S. response. I would even welcome you making contributions as an author on the site.

What say you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Depauldem (talk • contribs) 09:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page, but in a nutshell, you have to stop adding the link. As the site owner, you are in a conflict of interest - and as an editor here, you are not following the consensus process. Two separate editors have disagreed with your link, yet you continue to restore it, which is a real problem. You are far better off offering your knowledge on the talk page where it can be properly assessed. --Ckatzchatspy 10:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you agree that these articles would be much more helpful to the readers?

The only challenge is to arrange them so they look more focused, through piping I guess. I do not believe more than a tiny proportion of readers would hit a "hidden" link that looks as though it's to a whole country article. Tony (talk) 11:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely endorse a longer block

He's a sockpuppet. He was given the chance to admit that he'd made a mistake in the SPI. He chose to lie yet again. I submit that an indef block is truly in order. The socking was intentional and they communicated with each other to throw us off the scent. I'd offer a perma-ban if it weren't the user's apparent first time. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 08:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I added a link to frelance marketplace. What's wrong with it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Narco223 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Hi,

I'm really new to wikipedia and have just started editing. I've been adding external links (to the webcasts of thecharity that I work at).

Firstly, please don't think that I don't want to be a wiki-editor or contribute generally to the amazing collaborative endeavor that is wikipedia - I'm really not that web/tech savy so I started with adding external links - I really want to be honest, they have been for work purposes - but also a cause I really belive in, otherwise I just wouldn't do it (especially on a saturday afternoon...).

I'd like to explain why and what these external links are. I work for the RSA (Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts Manufactures and Commerce) - one of the things (believe sometimes the only thing) that I passionatley value and believe in is that it runs an amazingly big free public events programme holding over 150 events a year for anyone to come and attend. We also record the events and provide free podcasts of them. Recently - I guess a year ago we started filming our events (something akin to TED but with on a much terribly low budget and one person doing the camera work).

But we've really had some amazing lectures here, the filmings got better and I've been putting up links to webcasts such as - James Lovelock on the vanishing face of gaia; Ken Robinson; Tod Machover; Niall Ferguson; Stanley Greenberg; Will Self and Martin Rowson on political satire. I was just trying to let people know that we're out there being a platform for speakers and ideas and that we're an independent out there doing it for free and not that many people know about us or get to enjoy what we are doing. I got the idea when browsing wikipedia and saw external links on on various pages to to TED's webcasts. I worried that there may be a COI but I thought that providing external links to speakers lectures would be ok as I was trying to contribute to the spirit of free information and ideas.

I'm really sorry that you think its just promotional (in one sense it is - but not in a commercial context). I want to ask if what I was doing is really wrong? Honestly, I just wanted to contribute and let people listen to the lectures - and I was linking directly to the webcast of the speakers - not various bits of our website.

If I'm being inappropriate - I really do apologise - but if you think I'm adding some value I'd really like to continue adding the links. Intelligentelf (talk) 11:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

We wish you well, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to promote causes, however worthwhile. There are lots of people who would like to add thousands of promotional links to Wikipedia (you can see some of them at WT:WikiProject Spam). You can read more at single purpose account and external links and conflict of interest. In brief, please do not add your links. Johnuniq (talk) 12:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Help me out

Help me out on whats wrong Ckatz? i didn't need discussion on the Stargate Atlantis which you edited yourself. So what do you think needs fixing. Tell me so i can fix it! --TIAYN (talk) 10:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you tell me were these problems are "writing style, organization (especially the lead), and other aspects that warrant the revert." so i can fix them.. --TIAYN (talk) 10:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Seriously, i'm been looking over my article of The X-Files, what the crap is wrong? --TIAYN (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
As mentioned, there are issues with the writing style, the organization, and other aspects. The lead paragraph was much stronger in its previous incarnation, whereas the revised one appears somewhat unfocused. I've just come online for today, and will be able to actually sit down and give an in-depth read-through later on. --Ckatzchatspy 17:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Just tell me what you mean with "writing style", bad grammar, lousy writte etc.. Is m one unfocus or the one standing their now. Let's talk more about this when you have time, okay. --TIAYN (talk) 18:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
So when is this so-called review gonna happen? --TIAYN (talk) 17:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
you are good at reverting but not given reasons for why you revert. If you don't give information which can improve my text, i can very well just add it again since my one does breach some guidelines the old one didn't. --TIAYN (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
With all due respect, I have briefly expressed my concerns; as well, it does take a certain period of uninterrupted time to review and note the full extent of the issues. Apologies if it is not fast enough, but I've a lot on my plate right now. However, I will say that - while your efforts are certainly appreciated - I do feel that the rewrite has sufficient issues with it that we are better off keeping the original in place and adapting parts of the rewrite, rather than the other way around. I won't be able to give it a solid read for a few days yet, but if that doesn't work for you than I can assist in calling for a third opinion. (Probably the best bet is to post at the Television project talk page, given that X-Files has been out of production for a while.) --Ckatzchatspy 19:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Most if not all the information on the article is their. The only big difference is the structure, either than that its just the same with the exception of the lead i created, which i've now replaced with the old one. What i'm saying the only difference was the 'lead and i think its bad judgement of you reverting my edits to the article without reading through the article proparly, with only reading the lead which i myself thought was a bit weak from the start. What you are saying is that you reverted an edit which you don't what is included or not.
The truth is even if you have the power to revert my edits, you can't do it if you havn't through it probably. But again, its a reason why nearly all of the sources in my sandbox one is the same as the old remaining one. + how can i use the remaining information that i didn't include if i can't find any references to support them? If i could i would have used them! While i admit my one has some problems that needs solving, the one standing has more problems than mine.
The truth is, if would/had given a list of what needed fixing i would gladly fix it. --TIAYN (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
The pages were compared, and the immediate impression was that the old one was better off as the "current" version, to be used as a base. The revised lead was very problematic, and some of the reordering also appeared to be that way. There were also quite a few references that were removed as "dead links", whereas the usual practise is to tag them as dead links while retaining the information. --Ckatzchatspy 20:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
That may be true, but how can an article reach GA status if it has broken links everywhere? The structure was copied from the Lost (TV series) which is a FA. I'm getting this strange feeling that i'm the blue zone right now. Yes but you, the problem is, broken links was not the only thing i removed, un-reliable sources was also a big part of the refernces i removed. Second over half of the article is plot summaries and fan information and soom in a whole impossible to source or come close to a reference of any kind. You as an administrator who is elected to keep wikipedia referenced and by all means 100% accurate.
If i could have found any sources for The X-Files musicial i would have gladly put it into the article. If i saw any reason why we should include the list of mytharc episodes in the article i would, but since its already mentioned in over 10 articles, the main being the episode list and the mythology releases. And much of the information from season 5 to 9 seems to fit perfectly in a season or episode article since they don't actually talk about the series itself, with some few exceptions. Remember i've kept the old lead.
I'll probably ask the users at the televison wikiproject. --TIAYN (talk) 20:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Promotional material

Wikipedia while it is not intended as an advertising vehicle indirectly functions as such. Websites and businesses that have references or articles to them on Wikipedia receive increased exposure in other words free advertising. There is a monetary value to mention on a wiki despite the site's non-profit nature. It is not fair for certain websites and businesses to receive mention and thus free advertising merely because they meet the site's notability standards. In the case why should, besides the ever trumpeted notability standards, rottentomatoes be allowed to be listed in a movies external links while an individual film critics website not be. It still relates to the material in the article. Please respond. Scotland1099 (talk) 20:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Scotland1099

RT and Metacritic have established notability as aggregate review sites, and as such are considered to add value to article content from that perspective. Simply put, Wikipedia benefits more from the use than the site does. The case is reversed for individual sites that have not established notability independently, as they receive far more of a boost from being mentioned here than Wikipedia's articles do by including their content. While I can understand your concern at having your site rejected in favour of a competitor's (although the roles are somewhat different), you have to remember that we are not looking at it from the same perspective. --Ckatzchatspy 20:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Futurology

Hi, you removed a link to the World Futures Studies Federation giving the edit summary "rm EL." which I don't know what that means but the organisation is a consultant to the United Nations. ~ R.T.G 16:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi CKatz: I recenlty left you an email message asking you why you edit out some external links and leave certain ones there. If you have a tip or rationale to share, our community and many contributors would appreciate it. I notice that while you didn't answer my email, you were online and removed an external link I added within hours of me posting it.

I and others in our community would appreciate you sharing your editing premise, which appears proprietary and selective, here.

A quick look at the page history reveals this.

Thank you

````Suzanne —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slinctank (talk • contribs) 17:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Mail is only for really confidential communication; if you have a problem with a specific article, you should comment on the talk page of that article. Or, as you have done, you could ask here if wondering about what a specific editor has done. Please read WP:EL for the guidelines on what should be in external links. Essentially, Wikipedia is not a directory with every possible link, and only links that really add encyclopedic value should be added. Of course there are many articles where that rule has not been observed, and you might like to help by removing them. I had a look at the history of Saltspring Island and observed a couple of single purpose accounts who have tried to add the link with no explanation as to how it helps the article. Johnuniq (talk) 03:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

People counter edits

Hello Ckatz,

I emailed you yesterday regarding the changes that I made on the people counter post but have not heard back from you so I wanted to post here. Please email me or hit my talk page so we can discuss things. Chris.mcrae (talk) 17:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we discuss things in the open. Mail is only for really confidential stuff. I had a look at your edits – please review WP:SPA. The material you added to People counter reads like a promotion, whereas the rest of the material in the article is generic, encyclopedic information, as is wanted here. This is not the place for the latest product. Johnuniq (talk) 03:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


I apologize for not communicating view your talk page. I'm not familiar with the wiki conventions as I have not done anything here before so I sent the email which is my preferred means of communication for most matters. I read the SPA and pretty much the only thing that I see I fit under is that the only topics I have edited have been on stereo vision. I will certainly add to other articles when I see fit but I'm not going to go out and look for articles to contribute to just so I can post. Aside from that, how can anyone ever get started on wikipedia if you flag their first and only post and cite the SPA rules? I may not be a seasoned contributer but I have one thing in common with even the heaviest poster, we both started with our first post.

You also say that this is not the place for the latest product yet you have allowed direct product links from Cognimatics and Irisys in the first two external links. This was the only reason that I posted the link to the product in the external links page. As for the second link I posted http://www.brickstream.com/resources I'm not sure why it would not be allowed as it provides resources and suggested readings for those who are interested in people counting and other customer metrics. Also, the page is title "People Counter" which in itself is a product and in fact the Embedded Stereo Vision solution was developed with the primary purpose of counting people so not allowing it to be included in the post leaves off a significant contribution to people counting as a topic.

All of that being said, I reread the original post and can see how it reads like a promotion so I have rewritten it and posted below. Please let me know what you think.

Embedded Stereo Vision

Embedded Stereo Vision devices use two camera lenses in order to incorporate height data into the onboard intelligence algorithms and greatly increase system accuracy.

These devices are IP addressable and have the ability to capture and send counting, service, queueing, and various other metrics as well as record a video stream to validate system results. No additional on-site computer or data aggregation hardware is required. All image processing and behavioral analytics are performed on the camera and data is delivered at configurable time intervals, thereby making embedded stereo vision people counting a low bandwidth solution.

The incorporation of stereo data into the image processing and analytics allows the stereo camera to operate reliably and accurately in normal, high, low, and varying lighting conditions.

Advantages: 

   * Typical accuracy of 95% or higher.
   * Can provide directional counts through a wide variety of entrance types and sizes.
   * Can filter object based on height and object type (eliminate or include counting of carts and children)
   * Lower total cost of ownership (no battery replacement, no additional hardware on-site, power and data provided over standard cat5 802.3af Power-over-Ethernet)
   * Accurate in high or low volume environments.

* Accurate in both high and low light environments. 

   * Easy installation.
   * Overhead mounting prevents tampering and blocked sensors.
   * IP addressable and highly scaleable (embedded architecture eliminates the need for PCs or servers on-site).
   * Mounting options are available from 8-40 feet.
   * Operates indoors and outdoors.
   * Supports additional metrics.

Chris.mcrae (talk) 18:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Please put your ideas on Talk:People counter. One issue is that the encyclopedic article is just presenting an overview and is in no way intended to cover each product development. When I get a chance to look at your comments, I'll try to discover why those other external links you mention are present, and think about whether the list of links needs to be pruned. There is no need to reply here, just put a new message at the above link. Johnuniq (talk) 08:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Software Top 100 is OK

Ckatz, regarding your edit on this page: World's largest software companies and your remark: (looking at the www.softwaretop100.org web site, it seems to be a means of pushing their services. Thoughts?) I have some thoughts ;-) The Software Top 100 is overseen by a not for profit foundation, that publishes the Software Top 100 for free every year, according to a published and stringent methodology. The foundation accepts donations and offers research services in order to fund itself. I see no reason here to delete links to the Software Top 100, especially since other sources of similar information are all commercial entities: Forbes has a commercial magazine, Software 500 is published by (commercial) Software Magazine, IDC and Gartner do not even publish their paid lists. The fact that they seek to make profit does not disqualify them, and neither does it disqualify the Software Top 100, if I understand the OR policy correctly. Do you agree with this line of thinking? --BalderV (talk) 09:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey - did you know I'm a sock of you?

No - really! I am! Inurhead figured it out, see? [9] I gotta tell you - I'm impressed that I could be a sock of someone without knowing it! Ravensfire2002 (talk) 02:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Writing to yourself doesn't prove you aren't a sock puppet. So for instigating this (minimally), Ckatz, I'm giving you your coveted WP:TROUT award for malicious deletes. Hooray. Feel good inside today? Did you delete enough of other people's contributions yet? Oh, I'm sure you'll have plenty more time to do it. Stay up all night! I'm sure you will. Enlist more friends (um, I mean sock puppets!) Oh yeah, and please get a life! Inurhead (talk) 03:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ckatz. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Trotline.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NW (Talk) 04:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Mr Katz,

Whats the problem with me adding the http://kelowna.com link? Its a news website dedicated to Kelowna and has more local full time reporters than any other news organization in Kelowna and has the most current news.

But its apparently OK to have links to http://chbcnews.ca - a local tv station that no one watches (which is why its been on the auction block). How is that link any less spammy than a link to Kelowna.com?

And its apparently OK to have links to a site that doesn't even exist, http://www.ckov63.com It just redirects to http://www.b103.ca a country music radio station? You kidding me?

I know that wikipedia uses nofollow tags, I'm not trying to add it thinking it is going to be a valuable link for SEO. I'm simply adding it because I see other links there of equal or less value, so why not allow the Kelowna.com link? If not, please remove all the other "spammy" links.

Regards, Rob —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mogtnomr (talk • contribs) 06:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The Hurt Locker

Hello, there is a reexamination of the "[year] in film" classification for The Hurt Locker. Can you review the discussion at Talk:The Hurt Locker#Re-open and share your thoughts? —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Macular Degeneration: Response to External Link - American Health Assistance Foundation

We at the American Health Assistance Foundation (AHAF) would like to clear up a misrepresentation regarding our organization. Macular Degeneration Research (MDR) is one of three programs that fall under the American Health Assistance Foundation (AHAF), a non-profit organization.

To date, AHAF's program, Macular Degeneration Research, has committed over $8.7 million dollars to peer-reviewed biomedical research. AHAF, as a whole, has committed over $100 million to peer-reviewed biomedical research aimed at developing treatments and cures for three devastating age-related neurodegenerative disorders: macular degeneration, Alzheimer’s disease, and glaucoma. AHAF has given grants to high caliber scientists at some of the world’s top research institutions. A list of current awards is available on our website: [www.ahaf.org/research]. Also, please see our questions and answers page. This page in particular is of great help to anyone who has macular degeneration (MD): [www.ahaf.org/macular/questions/].

AHAF has earned the Better Business Bureau (BBB) Wise Giving Alliance seal of approval and the AHAF website meets HONcode standards.

The information that we provide for those with macular degeneration is updated regularly and independently reviewed.

Per Wikipedia regarding links -

"Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia, but they should not normally be used in the body of an article. They must conform to certain formatting restrictions. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy."


"What should be linked:


1. Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any. The official site should typically be listed first.

2. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply.

3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons."

AHAF's website is not a spam website and it does fit into the ideal of what should be included as a link per wikipedia's description. If you are referring to our "donate now" button within the site wrapper as spam then please also take a look at other non-profit's donation buttons. It is a common feature existing on almost all "notable" non-profit websites. Case in point, please look at the links included under the term sleep disorder, Alzheimer's disease, and juvenile diabetes - to name a few. Some of the organizations listed are already well known, others are not well known - yet a common feature existing on these websites will be a donation button. Most buttons are prominently placed in the header of NPO websites.

I ask that you re-consider your opinion about AHAF's website and also examine whether or not the information provided on the AHAF site will be of assistance to those with MD, family members, and the MD research community. I think that you will find that in all cases we are a relevant resource. For those impacted by MD, the AHAF website provides information, news updates, questions answered by M.D.s and Ph.D.s, and a community. For researchers studying MD, the AHAF website provides information regarding grant submission and research that we currently support.

If you choose to re-include a link to AHAF's website under the term macular degeneration, please use www.ahaf.org/macular.

Thank you for your consideration.

--Sdisandro (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Jack Welch bio

You have rejected my edits to the Jack Welch bio on the grounds that they were unreferenced. I am baffled by this as I included 2 references, one of which was book Welch himself wrote. Could you give me more explanation? Ndickinson1 (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Spong

Noticed you removed it as a source from Voldo. Should Spong be considered unreliable? I'm asking because WP:VG/S doesn't mention it either way.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

trotline

I read the claims you wrote to get me banned. Your information is untrue, irrelevant, and seems to be the result of a personal problem you have with me.

Further,the process took place behind closed doors and I was never contacted.

If you have a problem with my participation on Wikipedia you can open the dialogue here. I will be happy to discuss it with you here in front of all the Wikipedia folks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.176.216.241 (talk) 20:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding, as I've been off-line for a few weeks. (I've also replied to this matter at User talk:Kingwarren.) Please note that your claims that this is related to any sort of "personal problem" with you are completely unfounded, and that I did not actually block your account. I did, however, notice an apparent similarity between the various accounts involved, especially given the focus on specific content and the timing, and as such I requested a standard check to get an opinion from the editors who specialize in that aspect of Wikipedia's operations. This is a straightforward process that is requested frequently when situations such as this arise. It is important to remember that the decision is based on their independent assessment of your contributions, not simply because I raised the question. If you wish to take issue with their conclusions, you'll need to take it up with them. --Ckatzchatspy 23:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The Hurt Locker

Hello, glad to be of help with The Hurt Locker. It was a bit dismaying to see how the editor reacted to all of us. In the future, if you see similar behavior or some other issue with a film article, don't hesitate to notify editors at WT:FILM! (After trying to fix and discuss one-on-one, of course.) The WikiProject's talk page is pretty active with some solid editors, and we don't always agree with each other, either. :P For what we just experienced, though, the editor's credibility was pretty much destroyed from the get-go. I don't think that some of his points (like with negative reviews) were invalid, but it was all presented with such vitriol. :P Anyway, happy editing, yeah? —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Warning

i recently received this warning:

"User talk:82.114.66.108 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ~user:orngjce223 ☺ how am I typing? 21:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] August 2009

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Ckatzchatspy 18:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Kosovo War. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Katieh5584 (talk) 18:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as you did with this edit to Kosovo War. Alansohn (talk) 19:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)"


However, I have never looked up the Kosovo War, be it on my own computer, or any other computer. My only idea as to how this happened was somebody used my computer while I was away. I do not wish to be blocked from editing, and would like to know how this warning could be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.114.66.108 (talk) 00:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/82.114.66.108 shows that the IP was used to perform certain edits. As per the information at the bottom of User talk:82.114.66.108, you can create an account and log in to avoid confusion. Johnuniq (talk) 01:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Wiki Rules on Quotations

Specifically, please direct me to the rules on what an excessive quote is.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogyo (talk • contribs) 00:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for change at protected page

Hi. Per the discussion at [10], and given that Manual of Style (dates and numbers) is a protected page, can you please do the honors and delete from that page the sentence that now reads: "* Locations of birth and death are given subsequently rather than being entangled with the dates."

Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

BSG move

Hi. Thanks for contacting me, but I feel sorry that my move has been reversed without having heard any opposition for a week about that move in the discussion page. I think that it is also a mistake to call BSG a "2004 TV series" when it is well-known that it ended in 2009, i.e. 5 years later. The discussion about Reimagining cannot be applied to this move, because the established nickname in the wider BSG community is not Reimagining, but Re-imagined Series, as I explained in the discussion page and it is shown in the Battlestar Wiki and other fan sites. Nevertheless I will respect this (IMO seriously flawed) decision and will not move it again. --jofframes 14:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdemarcos (talk • contribs) --jofframes (talk) 14:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi CKatz,

I might be wrong but I believe that on August 21 you backed out a number of edits that I had been making to wikis for different ski resorts. In my mind those were valid links and not spam for the following reasons.

  • there are no advertisements on the site that shows the trail map
  • I am not affiliated with the site
  • the site is relevant to the ski resort (i.e. they show the trails in that resort)

My thought is that only allowing links to the ski resort itself is too limiting. The site that I linked to provides online interactive trail maps which, as a skier, I find useful.

Best regards, Mountainrelic (talk) 17:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Theserialcomma (talk) 18:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC) he is still continuing to hound me. can you ask him nicely to never contact me again or comment on anything i'm commenting on. if there is an issue with something i've done, i am sure an admin somewhere will detect it and take the appropriate action. i don't want this guy harassing me. it is getting creepy now Theserialcomma (talk) 23:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

comment

Hi there,

I posted an addition to Clydesdale Bank's entry, as there is a satirical song about them on Youtube, and their [highest in the UK] charges are under investigation, not just as part of the ongoing OFT case, but also as part of a fraud investigation. Is there a reason you deleted the link. Stupid question! Of course there is a reason: can you explain the reason please? I obviously did a no-no, and if you could let me know what it is - I shall avoid it in future.

Cheers,

Amos —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amoslinz (talk • contribs) 08:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Earth article say "known to mankind"?

Seeing as it's neutrally written, not even from a human perspective, shouldn't it be stated it's the only planet known to man to support life?----occono (talk) 09:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for change at protected page

Hi again. Please see my request above of August 23. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see that note. I'll take a look at the page. Cheers, and thanks for following up on this. --Ckatzchatspy 06:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Whew. I was hoping I wasn't bothering you, as you seem busy. BTW, if you have any suggestion as to how to address the 60-odd edits that were (improperly) made, that are referenced in the discussion, that would be great as well.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Thanks. Might you have any suggestion as to how to address the 60-odd edits that were (improperly) made, referenced in that discussion? The editor has been asked to revert, but has not done so. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
If there's consensus regarding the format, it shouldn't be a problem if people wish to restore the previous version (essentially, undoing the changes). --Ckatzchatspy 19:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Tx. Will do. A half hour of my life that I will never get back, though...--Epeefleche (talk) 21:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

50000 Quaoar Simple English Wikipedia

I have undeleted the page, as you were right, it shouldn't have been deleted as the rfd was only for non notable asteroids. Thanks for spotting it. Yotcmdr (talk) 20:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Now that is great service. Thanks for addressing this so quickly. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 20:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The Hurt Locker

Don't waste your breath responding to him. I don't see a collaborative future with him. —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Sigh... --Ckatzchatspy 23:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Any thoughts on my revisions of the critics' reviews so far? I'm trying to make them "fuller" rather than soundbites that could be splattered across some commercial for the film. Also, I have to agree with Inurhead about undue weight; I think it would be most appropriate to keep it to only Variety's Derek Elley for a negative viewpoint. What do you think? —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Straw arguments don't make you guys seem unbiased. Try another tactic. Go ahead and delete everything. Blank the whole page for all I care. You are only destroying Wikipedia and invalidating the integrity of your own contributions to other pages. Inurhead (talk) 00:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Those links have been there for some time, and you are removing them, claiming to do so according to WP:EL. Your repeated claim that their inclusion needs to be justified simply does not fly in that context, but applies only to disputing them when they are put up in the first place. I have told you that I see nothing on WP:EL to justify your deletion, and therefore have restored them. I submit that the fact that I agreed with the removal of the link to The Prisoner Appreciation Society (once you expanded your deletion beyond the lone link you removed in the first place to include that and two others) not only shows objectivity on my part, but proves that I have examined both the WP:EL page and the external sites. I hereby demand that you quote something specific from the page which you have claimed supports your deletions that actually does so, or drop the issue. --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You are incorrect in presuming that "there for some time" equates to a right to be there. The links fail the "what not to include" section, and are not necessary given the presence of professional sources. --Ckatzchatspy 21:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I made no such "equation." What I did was point out that once something has been in place for a significant amount of time, one who wishes to remove it must justify the removal. If it is justified, this would be done quite easily, and I find your extreme resistance to making any such attempt quite telling. Blankly asserting "The links fail..." does not establish as fact that they do in any way, shape, or form whatsoever. I repeat: I have examined both the regulatory page you cite and the sites in question and find nothing in the former that justifies deleting the latter. If you are unable to quote something from the page which disqualifies any or all of those sites from inclusion, you have no grounds or right to remove them. I again demand that you produce such a quote. --Tbrittreid (talk) 23:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Under WP:EL, "Links normally to be avoided": "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority (this exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies)." --MASEM (t) 23:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Whatever one thinks about its current status, Six of One's history makes it a notable organisation - Patrick McGoohan himself accepted the position of honorary president in 1977 and held it until his death this year, and the organisation has been featured, mentioned or approached for comment numerous times by national media in the UK and elsewhere. Six of One also conducted or supported a large amount of important Prisoner research, including Steven Ricks' video documentaries and various convention interviews and panels for Prisoner cast and crew. Less easy for me to back up with citations, but nonetheless probably still true, is that Six of One had a pioneering and important position in the history of TV fan culture (Roger Goodman, co-founder: "in 1978 it was second only to the Trekkies in membership numbers for a tv series fan base and had more members than the Campaign For Nuclear Disarmament"). Accordingly I am restoring a Six of One link. --03:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)RW Dutton (talk)
As Masem point out above, fansites need to be written by a recognized authority, meaning, as a minimum, sufficient notability for biographies. Until Six of One has its own WP entry, it's not notable, so I'm removing the link to the fansite page which provides no information that isn't available in better-referenced form elsewhere. Ghughesarch (talk) 11:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Suggest this discussion could be more appropriately conducted on the article talk page? RomaC (talk) 13:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. --RW Dutton (talk) 00:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

What If Sports FC Dynasty

Yeah, I typed in something about how What If Sports had a fantasy soccer program. It's true. I don't know why you got rid of it, maybe you aren't familiar with WIS but there is a fantasy soccer thing.Robertojuanez1 (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Missed headline: Salt Spring Island edits

I missed adding a headline above - my message is not related to the vandalism message, it relates to the Salt Spring Island page. ````slinctank —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slinctank (talk • contribs) 17:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Phun page protected

Hello Mr. , I noticed you blocked the phun page. Could you unblock it? Or at least make it a redirect to Phun (2D Physics Sandbox) or a disambiguation page? Thanks. --SF007 (talk) 02:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

List of micronations status review

I have nominated List of micronations for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. With regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 01:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

ANI FYI

I have started a new discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Inurhead continued incivility and edit warring at The Hurt Locker regarding the issues at The Hurt Locker and with Inurhead. FYI in case you wish to add any comments about the situation. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Inkheart‎ redirect to Inkworld trilogy?

Rather than three non-sourced/ megrely sourced articles about each individual book, one lightly sourced article about the series? -- The Red Pen of Doom 06:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

In an attempt to help determine consensus on this matter, I have established a poll, which you may wish to review. --203.214.132.100 (talk) 06:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry, but can you tell the other user that an award which receives coverage from major media publishers deserves inclusion in an article, and that IMDb is not a reliable source because it is user written. Can you? --TIAYN (talk) 19:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Stargate SG-1 on This TV

How is Stargate SG-1 airing on MGM's television network This TV not notable? Powergate92Talk 23:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The fact that MGM is broadcasting repeats of its own production is not notable; in fact, one would expect them to do so. (It would only be notable if they were producing new episodes that were first broadcast on This TV.) Keep in mind that the series is in syndication on many networks, and Wikipedia is not a television guide. --Ckatzchatspy 23:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that you had removed all the external links from the pages I have written for Wikipedia about English tenses (past simple, continuous, future simple etc.) I spent several days creating these Wikipedia pages and utilized my twenty years long teaching experience. The only reward for me was the external link to my website where the students can practise the English tenses free of charge. You should also know that I earn a lot of money from Adsense on my website, that is 20 cents a day on average. If you consider such a link a spam link, what kind of link is not a spam? I look forward to you reply. --Petr Kulaty 17:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petr Kulaty (talk • contribs)

Wondered why you keep reverting the link to the Promo Video for Airwolf Themes' wiki? It is a relevant link to the article.

SF 20:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SurgeFilter (talk • contribs)

Invitation to join Wikiproject Micronations

I note your interest in the subject of micronations.

Wikipedia always welcomes a diversity of opinion, so you might wish to consider registering as a member of the WikiProject Micronations:

I look forward to working with you over coming months to improve and significantly extend Wikipedia's micronation content. --Gene_poole (talk) 01:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Netley Castle

Why did you remove apparently valid and useful external links from the article? Vicarage (talk) 07:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Heads-up

Hi there. I'm shortly going to propose that this site be added as an WP:EL to both List of micronations and Micronations.

As the site includes the most extensive, up-to-date listing of micronations currently available from any source, I believe that it is directly relevant to the subject of those articles, and that its inclusion within them would significantly complement the existing content, and enhance their usefulness and the level of informativeness they communicate to the general reader.

However, before I iniate that discussion I firstly wanted to disclose that I'm the owner and primary author of www.listofmicronations.com. Secondly, in order to avoid any suggestion of WP:COI I intend to refrain from adding the link myself, should the eventual consensus support my proposal. --Gene_poole (talk) 02:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Systemizer again

Hi there, just thought you should know that Systemizer (talk · contribs) blanked his block notice; like he's blanked every warning against him for edit warring previous.Simonm223 (talk) 03:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note; he seems to have left the most recent one in place. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 05:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Canada at FAR

User:Oei888 has nominated Canada for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I noticed you reverted some external links linking to http://www.ourprattville.com . It seems that Mtp1960 has reverted those changes. Just FYI. I've reverted those additions. MahangaTalk 04:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Response

I appreciate your concern, but I am just updating the seasons. The seasons can be updated if they are in production. If a series like The Mentalist has ended it's first season than it is currently in it's second season. Each of the series will begin their respective seasons so please allow me to update the season of each respective show. I'm relatively new and I noticed that some CBS series are scheduled to begin their current seasons, so it would be only natural to update the seasons. Shows like Family Guy and The Simpsons have their scheduled seasons updated so I figured to do so on some series that are beginning their seasons anyway.

Raldonscale25 (talk) 01:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Whatifsports.com

Yeah, I don;t know why but you deleted crucial information about What If Sports, specifically the fact that they run a soccer simulation program. Maybe you think that just because I'm a newbie, means that I like a taste of reckless vandalizing, especially pages on Whatifsports. However I don't know why you think you can do this when the truth is out there and will be shown.Robertojuanez1 (talk) 20:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Locations in Jericho (TV series)

What exactly do you expect to be merged from that article? The entire thing is pretty much just original research, and any descriptions of the attacks in the series are best kept to the episode articles. If you absolutely need something to be merged, I guess the two first paragraphs and one or two sentences about "New Bern" could form some sort of "setting" section or something similar. Either way, I'd rather avoid an AfD. TTN (talk) 20:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Big Three

An RfC has been made in regard to this dispute. — CIS (talk | stalk) 17:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Hi,

I'm having trouble editing Tom Welling and I would like to add these but it doesnt work, can you please add them? :

The reference is: 

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0919991/awards
Details of post
{{{2}}}

Also how can I put pictures?

Thanks, Rahaf92 (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Rahaf

In short, the post is being reverted because it does not meet Wikipedia's Manual of Style, and introduces excessive detail and trivia into the article. I'll try to add some links for you to read later this evening. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 00:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous

I truly feel like this is ridiculous. I have relevant, informative links that abide by all guidelines. I have no affiliation and nothing to gain. Just spending some free time on the internet sharing information about an activity that I love. What is the purpose of removing the link I just posted? Why would you and the other person who has been undoing my link even bother? -MBailey

The link is simply unfit for inclusion. Your assessment that it "abides by all guidelines" is erroneous; please feel free to familiarize yourself with our external links guideline and check out Wikiproject Spam. Entirely too much effort goes into removing spammy junk from WP, and without that effort, our articles would be no more useable than the Million Dollar Homepage. By all means, expand the article with more references to reliable sources, more relevant information, more free pictures, just no more links. HiDrNick! 03:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Mobifr

I am not new at this. I have contribute before using my IP in french. But's this is my first war and I really really care about and I am going to do what's it take. So I am going to try to convince all the others for now.

Mobifr (talk) 04:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Hi,

I'm having trouble editing Tom Welling and I would like to add these but it doesnt work, can you please add them? :

The reference is: 

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0919991/awards


Self

reference: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0919991/filmoseries#tt0279600

"Live with Regis and Kathie Lee" .... Himself (1 episode, 2006)

... aka "Live with Regis & Kelly" (USA: new title)

... aka "Live with Regis" (USA: new title) 

   - Episode dated 25 September 2006 (2006) TV episode .... Himself

The Teen Choice Awards 2006 (2006) (TV) .... Himself

Seeing Through 'The Fog' (2006) (V) (also archive footage) .... Himself - 'Nick Castle'

... aka See Through the Fog: The Making of 'The Fog' (USA: DVD box title)

TV Guide Specials: TV Families (2005) (TV) .... Himself

TV Guide CloseUp: Behind the Scenes of 'Smallville' (2004) (TV) .... Himself

"Last Call with Carson Daly" .... Himself (1 episode, 2004) 

   - Episode dated 21 December 2004 (2004) TV episode .... Himself

'Smallville' Backstage Special (2004) (TV) .... Himself

The Teen Choice Awards 2004 (2004) (TV) .... Himself

"T4" .... Himself (1 episode, 2004) 

   - Episode dated 4 April 2004 (2004) TV episode .... Himself

"E! News Daily" .... Himself (2 episodes, 2002-2004)

... aka "E! News Live Weekend" (USA)

... aka "E! News Live" (USA: new title) 

   - 2004--03-16 (2004) TV episode .... Himself

   - Episode dated 21 May 2002 (2002) TV episode .... Himself

"The View" .... Himself (1 episode, 2002) 

   - Episode dated 22 December 2002 (2002) TV episode .... Himself

The Teen Choice Awards 2002 (2002) (TV) .... Himself

Superman: The Early Years (Behind the Scenes of Smallville) (2002) (TV) .... Himself

The 59th Annual Golden Globe Awards (2002) (TV) .... Himself

"Extra" .... Himself (1 episode, 2001)

... aka "Extra: The Entertainment Magazine" (USA) 

   - Episode dated 16 October 2001 (2001) TV episode .... Himself



===Other works===

reference: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0919991/filmoseries#tt0279600

Was in Angela Via's 2000 music video, "Picture Perfect" 


===Publicity (Cover Magazines and articles)===

reference: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0919991/publicity

Article "Premiere" (USA) September 2005, Vol. 19, Iss. 2, pg. 27, by: Donahue, Ann, ""Play Misty For Me""

"Just!" (Estonia) January 2005, Iss. 11, pg. 18-19, by: Ivar Kümnik, "Tom Welling - superpoiss Smallville'ist"

"Movieline's Hollywood Life" (USA) 1 November 2003, Vol. 14, Iss. 10, pg. 88-89, by: Dennis Hensley, "SuperMan"

"YM Stars" (Canada) 2001, pg. 57


Magazine cover photo

"CFQ Spotlite" (USA) 2004, Iss. Fall

"TV Guide" (USA) 10 May 2003, Vol. 51, Iss. 19

"SFX" (UK) May 2002, Iss. 91

"Veronica" (Netherlands) 2 March 2002, Iss. 9

"Rolling Stones" (USA) March 2002

"TV Guide" (USA) 8 December 2001, Vol. 49, Iss. 49

"Entertainment Weekly" (USA) 23 November 2001, Vol. 1, Iss. 627


                                                                                                                  2. }}

Also how can I put pictures?

Thanks,

The purpose of adding this text to this site was to add another source of information on the al-Khwarizmi. I don't quite understand the objection.

Aratak80 (talk) 14:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)Aratak80

Canadian English

Hi Ckatz! I’m curious why you reverted the anon edits by 173.32.221.202. His/her edits were factually correct, and there was no explanation for the revert. Thanks! (P.S. Please respond here; I will have your page watchlisted. Thanks!) — Spike (talk) 01:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

This doesn’t matter anymore. Thanks! — SpikeToronto (talk) 23:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Gatehouse Gazette deletion

Dear Sir,

A while ago you removed the page Gatehouse Gazette apparently under the impression that the article submitted the second time around was no more than a recreation of the initially deleted version. This was not the case. The second article represented a significant improvement in that it contained far more information and sources while the article's subject, the online magazine the Gatehouse Gazette, was now far more notable than at the time the first article was written. Then, the magazine had released only one issue. Today, it boasts eight issues with a ninth and tenth in the making. A simple Google search will demonstrate that the publication by no means lacks notability as was initially presumed. Therefore, I would like to ask you to reconsider your decision to remove this page. I thank you kindly for your time. Ottens (talk) 16:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Gatehouse Gazette

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Gatehouse Gazette. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Ottens (talk) 12:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Please note

Restoring the DP moons to the list broke its sortability. Serendipodous 17:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

I got the wrong edit with Twinkle. Fences&Windows 21:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the note. No problem at all - I've done that before as well. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 21:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Uranus

Could you explain your reversion of my edit to Uranus? You didn't provide an explanation in the edit summary. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, sorry - thought I'd commented on that. The planet (etc.) articles don't use astrological symbols in that manner, so they were reverted from the lead sentence. Sorry for the inconvenience. --Ckatzchatspy 06:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Ckatz,

You have removed links to the "Bibliography of Fantastic Film" from the "science fiction film" and the "horror film" page because of a spam verdict. I think that links to external sources who offer the Wikipedia users a wide range of additional (in this case bibliographical) information are not spam but an helpfully addition.

I therefore restored the related links.

--Athenaion (talk) 09:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Ckatz,

again you have deleted all links to the "Bibliography of Fantastic Film" without a proper explanation. You did not reply to my email which describes the nature of the bibliography and why I think it is a usefull addition to the related Wikipedia articles, nor did you answer to the note at this site. Why don't you let the users of Wikipedia decide wetcher this link is relevant or not? Do give them a chance to build up their own opinion here is a copy of parts from the email I sent you earlier this month:

I'm new as a signed-in Wikipedia member but I'm a long time user and there is something that I don't understand. I habe recently added links to my "Bibliography of Fantastic Film" on the "horror film" and "science fiction film" sites. You deleted these link by arguing that they "seem to be advertisement". With all respect - have You visited the linked site? I know the rules of adding links in Wikipedia and especially the attempt to prevent any kind of spam, but do You really concider a link to an international bibliography of the secondary literature dealing with fantastic film als spam? With all modesty: this bibliography is the only regulary updated genre bibliography of that kind which is available on the Internet for free. It has nearly 59.000 literature titles listet, both books and articles, including annotations and reviews (which, in this combination, is also unique as far as I know), and it's a high quality source for researchers which is mentioned in many academical sites and link lists. Of course it's not as big as, let's say, the IMDB (after all, it's a personal project which I'm working on since the early 1990s), but it's a serious project, elaborated, reliable and running for many years. And, as I mentioned before, it's a non-profit project free of charge for all users.

For now I have reversed your editing of the related articles. I welcome any kind of constructive argumentation and critique, from you as well as from any other reader/participant of Wikipedia.

Regards again

--Athenaion (talk) 02:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, we are not a directory service. Many quality sites do not have links, specifically because we try to avoid giving preferential treatment. Keep in mind that this is not a knock against your particular site, but instead a reflection of the established consensus with regards to links, which we try to keep to a minimum. Furthermore, there are several issues that complicate this, most notably that you have repeatedly restored the links without seeking consensus to do so, and that you are adding the links despite having a direct conflict of interest in doing so. Given your relationship with the site, you cannot add links to it, and would have to convince other editors of the site's merits in order to see if they feel it warrants inclusion. --Ckatzchatspy 02:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.

It was not me. That IP vandalized several of my pages. Thank you for the help. Their entire contribution history is all attacks at me. I don't know what I did, but it isn't me. Thanks for the help. --HELLØ ŦHERE 02:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Changes I made to Ripping

What is the proper process for adding content as it is certainly legitimate. There are dozens of companies like this and most ARE notable. Please define notable if you think otherwise! Please help me understand this. If there is something wrong with the content let me know. Do I need to leave the site addresses out? I feel that this suits the topic well and is a directly related to this. If it belongs elsewhere, let me know. I intend to keep adding it until I receive an valid complaint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffcsmith (talk • contribs) 18:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

So adding the information without the links would be fine? There are company listings such as CNN, etc. These are notable companies. Just because one person's opinion differs certainly does not make it the rule. CNN is no different than any other news agency, yet they have a listing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffcsmith (talk • contribs) 18:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

So are Fox News, Apple Inc., Microsoft and even Chase Bank. It is just a bank, why so notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffcsmith (talk • contribs) 18:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The text benefits the companies you've listed, but not the article. I think you'd be hard-pressed to argue that Pickled Productions is anywhere near comparable to Apple, Fox, and Chase Bank. --Ckatzchatspy 18:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Not even close, I would agree that none of these companies are at the level of CNN. So it is better to leave out examples? Just say that there are companies that fill this void? Jeffcsmith (talk) 18:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Just trying to understand where to draw the line. You can mention some caompanies but not others. What is the litmus test as to whether you can or can not. Is it strictly your opinion? If a service had a wiki page, would it then be acceptable to link to it? Would that make it acceptable? Jeffcsmith (talk) 18:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Added again, no links. Let me know your thoughts. Jeffcsmith (talk) 19:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. When we are done discussing does this get deleted and do I need to do it? Still learning... Jeffcsmith (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help as I am learning

Jeffcsmith (talk) 22:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Why deleting new informations on the Knight Rider Movie?

Glen A. Larson himself had said it personally.

Yours sincerley,

David Metlesits News Editor Knight Rider Hungary —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.197.131 (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Stargate Universe

The show debuts this Friday so it's not "in production" and we have a source that says it will debut on October 2, 2009 and we have a source that says there will be 20 episodes so that info should also be in the infobox, I don't see why it should not be in infobox. Also it should not have "in production" in "|first_aired =" as that is for the shows debut date, it should be in "| status =", see Template:Infobox Television for info. Powergate92Talk 17:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Also Template:Infobox Television says that "| num_episodes =" is for "The number of episodes produced (a reliable source is required if greater than the number aired)." Powergate92Talk 17:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
This comes up every so often; sourced or not, the convention is that we only update season and episode counts in the infobox after an episode airs. (The "sourced' bit you've mentioned is more relevant to series such as Firefly, which was cancelled before all of the episodes aired. In that case, the sources justify listing more than what actually aired.) --Ckatzchatspy 17:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Again Template:Infobox Television says that "| num_episodes =" is for "The number of episodes produced (a reliable source is required if greater than the number aired)." When episodes start airing then you could change it to "20 (2 aired as of October 2, 2009)". Powergate92Talk 17:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
No, we would put "1" (or "2", however many air). The following week, "3", and so on. Look, I understand your confusion as the doc isn't too clear, but the established convention as used on all series articles is that we update only based on aired episodes. That is why changes prior to air are reverted immediately, as there are too many variables that can affect a scheduled airdate. Will it air at that day and time? Realistically, of courcse. However, we have no way of knowing if an unexpected event (natural or man-made) will occur and disrupt scheduling, so we wait. --Ckatzchatspy 17:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I am not going to edit war and I am not being disruptive as I am reverting your edits per Template:Infobox Television. As I said before after episodes start airing you could change it to "20 (2 aired as of October 2, 2009)". Powergate92Talk 18:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Listen, I don't know how many times I have to say this: what you are proposing is contrary to the established practice for the infobox. If you're not convinced by my explanations, please refer to the recent discussions at the Television project, where this came up a few days back with regards to the Cleveland Show. As with your case, there were references indicating a planned run of "x" episodes. However, despite that, the convention is to only list aired episodes in the infobox, with the other details going in the body copy. (With respect to your example, no "20 (2 aired)", just "2".) Other points raised include the fact that while 20 episodes may be planned for, they are not all actually produced as of yet. If the series is cancelled during its run, several of these episodes may never even be scripted or shot. --Ckatzchatspy 18:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi there,

I see you removed an external link (not my addition, I hasten to add). I am not quite sure why. As the page stands, it is neutral and says it lists the laws etc etc. So on the article page itself it seems pretty innocent. Deliberately I have not gone to the page, so as not to confound my query that on the page it looks innocent, if it goes to a rabidly pro-cap pun page hgmm perhaps that is not ideal for the neutrality of the article, but on the other hand an external link is quite explicitly "not our problem" so it should be OK to link to it?

I repeat, I did not make this link and don't really care if it comes or goes. My concern rests solely that you have removed someone else's NPOV or if POV at least a balanced one.

best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 07:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the question. Unfortunately, in this case, it is a site that appears to have been spammed across just about any article the site's people could get away with. There were over 150 links to the site when I first noticed it, many of which were spammed by an IP in 2008 and a single-purpose editor in the past few days. Many of the links were added as "references" to basic information that should come from more reliable sources, while other links were used to replace existing links from government sources. Hope this helps. --Ckatzchatspy 08:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Admin note

WP:3RR says "3RR is a bright line where action now becomes almost certain if not already taken. It is not an "entitlement" to revert a page a specific number of times. Administrators can and will still take action on disruptive editors for edit warring even if it does not violate 3RR." I am not disruptive editing, I am reverting original research per WP:No original research and I try to discuss it with Trust Is All You Need but he still reverted. Also I was not trying to edit war at the Stargate Universe article as I said before I reverted your edits per what it says at Template:Infobox Television. Powergate92Talk 20:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

the sock rot

Please see this and this edit. Yes, your naming method is a good idea. Tony (talk) 03:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Prostitution in Germany

Give reasons for "spammed link". Wispanow (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello... please do not restore the link to the "procon" site. Links to this site have been added en masse by single-purpose accounts and IPs, such as User:Proconorg and others. In some cases, these accounts have deleted valid government sources in favour of their own URLs. Thank you. --Ckatzchatspy 10:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I like to end discussions where i started them.
08:28, 3 October 2009: I requested to give reasons for "Procon spam". Can't see any spam by this nonprofit organization.
And we can see that You are acting strongly against Procon. IMHO:
  1. You gave no reason against Procon. Only "Link-spam" (by one or probably some (a few?) more wikipedians or IPs), but this are TOO FEW REASONS to delete this source.
  2. User:Proconorg has added only a few links and is already blocked.
  3. "tertiary source with unknown quality control": Authors are named and additional info is given.
Please give reasons why ESPECIALLY THIS LINK can't be used.Wispanow (talk) 13:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


I am warning you: Don't delete this source without giving a reason for especially deleting THIS source. Stop the Edit-war.
And even it it's difficult for you: Try to be polite even in your edit summaries. Wispanow (talk) 13:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Wispanow, you comments are uncalled for and unnecessarily provocative. With respect to edit summaries, I have made every effort to be polite; the summaries involved in our exchange, while short due to the limitations of the comment field, reflect that:
  • (1st note) "alt. cite needed; part of extensive ProCon spam"
  • (your response) "If you don't like the original source, explain why or add another."
  • (2nd note) "Restore tag; this should be cited, I presume, but the source that was present was a spammed link and as such removed across dozens of articles. That doesn't negate the need to have a source here."
  • (your response) "I requested to give reasons for "Procon spam". Can't see any spam by this nonprofit organization."
  • (3rd note) "the site was spammed (added repeatedly) by an IP and a single-purpose account."
  • (additional explanation on your talk page) "Hello... please do not restore the link to the "procon" site. Links to this site have been added en masse by single-purpose accounts and IPs, such as User:Proconorg and others. In some cases, these accounts have deleted valid government sources in favour of their own URLs. Thank you."
I fail to see how this exchange is "impolite"; if anything, your replies to date have been far more provocative than mine. I've removed these links as an administrative action, one that was begun after noting the suspicious pattern in which they were, for the most part, added. There is no reason for you to issue "warnings" and make spurious claims regarding politeness, as you have done. Furthermore, keep in mind that the spammed site was tagged onto the line "Prostitution in Germany is legal along with brothel ownership". There is no reason why this text cannot be referenced from an official government source. --Ckatzchatspy 17:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
"administrative action": Your idea to make the administrative action or some rules or voting?
The 4th and last time: Please give reasons why ESPECIALLY THIS LINK can't be used. Some "link-spam" is no reason for THIS link. You didn't reply to any of my answers and questions. Wispanow (talk) 21:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
You are apparently ignoring the explanations I've already provided, the indication that there has been a concerted effort to spam this site, the fact that the information in question can easily be sourced from what would be a more appropriate source anyway, and the assessment by a second admin that site is not suitable as a reference. --Ckatzchatspy 22:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Edits to page on Augmented Reality

Hi, you removed information added to the "Specific Applications" section about an iPhone application called buUuk. Did this information contravene the guidelines in some way? Strangebuttrue (talk) 03:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I see you've removed the information on buUuk once again, but this time with the question "Why is it notable?". The section of the page is headed Current Applications>Specific Applications, buUuk is probably no more or less notable than any of the other applications listed. It is the first app with AR content on the iPhone with significant Asian content and probably the most popular iPhone Lifestyle app in Asia. I'll leave you to decide on whether the information should be added back to this section. Have a nice life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strangebuttrue (talk • contribs) 00:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Strangebuttrue (talk) 00:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Letterman

Hi, you changed the David Letterman subhead back from "Sex with interns and staff" to "Extortion attempt" with this comment line:

"Unless the relationships have a notable impact on his career or public standing, the focus is still the extortion event"

Letterman seems to have thought there would be an impact on his career, hence his statement "I hope to protect my job." His concern was not a joke; CBS's stated policy on employer-employee sexual relationships may have been violated. I have cautiously added several news sources that explain the issue, with refs.

I have no idea whether Letterman violated CBS policy and i have no idea where this part of the story is going to go -- but as of today, the "I hope to keep my job" portion of the event is rivalling the extortion plot for column inches, so, in a good faith attempt at compromise, i have retitled the subhead "Sex with interns and extortion attempt"

Cordially, cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 01:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I've commented on the talk page, but I'll add here that the "job" quote cannot be used to speculate about his job security, just as we cannot use the "creepy" comment. Nor can we speculate about CBS and their policies, or Letterman's status with regards to those policies. Simply put, a lot of details with regards to this matter may well be better suited to Wikinews, as we have to look at the bigger picture to determine what is news and what is encyclopedic. --Ckatzchatspy 02:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
The "job" quote was not "used to speculate" about anything. He said it. I am reinserting it. You'd better have a better reason to cut his full paragraph right before the last sentence than that we are "speculating." Given your adamant removal policy of such important material, i am now going to return this matter to the topic's own talk page. Discussing it with you here is going nowhere. cat 64.142.90.33 (talk) 03:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Catherine, the use as you added it implies there is an issue with his job status. There is no evidence to suggest that, and we are not here to speculate, imply, or any other such task. If you are adamant about the line, get consensus on the talk page - but you need to do that before restoring it. --Ckatzchatspy 04:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a request

Given the fact that you've offered to watchlist Letterman for issues, would you also consider temporarily adding Joe Halderman and Stephanie Birkitt to your watchlist for the time being? They're part of this issue too, but in terms of article exposure, they're a bit on the fringe, so some more eyes on them is probably a good idea.

Thanks, Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 04:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:GLAM

In case you haven't noticed, there is a proposal to develop a WP:GLAM guideline (Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums, see m:GLAM) in this discussion. The idea is to advise experts from suitable institutions how they might contribute to articles, including how they might add links to their own institutions. I think the general plan is excellent, but obviously some care needs to be taken to avoid driving a tunnel through WP:EL because already it is sometimes difficult to explain why it is necessary to revert links added by SPA accounts. This is just FYI, no reply needed. Johnuniq (talk) 06:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ckatz/Archive_7&oldid=1190129777"