User talk:Ckatz/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 13

Wikipedia Neutrality

You said I would be banned from editing for posting the creation dates on the page about Earth, but my edits clearly follow the guidelines. "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. It requires that all majority- and significant-minority views be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material." This is a significant minority view not being represented on the scientific pages of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ABTCCC (talk • contribs) 19:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Please read through the talk page archives for Earth, where you will find extensive discussions regarding this matter. The established consensus is to use the scientific perspective in this article. You certainly won't lose editing privileges for adding the material the first time; it is the repeated attempts to do so in the face of requests, explanations, and warnings that can lead to such actions. Please feel free to ask if you have any additional questions. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Kindly asking for a second review of Television program

Hi Ckatz, unfortunately my last message has disappeared from your talk page. But I am still hoping for your answer: for some reason you have deleted my contribution to Television program. This may have been a misunderstanding? I had added (1) an international perspective and (2) the article's first references ever - both asked for in the article's banner and in various discussion statements over the years. I have now added the removed passage to my user page and I would kindly ask for a second review. Many thanks! Mentalmoses (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Television program (3rd attempt)

Dear Ckatz, my message has again disappeared from your talk page, although I am still hopefully waiting for your response. Could you please briefly explain, why you have deleted my contribution to Television program (now archived on my user page)? With this passage I have added both, an international perspective and the first references ever to the article - and both was asked for in the articles banner and in various discussions over the years... Is there any specific reason for deleting my requests on your talk page? Am I supposed to accept your deletion without any discussion? If so, please excuse my insistency. Best regards, Mentalmoses (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 April newsletter

Round two is over, and we are down to our final 32. For anyone interested in the final standings (though not arranged by group) this page has been compiled. Congratulations to Hunter Kahn (submissions), our clear overall round winner, and to ThinkBlue (submissions) and Arsenikk (submissions), who were solidly second and third respectively. There were a good number of high scorers this round- competition was certainly tough! Round three begins tomorrow, but anything promoted after the end of round two is eligible for points. 16 contestants (eight pool leaders and eight wildcards) will progress to round four in two months- things are really starting to get competitive. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Judge iMatthew has retired from Wikipedia, and we wish him the best. The competition has been ticking over well with minimal need for judge intervention, so thank you to everyone making that possible. A special thank you goes to participants Stone (submissions) and White Shadows (submissions) for their help in preparing for round three. Good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 17:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Television programm

Dear Ckatz, after various futile attempts to get your feedback on the revision as of 18 April 2010[1], I am now trying to get a Wikipedia:Third opinion. Best regards, Mentalmoses (talk) 20:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Social media revert

I think the IP removal that was reverted might have been legitimate -- Andreas Kaplan seems to be non-notable with a recently deleted article, but I only keep minor tabs on the article. Apologies if it's not. Flowanda | Talk 00:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Ethical Consumerism edits

Thanks for your help with introducing me to Wikipedia.

Based on the logic of not singling out Retailers, how can you still keep the links to Green Earth Market, Consumer's Union, or Ethical Consumer Magazine? Doesn't that amount to a promotion of their products? That seems inconsistent.

Thanks again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethical-Consumer (talk • contribs) 02:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Uzbekistan

Hallo Ckatz

sorry to disturb you. Since some days someone, writing under a dynamic ip address, keeps changing the history section of Uzbekistan, adding unsourced statements and deleting sourced ones. He pretends that the article has been written by a pro-Iranian writer, and tells that he is only trying to reestablish the Truth. His/her only source seems to be allempires.com, an open source history community (value as reference near zero, there is also a disclaimer on their home page). Now, I checked the content of the history section with a couple of books about Central Asia which I have at home, and looks like they agree with the original version, and not with the changes of this anonymous guy. What can be done? How can one argue with an ip address? Sorry again for disturbing you, I am asking you because you issued some warnings on the page of one of these addresses. Kindest regards Alex2006 (talk) 11:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. I've added the page to my watchlist and will keep an eye on the situation. If the problem becomes more pronounced - say, for example, the IP starts reverting rapidly - please leave me a note, or contact any administrator for more immediate action. Thanks again. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It happened again, but has been quickly reverted by Favonian. Anyway, this Saturday I am going to the central library, take all the reference books about Central Asia, and start studying...Thanks! Alex2006 (talk) 06:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hallo Ckatz, sorry to disturb you again, but the revert rate increased a lot. I think that we should contact an administrator, and let at least semi-protect the page. Best regards, Alex2006 (talk) 06:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for removing that

Thanks for having removed this last one. See also my comment on User talk:112.202.72.88. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 20:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

updates done

hi ckatz, can u please remove the warning? i have updated the article Koobits. hope you don't find it 'advertorial' anymore. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliphang (talk • contribs) 10:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Awesome Wikipedian

Awesome Wikipedian Ckatz has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Ckatz's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Ckatz! Keep up this work, --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 03:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 12:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Please

Please make it semi protected. I see no reason why any other user will edit it. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 12:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm..thanks. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 03:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Heroes Navbox Icon

Why did you remove the icon on the Heroes Navbox? It is the same icon used on WikiProject Heroes. Thatoneguy89 (talk) 08:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Why are you reverting my edit on taser safety issues?

The issue is decidedly clear-cut, apodictic, and irrefragable. Learn and return. 173.21.106.137 (talk) 09:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The relevant articles, hyperlinked from the weapons in question, give detailed explanations of the causes. Request a citation template and I or others will provide citations soon (myself in 24 hours). If overzealous editors undid every unsourced edit half of Wikipedia would vanish.

Why some companies allowed and others are not?

Why do you leave acrossair and wikitude in the history list and constantly remove GeoVector? GeoVector has been conducting R&D in the field of AR since the ealy 1990s. Please leave them in the history list. They deserve to be there. Or remove all other references to private companies. You need to be consistent. Thanks, Peter —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterSF49 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

(replied on user's talk page re" COI) --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

SELENE

I noticed that you reverted a move of the page SELENE by Emerson7 (talk · contribs) on the grounds that "redirects better serve the same purpose". I have been trying to raise the same point with him, but without much success, and was wondering whether you might have anything to contribute to the discussion, which is currently located on my talk page. Thanks. --GW… 09:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Your comments

Sorry, but the second comment in particular was not helpful at all. It is rather frustrating to see proponents of mass delinking continually reject, ignore, or treat with contempt any objections that are raised against their actions, then raise spurious complaints about those who raise the objections. (As for your comment about your edits being reverted, no offence, but there is no obligation to inform you about minor formatting issues. The articles appeared on my watchlist, I reviewed the changes, felt they were not beneficial, and thus reverted them. Nothing more, nothing less.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. You seem confused. On the one hand, you seem to dissent from the consensus guideline that is WP:OVERLINK. That, of course, is fine and you have the right to try to have the guideline amended. On the other hand, you (quite correctly) call it a "minor formatting issue"; in that case, why get so worked up about it? Couple of clarifying questions for you to think about; please explain what a "proponent of mass delinking" is, and please show me where I have raised a "spurious complaint" on this or any other matter. Thanks for your trouble, --John (talk) 13:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

ON RECENT REVERTED ON Time Travel

Hi Ckatz, you've just reverted my smal addition to Time Travel on "notability". I am truly confused why is it done, it has reliable references to scientific papers, which are also based on previous many years research. Can you kindly explain what is wrong? --AarCart (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello... you should post your thoughts on the article talk page to see if other editors feel it is suitable for inclusion. After reviewing the text, and the related article, there does not appear to be wide acceptance for the theory. Do you have information that suggests otherwise? --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

jane espenson removal

Why was the external link to the article on Jane Espenson as a writer removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.94.142.104 (talk) 13:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit: I believe it to be a desirable citation based on this element: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and 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." The article contains an amount of detail on her writing techniques, as applied across a variety of series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.94.142.104 (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

AR Page & GV page

I understand that you want the AR page to not include any "advertisements" but all we can ask is that you treat all entries the same, and clearly you are not. Would it make a differnce if a non GV employee made the entry? I'm just interested in the page being as accurate as possible. We've been working on AR since the early 90s. The inclusion of us on the page, in my opinion is justified, and the omission of us does a disservice to those wanting to learn about AR. The GV wiki page is far from being an ad. Is is simply a blow by blow of the company, something that is of common interest to those in the field. There is nothing on the page touting our technology or saying it's best etc. It's a simple list of facts and achievements. I'll look into your other concerns about the GV page. Thanks, Peter —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterSF49 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

"sequence approach" additions

I realize I'm new to posting on Wikipedia, but I'm not sure why you changed my additions. I didn't break any of the rules or guidelines, and I'm adding useful information that is not currently available on the page. The sequence approach to screenwriting is a very useful manner to writing screenplays and whether or not you agree with it, you can't disregard it's validity. Please don't censor ideas. I'm not promoting or selling anything, nor affiliated with the website I'm referencing. I'm just sharing information that I found through my own experiences as a screenwriter. JasperGoingDown (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

COI

The article was posted in response to several people contacting the co and asking why no wiki page? This usually happened when they were researching AR and couldn't find us. It was created by a reliable source - me. As I stated before it is a simple factual history of the company with no embellishments as the quality of our work or products. According the Wiki guidelines Bob Dylan himself couldn't correct a factual misrepresentation about himself or add his name to page where it was in obvious omission. I'm sure 90% of all company pages are created by insiders. At least I was up front and stated that when I uploaded the GV logo. The page has been reviewed in the past and no serious conflict was noted. I will refrain from linking to the GV page in the future. You may want to consider adding us the the AR page yourself if you truly believe that Wiki should be a true encyclopedia. GV invented and patented Mobile Augmented Reality in the early 1990s. Having no mention of GeoVector on the AR page is a disservice to your readers. Thanks, Peter —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterSF49 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

we'll look into having the page taken over by and re-worked a non employee.

Cheers, Peter —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterSF49 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Please note that pages are not - and cannot - be "taken over" by any one editor. Content is open for editing by all, and there is no "preferred version" that a company can approve or revert to. It is not strictly the "employee" status as much as it is the connection to the company, either directly or indirectly. If GeoVector finds someone, in all likelihood that person will have the same COI problems that an employee would. What I was meaing was that the article needs someone independent of GeoVector, its employees and their associates who can fairly assess the matter. Please remember that the article is not GeoVector's page on Wikipedia, it is Wikipedia's page about GeoVector. There is a clear and distinct difference between the two concepts. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok

Understood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterSF49 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

GV Page

Since any new changes to the page will be seen as solicited by myself what advice to have for getting the page re-written by an unbiased party? PeterSF49 (talk) 18:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

sequence addition

My reference of "the formula" was simply to reference the specifics of a perspective on a theory that is in my view shamelessly under explained on this wiki page. It's also the specific explanation that I found to be the most helpful in my professional experience. Since there was no wiki page or stub to reference for "the formula", to make the correct footnote I had to reference the text available. There are detailed explanations of the Field's theories, and Vogler's Hero's Journey. Not sure the line your drawing. Also, it should be noted, (per your distinction) that this was something that I learned in a class at an accredited college from the professor/author. JasperGoingDown (talk) 23:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Moon

Not going with OED spelling? Well, in that case it needs to have all the instances of "colour" taken out too, I guess, since my edits won't have used US spelling, so there would be a WP:ENGVAR mix throughout at the moment. Iridia (talk) 10:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the spelling I restored is consistent with the existing standard (British English), as it restored "-our" ("vapour") instead of the American "vapor". --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah. No, I checked both with the OED: it's characterize and vaporize (which can be vapourize, but generally is not). One of the rare cases -ize turns up in Commonwealth English...Iridia (talk) 10:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, we were talking about two different changes in the same set of edits. Should be sorted out now. Iridia (talk) 11:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Global Positioning System

You added "confusing" and "expert" tags to the Global Positioning System article but provided no reason for doing so. IMHO the article as it stands does a good job in clarifying issues of a rather technically involved topic that are important to an interested reader. It has had many experts who have made valuable contributions and will likely continue to do so. Most confusion is due to the complex nature of the subject matter and is therefore to be expected. I don't think blanket statements indicating that the article is confusing or in need of experts are warrented. With all due respect, I think the tags should be removed. Roesser (talk) 21:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Geometric explanation

You recently removed the text,

"If you are not convinced of this, consider how a side view of the intersecting spheres would look. This view would look exactly the same as the figure because of the symmetry of the spheres. And in fact a view from any horizontal direction would look exactly the same. This should make it clear to the reader that the surfaces of the two spheres actually do intersect in a circle".

Why did you remove this text? Some people like mathematics and algebra. Other people tend to think more geometrically. It was for this latter category of people that the quoted text was inserted. RHB100 (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

GPS Navigation

You added the "confusing" tag to the Global Positioning System article Navigation section without providing a reason for doing so. For the reasons stated above by Roesser, this tag should be removed. Please reply on this page. RHB100 (talk) 01:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Time Travel Changes

Time travel talk moved to Time Travel Talk page per your request, Ckatz. --AarCart (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Carl Sagan

Try reading the source for those degrees next time. I think his alma mater know better what his degrees were than you. 62.31.145.22 (talk) 18:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI notice

FYI, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Vandalism_of_other_users_talk_page_by_administrator_Ckatz. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I renamed the section title to "Complaint about administrator Ckatz". If I were feeling sufficiently puckish, I could have said, "Today's 'Plaxico' candidate" :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It was later deleted on the grounds of WP:DENY, but it should still be in the ANI history if you're interested. The one-shot editor that tried to zap this section here was probably yet another sock. It's up to you to manage your own talk page, obviously. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the heads-up. It is yet another incident involving Akraj, an indef-blocked individual who feels he can use Wikipedia to promote his own theories and opinions. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy note

You are receiving this note because of your participation in WT:Revision deletion#Community consultation, which is referred to in Wikipedia:VPR#Proposal to turn on revision deletion immediately (despite some lingering concerns). –xeno^talk 14:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Miami Medical

Sorry about re-adding the Category:2010 American television series endings cat you removed at Miami Medical. Since there was no edit summary, I assumed that you had removed it since you did not know/believe the show was canceled. (It was not mentioned anywhere in the text at that point.) There has been a lot of edits/reverts revolving whether various shows had been canceled. (None of which were official yet.) That editor has added a bunch of that cat today, and I hadn't seen anyone remove it (object) before, so I added it back. Thanks for the explanation in your second edit. Much appreciated. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 22:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for the note. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Jake Graeme

I'll be the first to admit that Jake Graeme (talk · contribs) was problematic. But your block of him as a sock of Jake Duncan (talk · contribs) appears to have occurred without a case at SPI. You have given Jake Graeme no option to request an unblock himself, but only as Jake Duncan. If your suspicions are incorrect, you appear to have left this user no path to redemption. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

There's an essay that speaks to this - WP:DUCK. In this case, the accounts have similar names, edit the same articles, and (most importantly) are adding the same information regarding apparent fan fiction. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

reverts at English Language, JRR Tolkien and Rohan

Hi, I understand your reverts as I have posted the same link to several articles in one day, but I have tried to carefully chose those articles: 1. English - I placed it directly under the external link to "English language word roots, prefixes and suffixes (affixes) dictionary" because I believe the Anglo-Saxon dictionary provides much more detailed information about the Germanic roots and affixes. But I understand that this might not be essential to the article in general. 2. I protest about reverting the edits of Rohan, my links clearly support the basic claim of the article (that the Rohirrim words are derived from Old English) by linking directly to the appropriate forms in the most accurate source. I don't really see a better way to support the argument. I think this is preferable to just quoting the inaccessible paper version of the same resources (which hasn't been done either). 3. JRR Tolkien - this is a Dictionary that Tolkien used to base most of his nomenclature on (which is a claim that should be supported by resources in an encyclopaedic article), it was written by a person after whom Tolkien academic post was named, it is the epitome of his scientific specialisation. Again I don't see why this should have been reverted. Otichy (talk) 13:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

(replied on user's talk page) --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

External Link Guidelines

I've looked up the guidelines and feel that the links do matter. Reaching Critical Will, the most respected Think-tank/NGO on Review Conferences (as well as editor of the Conference Newspaper and expert even diplomats turn to) have added the link as one of 3 pages informing about the NPT, by the way the only audiovisual coverage of the NPT RevCon, THE conference on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation mattersl. Whoever is interested in the Wikipedia article may just as well appreciate the information provided by this very useful platform. Do have a look; they provide interviews with NGO-leaders, scientists, Nobel Peace Prize winners, as well as ambassadors, diplomats and Think tanks involved in the process, alongside FAQs on the topic etc., one of the few platform giving an interactive perspective on these issues that have little to no coverage by traditional media in spite of the utter dangers inherent to the topic of nuclear weapons.

If you still feel that the link does not provide for added value as to the RevCon topic, please contact me. I will wait for your answer before re-editing the article.

Best wishes,

Araliist

Re:File:TARDIS2.jpg

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

-FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

FEARnet Corporate

please stop deleting the FEARnet page. We work for the company and corporate updates it. If you feel you need to directly contact someone at FEARnet, do so- jennifer_wexler@fearnet.com (MArketing Consultant or the Marketing Manager). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.241.27.227 (talk) 00:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

about my foul up. Toddst1 (talk) 06:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

F2

Ckatz my friend, you are a very patient man. It was pretty dickish of me to threaten ANI when faced with the dilemma of wheel warring the other day. Thanks for putting up with it. Have a cookie.

Fastily has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

-FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Deleted Entry: Anti Quebec sentiment

Dear DKatz,

It appears that you have removed / edited a clarification I added to the wiki entry on Quebec secession movements. I am happy to discuss this point with you if you wish. I added that anti-Quebec sentiments underpin the drive of the separation movement of the Province of Quebec which is well documented. The entry suggested that the Province's unique culture or language alone explained the movement's motivations. As linguistic minority groups exist elsewhere, such as the Swedish speaking communities of Finland, but often do not translate into separation movements, the entry on Quebec separation movement needed to be refined. A Queen-McGill's book (a compilation of academic essays) on the subject was published and is worth a read if you are interested.

For clarity, I will add a note to the entry, and would appreciate if you, this time, did not remove the entry.

The reference will be : Carens, Joseph H., ed. (1995), Is Quebec Nationalism Just?: Perspectives from Anglophone Canada, Montreal, McGill-Queen's University Press, 225 p. (ISBN 0773513426) (excerpt)

Forester Taylor

—Preceding unsigned comment added by ForesterTaylor (talk • contribs) 16:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Long Date format vs Short Date format

The discussion was regarding the Long Date format not the short date format. I have no problems with various short date formats but believe the predominant long date format in Canada is what has been imposed on us by the Americans. See my use of the ISO short format in the soccer templates I maintain (to the chagrin of some editors). --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Time travel mediation

A request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Time travel was recently filed. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is entirely voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to mediation requests and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation should request to the talk page.

Thank you, AGK 13:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Ethanol Fuel, Air Pollution

Ethanol Fuel, Air Pollution, You deleted my info that ethanol has a lower LCV than that of gasoline. This clearly shows you need to burn more ethanol to get the same energy. What's your issue with it? It was worded poorly, but I have reworded it and deleted some text from it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.214.194 (talk) 20:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It may well be correct. however, you need to source it to a reliable source, not just a site whose author expresses opposition to ethanol. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Removal of an external link on the Corporate Sustainability page

While i understand it is not a directory, the external links are meant to provide resources on the subject. The Network for Business Sustainability is one of them. You might as well take down all the links up there as they are all very much like the nbs.net site and yet happen to be up in a section that is supposedly not a directory. Please explain the rationale behind it? I could have understood if you removed all or most of the links up there. --Earthlover2012 (talk) 12:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

not a valid reference source; also has spam issues

Hi. :) Can you explain the problem with this source? I don't know that I've ever encountered it prior to writing that article (certainly, haven't spammed with it!) At a glance, it seems reliable, but a glance is all I've given it. Since you removed it, I figured you must know more. What's the history with ProCon.org that renders it unusable? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. Can you please provide me a link to the conversation wherein consensus decided that Procon.org is not a reliable source? After you did not respond, I searched the reliable sources noticeboard ([2]), but did not find anything. I'd like to review it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow. That's pretty blatant. :) That said, at least they recognized the rules: "be sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, third-party published sources, and beware of unintentional bias", and at least as of the RfC of July 2009 there was no policy against it. Actually, there's still no policy against it, though it looks like it could go that way (I've never been involved in that discussion, at least that I recall, so I'm not sure how close it may be to passing or tanking). I appreciate your taking the time to replace the source. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

GPS Article: Tags at beginning of navigation section should be removed

The tag reading, "This section may be confusing or unclear. Please help clarify the article. Suggestions may be on the talk page. (May 2010)", at the beginning of the navigation section should be removed. This is a vague comment which gives no clue as to what it refers. Repeated attempts to get editor, Ckatz, to state what he is talking about have failed. There is an ongoing effort to try to improve the article. This article has been recently peer reviewed and suggestions of the reviewers were acted upon.

The second template reads, "This section may require copy-editing." copy-editing is a vague jargon type expression which is not found in my dictionary. This problem has been pointed out to editor, Ckata, but he has refused to clarify the meaning of this term.

For the above reasons, both of these tags should be removed. If editor, Ckatz, insists on keeping these tags, then the next step will be some sort of dispute resolution process. RHB100 (talk) 20:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Victoria Day

Ckatz, I've said at Talk:Victoria Day that I'd hold off reverting myself on that article until it was known if you had anything more to say or not. The majority (albeit only amongst 6 people) does seem to be in favour of the [Month] [Day], [Year] format. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Filter 333

I fixed up filter 333 as it needed several optimizations and had quite a few errors. However, I don't have anything to look at to see if the filter is correct right now, I was only basing it off what you had written. A few notes for future reference:

• !0 does nothing except waste 2 conditions. I'm not really sure what that was meant to do so I just took it out.
• Use in not contains
• IP editors always have an edit count of 0

Do you have a diff of something this is supposed to hit so it can be tested? --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 10:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Global Positioning System

Maybe if the copyvio is pruned it will be clearer. :-) Take a look at my comments at the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 20:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Time travel deletion

Hey, recently i posted a model of time travel involving the mind traveling back in time without any knowledge of this travel until returning to the present. I noticed it was deleted, seemingly by you, and I am wondering why. Was it not in the correct section? I noticed that you deleted a couple surrounding paragraphs as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cspj12 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

If I may butt in - Cspj12, I believe that the problem is that the material was unsourced. I left some helpful links on your talkpage that may help with getting into the swing of writing an encyclopedia. Speaking anecdotally, the concept of paradox-free time travel of only a mind comes up occasionally in science fiction even in the last couple decades, but I am not familiar with any scholarly speculation. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Vancouver, Washington

So we could go back to the old practice and link "U.S. state", and "fourth-largest city" could be piped to the list of cities in Washington or the US, and "the 23rd-largest metropolitan area" could be piped to the analogous list. We could link "United States". We could link "Native American" (which used to be widely linked, but like linking "homosexual", tends to depict such a group as little-known, even marginalised).

Me, I'm more concerned to focus readers on specific links such as "Chinook", "Columbia River" perhaps, and "Portland-Vancouver met area". They will be swamped if links are plastered everywhere just because the items are "relevant" to the article. Every word that appears in the article should be relevant, shouldn't it? Tony (talk) 11:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

As pointed out to you by Vertigo Acid, it is a very relevant link. Using loaded terms such as "swamped" and "plastered" - which are completely out of context to this case - serves only to sidetrack the conversation. You'd find I'd be a lot more supportive of your delinking campaign if you focused on the real problems (such as excessive multiple links, terms that truly don't need links, etc.) instead of obsessing over useful, relevant links. By the way, I'll state yet again that I really do not appreciate misleading posts such as your initial comment on Vertigo Acid's talk page. That does not help the collaborative process. --Ckatz^chat_spy 11:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It requires work by both sides to gain the trust of the other. Tony (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Flash mob

Hey Ckatz, what are your thoughts regarding this Eurovision publicity stunt? Mkdw^talk 20:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Ghost Whisperer

It's not a "what if" situation. The soure is saying it COULD happen, not stating "what if" it does happen. Therefore, noting that it HAS POTENTIAL to be picked up by a cable station BECAUSE of the cast being signed thru June is stating a FACT. ChaosMaster16 (talk) 23:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Cannabis Directory

Hello,

I'm not trying to promote, just trying to provide help to Cannabis patients on where the nearest dispensaries are. Also for other dispensaries to find out so I may list their dispensary for FREE. Dispensary listing on this site are free.

BrianLilleybusiness (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Porches Pottery

Dear Ckatz. I am no clearer as to what your issues are with the entry. One seeems to be ' its sources remain unclear'. There are books cited in reference for to you to read, there are also links to magazines (Algarve Resident), travel books (AA Spiral Guide to Algarve etc). Another seems to be 'without imparting verifiable information.' Again, i can only suggest you read the material.

I'm not interested in petty editing arguments. The article is true and verifiable. The fact that it is not written in a style that you say is Encyclopedic is probably because what makes Porches Pottery interesting is that very history of two artists setting something up to save an industry they loved that was all but extinct in the Algarve. Porches Pottery is still the only working pottery, as opposed to studio, in the Algarve. The designs that are thought of as being from Algarve are from Porches Pottery- design created by Swift and De Freitas as being from the civilisations that inhabited the Algarve. I'm begining to think there may be some vested interest or personal issue here? Finally, i really wish editors would concentrate on areas they know about. Slamming an article you know nothing about is clearly wasting everyone's time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TisTRU (talk • contribs)

Simply put, repeatedly removing valid issue templates is not kosher. The article is interesting, but not encyclopedic in tone, and that is not a reflection on the subject but instead on the way it is currently written. We are not here to present flowery prose about a subject, we are here to deliver clear, accurate, properly sourced information in an encyclopedic manner. With respect to verifiability, simply saying "everything is true and verifiable" along with a long list of books and sites doesn't help a non-resident to verify the claims; saying the subject is "different" doesn't mean that we can dro the encyclopedic style. (I'd also appreciate it if you'd skip the silly "vested interest" claim; it makes no sense, given my geographic location, and serves only to distract from the real issue. Thanks. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Heroes GAR

Editors are discussing whether the article needs to be updated to meet the GA criteria. Your contributions would be welcome. Thanks, Geometry guy 20:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought reverts were not supposed to be used for good faith edits?

I noticed you reverted my change to the Gasoline article with no discussion whatsoever. I would like to point out that before I made any changes I brought up the the issue on the talk page in question. I waited over twenty four hours then I made the change with an explanation as to why in my edit summary. I am an established editor who has never, not even once, been involved in any kind of edit war or other shenanigans. I think using the Revert function here is uncalled for. This was a good faith edit that improves the article. Before making a change you should have added to the conversation on the talk page first.

Now I will not revert your revert because I follow the voluntary 1 Revert Rule, however my points still stand. First, the idea that the term Gasoline is only used in North America and the Philippines is in fact wrong. It is used throughout Asia. As I previously stated on the talk page. I realize this is anecdotal and will need references before adding it to the article. But the current lead has zero references as well. As the guideline says: "no information is better than unreferenced information". That sentence was the only one in which any information was removed. Unreferenced information.

The etymology bits are less of a concern for me. As you were clicking the "revert" button, which I'm sure you remember is considered inappropriate for good faith edits, I hope you took the time to read the diff. You will see that I removed none of that information and simply placed it in the etymology section, were I feel it belongs. If you and others feel this is necessary in the lead I will gladly concede the point although my opinion remains the same.

I understand you were doing what you felt was best and I assume you meant no offence. However even if you did feel undoing my change was necessary I feel you should have brought it up on the talk page first. Like I did before I made the change in question. Cheers, Colincbn (talk) 01:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

p.s. I will copy this text over to the Gasoline talk page so others can join the discussion more easily. Colincbn (talk) 01:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

First let me apologize, I missunderstood your use of "rv" in the edit summary of the undo. I have been informed that the use of the "Undo" function is in fact acceptable for good faith edits. My apologies!

Also I have brought up another point on the Gasoline talk page I hope you can comment on it. Cheers Colincbn (talk)

Request for mediation of Time travel

A request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Time travel was recently filed. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is entirely voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to mediation requests and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request welcome at the case talk page.

Thank you, AGK 20:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Behind the Voice Actors

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

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

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

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

I was also curious, the Frank Welker link we had up there had been up for over 6 months without a problem and it wasnt until we added a couple others that they all got taken down. We were not trying to spam and add links for all our pages but rather just the ones that we had done extensive work in getting to a 'complete' stage. Optimussolo (talk) 03:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

It has been almost 3 months now So I guess I will see help from someone else

67.175.180.218 (talk) 21:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Porches Pottery

Dear Ckatz. Again.I still fail to see the validity of your arguments. The history of Porches Pottery, in short, is thus: Patrick Swift, artist, is living in the Algarve. Lima de Freitas, artists, has a house there. Both like crafts. Swift had lectured on ceramics in London. The Algarve up until the early 60's had a thriving pottery industry. The Algarve at this stage was still virtually stuck in the middle ages. With the arrival, in the Algarve, of modern manufacturing, especially plastic wares, the local people, thinking these were better, more modern, would purchase the mass produced plastics etc wares. The pottery industry lost its market. Swift and Lima, both having a love of crafts, decided to try and revive the industry. They thought that decorating the pots etc would make them attractive to tourists. They created a range of paterns etc that they thought were true to the past civilisations that inhabited the Algarve. Thankfully their idea worked so well that Porches Pottery is still in existance and it is famous for its pottery. In fact the Algarve is now generally regarded as being a place to buy ceramics, though most of what is on sale is not produced in the Algarve. It's still the only working pottery in the Algarve. However, due in no small past to Porches Pottery, there are many small studios producing pottery. Unfortunately there are also countless shops selling pottery produced in northern portugal and elsewhere.

Now, this is the interesting history behind Porches. If you don't like its history, think its 'fluffy' etc that does not mean that the history lacks validity, sources, or is in some way promoting. That is the history of that pottery. And it is a history that many, including myself, think should be celebrated. Others in this catagory include the Portuguese Government (who made the building a nationally listed building- though it was build by Swift in early 70's), coultless artists etc etc.

Anyone with an interest in Art, crafts, pottery, Algarve would be interested in this story. I fail to understand why the history of the pottery should be altered to something other than the truth?

Also, it would be useful if contributors checked sources, validity of sources, history behing article etc before you state it lacks sources, lacks validity etc. If you have not read the books, do not know the story, this does not mean it is unvalidated or lacking in sources. And it would be useful to contact other contributors before making such statements. There is also a discussions page. The dicussions page is the only suitable place for discussions on the 'style' of an article.

Also, your statement: "simply saying "everything is true and verifiable" along with a long list of books and sites doesn't help a non-resident to verify the claims" . I'm not sure i follow. Are books not verifiable sources? What in the lords name is verifiable then?

I leave you to please undo your last edit. I do not want some editorial argument which is unwarranted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TisTRU (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your note. I see now where your confusion lies; you appear to be misinterpreting the expressed concerns as an argument for not including the article. That is not the case; what needs to be done is that the writing and references need to be brought in line with Wikipedia's standards. Copyediting serves to rework the writing style, layout, etc. to make the article match other entries; peacock terms are overly promotional words and phrases that - while appropriate for promotional literature - do not belong in an encyclopedia article. Finally, with regard to references, you have provided a list of books and links. However, not all of those entires meet the standards of our reliable sources guideline, and they also need to be matched to the important facts and details in the article. Given that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, we place a high importance on making sure that any reader can also verify the facts that are presented. I hope this eases your concerns. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It does seem like we are failing to progress here with these discussions. And we do want progress do we not? We don't just want to leave aspersions on the article hanging over it now do we. There is something about the article that you do not like. However, you are not helping by not specifying what it is you dislike. I'm at a total loss as to what sources etc would satisfy you? Books and links don't seem to cut the mustard. With the wording, again you have failed to point out what wording you think is inappropriate. It sems to me you have an issue with the history of Porches Pottery and don't believe, or do not want to believe, its history. It's clear that you have no knowledge of Porches Pottery nor of the two artists who founded it. Yet you feel totally at liberty to cast doubt on the article.

I refer you to Wikipedia regarding verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." - If you search for "Patrick Swift" in www.abebooks.com or www.amazon.com most of these books will come for anyone to purchase.

Wikipedia on Citations: "Citations are usually presented within articles in one of five ways: General reference: By placing the citation in a list at the end of an article. Footnote: By placing it in a footnote, with a link following the assertion (whether a clause, sentence, paragraph, etc.) that it supports.[3] "

Now. I have done both of those.

What it seems you are suggesting is that there are several linked references in the article itself. Something like : Patrick Swift and Lima de Freitas founded <fef>. But i don't see the necessity for that nor do i see how or where you could do it? Perhaps if you pointed out parts that you think need linked references i will tell you where to find that information and add it as a reference. But this is not an overly complex entry. It is a pottery. And there are no major claims made. Certainly none that can't be verified -even by a thorough google search- and that aren't common knowledge to those who know the pottery etc.

It would probably be of use if you pointed out what you think lacks credibility. And Why. I'm honestly at a loss.

Also, these are some pretty major figues in the art world who talk about Swift and Porches Pottery: Fernando de Azvedo (painter and President of Sociadede de Bellas Artes, Lisbon); Peter Murray (Director of Crawfor Art Gallery, Cork), Aidan Dunne (arts critic to the Irish Times)...

This link will bring you to tha amazon website where the AA Spiral Guide to Algarve can be purchased. It has over two pages dedicated to Swift and the pottery (up till 2009. I've not seen the 2010 edition if there is one) [3]That doesn't seem to work so here is the title Algarve (AA Spiral Guides) by Paul Murphy and Susie Boulton (Spiral-bound). Its on amazon etc.

Ckatz. Re-reading I've probably been a bit defensive and quick in passing judgement. To be honest i'm probably getting a bit tired of wikipedia. I took offence because i created the article, and as i've studied Swift i know the history of the Pottery etc. And i also took offense at the implied suggestion that the article lacked credibility etc. But it's a pottery so my attitude etc is unecessary really, interesting as the subject is. I've added a couple of links to bits about Lima de Freitas (I think he's on Portuguese wiki). I suppose if you've not read the books, been to the pottery, spoken to people who know it etc you'll not be able to verify the history. In which case I can't see the sources ever passing whatever test there is. As i don't see the point of having an article that has doubts as to sources etc plastered all over it - wiki has enough problems with credibility- then we may as well delete the article. Not entirely sure how thats done but imagine it would need an editor. Anyways i'm off on holiday shortly. - Yep, thinking about it i'd rather it was deleted. Its a charming story and I'd rather not have my including it in wikipedia as being the source for people doubting the story.

TisTRU, no-one is suggesting the article should be deleted. It requires cleanup, and the tags are there to draw the attention of skilled copy editors. As for the references, it is simply a case of taking the sources, identifying which ones meet the reliables ources guideline, and then matching those up to details in the text. Again, no deletion is proposed. --Ckatz^chat_spy 16:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but if the sources that are there now etc do not meet the criteria then I'm not sure the article will ever meet the criteria. There are probably other sources out there (I know it appeared in a doc on Portugese tv about the Algarve but no idea where to find it or how you'd ref it) but most will be things written by holiday resorts, inflight mags etc. And I don't think it needs to have sources to match the text. Its a pretty simple story. Anyways, no point in having the article there forever with signs regarding the fact it needs improving etc. Especially considering anyone can replace the same signs even if they are removed. It just becomes too tedious. The only thing i can suggest is deleting the article or removing its content and only having something like: "Producer of hand-painted pottery". But then may as well not have it on wiki at all. - as it stands at the moment anyone who looked at the article would think its some fabricated promotional blurb. And that is not doing justice the the pottery, artist and the interesting history behind it, so best simply to remove it.

Ckatz. I'm not sure editors on wiki - and others - realise how frustrating it is to have someone alter, cast doubt upon, leave signs saying an article needs improving etc etc when there is absolutely no discussion or suggestions. Imagine such a thing in any other field or walk of life. Now, in an effort to try and see what the issues are and if we can find a way around them - for you must understand, for my part the article is fine- I have identified a few of what i assume you term peacock terms. These are as folllows:

Famous producer (You could call it peacock but it is true. There is no other pottery in Porches and never has been. Though there is now a studio in Olaria Pequena, which was the first location of Porches Pottery. You could almost extend this to Algarve for 'traditional' Algarve pottery that people buy in shops is made in Northern Portugal for tourists- nothing traditional about it)

in order to revive (But this is true. Their aim was to enable the potters to sell their goods. Being artists they naturally though of decorating. Swift, in fact, wanted the Pottery to include all sorts of craftsmen etc. He wanted a centre where traditional craftspeople could make and sell their goods- earn a living really. The fact that the pottery itself became successful does not detract from the original goal. That was a bonus for Swift and Lima. And Swift was a slight communist when it came to the Algarve people)

Porches Pottery continues to produce and the town of Porches –and the Algarve generally- is today famous for its pottery and ceramics workshops. (As i mentioned, Porches is famous for Pottery. Yet only has Porches Pottery and, now, a studio in Olaria Pequena, that make pottery. Its actully Porches Pottery itself that people mean, or should mean. The other shops in Porches sell pottery produced elsewhere. Its a very similar situation with the Algarve generally. Today there are many studios. But, that i am aware, no other potteries. Buy can remove and just say still producing. )

Saddened by this decline, Swift was determined to revive this ancient craft (He was a romantic man. And he was saddened. Read his book Algarve: A Portait And A Guide. There is a link to bits from his book here: [4]. Now, because the pottery became successful is not a reason to doubt this. But it can be removed, just doesn't do justice to the story or its truth)

lovely surroundings (They are but may as well remove 'lovely')

into a lovely walled garden (Same as above)

impressive plaster mouldings( Ditto)

But the point is the story is true. Its what makes it interesting and is what others will find interesting. I suppose from your position you just see a successful algarve pottery shop. But, the fact that it is also that, does not detract from its origins. And the fact that it is still a working, successful pottery is to be commended. If only more such stories were out there. Hopefully someone will be inspired.

But, if the sources etcf do not satisfy I would rather have no article. Beacuse whats there is the truth.

Having said that i suppose could just have Producer of hand-painted pottery; Please see bla bla for interesting history.

Emma Coolidge again

Hey. Someone tried to work around the block you put on the Emma Coolidge article, and recreated it as Emma (Heroes). I made it into a redirect, but the person may start edit warring over it again. The person seems to have created an account, so it may be best to full protect both. Ωphois 16:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit without summary

Hi, would you mind if I asked for a reason for this recent revert? WikiuserNI (talk) 20:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ckatz. Why the reverted edits for Alastair's books? Is there a standard format for book citation?

Norm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Normpotter (talk • contribs) 22:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't you understand Error Analysis belongs in the GPS article?

Ckatz, Don't you understand Error Analysis belongs in the GPS article? If you don't, try to educate yourself by reading the talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RHB100 (talk • contribs)

I think you're misunderstanding the purpose of the "main article" tag; it points readers to an article that expands on the content presented in the section. --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I have been insulted

Now, I have been insulted over and over again. For example, Mcorazao stated "You have offered no counter-proposal". This is just an outright lie and I am sick of being insulted in this manner and in other ways by Mcorazao. Now you may think that I am supposed to sit back and allow myself to be insulted and do nothing to defend myself. But if Mcorazao insults me again, I am going to retaliate. I am a licensed professional engineer. I hold advanced engineering degrees from both the University of Arkansas and UCLA and I am going to defend my honor and my self respect. So I think what you should do is tell Mcorazao to stop insulting me. RHB100 (talk) 20:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Behind The voice actors

I was trying to see if you had responded to my last comments btu now I can't find it anywhere on your talk page... did you delete it without responding or am I looking in the wrong place?

Optimussolo (talk) 22:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Flash mob again

I've petitioned for Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Flash mob. I thought I should let you know that your name appears there in my evidence that I was supported that the trivia being added was minor and not beneficial to the article and unsourced. Mkdw^talk 05:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The Request for mediation concerning Flash mob, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 11:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
(This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

Henrik's google search

You appear to have User:Henrik/sandbox/google-search in your monobook.js. It now seems to work in the new Vector skin, should that be of use to you. If so, load the updated code from Henrik's page into your vector.js page, clear the cache, and you should be away. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

PL Monteiro thepatientcapacitor.com

You were the only one to specify a reason to remove in the edits I restored, so I am writing here, though at this point I lost sight of why bother. If you are willing to overcome the TL;DR syndrome that everyone here seems to suffer, you can analyze the issues with the thepatientcapacitor.com WP:RS status, beginning in the place where all references and the most extensive statement is given: Competent Independent Writers and WP:RS My bet is that you won't, and this will never be properly analyzed. Deep Atlantic Blue (talk) 06:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

You actually deleted my comments

--Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLOCK

Oops! This was the edit by the problematic editor. I'm afraid I got distracted between finding it and then checking to see if it was still in the current version. I guess someone else had already deleted it, so I ended up deleting the adjoining text instead. Thanks for catching and correcting my error.   Will Beback  talk  07:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The Request for mediation concerning Time travel, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 23:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
(This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

Porches Pottery

Dear Ckatz. IU'm a little confused as to "It needs proper, third-party sources tied to the text in the article," Everything in the text is factual. There are several books in sources and further info where this can be verified. If you google "Porches Pottery" you wil find the same information. As for third party, in these books Porches pottery is talked about by people such as Brian Fallon (art critic to Irish Times for 35 years), Anthony Cronin, John Ryan , Fernando de Azvedo (painter and President of Sociadede de Bellas Artes, Lisbon), Richard Morphet (Keeper, Tate Britain from 1986 until 1998)- which i've now added- etc. Richard Morphert: " He later set up a pottery in the Algarve, whose part in the revival of the regional craft has been recognised. Here Swift made a huge contribution to the popularisation of the Algarve, and to the recognition of the beauty of Portugal's landscape, history and culture."[5]

I'm also not sure which part of the text you think needs sources tied to it? Or why? "to support the claims." ? Two artist set up a pottery to try and revive the local pottery industry. This is well know to anyone who knows Porches, the Artists, the Algarve etc. All is supported by books etc in sources. The rest is mainly info on pottery, methods of decoration etc. This is not a scientific or academic entry.

"It also needs an involved rewrite to clean out "fluffy" text" What you regard as fluffy i imagine is the mind-set and inclanation of the two artists who set out to save the local pottery industry from extinction- which has been recognised by the Portuguese Government. These are two well known artists. What one person may regard as ´fluffy' others will think as something that should be celebrated.

In my opinion the article needs no further work. And i've studied Patrick Swift and read these books. The fact that someone has not read these books, does not know Porches Pottery, Patrick Swift etc does not mean the article needs further sources.

Fernando de Azvedo in An Irish Painter In Portugal, 2001, Crawford Municipal Art Gallery, Cork (ISBN 0-946846-75-8) actually says that Swift's setting up of Porches Pottery is something that the Portuguese people should be always grateful for.

Now, i've ammended the article adding inline citations and further reading. I just added a book that is held in the Biblioteca national de Portugal (thats the National Library)titled The Story of Porches Pottery by Sarah Wimsley. There is also a link that leads you directly to the web page of the Library with the book mentioned. I think we can now remove that sign? If the sources do not satisfy then it can't really be an issue with the article. If you have issues with the wording i'd be much obliged for specific examples. As i've stated before the story is entirely true. And as i've stated nearly all this info is avail in a thorough google search.

I removed the citation and wording sign. The story is verifiable and through third parties. I'd appreciate exact examples of anything else that you find fault with in the article- otherwise how are we ever to come to agreement and how is the article to improve? I think it would have been a good idea to do that in the beginning ie contact the person who created the article outlining any concerns.

- sorry if i come across as brash or rude. It's just that i want to get this done and those tags removed. And nobody seems to help. It's very frustrating when you know the subject and have created the article.

Note on your ammendement. It´s not a big deal you altered "which had been a pottery centre dating back many centuries" to "for its history as a pottery centre, dating back for many centuries". When Swift and Lima started their Pottery there were no other potteries in Porches. Still aren't to this day. However, it had been a pottery centre many years before dating back many centuries. What you wrote implies that it was a pottery centre when they started Porches Pottery- which is incorrect. But this is the difficulty if you are not familiar with the subject. It does seem that you are not satisfied with the story. Without giving any reason.—Preceding unsigned comment added by TisTRU (talk • contribs)

Once again, it's not the story, it is the writing. It needs to be rewritten in an encyclopedic style. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I see you have posted another nice sign on Lima de Freitas. I am trying to be nice but you are not making any positive contribution. Now, wikipedia is not a publishing house whereby all material must conform to a standard template, and neither is it YOUR publishing house. Once again you have put up a sign without contributing in any way. If you made some positive contribution it could be a start. But your contribution so far to the Porches Pottery wiki entry has been to suggest it is fabricated and promotional and, finally, when you made an ammendment, you managed to make the Porches Pottery intro to sound like something other than the truth. It wasn´t a pottery centre when Porches Pottey was founded. It had been previously. Many years previously. The Lima entry is small. I suggest you find the spelling etc you think needs editing and ammend where necessary. If you can be bothered to put up the sign, it must mean you have read the article, studied the sunbject and found areas in the article you think should be ammended. Otherwise its just wasting everyone´s time. You must have some personal issue? - TisTRU 18:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I´m being a bit harsh. But i don´t fully comprehend what these signs are achieving? The Lima entry couldn´t be more basic. And its small. What spelling, wording etc? It's very frustrating having editors place signs on wiki entry´s without explanation, suggestions etc. And then these signs just remain there, sometimes for years. The thing that baffles me is that you must have spotted something. In an article that small surely the sensible thing is to alter it? - TisTRU 18:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It just seems to me that if everyone went around re-writing articles for wording and tone wouldn´t it all become totaly chaotic and anarchic? Which Lord editor would decide who´s wording etc? And when? Could go on for years. Is it not better to let people who know the subject write the articles? And who do you suggest has the time to do all this editing for things such as ´wording´? -TisTRU 18:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

With the Lima entry what wording? Its so basic and barely a couple of paragraphs long. And you must surely see the irony in your comment If you think the revised wording needs tweaking, then tweak it .

Lima entry has 230 words- this included heading. Which ones do you suggest need ´re-wording´. That way we can actually make a real difference.

Is it the ´famous´ word with regards to Porches Pottery -what is it about that pottery ? - that you think should be removed? We can just delete it. Though it is famous i suppose i see your point. But again it´s what makes Porches Pottery interesting. If the venture hadn´t been succcessful the story wouldn´t be particularly intersting. Its the story as a whole that is interesting.

Not sure how many times this has to be repeated... the wording of the articles needs to be re-written in order to match Wikipedia's house style. Again, you really, really need to read through the Manual of Style to familiarize yourself with what is expected for articles. As for your claims above, I've never said it was fabricated, never called for deletion, never said the subject was unsuitable - those are all your personal, repeated misinterpretations despite numerous attempts to convince you otherwise. If you think the revised wording needs tweaking, then tweak it - it was put in as a demonstration for you to see what is needed. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

D:TNG request for TFA

Degrassi: The Next Generation has been requested as the featured article for July 16. Your vote of support would be appreciated. 117Avenue (talk) 14:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Why

What good does that do? By now, everyone who has seen the trailer will recognize the voice and will be talking about it, while Wikipedia stays behind in the dust because of regulations that ask for "top notch" sources, which sometimes still doesn't verify facts and sometimes is still blatantly wrong. I understand that Wikipedia does not have the best reputation when it comes to info, many schools dislike students using Wikipedia, but ultimately its rules are so uptight that many don't even bother. Not only that, but there are still things that get through. Jon24hours (talk) 02:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Solar System

The last time Solar System was vandalized was the 5th of May, 6 weeks ago. That was the only time the article was vandalized this year. The article was protected in 2008, 2 years ago. I strongly disagree that there is currently "Frequent IP vandalism" - there is no evidence of that since 2008, I strongly disagree it should be protected, and I strongly disagree it should have flagged revisions imposed on it. Prodego ^talk 05:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

City Lights spam?

I noticed that you reverted some of the City Lights related edits coming from single-purpose User:Jennywiki099, User:Starfish090, and User:PrincessConsuela100 accounts. This is the first time I've encountered something like this, I'm not quite sure how this is handled. Is this WP:SPAM? Multiple WP:COI accounts to avoid scrutiny? I added a report at WikiProject Spam with some additional details, but I don't know if that was the right thing to do. You're an admin, should I just ignore this? —RP88 ^(talk) 23:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ckatz. You have new messages at Courcelles's talk page.
Message added 02:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Night of the Living Dead revert

Hi. I'm just wondering why you reverted my last edit to the Night of the Living Dead page. I thought that the info about the DVD extras for the Reanimated film would be of interest. Good evening.DrJohnnyDiablo (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

unreferenced or poorly referenced material

ouch! that was cruel! please help me to improve by citing those articles to which i have erred, rather than leaving me guessing.
i can only think it was either the bbc sourced infomation on the arrest of christian bale, or information on david caruso and kim delaney,as the tabloid which i used as a source i have lost.Richmex2010 (talk) 03:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Language and tone

WRT your complaint to Ohconfucius on my talk page: you clearly do take offence at "campaign" etc. I don't want anyone to cause offence to anyone; but please be aware that your language contains words and phrases that might give offence, too; and that you tend to personalise, usually with reference to me. This should stop on both sides, if at all possible. One of the problems I see is that you don't appear to engage in substantive issues; but you take offence even at the last two suggestions, I know. Can you at least acknowledge that these are the appearance to some other editors? If you were more forthcoming in discussion—in terms of the technicalities, the nuts and bolts of the issue, rather than who changed what, when—I think there would be more opportunity for productive engagement. Tony (talk) 03:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Tony, you say you wish to have productive engagement. Here's a good starting point: please stop misrepresenting the people who disagree with you. For example, you have repeatedly announced to the community that I want to link everything. I cannot comprehend why you insist on doing that, especially since I've told you that is incorrect many, many times, I've asked you over and over not to keep making such misleading statements, and - perhaps most telling - I do not actually do anything of the sort. I'm sure you would find it very frustrating if I had been repeatedly telling other editors that you hate links and won't rest until articles are completely in plain text. How are we supposed to move forward in such an environment? --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

hi

can i edit Avatar (2009) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrjbond007 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:MOSLINK

Hi, you seem to be rather highly charged at the moment, reverting some wording which has been stable for some months. FYI, the wording you took out has been stable since at least January 2009. I'm not going to participate in the edit-war you seem to have set off, backed by your call-to-arms, unless you decide to escalate. I would remind you that when I made a few small changes to the wording, you advocated discussion for the sake of 'stability'. I hope nothing has changed. I would suggest that this unilateral move to destabilise the guideline be reversed by your own efforts, then discussed (of course). Thanks, Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I've benefitted greatly from Wikipedia. I'm learning and trying to become a valuable contributor, and your notes help.

A question: how do I clarify information and provide additional verifiable info, yet not cross over into PR? Any suggestions will help.

Tigertraxpro (talk) 19:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Tigertraxpro

Light Painting reversions

Greetings, I am a mentor for User:John N. Cohen, an editor with keen personal interest in light painting whose external links you have reverted. He means well, but he doesn't understand why this was done. I don't understand as well as you, so could you please explain your reasoning on the light painting talk page? I'll direct him there as well. Thanks so much and happy editing. - Draeco (talk) 02:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Mandal

You reverted a change to this page recently with the edit summary
"revert; should be discussed"
So, the discussion is here, should you wish to comment. Moonraker12 (talk) 11:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

98.177.155.42

Hi Ckatz. Not sure if it is considered improper, but I wonder if your recent block of 98.177.155.42 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) wasn't a bit too mild. A couple of days ago, they got unblocked from a one year block, conditional upon good behavior, which specifically involved not redirecting their talk page to main space. They've been violating that rather emphatically. Cheers, Favonian (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Not improper in the least, thank you very much for pointing that out. The block should probably be adjusted accordingly. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Sodapaps

Ckatz: Is there a way to get Sodapaps to leave me alone. I have decided to follow the advise of various editors, including you, and just ignore him, but he continues to badger me. You can review his comments here: Sodapaps Edit One, Sodapaps Edit Two, Edit Three, Edit Four, Edit Five, and Edit Six.--InaMaka (talk) 02:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

More of the same today: Kristi Noem article and My talk page.--InaMaka (talk) 15:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I'll leave InaMaka's and Kristi Noem's talk page alone. Though, a number of those posts are in my defense as InaMaka has opened up a Sockpuppet investigation on me. Yes, what I posted on his talk page was out of line, but I won't apologize for defending myself on the Sockpuppet investigation. Pointing out where he has lied, not assumed good faith, and shown the same indecency to other editors serves the purpose of proving that InaMaka has a history of improper behavior, and unfortunately for me I wasn't going to put up with it. Now, if you can close the Sockpuppet investigation I won't have to deal with him anymore. Until that happens, I will continue to defend myself on that page and call InaMaka out if need be. If he can't handle that, then he shouldn't have started it.Sodapaps (talk) 20:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Ref reversion

Hi there, I noticed you reverted a lot of refs that were added by a spam account. I started a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard [6] to see if these are actually considered a reliable source or not. I'm not strongly for or against you reverting, but they did seem to support the material in the article so I thought I would ask what other people thought. Feel free to stop by and join in. Burpelson AFB (talk) 21:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Porches Pottery

You're fond of putting up those signs, hey. Could it really be that harmful to make a positive contribution? Also, i've just noticed that you've had involvement with the Algarve wiki entry on previous occasions- are we sure there's no personal issue here?. TisTRU

It would be helpful if you could assume good faith, rather than making spurious (and grossly incorrect) claims. Please actually look at the edit history, where you will note that my contributions primarily involve removing spam links placed by individuals trying to use the article as an advertising opportunity. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. But you have to understand my point of view too. Initially you questioned the truthlessness of the entry without, apparently, knowing anything about the subject. For me that is very peculiar. And you've also never indicated what it is that makes you unhappy with entry. What is written there is accurate, truthful and interesting. I get the impression you just think its a common ceramics shops and that the entry is some form of promotional blurb. This is not true. My interest is the painter Patrick Swift. Hence Porches Pottery. I'd love to tell you that two guys opened a pottery shop in Algarve that is now renouned. But this is not true. It was founded with the specific purpose of trying to save an industry threatned with extinction. Thats what makes it interesting. Its never going to read like " X & Y opened shop, Algarve, Portugal. Sells pottery" and wouldn't be worth entering if that was the case. Could you not just point out what is is you'd like altered? I'm not a child and don't particularly like someone highlighting something i've written as a teacher would without any explanation or positive contribution. TisTRU —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.98.34.79 (talk) 11:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

For Lima de Freitas an editor simply removed ' famous Porches Pottery' to 'opened the Porches Pottery' which seems to satisfy. Yet, anyone who knows anything about pottery, especially that pottery, knows that you don't just 'open' a pottery. You 'open' a shop. A pottery you found, create etc etc. Actually that may be the issue here. It's not a 'shop'. Its a pottery where pottery is created, made, decorated etc. TisTRU

I may be sounding a bit harsh. Again. I prob need a break. But i do think that you should engage and communicate with people whose work you flag etc. The idea can't be that I keep re-writing the article and removing the sign until such point that you decide not to replace it? Having a silent critic flagging an entry is very frustrating- like a secret service. I think the article is fine, honest, truthful and interesting. You don't. But we don't seem to be engaging as to what you think needs altering and hence no progress. TisTRU

Regarding: The Pacific

I have cited my sources and given proper references. Why do you persist reverting the article? This is supposed to be "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Not "the propagandist encyclopedia no one can edit" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.99.77.52 (talk) 09:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

You have to consider whether or not the incident is relevant to a global audience, and whether or not it is undue weight on a relatively minor incident. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Please take a look at this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_%C4%B0zmir than consider the implications of improperly twisting the events and airing them on a TV show that's watched by millions. The incident is relevant to the global audience because it's an inaccurate representation of what happened at the First WORLD War. Not only the Turks and/or Greeks but all historians would agree to preserve history according to facts, not fiction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.99.77.52 (talk) 09:51, 2 July 2010

Please note that The Pacific is not a documentary, it is a television show, fiction based in fact is still fiction, and as such is entitled to a level of dramatic license. If this is indeed relevant to a global audience could you provide an English source? While non-English sources are allowed it does indicate that no English news-outlet cares or sees it as a big deal. Tilting this issue to only a minor audience and giving it undue weight by making it look like a major controversy, while from what you type in the section is not at al a major controversy. _Xeworlebi ^(t·c) 12:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I know that The Pacific is a perverted anti-Turk propaganda vessel, just like wikipedia. Like I said, it's not based ON fact and certainly not entitled to insult us. All English sources I've encountered are either Turkish or Greek sites. So it's a big deal over there and over here. Who are you to question the significance of this controversy? I give up. Once again, lies and deceit has won over truth and honor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.99.77.52 (talk) 18:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

constant ingestion

In the water fluoridation controversy safety section you added the word, "constant" to the beginning of this sentence, "Constant ingestion of high levels of fluoride can cause adverse effects including severe dental fluorosis, skeletal fluorosis, and weakened bones; the WHO has a guideline of 1.5 mg/L." A. I do not see the word constant in the cited reference. B. The statement is illogical, because nobody constantly consumes anything. We must pause to sleep, breathe, etc. The word should be removed. Petergkeyes (talk) 04:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of EyeWiki

Hi There: Is there are reason the EyeWiki link was deleted from the American Academy of Ophthalmology? This is an offical site for the AAO.--Dalehawaii (talk) 18:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

OK

Please do me the decency of explaining how my good-faith post was inappropriate if you will. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 09:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It should be self-evident, but I've already left an explanation on your talk page. There are at least five elements of your post that are clearly not "good faith" assertions. You may have meant well, but your post did not convey that in any way. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ckatz. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pacific Cinémathèque.
Message added 19:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

hey

may i ask why have you reverted the changes that i added? I rightly added the price of the logo and the design agency responsible.. please let me know —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldesign87 (talk • contribs) 11:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

constant ingestion

In the water fluoridation controversy safety section you added the word, "constant" to the beginning of this sentence, "Constant ingestion of high levels of fluoride can cause adverse effects including severe dental fluorosis, skeletal fluorosis, and weakened bones; the WHO has a guideline of 1.5 mg/L." A. I do not see the word constant in the cited reference. B. The statement is illogical, because nobody constantly consumes anything. We must pause to sleep, breathe, etc. The word "constant" should be removed from the beginning of the sentence. Petergkeyes (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Pifeedback

Could you give your opinion on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Pifeedback.com?ChaosMaster16 (talk) 14:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

Jaime Ray Newman

Hi. I'm interested to know why you reverted these changes [7] to Jaime Ray Newman. I understand that the user who made them (not me) has been blocked for various reasons, but this particular edit appears to be valid and useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arikk (talk • contribs) 17:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. If you can find a different (and reliable) source to verify the text, please feel free to restore it. The IAE site, however, has been added to the spam blacklist. Thanks again. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	For removing awardspam on several articles Omarcheeseboro (talk) 18:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Brontosaurus

I do not believe that you page accurately represents Marsh's hoax. I believe that the Brontosaurus needs its own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeliusCeasar (talk • contribs) 07:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

You are correct and I apologize. Namaste....DocOfSoc (talk) 09:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board

I've replied to your comment. Connormah • talk 22:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Vancouver Whitecaps roster

As per the discussion on Talk:Vancouver Whitecaps FC the roster has fallen out-of-date and it needs to be updated in three places. Please remedy the situation. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

GPS Equations and Methods of Solution sections have been further clarified

The GPS Equations and Methods of Solution sections have been further clarified. It is believed that even before this most recent further clarification, the Wikipedia Navigation section including its subsections was the clearest and best explanation to be found anywhere on the Internet or in print. Nevertheless if you find anything that you think is unclear or confusing please state your finding and it can be discussed. RHB100 (talk) 03:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfair Treatment

How can you delete the Southsiders page without deleting every other MLS supporters club page? The Southsiders page in its half hour of life was more substantial than many of the ones in this template: {{Major League Soccer Supporters Groups}}

How can this page exist: Toronto FC fans ?! Its just a one-liner about several fan groups.

There are 3 seperate pages for DC United groups, 2 for FC Dallas, 3 for Red Bulls, 2 for Seattle and 3 for Toronto!

There is nothing promotional about the Southsiders page I made. I have no affiliation with their recruitment or their leadership. I was making a page for a team Im a fan off, based it largely off of Sons of Ben mind you, with real information for people. This is an encyclopedia and I was expanding it. Yet my page is twice deleted in less than two hours.

• Non-conforming pages? This is what wikipedia is, pages linked together. This is what the people want. There should be a page for every supporters group on that template. And any group that cant put together what I did shouldnt be on the list in the first place. As readers read through, they click from NASL -> USSF -> Whitecaps -> Southsiders -> Taka's Fan Club -> Japanese National Team. They learn a complete picture along the way, shaped by the pages that catch their interest. Maybe they start from a different direction and get linked through the Southsiders into the Whitecaps page or the NASL page because they started in a supporters group of English Premier League teams page. Then wikipedia is doing its job. Drawing these connections, exploring these topics. There is more information about the Southsiders than should be in the Whitecaps pages. Just the same as Sons of Ben and Timbers Army and so on and so forth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikistoriographer (talk • contribs) 08:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Notability issues

Hi ckatz, just wanted to discuss some of the notability issues with nicknames of Vancouver. Is the notability of the entries in question, or that of the general concept of a city having a separate nickname article? The idea for the article was inspired by other city pages with nickname offshoots, such as Houston and Toronto (an entire "name of" article). I will add more citations from press articles proving usage of the nicknames, will that affect the notability issue? Please help clarify, thanks Theinterior (talk) 04:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ckatz, just wondered why you reverted back my link to cited research on the Carbon Footprint page; tried to link to some relevant and supporting research that gave the sentence more credibility. Would appreciate feedback so I can ensure I don't make errors in future.

Cheers Mike —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikecometrica (talk • contribs) 12:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Ckatz, I wanted to discuss with you your issues with my recent additions of material pertaining to Trailers From Hell. I think the contributions to the site by its gurus (all noteworthy legends of the business themselves) represent important contributions to an understanding of the material and are, thusly, worth mentioning.

Vancouver Whitecaps FC (MLS)

Vancouver Whitecaps FC (MLS) I understand wikipedia policy on WP:V material but there are some things that don't really need a citation and some for which there are none so I've blanked the section. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

And again. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Please keep your word to keep the locations up-to-date or I will place the roster into a template. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Iceland native name

In this edit you reverted a change in the native name of Iceland, changing it from Ísland back to Íslands, where the extra s was added by an unregistered user and had been there only a day. I'm no expert on Icelandic, so I didn't want to simply revert your edit without checking with you about the reasoning. I understand Íslands is the genitive form of Ísland, but usually words in declined languages are given in the nominative, Ísland in this case. The Icelandic-language WP page is titled and begins with the word Ísland. If I'm missing something, please fill me in. Thanks. StephenHudson (talk) 19:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Enbridge

I don't understand why you keep take taking off any reference to the research we can compiled about Enbridge? Have you even seen what it is? It is fully referenced, peer-reviewed piece. Most of the information comes from Enbridge themselves, it is just put in a readable format. I did what you have said and it does not plug the organization that wrote it - it is not supposed to be promo - only information that everyone should be able to have access to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CheWolfe (talk • contribs) 02:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Nicknames again

After reviewing sources on Nicknames of Vancouver, I feel strongly the article meets the notability criteria. From the general notability guideline:If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. A possible argument against notability is that it is very difficult to find an entire article on each nickname entry in a reputable source. However, I have sourced several of the entries with in-depth articles on the nickname, while others are referenced by articles in major pubs. that demonstrate their use. One could argue that those references are trivial or that collating refs to prove use of a nickname constitutes original research. This could be discussed. As for the notability of the concept of city nicknames, I believe that to be a non-issue. Large cities all have nicknames, and their evolution relates to how a city's inhabitants identify with their surroundings and their local culture. As for merge possibilities, there is the list of city nicknames in Canada, but I would resist that, as the list has many notability issues and poor referencing, as well as lack of definitions, which is more than half the fun. My first query on this topic did not get a response, so I am assuming you are not terribly interested in this article. If that be the case, and absent any feedback from you or other editors, I may remove the tag myself. Good day, --Theinterior (talk) 18:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 July newsletter

We are half-way through our penultimate round, and nothing is yet certain. Pool A, currently led by Sasata (submissions) has ended up the more competitive, with three contestants ( Sasata (submissions), Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions)) scoring over 500 points already. Pool B is led by Casliber (submissions), who has also scored well over 500. The top two from each pool, as well as the next four highest scorers regardless of pool, will make it through to our final eight. As ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Planning has begun for the 2011 WikiCup, with open discussions concerning scoring and flags for next year's competition. Contributions to those discussions would be appreciated, especially concerning the flags, as next year's signups cannot begin until the flag issue has been resolved. Signups will hopefully open at some point in this round, with discussion about possible changing in the scoring/process opening some time afterwards.

Earlier this round, we said goodbye to Hunter Kahn (submissions), who has bowed out to spend more time on the book he is authoring with his wife. We wish him all the best. In other news, the start of this round also saw some WikiCup awards sent out by Suomi Finland 2009 (submissions). We appreciate his enthusiasm, and contestants are of course welcome to award each other prizes as they see fit, but rest assured that we will be sending out "official" awards at the end of the competition. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 22:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Trailers From Hell

Hello there. You'll see at the Trailers From Hell page that I wrote quite a bit of new material, and provided references attesting to the notability of the site. Along those lines, a couple of comments regarding your constant reverts to the pages of those commenting on TFH... First, I believe you misunderstand the use of tagging a reversion as "minor." Removing an entire paragraph that is currently the subject of debate on the entry, it seems to me, hardly qualifies as a minor revision. You were not, after all, reverting, say, vandalism. Those linking the material--myself included now--apparently have no relationship with the site. We are neither promoting the site--note the objective language contained in those notations--nor, in the language of your last (to my mind, erroneous) summary "spamming" the pages of Baker, et al. At this point, we have an Academy Award-winning horror make-up artist (Baker) providing commentary on a site (TFH) that has been described as "invaluable" and "fabulous," that has released a feature-length compilation that played a major film festival, and that has been used by the New York Times to provide media content to related articles. Precisely what makes any of this irrelevant to the careers of related parties? Spam? Promotional? Best, ThtrWrtr 23:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patchyreynolds (talk • contribs)

Verifying

Of course we remove sources that no longer verify the information. If it isn't in the Internet Archives, then it can no longer be verified. The source in question was never a concrete source to begin with. It was a scrolling timeslot calender. At the end of each year it started over. It hasn't been able to verify the season 7 air dates for 2 years. The onus is on the person/people responsible to verify the it aired a day earlier in Canada that season. Without verification, the average reader (or any editor not familiar with this page) wouldn't know if the source ever stated what it claims.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, per WP:LINKROT, we tag the link as dead. I've now done so; sorry for forgetting to place that template at first. --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Ckatz topic: mentoring

subtopic: high potential mentoring

You have blocked my additions by simply using the 'undo' command. Why? This is one of the most common types of mentoring used in companies. the original entry is very thin. The addition clarified the situation and added new information. Bobauthor (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Conversation on admin noticeboard re: block of ISP for low-income users

I have started a conversation regarding a block of an ISP for low income users that was initiated two and a half years ago and was recently lifted. You were one of the people that helped review the initial block or helped review it when it was lifted. I am cordially inviting you to join in the conversation.
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Two and a half year block of ISP for low-income users
Thank you very much for you thoughtful consideration. - Hydroxonium (talk | contribs) 03:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

FLC nomination

Ckatz, since you contributed to the article List of awards and nominations received by Up in the Air which is a child article to Up in the Air (film), I thought that you would like to know that JuneGloom07 Talk? , Courcelles (talk) and I nominated the article for FLC, cf Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by Up in the Air/archive1. I would appreciate your considered comments on the nomination. --Dan Dassow (talk) 13:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The criteria of categorizing to CSD G11

Hi Administrator,

Thank you for reading my article (Dvd x player). You place a notice said that my article was deleted per CSD G11, but there are a pile of wiki articles for someone or something. The way i see it, it is a little bit unfair to delete my article. Please tell me how to determine a article is categorized to CSD G11.

Here I have another 3 questions:

1. I know wikipedia hates promotion of something. So I try my best to find the most neutral words to describe it. Please tell me where my article show the special promotion of dvd x player.

2. When I create this article, I get one notice from someone said it has been add to deleting list. Then I add hangon tag and rewrite my article and leave a message on discussion. Then the warning notice is there any more. I thought wikipedia has accepted my article. Why after 10 days, you delete it even without any notice or any chance to ask me to improve it?

3. Why can't Wikipedia be kind to the authors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JaneMorrises (talk • contribs) 03:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Editing Grann, New Yorker Pages

Hi Ckatz,

While I'm fairly new to Wiki editing, I do take the process quite seriously. I've done my best to employ proper netiquette and cite sources properly. I am only trying to do the right thing: report properly.

I would like to add the information to the Grann article as it pertains specifically to the biography, history and professional public life of author David Grann. For that reason, I feel it is deemed warranted to include such mentions on the page. On those grounds, I will make those edits. If you have a suggestion in how to include the information that, in your view, properly abides by Wikipedia standards, please advise. I will await 24 hours for your response before making edits. Thanks for your time and consideration.

Please respond on my talk page.

Respectfully, Raver212 Raver212 (talk) 20:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked User Picatyel may need to lose his talk page access

You recently blocked User: Picatyel. You may want to take a look at this diff: [8]; it looks like said user shouldn't have access to their talk page as well. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Semi-Protect

Can you please semi-protect User:Extra999/Goals? --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 06:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 11:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: John Barrowman

It would be great if you would join the discussion on the talk page. I appreciate that you think the importance of dogs in Barrowman's life appears and loks like trivia, but it is actually not. Barrowman's autobiography, I Am What I Am (2009) is full of information about the importance of dogs in his life, and talks about "Captain Jack", a "rescued Jack Russell terrier from Cardiff Dogs Home" quite a bit. Barrowman's work with dogs outside his acting career is considered important, and many sources discuss it. Viriditas (talk) 20:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

TO CKATZ: Your Reponse is Kindly Requested

Ckatz,

I had the courtesy to write you a note on your user page and you did not respond. I kindly asked for your advice on an edit. Yet, you never made the attempt to discuss the editorial content. In fact, you use the edit summaries to send personal messages to users rather than their talk page. Furthermore, you threaten a block. I'm sorry, this is not proper etiquette for Wikipedia. If you do not like something I edit for personal reasons, it doesn't warrant you to make a personal attack. Please stop this behavior. Again, I ask. How you would you write the content so it reflects proper factual information according to the Wikipedia guidelines? Please response intelligently within 24 hours on my talk page. Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Raver212 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raver212 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Follow Up

Dear Ckaz: you said "Yes, well, did you explain to this friend of yours exactly what you had been doing? That might change the response significantly. The issue here lies in your repeated efforts to add information that is not suitable for inclusion. Stop doing that, and the problem goes away. --Ckatzchatspy 22:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)"

Yes, I did. And he had instructed me how I can add the info by changing certain words. However, it would help if you stated why it is not suitable for inclusion. Or more plainly, if a lawsuit was filed against a subject of interest for reasons pertaining to their occupation, would that be suitable to include in the page? Yes or no. Believe me, I'm not trying to be abusive here, I'm trying to genuinely benefit the project. Perhaps as an administrator, you can help with that. I am seeking advice from another moderator...and will make my decision based on your's and the other person's documented reponse to this issue. Thanks again for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raver212 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries and reverts,

Could you please explain your rationale for reverting me as you did here? Your edit summary explained nothing, and seems rather off given that the show was cancelled and is no longer running.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

TV series continue to exist as creative works, even after production of new episodes ceases. In a similar manner, we would not refer to a book or a film using "was". --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Dæ, Take a look at Historical present for discussion of this. Cheers. ThtrWrtr (talk) 03:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Then I shall revert myself on an article I previously made the same kind of edit on.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Removal of references

Dear CKatz, I believe you are behaving in a very autocratic manner, and your actions are unreasonable and very narrow-minded. You have removed the links that i added to some articles published by myself on scribd and asked me to desist from such edits. while I appreciate your efforts as an administrator on wikipedia, I dissent your such actions. My articles quoted substantively from some reputed sources, I believe that you went ahead without a minute of thought or after going through the articles. This is totally uncalled for and against the spirit of wikipedia. I would appreciate that you think about it for sometime before posting a replyHallenrm (talk) 08:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You cannot post links to your own opinion pages. That is a clear violation of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

A little help

You being an Edit filter manager, I thought you may want to help me out on a little problem I've had. So I posted a request to join the Edit filter manager group, here's the request. I was wondering, would you comment/question me on there? Thanks! Endofskull (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Leap Seconds and Calendars

Please explain how leap seconds are added to calendars. The length of year in, say, the Gregorian calendar is 365.2425 days exactly, whether or not there are any leap seconds.Victor Engel (talk) 16:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Human enhancement

Can you please explain on the Talk:Human enhancement page why you insist on deleting two external links that were recently added and seem quite pertinent? --Loremaster (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

A question involving spam, possible COI?

I originally posted this on User:Hu12's talkpage, but I want to invite you to weigh in on it, since you were the one to originally blacklist the website involved. --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 23:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Original message, subst'ed from User:Hu12's talk page

Spam, among other things. Hey, I noticed you added User:Dagrossla as a possible account of User:Moviefan3121at the discussion for blacklisting the website moviereviewintelligence.com. This rose to my attention while I was looking at the spam blacklisting log.User:Dagrossla posted a question at the Help desk asking how to white-list the website. I'm not sure what to do here, seeing as I don't know all of the details of the previous situation... This smells a little fishy, but I don't want to bring up anything on the "official" venues for such things right now, just in case it turns out I'm way off-base. Suggestions? --- cymru lass(hit me up)⁄(background check) 22:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Oh, also User:Dagrossla said here that he is the "editor and publisher of the site." So there's some COI in this case, but does Wikipedia's COI policy cover sequests like this? --- cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 22:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Help needed with Carl Freer

In the past you've helped to keep the Carl Freer article well-sourced and factually correct. I'm currently engaged in what amounts to an edit war with two SPAs who remove sourced content, add highly non-neutral text based on a press release by Freer's company, and bizarrely misrepresent the ruling in a recent lawsuit Freer was involved in. I've repeatedly asked for an explanation on the talk page; they "reply" by giving a one-line pseudo-explanation of one part of their changes while keeping silent on the others, including the content removal. I doubt we'll ever reach consensus in this way, and despite WP:AGF by now I suspect that they're aware their changes aren't appropriate but proceed regardless. Since there are two of them and just one of me, they can revert at will, and I'd run afoul of WP:3RR first. I've already asked for help at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies and at the WikiProject Biographies, but so far nobody has replied. Help or a suggestion on how to proceed would be greatly appreciated. Huon (talk) 23:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 August newsletter

We have our final eight! The best of luck to those who remain. A bumper newsletter this week as we start our home straight.

• Pool A's winner was Sturmvogel_66 (submissions). Awarded the top score overall this round, Sturmvogel_66 writes primarily on military history, favouring Naval warfare.
• Pool B's winner was Casliber (submissions). Awarded the top score for featured articles this round, Casliber writes primarily on natural sciences, especially botany and ornithology.
• Pool A's close second was Sasata (submissions). Awarded the top score for featured pictures this round, Sasata writes primarily on natural sciences, favouring mycology.
• Pool B's close second was ThinkBlue (submissions). Awarded the top score for good articles and topics this round, ThinkBlue primarily writes content related to television and film, including 30 Rock.
• The first wildcard was TonyTheTiger (submissions). Awarded the top score for did you knows and valued pictures this round, TonyTheTiger writes on a number of topics, including baseball, American football and Chicago.
• The second wildcard was White Shadows (submissions). Someone who has helped the Cup behind the scenes all year, White Shadows said "I'm still in shock that I made it this far" and writes primarily on Naval warfare, especially U-boats.
• The third wildcard was Staxringold (submissions). Awarded the top score for featured lists and topics this round, Staxringold primarily writes on sport and television, including baseball and 30 Rock.
• The fourth wildcard was William S. Saturn (submissions). Entering the final eight only on the final day of the round, William S. Saturn writes on a number of topics, mostly related to Texas.

We say goodbye to the six who fell at the final hurdle. Geschichte (submissions) only just missed out on a place in the final eight. Resolute (submissions) was not far behind. Candlewicke (submissions) was awarded top points for in the news this round. Gary King (submissions) contributed a variety of did you know articles. Suomi Finland 2009 (submissions) said "I'm surprised to have survived so far into the competition", but was extactic to see Finland in the semi-finals. Arsenikk (submissions) did not score this round, but has scored highly in previous rounds. We also say goodbye to Ian Rose (submissions), who withdrew earlier this month after spending six weeks overseas. Anyone interested in this round's results can see them here and here. Thank you to Stone (submissions) for these.

Signups for next year's competition are now open. Planning is ongoing, with a key discussion about judges for next year open. Discussion about how next year's scoring will work is ongoing, and thoughts are more than welcome at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring. Also, TonyTheTiger is compiling some information and statistics on the finalists here- the final eight are encouraged to add themselves to the list.

Our final eight will play it out for two months, after which we will know 2010's WikiCup winner, and a variety of prizes will be awarded. As ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 23:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Joey Jeremiah

Why did you make this revert? 117Avenue (talk) 01:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Linking RfCs?

Reading through the MOS:Link archives I see mention of RfCs, but I couldn't locate any. Do you have any links to them? --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Repeated links proposal

This is a proposal to change the Repeated links section of the MOS. Please edit &/or comment on the talk page as you see fit.

Feel free to move the proposal/discussion straight to the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (linking) if you wish. I just thought we might establish some sort of consensus first, out of the heat and fury over there. --Michael C. Price ^talk 10:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 September newsletter

We are half-way through our final round, entering the home straight. TonyTheTiger (submissions) leads at the time of writing with 1180 points, immediately followed by Sasata (submissions) with 1175 points. Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) closely follows in third place with 1100 points. For those who are interested, data about the finalists has been compiled at Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/finalists, while a list of content submitted by all WikiCup contestants prior to this round has been compiled at Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Submissions. As ever, anything contestants worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Despite controversy, the WikiCup remains open. Signups for next year's competition are more than welcome, and suggestions for how next year's competition will work are appreciated at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring. More general comments and discussions should be directed at the WikiCup talk page. One month remains in the 2010 WikiCup, after which we will know our champion. Good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 23:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

James Naismith

Hi there CKatz, you queried the deletion of an article on James Naismith from the Simple English Wikipedia. I checked the page history and the article content was "James Naismith was a pothead from the 19th century". as you can imagine, it was deleted. Hope this answers the question. You are very welcome to come over and write a proper article. Peterdownunder (talk) 10:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

NewspaperARCHIVE.com

You removed the links I put in to hundreds of thousands of free articles. I appreciate the feedback, since it has been impossible to get any thus far from anyone at Wikipedia. We have created 78,000 sites each with 10's of thousands of free articles. My question for you (Wikipedia) is rather than delete my links, tell me what approach would be acceptable.

Would it be acceptable to allow the person who follows a link to 221,000 free articles about Frank Sinatra to get 10 free page views a day before any prompt?

How can I approach Wikipedia Corporate for a discussion and/or a corporate deal. We supply this content to many of the largest websites in the world, but I can't get a human being at Wikipedia to respond.

Thanks, Much Appreciated, Christopher GillChristopherJamesGill (talk) 16:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 June newsletter

We're half way through 2010, and the end of the WikiCup is in sight! Round 3 is over, and we're down to our final 16. Our pool winners were Ian Rose (submissions) (A), Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) (B, and the round's overall leader), ThinkBlue (submissions) (C) Casliber (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions) (D, joint), but, with the scores reset, everything is to play for in our last pooled round. The pools will be up before midnight tonight, and have been selected randomly by J Milburn. This will be the toughest round yet, and so, as ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Though unaffiliated with the WikiCup, July sees the third Great Wikipedia Dramaout- a project with not dissimilar goals to the WikiCup. Everyone is welcome to take part and do their bit to contribute to the encyclopedia itself.

If you're interested in the scores for the last round of the Cup, please take a look at Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Round 3 and Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Full/Round 3. Our thanks go to Stone (submissions) for compiling these. As was predicted, Group C ended up the "Group of Death", with 670 points required for second place, and, therefore, automatic promotion. This round will probably be even tougher- again, the top two from each of the two groups will make it through, while the twelve remaining participants will compete for four wildcard places- good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17

FYI I attempted to tone it down removing Linney's name from the last sentence. The truth is Lauara Linney IS a cigarette smoker and the media did question as a cigarette smoker how could she play the role of a cancer victim and her PR handlers came to her defense which I point out.

NOTHING I wrote on this page is defamatory. I did cange it around and feel this should meet your standards. If not then you simply believe in censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Islandersb (talk • contribs) 19:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

You are WRONG!! You engage in CENSORSHIP

I researched throughout Wikipedia and you are INCORRECT. Nothing I have written about The BIG C is unresearched, dematory or libelous.

Go head and block me and I will notify every contact on Wikipedia of your PERSONAL interest in my posting the truth about THE BIG C television series. You are not following the guidelines of the Wikipedia Oversight or Wikilove rules. Despite my most recent attempt to conform my editing of THE BIG C criticism paragraph you still refuse to grant me any space. There is absolutely no working fairly with a person like you. You are engaging in wholesale censorship and you immediately remove thses statements of mine from your page because you do not wish others to see how you do engage in unfair and biased censorship. Take your best shot and if you block me I will appeal to anyone who will listen and correct your censorship and bullying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Islandersb (talk • contribs) 07:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Criticism paragraph added WITHOUT mentioning Laura Linney's name

I edited the criticism paragraph and removed Laura Linney's name and the mention of her handers. This should satisfy your concerns about libelous and defamatory statements which I maintain are not the case. Without mentioning Laura Linney's name this edit surely complies with your strict personal mandate. If you choose to remove this then you are soley engaging in censorship and that is NOT what Wikipedia was created for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Islandersb (talk • contribs) 07:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to step in Ckatz. Islander, the problem isn't so much the content, as much as it is the fact that you don't have an sources about criticism. As far as we can tell, this is your opinion (one that many others share I'm sure). But we build this encyclopedia on reliable sources and not on the opinions of the editors, i.e. keeping a neutral point of view. If you can find a notable critic with these same criticisms, than it is something that can be included in the article.

I've posted that I'll stop editing the David Wu article

Thanks for not banning me. I've never had a dispute like this before and I'm uncertain about the Wikipedia procedural process and hierarchy. So at this point in the dispute, I take it that I'm not allowed to edit the David Wu article itself, but I can contribute to discussions about the article? (Lenschulwitz (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC))

Ski external link removal

I noticed you've been reverting a bunch of my recent edits. In conjunction with NELSAP and NESM, the linked site you removed features additional information not available on Wikipedia (such as photos that cannot be released to public domain, historic timelines, maps, historic documentation, etc.). The research conducted on behalf of the delinked site, as well as for NELSAP, was used in part for the building of the Wiki articles linked. I don't want to get into a 3R war, but the links are valuable to the topics at hand - you'll note that there's otherwise very little information available. Jrclark (talk) 12:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Units

I'm afraid I can't say; I'd always assumed it was Wikipedia standard. Whenever it was made, it was made before I became a regular contributor. Serendi^podous 23:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Block of Pulpopaz

Good call, I had already removed the links he inserted. I ran across another user Maginks (talk · contribs) who seems to have engaged in similar patterns of ref spamming, after I warmed him about doing so. His contributions would probably welcome an assessment from an experienced individual. Rehevkor ✉ 05:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Wiz Khalifa

I noticed that you reverted a source on this article here. From my somewhat cursory research it does appear that a *lot* of 'HardKnock TV' links or refs were added to pertinent articles recently and I also see that the source/website is blocked. The HardKnock TV website does seem to me to be a hip-hop/rap news source (yes, I know a record label too) but, at least in the case of the Wiz Khalifa article, had an actual in-person interview of the artist. Their college internships pages states:

"Hard Knock TV is a premier multi-platform Video Production & Entertainment Company that focuses on Hip Hop culture and lifestyle. With hundreds of hours of original hip hop programming being produced, aggregated and distributed world wide, Hard Knock TV has established its self as the go to destination for hip hop content with over 30 Million views already under its belt. "

In case you're wondering I want to state up front that I have no connection with HardKnock TV, but am just wondering if you know why the URL is blocked and if it would ever be possible to use it as a source. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 12:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Aryan.. India

Ckatz, I have 4 legitimate sources for a 2 word addition! And this addition is significant because it is the name used to denote the major vedic period culture. Those 3 editors not wanting this addition is because some of them are south-indians (and an old theory denoted them as being "non-aryans"), so they are very sensitive about the word. However, the word includes them! This article is not being handled neutrally. Please look into this further. I apologize for re-adding my edit after you undid it, I didn't realize you're an admin. Please help me ckatz, thanks. Rhadamanthus222 (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage

My edit was kind of an act of exasperation, but at this point nearly the whole second paragraph of the lead is sourced from amicus briefs from various scientific organizations. In my view using such statements as established facts is not appropriate and is a POV addition. Everything that scientific organizations say in any capacity is not necessarily established fact, but only what is commonly agreed as fact in peer-reviewed journals or publications of a similar level of quality. K. the Surveyor (talk) 22:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

By the way, if you agree with my assessment it would be good if you could kindly support a change to the lead, as I have given up trying to argue the point alone. K. the Surveyor (talk) 00:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 October newsletter

The 2010 WikiCup is over! It has been a long journey, but what has been achieved is impressive: combined, participants have produced over seventy featured articles, over five hundred good articles, over fifty featured lists, over one thousand one hundred "did you know" entries, in addition to various other pieces of recognised content. A full list (which has yet to be updated to reflect the scores in the final round) can be found here. Perhaps more importantly, we have our winner! The 2010 WikiCup champion is Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), with an unbelievable 4220 points in the final round. Second place goes to TonyTheTiger (submissions), with 2260, and third to Casliber (submissions), with 560. Congratulations to our other four finalists – White Shadows (submissions), William S. Saturn (submissions), Staxringold (submissions) and ThinkBlue (submissions). Also, congratulations to Sasata (submissions), who withdrew from the competition with an impressive 2685 points earlier in this round.

Prizes will also be going to those who claimed the most points for different types of content in a single round. It was decided that the prizes would be awarded for those with the highest in a round, rather than overall, so that the finalists did not have an unfair advantage. Winning the featured article prize is Casliber (submissions), for five featured articles in round 4. Winning the good article prize is Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), for eighty-one good articles in round 5. Winning the featured list prize is Staxringold (submissions), for six featured lists in round 1. Winning the picture and sound award is Jujutacular (submissions), for four featured pictures in round 3. Winning the topic award is Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), for forty-seven articles in various good topics in round 5. Winning the "did you know" award is TonyTheTiger (submissions), for over one hundred did you knows is round 5. Finally, winning the in the news award is Candlewicke (submissions), for nineteen articles in the news in round three.

The WikiCup has faced criticism in the last month – hopefully, we will take something positive from it and create a better contest for next year. Like Wikipedia itself, the Cup is a work in progress, and ideas for how it should work are more than welcome on the WikiCup talk page and on the scoring talk page. Also, people are more than welcome to sign up for next year's competition on the signup page. Well done and thank you to everyone involved – the Cup has been a pleasure to run, and we, as judges, have been proud to be a part of it. We hope that next year, however the Cup is working, and whoever is running it, it will be back, stronger and more popular than ever. Until then, goodbye and happy editing! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 03:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Conan

I need your help on the Conan page. An IP user continuously adds unsourced that Conan's Late Night only aired 4 days a week until 2008. Although users have cited it as unsourced, and all believe that Conan was always a 5 day a week program, the user persists continuing to re-add the information. What actions should be taken? Mwhayes1995 (talk) 20:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Source removal on Modern animation in the United States

You recently removed [9] a source I added to the article Modern animation in the United States. As best I can tell from your edit summary, you removed it because the URL in question was reported in conjunction with external link spam at [10]. However, this wasn't an external link; it was a legitimate use of the site as a source. It wasn't added by a spammer. I added it [11] after researching the contents of the article. It's an audio interview from a source that—as we ourselves note in our article about the show in question—has been quite favorably reviewed by The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times, so it seems a reliable source. I have no relation whatsoever to edrants.com or Edward Champion. I don't see anything in WP:SPAM that would prevent the use of this source, despite it having been inappropriately linked by a few editors. The site isn't blacklisted. Can you explain your objection to the citation more fully? // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello Ckatz - could you please let me know what needs to be done to get my page on "James H Flack" (Irish Painter) posted? It is not spam nor trying to sell anything.

Please help

Thanks

geddess —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geddess (talk • contribs) 19:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Letterman

so i've noticed you're taking issue with the fact that i've added rove mcmanus as an entertainer influenced by letterman

no, in truth, i don't have a quote or other reliable source to completely verify this. i only know that after watching his show for 10 years, it's painfully obvious he heavily emulates letterman, ranging from the off-cuff remarks and gestures to the cue cards on the desk. i suggest you watch an episode to see for yourself. i'm not doing this because i'm some sort of rove fanboy, as a matter of fact i think he's a hack, but the influence is apparent

unfortunately, if you don't provide reliable sources evidencing that letterman has influecned jimmy kimmel, jim gaffigan, jon stewart, conan o'brien and jimmy fallon, i'll have no choice but to remove them, as per your standard —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theradu123 (talk • contribs) 10:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

"James H Flack" submission

Hello, could you please let me know about my page on "James H Flack"?

Thanks,

geddess Geddess (talk) 04:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Need help with disruptive editor

hi there,

It seems we have a disruptive editor; Betty Logan, who's reverted edits 3 times despite you, I and another editor's consensus. I warned her explaining my position and she continually removes the warning from her page. I'd keep a close eye on the article, and I think a temp editing ban might help. Thanks!--Williamsburgland (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) While we are at it, maybe a sockpuppet investigation is in order. A newly created account, Terminatron (talk · contribs), seems to have it in for Williamsburgland and IllaZilla, the two editors who opposed Betty Logan (talk · contribs) on Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines. Favonian (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It is very suspicious how this "Terminatron" suddenly appeared on the scene reverting yours and Illzilla's edits isn't it? And obviously looking at that pattern I have to admit I'm a prime suspect. Either that or someone thought they'd give me a helping hand to get a ban. The fact is, I've been involved in bigger disputes than this before without resorting to socking, so I think maybe it might be a good idea to run a checkuser on both of us. I actually think Ckatz might have approved of my solution—a budget range (170–200) as done on some of the other film articles, and even if he/she doesn't would probably agree it was a legitimate attempt at finding some middle ground. Betty Logan (talk) 17:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Didn't even notice, and while I concur with Betty on checkuser run I do not on anything else. No attempt was made to communicate or find middle ground. It's only now that she (I presume) has been called on on edit warring that she is interested in solving this dispute amicably. --Williamsburgland (talk) 17:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Betty - when you say you've never resorted to socking, to you mean that you've never been involved in an investigation? Among the many items I see you've removed from your page I found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABetty_Logan&action=historysubmit&diff=280739255&oldid=280731110

Ckatz; I'm very sorry for bringing you into this... I did not know it would get this out of hand. I fully support a sock puppet investigation for both of us to get to the bottom of that issue; as for the T3 article and Betty's removal of content, I've said my piece on the talk page and will leave it to consensus.--Williamsburgland (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

There was an attempt to find middle ground because my edit actually left your number and source up and didn't remove anything. It was a solution that had worked on other articles so I'm entitled to try it here. As yet only you have objected to a budget range. I added back in a source that at that point ONLY Ckatz had contested (neither you nor IllaZilla had contested the scholastic source). There is an attempt to communicate because I started a discussion on the article talk page. Lastly I'm sorry for dumping all this crap on CKatz's page, but if you're asking him to formally take action then he has to be aware of the facts. Betty Logan (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2010 (UT

I will leave T3 related discussions on the appropriate page; I brought this up to Ckatz because he/she has a background understanding of the issue, and I as I told you, I wanted to report you for removing an edit warring warning without following the proper channels. --Williamsburgland (talk) 18:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I can remove whatever I want from my talk page provided it was not left by an admin. You were actually breaking the rules by repeatedly reverting on my talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 19:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for cleanup

Thanks for the decisive action with regard to Special:Contributions/71.68.255.76 (the "Han Chinese evolved separately..." advocate at Talk:Human evolution and more). Johnuniq (talk) 10:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Operation Market Garden

Hi. A bit presumptions to revert an Admin's reverts but it seemed to me that the article is in Brit English (appropriate given the scope of the operation) so day / month format is also appropriate. Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 10:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

(thanks - replied on your talk page) --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Explain

Please explain to me why you have mass-reverted my grammar corrections. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

78.151.44.146

Banhammer is armed and the safety catch unlocked. Mjroots (talk) 11:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like yours went off! Mjroots (talk) 11:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

One wonders why they never stop even when warned. He's now got 31 hours to think about how to contribute productively. Thanks for tagging in. --Ckatz^chat_spy 11:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Jillsy

Can you have a look at User talk:Jillsy please? ta.  Chzz  ►  23:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

External Links for totalfilm.com

Hi Ckatz,

Thanks for your note this morning regarding the removal of the External Links I added last night for some of Total Film's reviews.

I apologise if the links I added do not comply with the guidelines for external links. I originally looked at creating a Template, like Rotten Tomatoes, but it was too complicated.

I then looked at External Links help page, and tried:

• Total Film's cinema review of Machete

which seemed to comply with:

The RFC-mandated example.com website

Then as I was adding our links, I came across Metacritic's External Link within the Let Me In (film) page and their approach seemed neater and matched the entries that used Templates: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_Me_In_(film)

• Let Me In at Metacritic

I assumed that because their link was formatted this way, it would be okay to format our link like that.

If this is not the case, can you confirm whether my original approach was okay? ie

• Total Film's cinema review of Machete

We still have a live link on The American (film) page using this formatting which has not been removed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_American_(2010_film)

We totally understand that Wikipedia uses nofollow tags and, as such, external links would not alter our search engine rankings. Even so, we feel that External Links to our reviews would add value to the film pages. Particularly if you compare the depth of information within our reviews to those of All Movie, who appear on most pages:

http://www.allmovie.com/work/393092 versus http://www.totalfilm.com/reviews/cinema/harry-potter-and-the-deathly-hallows-part-1

I look forward to your reply.

Many thanks,

Liz Hawkins totalfilm.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by LizHawkins (talk • contribs) 11:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion re Destinero (talk · contribs) on AN/I

Destinero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is banned by community consensus from inserting or removing contentious claims under colour of WP:UNDUE in Wikipedia articles relating to parenting and LGBT parenting. He also may not write article prose in these topics in "Wikipedia's voice"; that is, he may not insert claims in articles on these topics as unqualified factual statements. Destinero may be briefly blocked by any uninvolved Wikipedia administrator in the event of violating this limited topic ban. In the event of repeat violations, he may be banned entirely from editing articles within these topics. See also Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-08-28/LGBT parenting. community discussion on AN/I. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

why did you delete the external links i added on the vail resort?

let me know, I think they provide added value to the reader. yes they are tourism sites but since most users will go to the wikipedia's vail resort page because they consider visiting vail, I am convinced they will appreciate these links. the official resort site is no different than the ones I added just with the difference that it is run by vail resorts and therefore has just one business interest in mind which is the one of the resort. the small b&b might not be able to get listed there. the people that run the sites don't have any benefit in regards to seo either due to the nofollow.

I would appreciate to hear your thought on this one.

thanks CoEditor49191 (talk) 06:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Spam?

Hello,

you sent me a message to stop "adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia". I did add a link to a calendar page from a couple Wiki pages, which discuss that particular issue.

To my understanding, "inappropriate" would mean something not related to the page content. Could you please specify the link you are referring to? I think I've been careful to put a link only when clearly relevant to the page. Not that I necessarily dispute your decision, but I really don't understand what exactly I have done wrong. I was trying to make Wikipedia more useful to the users.

I read the whole article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links and the list "Links normally to be avoided", none of which apply. The "Conflict of interest" partially does apply as I am involved in the development of the calendar site. "When in doubt, you may go to the talk page and let another editor decide." So I guess I'll let you decide. But just to be sure, is the problem that it was me who added the link and would it have been OK had someone else done it? Not that I am going to ask anybody to do anything, I'd just like to be clear. Personally there is no benefit nor damage to me, be there a link in Wikipedia or not.

So could you please specify, what exactly was "spamming" in my addition? I got the idea for the link when I happened to notice that someone else had added a link to my site from Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.145.208.201 (talk) 08:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

WEBP

Dear Sir,

 My little modification of the article of WEBP was deleted by a COI. But I really think that is an objective opinion which does not make self-promotion and it is useful for the community, since it provides information that it is not found on the web. I can hide the name of the author if necessary. How can I include the modifications? What steps do I have to follow? I am opened to follow any revisions of my proposed material.
 Sorry for these beginner questions, but I am starting with wikipedia these days.
 Thank you very much for your kind help,

Melenchon (talk) 10:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Total Film

Hi Ckatz,

The comment I left on your talk page seems to have disappeared (it sat below the Koobits comment) and I don't seem to have had a reply - neither to my own talk page nor my email account.

I don't really know how best to proceed. Did my comment get deleted because I didn't sign it? Should I re-post my query? Did you receive my email? If I format the External Links properly, will they still be treated as spam?

We won't upload our External Links if they are to be considered as spam but we'd like to know for certain if they were labelled as spam because of the way the links were formatted rather than the actual content of the links.

Your guidance would be gratefully received.

Regards,

Liz Hawkins LizHawkins (talk) 19:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I have responded at User talk:LizHawkins#External links. Johnuniq (talk) 02:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Question

User talk:184.74.22.161, User:K. the Surveyor, User:Redhanker seem very similar. Any suggestions? Phoenix of9 00:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Vancouver Whitecaps Merge

i would like to say sorry in advance if i don't do this right. i have never edited or even registered on wikipedia before but after reading the merge discussion regarding VWFC (D2) and VWFC (MLS) i wanted to add something. i don't really know how to do so myself but you seem to be experienced and known so i thought i'd just share with you what i had to say and you can use it or not in the discussion around the idea to merege or not.

i think the main thing that people who want to merge any old NASL/USL/D2 team and their new MLS version is failing to understand is the very unique and entirely different nature of MLS and the single entity system. there is simply no way for any old/non/pre MLS team and an MLS team to be considered the same entity regardless of how many players, coaches, investors, front office staff or executives they might share. any team in any sport being sold to a new owner, or changing their name or moving leagues is not the equivalent of moving from being an independently operated business/soccer team to becoming an investor in MLS who is then granted the right to operate an MLS franchise.

this is the main difference that i think many of these non North American fans and those unfamiliar with the unique nature of MLS are not understanding. MLS is hard to understand, not least because they are very secretive about how things work and they make a very great effort to maintain the appearance the teams are "independent" entities. i am not sure exactly where you can find a single documents or hard data on the exact structure of MLS but from following the league for years i have come to understand how it operates.

MLS and SUM Marketing are a single business entity in which various individuals and groups invest. there are various levels on which an investor can be involved with MLS/Sum. the "highest" level is by purchasing what is called an A License/A Investment. an A Investment gives the I/O (investor/owner) the rights to operate one of the MLS's franchises (think of them as branch offices of a parent corporation). no MLS team owns any of their players. all players are contracted to MLS the parent organization and the "distributed" to a franchise. the player is under contract to the league and not the individual team or the individual ownership group (except as they make up a partial investor/owner of the whole league).

even tho the MLS Whitecaps will have some of the same players as the D2 Whitecaps they are no longer under contract or owned by the Whitecaps, they will be owned and under contract to MLS centrally. the Whitecaps can scout, identify and approach players they wish to sign but in the end it is MLS which will actually sign the player "on behalf" and "at the request" of the Whitecaps as long as it complies with all of the league's rules. it is actually possible for MLS to refuse to sign a player the Whitecaps request or at the salary the Whitecaps request even if if follows the general roster and salary cap rules if the league feels it sets a bad precedent. in a recent interview Bob Lenarduzzi intimated such when he was discussing the signing of Jay Demerit. paraphrasing he said that the Whitecaps (MLS) had come to an agreement on a salary with Demerit but "ran into trouble with MLS" and thus there was a delay, meaning that MLS decided the offer they had made DeMerit exceeded what the league was willing to pay DeMerit. similarly Alain Rochat who signed with Whitecaps USL and was loaned back to his Swiss club is not officially a member of Whitecaps MLS until he signs a contract with the league and is then "given" so to speak to Whitecaps MLS (which means the Whitecaps (MLS) wiki entry that just carried over the roster and shows him as signed with the MLS club but on loan with Zurich is technically incorrect). the reason that the Whitecaps (D2) signed Rochat and players like Cody Arnoux is because they were told by MLS that any player under contract to their Whitecaps (D2) team would be allowed to be on their Whitecaps (MLS) roster, meaning the league would sign them and allow those players to be directly "distributed" to the Whitecaps (MLS) without having to go thru any of the league's usual "distribution" mechanisms like the Expansion Draft, SuperDraft, Re-Entry Draft, Weighted Lottery, etc. MLS has actually told the Whitecaps (MLS) that Cody Arnoux (a young American player who bypassed signing with MLS and going into the SuperDraft out of college and instead signed directly to Everton) would actually not be allowed to go (or in this case be given to) the Whitecaps (MLS) roster despite him being part of the Whitecaps (D2) roster and instead he would have to go into the SuperDraft (should he chose to sign a contract with the league) and be eligible to be selected by any of the teams in MLS.

i am sorry if this is rambling, or again, if this is the wrong way to go about this. i just wanted to help clear this up and i think from reading the long discussion chain that almost everybody putting forward arguments FOR merging the two articles Whitecaps (D2) and Whitecaps (MLS) is failing to understand the entirely different, unique and ultimately different structure of MLS that makes any MLS team a completely new entity from any previous team that shares a name, investors, owners, staff, history as the MLS club. the structure of the very league itself does not allow for any previous team to be logically considered the same as the MLS team from a strictly structural and operational standpoint. whether or not the team has the same people involved or does or does not recognize the history of other teams an MLS team is really not an independent team, it is simply a "branch office" of the single entity MLS corporations. owners of D2 teams actually change from being owners of an independent club that participates in a "league" of organized teams to an investor and board member in the single entity MLS corporation who is then given the rights to operate a "branch office" in a certain city/market. the simple fact that the Whitecaps (MLS) will not actually have any players that it is paying or that are under contract to them is reason enough to consider the two entities separate and distinct.

anyway, sorry to take up your time. if you would like to e-mail me to discuss this further you can use jcole42@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by OleGunnar20 (talk • contribs) 09:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Vancouver Whitecaps Merge (cont)

sorry, i seem to have forgotten to add my signature. like i said i am completely new at this.

OleGunnar20 (talk) 09:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Republic of China

Thanks for the pagemove vandalism fix. Invitrovanitas (talk) 10:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem, happy to help. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see you've had to do it a second time. Any chance you could salt The R.O.C. (music artist)? Thanks, Invitrovanitas (talk) 10:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

TV Overmind

TVOvermind, or as you cleverly called it "TV Overseen", is actually used on a number of articles. I was unaware she is the leader of a fan club (gues I skipped he show review and skipped directly to the Blu-ray part of the article as that was I was looking for). It seems a reputable website with editorial oversight, it's part of Zap2it, which is actually owned by the Tribune Company. Are you against the entire site or just her post? _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 18:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The "Overmind" site appears to feature a large collection of blogs that anyone can sign up to contribute, so I'm not convinced we can use it as a reference source (unlike some other Zap2it sub-sites). In the particular case of Brittany Frederick, she does not seem to be an authority on reviewing the technical qualities of Blu-Ray discs, but instead a fan who is ecstatic that her favourite show is now on Blu-Ray. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Allright, thanks for restoring the review from blu-ray.com (and the nice rewrite of it), DVD release sections have been criticized for containing just a list of special features, that's why I added some reviews. Would you have any objections for using it for interviews? She has done some interviews (Matt Miller, Bear McCreary, …) which I planned to read (some day) and add to the article if something interesting came up. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 19:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess it would depend on the quality of the interviews. Her blog on the Blu-Ray seemed to "gush", so I'd be cautious in what she writes about the people as she may have just asked a lot of soft questions. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Good point about the DVD sections, by the way. I think if we develop them further to include interesting points perhaps about how the presentation differs from the original broadcast - for example, if it is the only place to find hi-def or if the director uses the release as a chance to do the version he or she actually wanted to do originally - than we can make them more valuable to the reader. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The questions asked seem fairly straight forward, Bear McCreary interview, Matt Miller interview, Comic Con interview. Some of these (from what I just quickly glanced over) I plan to add to the production section, like how Miller became the show-runner for the second season and that McCreary didn't come back for the second season because they couldn't afford a 40 person orchestra. In-dept reviews would be ideally, but unfortunately those type of articles are not that widely available. As far as I know the only different thing about the broadcast and the DVD's is the "Enhanced Audio Mix". _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 20:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring vs inclusion of non-RS, non-VS cites/content

I understand the protection imposition, but please note it's not been just me who's been removing the non-RS promotional/commercial links, which are not valid sources for population claims. This kind of thing has been going on in Chinatown pages for a long time now; one editor a while ago kept on changing the respective San Francisco and New York/Manhattan Chinatown articles in a similar fit of "my Chinatown is larger than your Chinatown" rivalry; the same kind of problem underlies the undue-weight article Southern California Chinatowns and accompanying AfD/Rename debates. I guess what I'm asking - is removal of repeated insertion of non-verifiable/reliable sources and questionable claims/language really an edit war? Or is it keeping junk out of Wikipedia?Skookum1 (talk) 22:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Those two pages are semi-protected because of significant back-and-forth edits from IPs; it should not affect you (nor was it directed at you) as you are a registered editor. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Follow up to the below request from November 5th 2010. Hello Ckatz, I have cited the sources now for the page on the artist "James H. Flack". I have also added the Stub of "Irish Painter". Hopefully the page is now good enough to be approved. Please let me know. Thanks for the help and guidance.

geddess - December 6th 2010

---

Hello Ckatz - could you please let me know what needs to be done to get my page on "James H Flack" (Irish Painter) posted? It is not spam nor trying to sell anything.

Please help

Thanks

geddess —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geddess (talk • contribs) 19:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Whitecaps

You're reverting too much when you're rolling back your WP:POV issue. Please be more careful. As for the source "The Whitecaps played their first game on May 5, 1974". My math indicates that's 36 years ago. Next year is 37 years. I understand your point and you may apply that however you'd like in relation to creating pages, however if you can't find a source to indicate that this is the first year of the Whitecaps, you're vandalizing the article. feel free to find a new way of wording it, but be true to the source. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

BC page

Lists of settlements/municipalities/cities don't have to do with demographics, and neither does the BC government logo on a welcome sign. And "first time in 23 years" is picayune trivia not relevant to a condensed history section.Skookum1 (talk) 09:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Spam brevity

Could you elaborate on your edit summary here please? Bradley0110 (talk) 22:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The explanation you've given doesn't actually relate to spam, as it is not listed at Wikipedia:SPAM#Videos. I can't speak for the other articles you've removed the links from, but in the Bathurst filmography it provides an example of the subject's work as an actor and is an additional resource akin to a further reading section in other articles; that the film is being hosted on Seesaw is irrelevant, just as it would be if it was hosted on an official YouTube channel or official website. Bradley0110 (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Hm. It must have been a limited time upload. Oh well. Bradley0110 (talk) 10:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Removal of my edit in November 2010.

Please reply at 'Removal of link not for valid reason?' in the Cab Calloway talk page.1archie99 (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Water fluoridation controversy

I saw you were aware of the discussion on-going on the talk page, and was hoping you could give your 2 cents on the matter. Thanks. Yobol (talk) 16:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Re cite on Richmond

Morning....Re this edit just wanted to comment that there seems to be an across-the-board increase in the use of spam-type links supplanting "regular" ones...in this case there's no reason why the Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver should be considered a reliable source, unless it has to do directly with housing markets/prices.Skookum1 (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Nancy Jacobson

Hello, I deleted the section because I don't think it adds value to the article to list one lone event that didn't happen. Ms. Jacobson (as with all fundriasers) hosts events nationwide all the time with high ticket prices that get canceled for a variety of reasons. If I'm not mistaken, she canceled the event. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The wiki pages for all politicians list all of their wins *and* losses, not just selective ones. I think that we should either list all events and campaigns that were called off or none of them. Thoughts?

Bluetiger50 (talk) 17:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)BlueTiger50

my message has gone?

Just replyin although it is vague as you seem to have deleted my previous comment......

Unnecessary I think I said, anyways, I don't see any need for any administration actions there. If I stumbled on a controlled area I am better off out of it, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 20:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I am not tryin to be funny, but if you were acting as you said in an administrative capacity to shut down a discussion on a talkpage of an article that you are heavily involved in editing that is a bit undue also. Off2riorob (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Article semi-protection request recommended

After seeing your recent protects of various Chinatown pages, I'd recommend that you also do the same indefinitely w/ "Chinatown, San Francisco". This article has been the subject of warring debates in the pass, and might so again.MealMachine (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC).

David Tennant information removal

I am unclear why you removed the information that I added to the David Tennant entry today. You noted that the citation source was the problem. However, at least one other citation from that source was used in the entry, and you did not remove it.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beaumontv (talk • contribs) 21:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks RE KoleTang

Dear Ckatz!

I was very happy to see that you had already reverted the spam links in economics, which had been placed by new editor KoleTang. Thanks again!

Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 22:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Fluoride

Thanks for keeping a watch on things related to fluoride. Wikipedia almost needs a full time technician on that cluster of articles. For some reason, that anion attracts folks convinced of a worldwide conspiracy and all-round evilness.

I did remove the Hatnote about water fluoridation. I just don't see the particular need or justification for such. Most fluoride is not used for water fluoridation, and we could list hatnotes to many possible topics (teflon, variety of drugs, HF, ..). Also, as a practical matter, it is helpful if the conspiracy theorists see fluoride as just another chemical entity, vs specially linked to their least favorite anion. But I am happy to discuss the matter. --Smokefoot (talk) 23:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Good point - hadn't thought of that. Thanks for mentioning it. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Fluoride anion took a beating today: now water fluoridation is a crime against humanity and mass murder. --Smokefoot (talk) 03:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Michael Snow

You recently reverted changes I made to this page, citing them as unsourced. My source is a private conversation with Michael Snow with confirmation by his wife Peggy Gale. I might also point out that there is no source for the original date of Dec 10, 1929, which according to Peggy goes back to an early error in an article on Michael. This date is almost universally copied, except in http://www.slateartguide.com/calendar-exhibitions.php?date=1264222800 which lists Dec 10, 2009 as his 81st (not 80th) birthday.

Agnidh (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Note that the article talk page, and Wikipedia's guidelines, clearly indicate that your edits to Slick tire are disruptive. Please stop before your editing privileges are temporarily suspended. --24.180.79.10 19:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.180.79.10 (talk)

ISS tracking at n2yo.com

Hello,

I suggested recently adding a link to external page http://www.n2yo.com/?s=25544 According to what's available on internet and popularity (see Google for "ISS tracking"), the satellite tracking over Google Maps is a nice feature referred by many other significant sites. Wikipedia itself has links to this site when pointing to external resources for real time tracking. See Hubbe (HST) for instance. That's why I was surprised that my suggestion was discarded. I am Ciprian (Chip) Sufitchi, the owner of n2yo.com and I can be reached at ciprian@sufitchi.com

Thanks, 173.73.163.243 (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC) Chip

Eleventh Doctor

Sorry, although you do use the royal we, you are the only one removing this verifiable and cited information. μηδείς (talk) 21:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)