User talk:Mindmatrix/2008

Archive: 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023

Template:Infobox Canada electoral district

I noticed you created this template...it is at all possible to fix the large box that appears below 'First contested' in the 'Provincial electoral district' section? Morgan695 (talk) 02:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been meaning to work on it. I'll try to fix it in the next few days, and add a few other changes as well. Mindmatrix 02:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. This also affected the federal section and a few others in very particular circumstances. I also updated the colour scheme to something more legible (in my opinion). Mindmatrix 01:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Since we're on the subject of the template, there seems to be this weird thing going on whereby you can't put in "New Democratic Party", but only "NDP", which is automatically linked to NDP, which is a disambiguation page. Is there a way of fixing this so that the correct article name (New Democratic Party) is linked so that the reader isn't taken to the wrong place? Ground Zero | t 04:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the template provides a function for this; for example, in Vancouver Kingsway the display shows NDP, but the link is piped to New Democratic Party. View the source in that page to see the two parameters that need to be set (fed-rep-party and fed-rep-party-link). This also works for the provincial settings too. I'll update the documentation to make this clearer. Note that some people prefer to display "New Democrat" instead of NDP, but this is currently not possible. Mindmatrix 16:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The plot, she thickens...

Have I got a fun game for you... Given the following facts:

1. The creator on Pemberton Avenue (Toronto) was User:The Canadian Roadgeek (a/k/a User:Smcafirst).
2. The earlier Pemberton Avenue, which was deleted in 2005, was our old buddy User:Fat pig73.
3. The text of both articles was identical.

So here's the game: formulate a theory as to whether this is a coincidence or a fascinating revelation. -Bearcat (talk) 03:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It's, uh...something. I'll give the benefit of the doubt to the two users, but it does seem to be a fantastic coincedence. Perhaps it's as trivial as The Canadian Roadgeek having obtained a copy of the file from one of those Wikipedia deletion watch sites. I've deleted Henderson Avenue based on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodbine Avenue (it was a nearly identical re-creation of the article deleted, and contained gems like Several stop signs are found along the road).

There is way too much roadcruft on here, especially for the Golden Horseshoe (for example, for Markham, with a list of road articles in the works). While we're on the subject, have you seen Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada Roads/Golden Horseshoe? Apparently, a few editors in WikiProject Canada Roads felt this Golden Horseshoe sub-project was adding too many low-quality stubs and roadcruft, and some have quit WikiProject Canada Roads as a result. I'm not sure about the extent of this, but there was a divergence of opinion. Mindmatrix 03:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that...the whole York Region/Golden Horseshoe thing is definitely a problem, but I'm not sure I'm prepared to be the heavy with regards to either force-merging it into Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada Roads or knocking some sense into their heads. The problem with too many of the Canadian WikiProjects, I find, is that most discussion posted there for input or feedback never really gets addressed or followed up on at all, on the rare occasion that anybody even responds to it in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:4TorontoFire.jpg

Correction of format as well as cutback, digital reconstruction of corner of photo. Image:4TorontoFire,jpg Gimp Alinas PL.png ( Controversial Correction? ) --89.230.214.241 (talk) 23:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

DYK!

On 4 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Creston Valley, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congrats! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

DYK!

On 4 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hudson Plains, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congrats! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

DYK!

On 6 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Taiga Shield, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Triple congratulations! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Need an uninvolved admin to close Talk:Tax protester/Request for comment

Greetings, Mindmatrix. I'm looking for an uninvolved admin (i.e. someone other than me) to close the discussion at Talk:Tax protester/Request for comment. I wish to avoid any tax protesters coming around and saying that the RfC is illegitimate based on any perceived bias on the part of the closer. Will you pick this task up? Cheers! bd2412 T 20:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the RfC and some of the relevant articles. I assume you simply want closure based on the consensus in the RfC. (In my brief review, I don't see any comments from those supporting the tax protester movement - have I missed them?) I do notice the article Tax protester arguments covers the arguments presented, though I have no intention of evaluating whether all arguments raised by the protesters have received adequate inclusion where warranted. I'll assume those issues have been covered by the comments in the RfC. Mindmatrix 00:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You haven't missed anything. I advertised the RfC quite broadly, posting notices on all of the affected talk pages both at the beginning and a few days before the proposed end. I am surprised that no actual tax protesters commented in the RfC, as there were frivolous edits to a few of the articles themselves during the RfC process. The referenced articles have, of course, been discussed to death, with lots of frivolous misinterpretations of statutes and case law being presented and thoroughly debunked. Although many participants in the RfC are the same people who maintain the sanity of those articles, everyone has had substantial opportunity to comment, and I think the silence of opposing views speaks volumes. Cheers, and thanks! bd2412 T 02:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright. I've closed the RFC, with the stipulation that the few remaining points be addressed on the appropriate article talk pages for resolution. Mindmatrix 21:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Northern Arctic

Is there any way that the sentences, "The largest settlement is Iqaluit. The cold winters are very dark, typically having no daylight for weeks or even months." could be rearranged a bit. Iqaluit is below the Arctic Circle and doesn't get the polar night. Those guys are lucky, they have such a mild climate compared to us. Must be some sort of "Eastern Arctic Government Plot". CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 21:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've added a qualifier to the end of the last sentence ("north of the Arctic Circle"), though you're right that it needs rearrangement. I'll inspect it more closely soon-ish. Mindmatrix 00:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 00:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Naming conventions

I noticed you just changed the name of Vaughan Mills Terminal and cited Wikipedia:Disambiguation, and I have contacted you directly because some other users might not very responsive. I also had trouble with the inconsistent naming of YRT Terminals, but they all did contain the suffix (YRT). This is not a matter of disambiguation but, excluding Finch and Newmarket which are GO Transit facilities, the titles should be consistent. My doubts were whether the title should include the word "Terminal", or not. Names are currently: Bernard (YRT), Cornell (YRT), Promenade Terminal (YRT), Richmond Hill Centre (YRT), Vaughan Mills Terminal and York University (YRT). Only 2 are called terminal and now 1 does not say (YRT). Local precedents are the compulsory use of (TTC), (VIVA) and (GO Station), whether the names are unique or not. On the face of the YRT Map [1] only the name is shown (without Terminal) and therefore the consistent naming convention would be "Vaughan Mills (YRT)" to match other locations and distinguish from Vaughan Mills, the shopping mall. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

With respect to the GO stations, they were so named because they all needed disambiguation. OK, almost all of them, since I didn't check for every single occurrence when I did this back in 2005. The only one that may warrant not using the qualifier is Barrie South. I'll inspect it later, after I've resolved some of the other disambiguation issues with these articles (some don't appear in their dab pages). See Talk:GO Transit#Naming Issues for my reasoning back then - in a nutshell, it was to untangle a mish-mash of naming techniques. It wasn't intended to set a precedent.

For the YRT cases, most of them probably need disambiguation too, since common names like Bernard will already be dab pages (or an article). For the case of Vaughan Mills, if it is a terminal, then the title to which I moved it is likely the best choice. If it is not a terminal, then it would be named Vaughan Mills (YRT) as you suggest, to disambiguate from Vaughan Mills. Promenade Terminal (YRT), Richmond Hill Centre (YRT) should be moved, in my opinion.

To be honest, I'm not sure we've had a convention regarding station articles on particular networks. Typically, they're named for a community, so always need disambiguation, and this is usually the system of which it is a part. In those cases that don't require it, we're likely best off to follow the broader convention of not adding the qualifier YRT, VIVA etc. Mindmatrix 21:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I see you are having a linking, naming, disambigiation avalanche today. My point here was simply that you changed the name of only one terminal of the YRT system and left the remainder inconsistent. I agree. If I wanted to search for Vaughan Mills Terminal, that is what I would enter and, more importantly, that is what it's called. Similarly if I wanted to search for Burlington GO Station, that is what I would enter; not Burlington (GO Station). Currently wikilinks to GO Station articles require piping, where the names as used by GO Transit would not, but I am not about to mess up a system that you do an excellent job of maintaining. I'll contribute some infobox pictures as soon as we get sunshine. Keep warm. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, my apologies for mis-understanding your intent. I see your point about the GO stations, so I'll give it some thought and provide a solution. I'll present it on the GO Transit talk page. Regarding my actions of only moving one of the YRT pages, well that's because it was the only one on my watchlist, and I didn't think to check the others. I'll move them based on this discussion. Mindmatrix 15:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I've now renamed the two articles Richmond Hill Centre and Promenade Terminal, and fixed all incoming links. Mindmatrix 15:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Another rename for Richmond Hill Centre Terminal. The web site at http://www.richmondhillcentre.com/ is the Richmond Hill Centre for the Performing Arts.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Secondarywaltz (talk • contribs)

Is that necessary though? The latter exists at Richmond Hill Centre for the Performing Arts, so a hatnote to the former is more than sufficient to direct readers appropriately. Of course, if the correct name is Richmond Hill Centre Terminal, then I have no problem with it. I tried searching for the name on the yorktransit website, which has a horrible implementation of what it deems fit to call "search", but could not find either Richmond Hill Centre Terminal or Richmond Hill Centre listed. However, I did find a reference to "Richmond Hill Centre Bus Terminal" at another website (see this). Sigh... Mindmatrix 17:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

York Region Transit route map [2], in a detail called Transit Terminals, officially names them all, including Bernard, as "Terminal". An internet search does not show many references to the transit terminal either. Finch and Newmarket are GO Transit facilities and, according to their owner, are titled "Bus Terminal". -Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's go with that until we find something more definitive. Mindmatrix 17:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Chuckle Chuckle

I think that I am going to sue you for being mean to me. I'll get my llawer, and you can get yours! lets see who wins in that fight. Ha!

Love Ya - xxxx

Smell the Fish (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Leaving the same vacuous message to numerous editors with whom you've never had any interaction (since your only edits are to leave these messages) doesn't support your position. Speaking of which, you can't sue someone for "being mean" unless you can demonstrate personal or financial damage - no lawyer would take up your cause. Sheesh. Mindmatrix 21:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Kames

May I ask why you chose to create Category:Kames? There aren't very many articles about the topic, so it's not clear that a category was needed. If a category were needed for kames I would think it should be given a more technically accurate name such as "Fluvioglacial landforms" (which would include kame, kame delta, kame terrace, outwash fan, and esker). I suspect that I'm missing something obvious that led you to make this category... --Orlady (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I created it primarily because I intend on populating it with quite a few entries, mostly for provincially-significant kames in Ontario, Canada. For example, I just created Glenville Hills Kames. I'd rather have the category available now than having to create articles, then re-categorizing them. I recently did the same thing with Category:Ecozones of Canada and all its related articles. By the way, I think that "Fluvioglacial landforms" might make a nice parent category for this. Mindmatrix 01:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. It's interesting to know that there are provincially significant kames in Ontario. --Orlady (talk) 03:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

If it interests you, I just created two more articles, Minnitaki Kames Provincial Park and Bonheur River Kame Provincial Park, both of which are about IUCN category Ia nature reserves designated to protect provincially-significant kame deposits. Mindmatrix 03:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Wild Strawberries - bet you think I'm lonely - album cover.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Wild Strawberries - bet you think I'm lonely - album cover.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 03:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Wild Strawberries - bet you think I'm lonely - album cover.png)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Wild Strawberries - bet you think I'm lonely - album cover.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. - AWeenieMan (talk) 05:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Commons

Thank you for your extremely polite note. No, it's not a trivial point, and thanks for mentioning it. I will do so in the future. Lately, I have also been using the {{ncd}} tag, which also helps avoid duplication of the work. Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Atlantic Marine (ecozone)

On 14 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Atlantic Marine (ecozone), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 02:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Toronto

Hi Mindmartix. I just change Toronto to 7.2 million because I used the pop estimates for 2008(this year). The article previously used the 2005 estmiates which did not include Guelph Hamilton or Niagara Thanks, Dennis7410 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennis7410 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Those regions are part of the Greater Golden Horseshoe, or the extended version of it. They are not part of the urban or metro areas (GTA or CMA), so the population figures you cited are incorrect. Further, don't use estimates for the infobox, only census data. I can appreciate that you'd like to include this data; please note that it is covered elsewhere in Wikipedia. Mindmatrix 16:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Square One Bus Terminal

FYI - more to come. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I was editing it as you were leaving me this message... Mindmatrix 00:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Broken Sword issue again

Was consensus ever reached for the inclusion of the links at Broken Sword? Firstwind thinks there was. I didn't pay attention to the debate for awhile and I don't really see a conclusion anywhere, it looks like it just dissolved into attacks. Metros (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No consensus was ever reached. Firstwind has clearly misinterpreted the discussion. Mindmatrix 18:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Broken Sword Edits

I see no violation here. Try to block me then your actions will considered as article ownership, which you're not entitled to, then i'll report you to administrator. Firstwind

First, I am an administrator. Second, you have clearly violated the Three-revert rule on Broken Sword by reverting a page four times in a few hours, despite three different editors having undone your changes. I have edited the article according to community consensus, specifically regarding WP:NOT and WP:EL. You have chosen to ignore that consensus. You are the one acting as if you own the article - and for the record, I don't care about Broken Sword one whit - it is irrelevant to me.

As far as reporting this to administrators - no worries - I've already done it for you. Please see this. Mindmatrix 20:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

 Comment. "I *am* an administrator"—I am unsure why you said this... Being an administrator gives one absolutely no extra status or power over other editors. I hope that was not your intention, in making this comment? AGK (contact) 20:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I was originally brought into the discussion about Broken Sword as a dis-interested administrator. My comment was simply in reply to the statement from Firstwind "report you to administrator". It was really just a clarification. You'll note that I haven't even used any of my admin tools in this dispute (except for using "rollback" once, but most editors have that feature in some way). I never use admin tools against editors with whom I am involved in a dispute. Mindmatrix 20:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Halloween in Pastafarian Religion

Wiki Nazi Police,

Halloween indeed is a very important holiday in our religion and we celebrate it passionately. If you ever happened to be in Montreal during halloween, I would be very glad to meet you in one of our pastafarian parties. This is a known and established fact that pastafarians celebrate halloween seriously and for this reason, we think that this fact should be mention somewhere in the "Halloween Entry".~ Bossudenotredame

P.S. It is not kind to insult people's religion.

Oh, I'm not knocking Pastafarianism. And I wasn't insulting your religion - when I reverted your edit, my summary was "that doesn't belong here" - fairly generic and harmless if you ask me. (Moreover, shouldn't the main article reflect this point before it's added to tangentially-related articles?) Have a noodly day! Yours, the Wiki Nazi Police... Mindmatrix 15:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Neighbourhoods

Since I believe that you've commented on WP:CANSTYLE before, I was wondering if you have any thoughts on Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Style guide#Neighbourhoods? Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for seeing that. I finished it now. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 21:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandals?

Hi again MM. Somehow I found myself fixing a page that got partially blanked even though I have no interest in, nor any expertise about the hit song list. A couple of days later, a different anonymous contributor, 201.79.240.208, reblanked the hit song page in a very similar way. Can you tell what is going on? Is this likely the same contributor that has returned to redo his edit? I think I'll just focus on the pages that hold my interest. Electricmic (talk) 05:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

North American ice storm of 1998 GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I have reviewed North American ice storm of 1998 and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues concerning sourcing that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left this message on your talk page since you have significantly edited the article (based on using this article history tool). Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix with the assistance of multiple editors. I have also left messages on the talk pages for other editors and related WikiProject to spread the workload around some. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I've made many edits to the article, but they've all been insignificant - undoing vandalism, removing useless links, and other general cleanup. I'll take a look, but it's not a topic of interest to me. Mindmatrix 14:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Parks - Geophysical or geopolitical?

I didn't think that the issue you raised should get lost in the shuffle. Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Image cleanup

Just out of curiosity - what about this image did you want cleaned up? tiZom_(2¢) 18:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall - perhaps it was to remove the small portions of tree on the left side, but that's likely not worth the effort involved. Mindmatrix 16:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

2 questions

Why here and not Queen Charlotte Sound (British Columbia)? Also what happens when a feature does, Victoria Island (Canada), straddle a boarder? There are several Victoria Islands in Canada but that's the only one with an article right now. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 02:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the first question - I simply moved from comma to parens. I didn't put much thought into it other than a minor cleanup of the name. For multiple features with the same name, we'll do as per settlements, which receive additional disambiguation. So, we'd have Victoria Island (Kitikmeot Region, Nunavut), Victoria Island (Qikiqtaaluk Region, Nunavut) etc. There's no clear consensus about those that straddle borders. For those that straddle borders within one nation, it should just use the nation's name to disambiguate (so Victoria Island (Canada)). For multiple places like this, use the sub-national entities to dab, for example Victoria Island (Nunavut-Northwest Territories) and Victoria Island (Saskatchewan-Northwest Territories). For those that span multiple nations, use the latter format, though some use only one disambiguator if it is overwhelmingly associated with that term.

I'll raise this issue on WP:CANSTYLE. Mindmatrix 16:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 02:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Nemaia Valley, British Columbia vs Nemaia Valley

There's a reason that was scripted that way; in the comma-formation it refers to the community and postal address, the place in terms of human space, as with towns and cities and other settlements and populated localities; without the comma is meant to be for the physical valley itself, as a piece of geophysiology or whatever terrain science and geology et al. is about; another valley in the area for instance, which will not have a comma-formation, is the Tchaikazan Valley, another the Yohetta Valley (someone lives in Yohetta Valley, but their postal address is Nemaia). Obscure and only geographical/geological etc as content, but that's the reason Nemaia Valley was not simply bracketed that way in the first place; there is a method to the madness. We have similar problems in BC with "lake" placenames and "river" placenames, e.g. Powell River, Campbell River, Christina Lake, Williams Lake (although in the case of Billy's Puddle I'm not sure the pond in question needs its own article; that's for a Billypudlian to answer I guess); where there's a lake/river-object and a town of the same name, two very different kinds of articles. You get the idea I hope; there's no separate geographic article yet, but it's studied-enough area for there to be one; the valley itself has its own history, as it were, as well as that of the community, which of course is the Xeni Gwet'in and a few non-natives who live in the district here and there. The comma-formation is meant to be about that community, without the comma-formation is meant to be about the valley per se. Which is why the community article will not (and should not) wind up in Category:Valleys of British Columbia as well as Category:Unincorporated settlements in British Columbia and Category:First Nations reserves in British Columbia. Do you see the problem? I'll leave it to you to see the problem and consider the necessary split; I don't have time to do it, or access to sufficient BC geodata/geohistory resources to write it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Skookum1 (talk • contribs)

Honestly, I just missed the fact that this was referring to a community as well. I'll move it back for now - I made this mistake several times yesterday. Note, however, that an article should be placed in all categories which are relevant to the subject given the current article's coverage. If the article contains info about the valley, the community, and the reserve, then all three categories should appear in the article until it is split. Mindmatrix 16:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Note also that the undisambiguated name may also be applied to settlements. We haven't done so for such small settlements yet, but the naming conventions we've adopted at WP:CANSTYLE do provide for that (see criterion 2 for places)Mindmatrix 16:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

WTF?

Did you see this item on Michaelm's talk page?

Michael, I'm glad I found you here. I have been wanting to tell you that I'm no longer angry at you for call me so late at night. You didn't expect to actually get me on the phone, you thought you would get an answering machine. So do you forgive me for saying those bad things to you? BStronach 20:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The hell? Bearcat (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Bizarre. I suspect that the lack of eloquence in that message suggests it was not written by that BStronach, and it's quite possible that some form of impersonation may explain this. (I assume that was your interpretation too.) Unless, uh, nah... Mindmatrix 00:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what to think...and I'm not entirely sure I want to know what to think, either :-) Bearcat (talk) 00:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Election candidate lists

I've been mulling an idea I'd like to run by you, which could potentially provide a workable solution to the current set of flaws in creating merged candidate lists for Canadian elections — specifically, the problem created when people have stood as candidates in multiple elections.

Basically, what I'm thinking about is that instead of creating lists organized by election, perhaps we could organize lists by letter instead. So instead of having to copy-and-paste Gerry McIntaggart, frex, into multiple election articles, instead he'd be in just one list, perhaps named something like "List of New Democratic Party politicians - M" or something to that effect. That way there'd be just one target article, and all the relevant articles would thus link to the same place. This would also have the benefit of eliminating the by-election problem — Rebecca Coad, for example, would go on a C list instead of a by-year list that's technically the wrong place for her.

Do you think this might be a potential solution, or does it just create other problems? Bearcat (talk) 00:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea, but we'll still have a few minor issues. First, how to deal with candidates that unsuccessfully ran for office in multiple elections, with different political affiliations. It's not a problem if this is the result of party mergers etc. (eg Canadian Alliance and PCs), so that articles for these unsuccessful members would redirect to the latest incarnation/descendant of that party. However, there are a few that may involve completely different parties, or independent candidates (a la Chuck Cadman). Moreover, how do you handle candidates that ran federally and provincially? (I would probably redirect to the most relevant one, and point to the other from there.) I'm sure there are other niggling details, but I can't think of them right now. Mindmatrix 15:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Favour

Some day when you have time and the inclination to do so, could I impose on you one more time to move the following articles? These ones require an admin. The first you will recall from the recent Ottawa neighbourhoods discussion, and the other moves have generated no opposition on the respective talk pages.

• Barrhaven, Ontario‎ → Barrhaven
• St. Leonard (borough) → St. Leonard, Quebec
• Verdun (borough) → Verdun, Quebec
• LaSalle (borough) → LaSalle, Quebec
• Outremont (borough) → Outremont, Quebec

Thanks. Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I've moved three of them. LaSalle, Quebec and LaSalle (borough) both have a fair amount of editing history, which will require closer inspection to ensure GFDL is satisified. Verdun (borough) has had no discussion beyond your initial move request. Mindmatrix 14:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Punctuation Within Quotation Marks

Quick question regarding your comma revert in "Begging the Question." First off thanks for bringing Wiki's Manual of Style to my attention. My question however: does it matter that the words are not, in themselves, a cited quotation? They are just to identify a phrase of words and aren't atributed to a particular source. I realize the phrase of words doesn't contain that punctuation, but the idea of putting the punctuation outside the quotation is new to me. Thanks for your help.

Also, any advice on the article "Begging the Question," in general? I'm trying to illicit a dialog but I'm getting nowhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.66.120 (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the punctuation, that style is used throughout Wikipedia (and I thought it was standard usage for a few other publishers, though I can't name any right now). The rule of thumb on Wikipedia is that punctuation should be included within the quotation marks only if it is part of the quotation, for example: ...and so the unanswered query remains, "What is life?" The same rule applies if the marks are used to surround something that is not a quotation. It's really just a matter of editorial consistency.

I'll see if I can interject some comments into the discussion for the article; I assume you are editing as both 204.65.66.120 and 67.9.151.156. Mindmatrix 20:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Free iPod

A tag has been placed on Free iPod, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read our the guidelines on spam as well as the Wikipedia:Business' FAQ for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. asenine ^t/_c 16:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You'll note I only created that page as a redirect based on the result of an AfD. I don't care what ultimately happens to it. (It appears you left this note after finding a vandalised version of the redirect - is it your intention to restore the speedy delete tag?) Mindmatrix 17:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Question about links

The link to other related Wiki articles "See also" on "Three Stooges" was just removed. If the link is indeed useful, should such a link be placed somewhere else? Is the "See also" section reserved somehow? If so, is that actually documented in the official guidelines? Thank you for your guidance on this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.44.10.21 (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed a promotional link to a website. Further, the link led to a site which failed to load (it displayed the source HTML of the page, instead of having it rendered - likely due to a misconfiguration of the HTTP server). Anyway, if there are other relevant wiki articles, they should be included directly, instead of supplying a link to a website which contains such links. However, most links are likely more appropriate for a web directory instead of the Wikipedia article. Mindmatrix 14:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you very much for restoring my userpage. Crowsnest (talk) 10:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Mindmatrix 14:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

How do I deal with this?

I am trying to improve Pacific Western Transportation and have found that Special:Contributions/K_man21 has uploaded images which are all obvious copyright infringements. I have removed any that were used in the article. How do I deal with this? -Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at Wikipedia:Copyright problems (see the instructions section) and Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Do you know the source(s), or are you basing your comments on the notice added by the uploader to each image page? (I did a site search for images in the Pacific Western website, but these did not show up.) They are likely copyright violations, but I don't know where they come from. Mindmatrix 19:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I cannot find a proper source for all of the photography, but they are obviously professional work. Some of the images are from http://www.pacificwesterntoronto.com/, and others may have been formerly available there. I thought that this was the kind of copyright violation that Wikipedia should have real concerns about but I never know the proper proceedure. Repeatedly I see naïve uploaders of images being stomped on by ruthless admins simply because they don't know what tags to use, when it seems that if they had simply said it was their own work there would have been no problem. To be fair to admins, some have corrected my tags. I will browse through the links you gave me above and try to learn a little more. Thanks again. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW, in case you don't know, you can save some time by doing a site-restricted search on most search engines. For example, try this. Mindmatrix 21:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey! I see you've been doing some image deletions. Please leave these ones for me to learn from. If I can't figure it out from the information you gave me above and following your lead, I'll be back. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I left those images for you. The process can be somewhat convoluted for certain classes of images, so I'd be glad to help out. Mindmatrix 21:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

warning vandals

Hey, I noticed you didn't warn the vandal at Hacker (computing). Was there a specific reason? Thanks, Enigma ^message 12:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope, no reason. Mindmatrix 14:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 05:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Optica Software

MindMatrix,

It has come to my attention that my created article “Optica Software” was tagged for “speedy deletion” based on the G11 criterion; and as such, was deleted. Reviewing the article, I can very much understand how it appeared to be construed as “blatant advertising”, and as “vanity” for an organization. Delving deeper into the Wikipedia guidelines, I have discovered that in order for an article to be categorized as a proper Wikipedia entry, there must be sufficient notability, id est evidence from non-related organization entities to substantiate all claims made in said article. Gauging from both the Microsoft and Mathematica pages, there is a sufficient quantity of secondary sources that qualify the aforementioned Wikipedia articles; even though the articles feature a software company as well as a software package.

In order to remedy the Optica Software source discrepancy, below is a list of links that should be able to verify the validity of the article. One of the links requires membership access to the SPIE website. I have the content, and it is available in pdf format. As such I inquire as to how I might forward the information to you.

List of Links (In order from most important to least important)

-Very detailed article regarding Optica -Need Membership Login

• http://www.spie.org/membership/pdfs/holography/holography16-1.pdf

-Mention of Optica Software

• http://www.laserfocusworld.com/display_article/289407/12/none/none/Feat/OPTICAL-MOUNTS:-Stress-free-mounting-enables-diffraction-limited-performanc

"Rayica"

• http://www.wolfram.com/products/applications/rayica/

-Demonstrations

• http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/search.html?query=barnhart&imageField.x=0&imageField.y=0&limit=20

-Practical Application of Optica

• http://www.goldstreamsolar.com/

Navigation Steps:

• (a) Motion-free Tracking Solar Concentrator
• (b) Prototype
• (c) Prototype Page 4

I very much look forward to your response; however there is one pressing question that comes to mind. When the first Optica Software article was written, it was somewhat modeled after the Code V article, as both software tools are used for optical system design. However, after looking at the Code V page, there are no citations at all. Should that article too be marked for deletion?

Regards, Bob Ferguson III —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob Ferguson III (talk • contribs) 19:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The laserfocusworld.com and wolfram.com articles only tangentially mention Optica Software - it is not the primary subject of either article, so neither is appropriate as a reliable reference in this case. I can't seem to get to the prototype pages on goldstreamsolar's website. The demonstrations only show the result of using the software, and is not sufficient as a reference. That leaves the SPIE article, which I cannot access.

You may contact me in private by sending me an email, and I will review other information you may have. If the sources you provide are considered reliable, then the article may be restored. Note that a minimum of two such independent sources is required. Also note that a copy of the deleted article exists in the WP database, so there's no need to upload another copy - it'll simply be restored if warranted.

Regarding Code V, it seems that company's stature is more significant (for example, here is the result of an internet search which excludes Wikipedia and all its mirrors (ie - sites that copy WP content) - approximately 23,000 hits, including some potentially valid references; in comparison, for Optica Software, there are about 500 hits). Note that this doesn't imply that either Code V belongs or Optica doesn't belong on WP, but it does suggest it. Mindmatrix 21:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 5 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Grand Codroy Estuary, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 07:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hay-Zama Lakes

On 8 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hay-Zama Lakes, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 06:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Mary's Point

On 9 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mary's Point, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 07:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Eastern Habitat Joint Venture

On 13 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Eastern Habitat Joint Venture, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Daniel Case (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 14 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article North American Waterfowl Management Plan, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 15:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 16 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Prairie Habitat Joint Venture, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 07:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

community ratings in BC

Hi, you're a brave man/woman (whichever); taking on tagging that whole cat.....I usually burn out by the time I get to "E" on them ;-) Just to note one of the edit comments - "low on unincorporated communities/settlements", I think on Bamfield.....pretty much across the board, yes, but in some cases there's other things making such places, e.g. Kitwanga, British Columbia as an example, Yuquot (Friendly Cove) for another; not just FN communities but also smaller non-FN communities/ghost towns should get at least "mid"; hard to know I guess and it's always a judgement call and theer's not time to look at all those articles while rating them; some small places are very significant and/or maybe there's work that needs doing on the article that shoudl get a "mid" or "high" rating to draw attention to it; or maybe tehre's another way to do that?Skookum1 (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm trying not to change too many of the importance scale ratings; I've already left quite a few as they were, because I couldn't determine their importance. In other cases, if the article indicated some historically important context, I left the rating at mid. I'll try to be careful about this, but if you notice any mistakes on my part, feel free to revert my edit, or undo that particular component of it. Mindmatrix 18:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

John Preston (clergyman)‎

I'm sure your Newmarket Suffolk DAB was correct. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for checking it. Mindmatrix 14:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Higher education in Canada

It's no more part of education, than Canada is part of England. They are both distinct areas, that deserve their own areas. GreenJoe 01:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Toronto geo stub

I see that you're changing some articles from geo stubs to stubs. Is there anything that defines a geo stub? I was under the impression that if it is a place, then it's a geo stub. The Toronto stubs category is oversaturated, so I think it would benefit us to be a little broad in considering what is and isn't a geo stub. --Pwnage8 (talk) 00:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Bus stations and schools aren't geographical entities. Geo-stubs should be reserved for subjects that are either natural geographical features (rivers, forests etc.) or any locality in the country (from unincorporated communities to cities). The Toronto stub category isn't that saturated (for comparison, discussion about splitting the Ontario geography stubs category was started when it had almost 900 articles). Also, by placing articles in stub categories where they don't truly belong, it makes it difficult to find them - I would never think of looking in that category for an article about a high school. (BTW: the gory details about this can be found in WikiProject Stub sorting.) Mindmatrix 00:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in here, but I noticed this (Mm's talk page is on my watchlist). I'm one of the people who started the organisation of the geo-stub hierarchy here on WP, and the following rough guidelines may help as to what is and isn't a geo-stub.

• Natural features are geo-stubs, as are towns, villages, cities, parks and (for reasons since forgotten) airports.
• Buildings, monuments, and other structures are not geo-stubs (they're usually struct-stubs) - that includes schools, stadia, malls, railway stations, historic buildings etc.
• There are a couple of grey areas - streets, railways, and roads usually aren't geo-stubs but are sometimes given that tag if there aren't separate applicable -road-stub or -rail-stub types, and dams and reservoirs also are borderline (if the article's mainly about the lake, it's a geo-stub - if it's mainly about the dam itself, it's a struct-stub). School districts and electoral districts are also borderline - they can get geo-stubs, but usually don't.

Hope that helps. Grutness...wha? 00:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that does help. Thanks. --Pwnage8 (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Moose Jaw

Not sure what I was thinking. At least I didn't put it in Ontario. Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No worries - we all have the occasional brain cramp. Mindmatrix 15:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

octagon buildings, and other historic sites, in Canada

Hi. Thanks for chiming in at List of octagon houses. Though an editor objected that dead houses are not regular houses and your edit was at first removed, i added back your note as a footnote. And i see you added the info to the octagon buildings list article, too.

I've been thinking about developing an infobox for historic sites, persons, and events in Canada, comparable to the NRHP infobox used on U.S. registered historic places. And about otherwise getting active on historic sites in Canada. I'm active in wp:NRHP. But i haven't located where historic site discussion is or should be, so I've been wondering about starting up a WikiProject or a Task Force on it. Do you have thoughts specifically about this, or could you suggest where i should make a proposal or post to find others who might be interested? doncram (talk) 18:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the edit to List of octagon houses, I erred in adding it so prominently to that article. I had forgotten that I had added that information to Octagon house in February, which is a more appropriate place for it anyway.

About the infobox, try suggesting it on the Canadian Wikipedians' notice board talk page (I'm active on that board too). For historic sites in Canada, there's currently not much organised activity - we're trying to start a History of Canada WikiProject right now, and trying to determine its scope (see the list of Canada-related WikiProjects). For a project on historic sites, the only one I know of is WikiProject World Heritage Sites. I think a project that covers historic sites with a global scope may be rather ambitious though, but you could suggest it at WikiProject Proposals. It may be worthwhile to make such a proposal in conjunction with a set of Task Forces (proposals on that same page) covering specific nations, a la Military/War projects and their task forces. I'd certainly support aa Canadian task force for this.

One note though - I don't write much about, or involve myself in, articles about historic places. The article about octagonal deadhouses I wrote was tangential to other articles I was working on. I'd certainly offer some assistance for Canada-related historic sites. Mindmatrix 21:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair use on Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations & Academic Matters?

Thanks for catching that on my other page. Does fair use apply on the OCUFA page since its their journal? Currently, the image is used on the wiki article specific to the journal. If it (or they) need removing, then please let me know & I can take care of that. Adhe536ontario2008 (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be OK, but you need to add the rationale for its use on the image page. Just copy the template I used, and substitute information as appropriate for use on that page. Read through Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline for further info. Mindmatrix 00:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've done so for the OCUFA article and thanks for the photo ideas for Higher education in Ontario! Will digest those after wrapping up a few loose ends. Adhe536ontario2008 (talk) 01:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

References in Toronto article

You mentioned back in February that you wanted to move the references out of the lead and into the body of the article. I jumped on you, but I was being stupid, and I later posted that I thought it was a good idea. Just wondering what is going on with that. Is it still on your list? --Pwnage8 (talk) 01:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Basically, I forgot about it. I'll have a look at it over the next few weeks, assuming I don't forget again. I'd like to get the article to a featured state, but I suspect that when I start pruning useless info, some people will get upset and add it back in. It happened when we tried it with the images. People seem to become personally attached to tidbits of info for some reason.

BTW: voicing an opinion isn't being stupid. You have every right to raise your concerns. Consensus is about debating the issues, and arriving at an acceptable solution. Mindmatrix 02:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

But I was in the wrong. The intro is supposed to be a summary, not a section unto itself. Having that many citations is ridiculous. I was thinking too much about verifiability and not enough about how articles are to be laid out. I'll leave it at that, and I'd even work with you on this, if it becomes too much. One thing I'd like to point out to you. There's a Credit River in Minnesota that's disambiguated, but Credit River links to the one in Ontario. I'm pretty sure that it should be disambiguated to Credit River (Ontario). I'd like your thoughts on this. --Pwnage8 (talk) 22:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue with the Credit Rivers is fine. The one in Ontario is longer, with a larger watershed, and is an important river in the Greater Toronto Area, whereas the one in Minnesota appears to be a short tributary with a small watershed. If it has some other claim to notability, then your suggestion should be followed, but I think it's OK right now, given the information on that river's article. Mindmatrix 23:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Move of Talk:Barrie, Ontario

It looks like the talk page didn't get moved properly when the article on the city moved to the plain title. I tried to fix it myself, but it needs an admin. Skeezix1000 (talk) 11:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Remember how I said we all have the occasional brain cramp...well, chalk one up for me! Mindmatrix 13:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

BLP/Noticeboard

I took your name in vain at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#George_Soros.23Native_Hungary.2C_and_move_to_England.

You might want to check it out.

Smallbones (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Francis Beltrán

On 7 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Francis Beltrán, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

This has already been fixed, but for those that are unaware, I didn't edit that page; this note was left here by mistake. Mindmatrix 23:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Belinda

Fastest gun in Cabbagetown! Bearcat (talk) 23:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Terry Fox vandalism

Thanks for reverting S06714...'s unsubtle vandalism of Terry Fox's article. It seems as if most of the recent edits on him are plain vandalism Its just shocking. I wonder, though, are Admins the only people who can warn editors to stop vandalising articles? I don't know how you do that. When I write articles on say pharaoh Khendjer or Sobekemsaf II, I give verifiable sources. But I always wonder if someone will come around and vandalise them. If there is anything which turns people off Wikipedia, its the amount of vandalism here. Fabian from Surrey, BC Leoboudv (talk) 08:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Any editor can revert vandalism and warn the vandals. Use one of the template messages listed here on the vandal's talk page (for example, {{subst:uw-vandalism2}}), and add your signature at the end. You can also pipe the template with a link, such as {{subst:uw-vandalism2|Terry Fox}} to indicate the article to which the message relates. Hope this helps. Mindmatrix 14:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Thank You. I'll keeep your tip in mind. The Vandalism is frankly a turnoff sadly. Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 18:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario

On 9 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congratulations! --PeterSymonds (talk) 11:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but this one belongs to User:Adhe536ontario2008. I'm going to transfer it to that user's talk page. Mindmatrix 13:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Kennedy Road (Toronto)

I just came across an old merge proposal of yours, which I happen to support. The proposal is a few months old, and has not yet had any opposes. On an unrelated note, thanks for the message to my talk page - I will keep to the list (re: moving per CANSTYLE). Cheers, DigitalC (talk) 08:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I had forgotten about that. I'll get around to doing it sometime, though it's not in the class of articles I enjoy editing. Mindmatrix 18:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I just completed the merge to get it over with...another item to scratch off my to-do list! Mindmatrix 18:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

anti-comma-format wrecking crew cabal

Hey, I hear there is a new cabal around? I wonder how one joins... (see User_talk:KenWalker) - DigitalC (talk) 07:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Guelph

I moved some of the unopposed move proposals this morning, but could not complete Guelph, Ontario to Guelph. Would you be so kind? Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Mindmatrix 17:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Census data

Offical census used of actual calculation of GTA (The Toronto Hamilton Area). Even the article says Metro Halton Peel Durham York and Hamilton, along with the fact Hamilton is connected to Toronto in many ways, including Transit. Dennis7410 —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The inclusion of Hamilton in the GTA is your own original research. The GTA consists solely of Toronto and the Regional Municipalities of York, Halton, Peel and Durham. Hamilton is not in the GTA, but is in the Golden Horseshoe. Various editors have had this discussion numerous times in the past five years here at Wikipedia (see the talk pages for Toronto, the Greater Toronto Area, and their archives - 1, 2, 3 - for details). Mindmatrix 20:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, if you disagree with this, please start a discussion on the Toronto talk page about this, so that we can receive wider input from more editors. I've reverted your change again, noting that CMA figures are incongruent to GTA population. Mindmatrix 21:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Good Points. I will take that into consideration. Dennis7410

Numbers

What I did was take the Oshawa, Hamilton and Toronto CMAs plus Brock and Scugog. I added Uxbridge twice by accident. Dennis7410 —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. It was a tad surprising seeing those numbers. Thanks for the explanation. Mindmatrix 14:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Tilden Rent-a-Car‎

Thanks for your edits to this. I am amazed that you found it so quickly and that there is interest in such an obscure topic. Regards, Ground Zero | t 18:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I noticed this edit pop up on my watchlist, and since I hadn't run into you in a while, I decided to check your recent contributions. Et voila! Mindmatrix 19:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Ontario cities/regions category moves

Please weigh in with your thoughts at the discussion. It would be a big help, and much appreciated. --Pwnage8 (talk) 22:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Oops - I was just about to leave a comment there, but it seems I was much too late. Mindmatrix 18:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

That's ok. They got moved anyway, so it's cool. --Pwnage8 (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Dawson Creek, British Columbia

I just looked at that. It might be useful to ask at WP:3O, or somewhere similar, for an uninvolved (non-Canadian) person to make the final decision. Frankly, I think that as long as the person proposing the move shows there is no conflict with the un-disambiguated name then it should be straightforward. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 09:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at it. While I agree with you, I'd rather not move a page based on my own proposal, given that a few editors have disputed it. I'll think about it some more and perhaps send it to another project to review. Mindmatrix 15:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Canada electoral district

I just noticed that if a seat is vacant, as in Kugluktuk (electoral district), the redirect is to Occupancy. Is there any way to fix that? Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 08:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm So Sorry To Hear That!

Hey there, I just read your user page and I'm sorry to hear that you got a lot of threats, you have my sympathy. User:Agent008 —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh - it's not a big deal. Every administrator on Wikipedia has been subjected to personal threats and various other online attacks, so it's certainly not unique to me. I do appreicate your message, though. (As an aside, my userpage was written partially as irony, to demonstrate the inanity admins have to deal with.) Mindmatrix 18:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Winter in Canada

Hi. Thanks for the note. You see, I'm not sold on the usefulness of "X in [country] by city" categories -- I find them redundant to the "X in [country]" categories, and I find that they remove the useful aspect of the typical "X by city" category (having the topic sorted by cities in alpha. order) and replace it with yet another category organized by country. I guess I would also disagree with the premise that "X by city" categories will all ultimately become "obscenely large", because the size of the category does not matter so much in this type of instance where the subcats are in alphabetical order and are thus easily searcheable (it's not as if we have a category containing 456 unsorted images, for example). I know, that due to the individual efforts of an editor from Germany, the "X in [country] by city" approach is becoming the norm on the Commons, but it remains a head-scratcher to me. However, there are better ways for me to spend my energy, and I do appreciate your thoughts on this, so if you feel strongly that we should adhere to the "X in [country] by city" approach, I would be happy to revert my changes. Cheers, --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Mississauga communities

I recently ran into an editor who moved "Clarkson, Mississauga" back to "Clarkson, Mississauga, Ontario". He said he did it for consistency, because all the other communities have "Ontario" in them. Well.. except "Lakeview, Mississauga" ;) My question is, should the other communities drop the "Ontario" as well? They don't have "Mississauga" as part of the title, probably because they're still viewed as distinct villages and not neighbourhoods, or that there hasn't been any consensus to move them, or even that no one has bothered to move them yet. They've long been part of the city of Mississauga, so why shouldn't they be moved? --Pwnage8 (talk) 21:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

There was a discussion about naming of neighbourhood articles on the Canada notice board some time ago. We finally obtained consensus, which is now defined in the Neighbourhoods section at WP:CANSTYLE. Short version is: most communities take the ", Ontario" article title suffix, but those that have been absorbed into a larger municipality, and for which no Canada Post entry exists, use the ", City" article title suffix instead. Some may warrant an undisambiguated title, but not this one. The article should be moved back to Clarkson, Mississauga. Mindmatrix 23:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Not that when I say that articles take the "Ontario" suffix, the intent is that they would be named "Community, Ontario", not "Community, City, Ontario". Mindmatrix 23:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was the one that moved it to "Clarkson, Mississauga". I moved it back again today. Since the Mississauga article doesn't have the "Ontario" suffix anymore, from here on out it'll be either "Neighbourhood, City" or "Neighbourhood, Ontario". But then again, I understood that already. I just wanted to know if any of the other ones could be moved (Port Credit, Streetsville, etc). Thanks for the info. --Pwnage8 (talk) 00:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

After reading the guideline, I moved Dixie, Erindale, Erin Mills, and Lorne Park, because they are not valid municipal mailing addresses. --Pwnage8 (talk) 00:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Sorry for misunderstanding your question. Those moves all look fine to me (I did a quick internet search for the undisambiguated names, and couldn't find anything that would force a disambiguation of those titles). Mindmatrix 13:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Stargatewars.com

Hi Mindmatrix. Its official that I am a newb as a registered user of wikipedia but I thought maybe you could take just a little time and review a deletion you made earlier? I understand that it was much earlier and that someone else has gone off and created a wiki for it. I, however, do not feel that that will necessarily do the subject justice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stargate_Wars_%28nomination_2%29 I have not reviewed the original article which maybe I should do but I am willing to work on an objective article for SGW (Stargatewars) if the old one is very unsatisfactory.

I am an avid Stargatewars player; I have been playing for 3 years. I am also a great lover of wikipedia. I turn to it for most of my informational needs. I would like to say that maybe I do not understand the deletion here. This game has attracted a large amount of players. It has not been shut down by Stargate franchise. Also it is against the rules of the game to recruit people through spam. There is a recruitment link to recruit your friends. From the game rules... "7) Spamming your recruiting link, or anything else related to or using our name or site, is illegal. Share the site, but please do so respectfully."

I would also like to say that this is one of the only online free browser games I have ever found that allows you to get every single benefit you can get from paying, by playing fairly well. Yes, there will be people in any free game who like to pay for it but that is part of keeping the game open for everyone.

I just feel from looking at the other online browser games you have listed (travian and nation states), this type of game deserves to be represented. I have played several versions of essentially the same game, and they never last. Stargatewars is the only one still going. Atlantean Wars is almost dead (atlanteanwars2.com) The Ancient Wars changed hands and died and changed hands and died. World War 2 game appears to be gone, The Dune Wars has 3,743 players.

I have poured three years of tears and sweat into that game and I believe that it deserves to be represented and chronicled here in an objective way, so when it disappears and wikipedia still stands, myself and others will have some record of our "wasted" time, not so we can spam internet with our obsession of SGW.

Ms.betty.holiday (talk) 03:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

reverting edits by 63.118.38.43

I found myself running behind you trying to remove the external link spam added by the aforementioned IP address. Kudos! :) This block belongs to Ciena itself, lets hope they read WP:EL and WP:NOT. Regards, Adamantios (talk) 15:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't actually block the user - the activity stopped once I left a message on the talk page. Hopefully it won't happen again. Mindmatrix 16:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

why?

Hi, I have added a few external links to some photography related pages as 89.132.184.246 (I am not registered at Wikipedia, yet), and you have removed them all. May I ask you why you didn't find those links useful?

Best regards,

Tibor

I'm assuming you're the editor that made these contibutions. Those links are nothing but promotional. There are quite a few ads on each page, each link for "reviews" leads to a page with no review, but rather a set of ratings, and there is nothing distinctively analytical on any of those links. Wikipedia has an external links policy, and one should also observe WP:NOT. External links should contain elaboration about the subject, not a sales pitch. Mindmatrix 21:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

Thanks for the quick reply. You have probably missed that we have dozens of sample images with about 50 of the lenses, what I think makes a good addition to Wikipedia pages. I admit, I haven't read the External Links page, and now I know I am guilty for including a page that I edit. Now I would like to ask you to consider these pages to be added to Wikipedia, if you find them appropriate.

I also had a correction on one of the pages, what you have also reverted to a clearly outdated state (I have added the EOS 50D to the EF-S mount compatible cameras).

Thanks

Tibor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.201.75.239 (talk) 22:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

First, I've corrected my reversion of that tidbit about the 50D - sorry about that. Next, regarding images, we already have a large selection of images at the commons Canon lenses category, so we're likely to use those for galleries and display purposes. All the info you present on your site is clearly available elsewhere, in a more encyclopedic fashion, so it's not likely your links will be added to WP. You'll have much more success adding your link to dmoz.org, since WP accepts links to that web directory (so long as the web directory link is specific to the subject, of course); try adding links to your site there, following that site's rules for links.

BTW, I do appreciate the fact that you're actually discussing this, unlike most other editors who only add links to pages. Mindmatrix 14:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

One more thing about images. I am not talking about product shots, but the full resolution, unedited sample images taken with the lenses using different cameras. Check out the following pages (click on the Sample images tab under the product images): Nikkor 12-24mm f/2.8D ED AF-S, Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED AF-S, Sony Vario-Sonnar T 24-70mm f/2.8 ZA SSM or Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 300mm f/2.8 ($4300 lens). Most of the time we shoot with various camera bodies using the same lens, and we try to take series of shots with all aperture stops and focal lenghts. I firmly believe that these sample phtos have a significant value to all who consider buying any of these lenses (while I am afraid we have a flaw in presenting these images if visitors like you can't find them right away). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.201.75.239 (talk) 16:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I missed those photos; I simply didn't notice the "Sample photos" link (I stopped reading the menu after "Owner reviews", so I'm not sure how you could redesign your site to account for that). I honestly don't think the photos will make much difference in the link surviving on Wikipedia. Note also that I don't make such decisions - I simply follow the guideline, which is based on a consensus view of a broad set of Wikipedians, including me. Interpretation of that guideline is also open to such consensus. You may want to ask about this at the external links talk page, but you're likely to get the same response. Mindmatrix 16:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking your time to answer my questions... Tibor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.201.75.239 (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Picture deletion

You have deleted the pictures that I uploaded for the "Academic Matters" entry due to the copyright issues. I am confused for which one I should choose. I work for the publisher of the journal "Academic Matters". I was given permission to create the "Academic Matters" entry for wikipedia and upload the cover pictures once they are available. I can't choose that the creator gave me permission... since they belong to the fast deletion category. In order to keep the pictures there, I could only choose that I own the pictures and release it to the public domain. Please let me know what I need to do in the future to avoid the necessary deletion of the pictures.Thanks.Luojia (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for making the changes for me. Cheers,Luojia (talk) 16:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Andrei Brennan

Wiki Nazi Police...I like it...Big Jerk-Face...Wowza, certainly today's online community can come up with something more original than that, I would have thought at least Minister of being a poo poo head. Anyway, enough about that, when I found the Archdiocese of Canada portion on the UOCA site, I found the picture of Andrei Brennan the same as the one there. The photo log shows Hromek2000 as the originator and copyright holder, I thought that given the current "issues" with the article, an image with a copyright violation might just add to it...thoughts?--Kelapstick (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

You know, I think I'll add Minister of being a poo poo head to the list.

Regarding the image, one option is to contact the Archdiocese of Canada and ask them the source of the image, and its copyright status, pointing them to the uploaded version at the commons. This is more likely to provide an accurate answer. Mindmatrix 17:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

HA, love it. Thanks, I think I will.--Kelapstick (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

*groan*

User talk:Bearcat#Talk page on Andrei Brennan.

How do we manage to get sucked into this kind of drama all the time? Sigh. Bearcat (talk) 19:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

You and your "sucked into this kind of drama" POV editing. I think I'll report you. Damn admins and their power trips controlling everything on Wikipedia. Err, umm... OK, not quite the same thing. Mindmatrix 23:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

In retrospect, my post wasn't nearly as funny as it seemed yesterday when I was typing it out. Mindmatrix 15:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Followup, just for kicks: Bearcat blows gasket. Bearcat (talk) 04:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to find an appropriate simile, metaphor, or something to describe this situation. Soap opera is the best I could do. All the elements are there. (Bearcat blows gasket would be an excellent title for one of the episodes!) BTW, although I've added little to the discussion, I have been keeping close tabs on it, just in case things get out of hand. Mindmatrix 15:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I think soap opera's a good metaphor. Complete with the requisite evil twin storyline! Bearcat (talk) 20:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha. Glad you guys could find some gallows humour in all of this. Sorry that this happened. Thanks for your good work. Hromek2000 (talk) 20:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

User 75.27.253.162

If you are an administrator then kindly block this user. His every single edit is vandalism as you can see in his contributions. He has been warned before. Marsa Lahminal (talk) 17:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Peel District School Board category..

I noticed you added Category:Peel District School Board to every or most Peel District School Board related article. However, isn't it better to just place the category into the Template:PeelDistrictSchools? So in the future, anyone can simply add the template rather than adding both. --staka (T) 22:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it would be easier, but I don't think it's appropriate. In this case, that template is going to grow so large that it'll have to be split or deleted anyway (assuming article about each of the 221 schools is created). On templates, should schools be grouped by community, school board, or some other criterion? Adding the categories to the article itself may be more tedious, but it's also more straightforward. I don't object their inclusion on templates, though, as I've used that technique for various templates I've created. (Aside: the template is missing at least four of the schools listed in the category, but I haven't compared the listings to determine which.) Mindmatrix 15:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thunder Bay/Eldorado Aerodrome

You recently moved the talk page for Thunder Bay/Eldorado Aerodrome to Talk:Thunder Bay (disambiguation)/Eldorado Aerodrome. As far as I know, "Thunder Bay/Eldorado" (with the slash) is the proper name for the aerodrome to adding "(disambiguation)" would make it incorrect. It also doesn't match up with the main article (which wasn't moved). The article isn't a subpage of the disambiguation page. vıdıoman 18:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted the move. Thanks for pointing it out. Mindmatrix 18:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. :)vıdıoman 18:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Pogroms, perogies, and prorogation

Just a quick aside, noting your just now "idle chatter" undo on the political-soup page....last night on Air Farce there was a little skit where an "ordinary Canadian from Alberta" appeared with Harper and couldn't get these three terms separated....probably that's where that joke came from.....Skookum1 (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, OK. I hadn't seen it, and assumed few people would even know the definition of pogrom, so I figured it was just a hapless mistake. Mindmatrix 17:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

BTW: a variety of news sources have also made "reports" about Canadians ignorant of the concept of prorogation, confusing it with perogies. In fact, I've seen at least one a day since Monday on TV newscasts. Even The National discussed it. Mindmatrix 17:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Premature archiving of "2008 discussion"

Hi; I'm bringing this to you because of your level-headedness and very evident political acumen and perspicacity and equanimity etc; although by now perhaps you've already seen my objection to the sudden archiving of most of the talkpage; lots of still-active discussions and, very pointedly, discussions which user:Resolute didn't like very much, ahve been shoved into the background; I don't think this is appropriate given most of those discussions are still active and all are less than a week old. Is 145kb a hard-and-fast rule for archiving? It's not like most people aren't on high-speed connections, or that 145kb is a huge file. I think this is a politically/POV-motivated archiving and I'm hoping/urging that it be reversed; if I'd done it he'd take it as a clear "attack" and "partisan" move on my part; I gather you're an admin (so is he, a fact which reinforces my disdain for the powers an admin has based on .... well, a selection/anointment process which lets a lot of unknowledgeable people have a little too much power...not that i'd ever be level-tongued enough to qualify either LOL). Perhaps by the time I've finished this someone else has reverted it; I think it's unwise and unfair. And I commend you for your pointing out the ongoing POV alterations/changes to various sections...I t hink I'm going to keep a log somewhere (in my own computer, if not on one of my sandboxes which had occured to me) of which users have been making such edits....). This is a political crisis in the sense of a crisis for the Canadian polity, the rise of organized disinformation and re-information outside of the politically-flavoured private and government news networks. I'm considering doing an article on "Wiki jamming" for Adbusters or another media-analysis magazine/webzine...this is getting serious, and is a story in and of itself....Skookum1 (talk) 04:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The page was over 250kB - that's huge. Even after the archival, the page is 123kB, which is generally considered large (a person on dialup will require nearly 30 seconds to load that, at an average rate of 5kB/s). Please don't assume everyone is using a high-speed connection - there are still significant numbers of people using dialup. I think the archival was justified, though if you feel there were active discussions placed in the archive, please restore those to the main talk page. (There were a few I wanted to continue that were archived.) It doesn't appear to me that were was any intent to suppress discussion in this case.

Regarding bias, I'll simply note that Wikipedia has been subjected to it for quite some time, from parties throughout the political spectrum.It's nothing new, and it will continue in the future, because everyone has their own biases, and most people want to see those biases reinforced and reflected throughout the cultural products they consume.

BTW: Yes, I'm an admin. Mindmatrix 15:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

National Unity Crisis

Sorry, I was addressing the dispute at the bottom of the talk page, so I didn't notice your complaints. GoldDragon (talk) 04:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Based on what I've seen in past elections (2004, 2006), the NDP did not endorse strategic voting; such a thing would decimate their popular vote and thus party subsidy. However, Elizabeth May did ask supporters to vote Liberal instead of Green if that would help stop the Conservatives. GoldDragon (talk) 15:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Anon comment on my user page

I don't know how to respond to you directly, so I'll just put it here. Skookum is being permitted (and, with your involvement, apparently encouraged) in dominating the discussion about out parliamentary 'crisis'. I believe the article would be better-off if he stepped back from it and let others handle it. Rather than discussing this, he simply deleted my previous comments without response. That is certainly worse than anything I have written to him...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.50.94 (talk • contribs)

Your comments on that page were inappropriate.

• first, reverted by Resolute
• second, with Skookum's reply, and subsequent deletion by Scorpion0422
• third, and it's deletion by me
• fourth, which was a personal attack, and its deletion by Procule

We're not going to prevent Skookum1 from providing input into the discussion. He may be long-winded, as he describes himself at times, but that's not a reason to prevent his involvement in discussions. Your contributions, on the other hand, haven't amounted to much. Mindmatrix 19:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

BTW: if you click on the "history" tab at the top of any article or discussion page, you can compare the difference between any two versions of the document to see what changes were made (for example, see the changes made to this talk page). Please use this to determine who made specific changes, instead of simply blindly accusing one editor of censorship. Skookum1 actually responded to you; he did not delete your comments. Other editors deleted them because such comments had no relevance to improving the article, as stated by the headers at the top of the discussion page which you either didn't read, or simply ignored. Mindmatrix 19:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

LOL the things you find on admin's talkpages sometimes....Hi MindMatrix, I see I've gotten yet another propagandist to demand I be silenced....I just dropped by to comment on GoldDragon's latest; I'd stayed away from him, as you probably realize, but after a lull in activity for a good half-day (I may not post, but I do monitor) finally there was some activity; GoldDragon changed the section heading about him to "Unity section edits" and made further sweeping, non-consensual edits; I changed the section heading back and challenged him on his behaviour; when I got up this morning of course he'd changed it back, but also taken an exchange between GoodDay and myself and planted it wholesale as proof of me being "pro-coalition" (actually I'm pro-democratic reform, so we can get rid of antiquated and obscure procedures that defy and confound true public democracy....but that's not a flag I've been waving and don't intend to); he made posts, bascially, that made it seem like GoodDay and I had posted them on that page. And in GoodDay's case he was being a nuisance by constantly trying to engage me on my talkpage about stuff that was already, verbatim, on the article talkpage; it's not like we were buddies and not like I wanted a separate discussion (I have enough on the boil, as you can see my looking over my edits prior to this fracas, and also at my watchlist, which I think you can see...). Anyway I've changed back the section heading to "GoldDragon's edits" and made my retort to him; I'm sorry to be sharp-tongued, but leather-skinned as I am I still take offense at being offended by those whose main interests are to cover their own iniquitous tracks/tracts. One hallmark of a propagandist, by the way, is the personal attacks they will launch when their logics/"facts" and actions cannot survive scrutiny. I'd actually be quite happy if it could be shown that pro-Coalition forces were doing as much damage to the page as anti-Coalition forces have, it would make being a critic of suspect edits a bit easier....Skookum1 (talk) 13:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

And I can only laugh about the comments that I "dominate" discussion. I try and stay out of it, in fact; but apparently those who went to school in the age of the sound-bite find anything more than three sentences at once intimidating, and also for those schooled in doctrinaire thinking anyone who comes up with too many truths is "dominating" their own shallow viewopoints. So be it. I wish i was a bit more laconic, but I'm not; and sometimes to get a nail banged in you need to hammer it more than a few times...especially if the head you're banging it into is made of a harder wood than usual....Skookum1 (talk) 13:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Just saw the one edit above where IP-user equated my physical size as proof of my ego; which is a common short man syndrome line about large people - "he thinks he's something!" (i.e. because he's big). It's much the same when somebody is articulate and informed - "he makes me feel stupid". Sorry, folks, nobody else can make you feel stupid than yourself....LOL...the thing about size=ego is a common "projection" on bigger people: I can't recall why or where I'd mentioned my size, I think somebody suggested I was a little dweeb or something...and I wish I was 265, I'm only 245 right now...kinda small for my stature.... LOL.Skookum1 (talk) 14:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I really am trying to get back at geography and history articles; suffice to say all this has been somewhat distracting/frustrating..."if good men do nothing, evil will prevail" etc....Skookum1 (talk) 14:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)