User talk:Ckatz/Archive 2

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Template:Moons of Earth, Mars and the Asteroids

Hi Ckatz,

(rework to have three columns)

Is it possible to specify/enlarge the widths of these columns?  At present, "Binary asteroids · List of asteroid moons" is undergoing wraparound here, even though there's plenty of space (imagery intended). Otherwise this formatting seems a good idea. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 23:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS I'm reminded that I forgot to thank you for your generous comment re the Table of planets and dwarf planets in the Solar System. Thank you!

Hmm... you're right, that does need a tweak. The coding is a little different than what I'm used to, so I'll try to read up on it and see if it can be adjusted. Nice job, once again, for reformatting and creating the new look. --Ckatzchatspy 23:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood North

Do not add off-topic information. Please find the appropriate article such as Cinema of Canada or Cinema of the United States. The topic of the article Hollywood North does not have anything to do with the politics between the United States and Canada. The article Hollywood North very specifically talks about the nickname and Vancouver-Toronto's rise to be known as Hollywood North. If you wanted to talk about tax concessions that made it possible then do so, but opinion articles that are off-topic are highly unencyclopedic especially when the thesis and topic sentences do not even come close to mentioning what US-Canada relations. Furthermore your changes back to the original wordings could be considered vandalism for you reverted grammatical corrections to an inferior and grammatically incorrect version. For example you reverted to this, "The growth of the Canadian entertainment industry is due in part to an increasing trend to produce American films and television series outside of the United States. These "runaway productions", a U.S. entertainment industry term meaning film and television projects that are produced outside of the United States[36], have become a source of concern in the film industry in the United States." Its a textbook run on sentence with too many topics and inadequate as a topic sentence. Furthermore it misuses its comas to divide side ideas and information. 01:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Ummm... I think that you're looking at TWO sentences. If you'd like to critique, by all means go ahead - but I want to double-check to see if you've misread this particular example. --Ckatzchatspy 01:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Hollywood North, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. Langara College 01:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wil certainly participate in an RfM, if need be, but be advised that I do not take kindly to your actions in this matter. Without any pause for discussion whatsoever, you jumped into the fray and began leaving "WARNING" messages on my page and on those of other users. This is not the appropriate manner in which to achieve consensus, and I think that an RfM would indeed highlight that fact. --Ckatzchatspy 01:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So be it. I do not take kindly to vandals either. I'm trying to prevent an edit war, if you're so against it, then its optional for you to part-take. Langara College 01:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, your first reaction is to toss around accusations. If you wish to claim that I am "vandalizing", please provide concrete examples. If not, then don't make insinuations that are groundless. --Ckatzchatspy 02:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Reply

I understand and accept what you're saying; but I don't accept Duhon's pretense that he was "rv vandalism" when he deleted my post; I don't expect you to agree with my position on the issues regarding this case, but I do know you're an experienced and level-headed Wikipedian (despite my intense language, I'm increasingly level-headed....really!) and that's why I spotted what you spotted; I might have missed it and I think Langara College deliberately ignored it. Paranoia? I dunno - given L.C.'s comments about not liking vandalism so much, it's amazing to me that they/he/she didn't look at the "rv vandalism" to see what it was and realize that it was a bunk edit comment with an "attack delete"; silencing me is not a nice thing to do; and I'm a Scorpio with planets in all the wrong places (just ask EB........). Given that it's Duhon and Langara College that want the CFM, but both of their behaviours have been questionable, and now this Brodey character's come along to redefine what the article is supposed to be about, i.e. what Hollywood North is supposed to mean, rather than what it is. As I said, this reminds me of the expansion of the Hongcouver article into a general thing on the Asiafication of Vancouver, which should be a different article. Same thing here: TV production in Canada, Cinema of Canada, fine; but the "Hollywood North phenomenon" should not be written up based on the promotional hype of the TO Film Commission and its media armies...Skookum1 05:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I'd rather be fussing with my mountain and history and bio and ship and First Nations articles than having to fuss with this; but once I know something's been put wrong, I have to see it put right. It's another part of that Scorpio thing; we don't sacrifice truth easily, and we don't compromise well even when we'd like to (my moon's in Taurus, which makes my stubbornness even worse). This one's partly near and dear to me because I know a lot of people in the industry, in various capacities, and also back in '89 worked on a start-up rag that didn't go anywhere called Role-Call (I was Chief Ed., actually) which lasted maybe two issues before somebody's, er, nasal congestion problem got the better of his budget, and bankrupted his backe/g'friend; the Hollywood North thing was new then, and some were caught up with stars in their eyes, or more regarding it as a gold rush (esp. my publisher), but for the industry it was an expression of a growing reality; the tranplantation of productions to Vancovuer through out-sourcing; we'd been a centre of TV and radio advertising spots since the early '70s (second only to Madison Avenue) and still are; expanding into feature film and TV series was the new thing; but it was a business thing, not a glamour-and-glitz and "aren't we great" campaign like TO is engaging in, and we don't go looking for cool catchphrases to coopt from other cities to promote our own city with.... People from Vancouver, in order to become stars, have to go somewhere else to be able to be seen as one here; not so with people from Toronto or L.A. (although people from TO who don't go to L.A. are only stars in Toronto, or so the rest of us are told.....).Skookum1 06:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin and Hobbes

Hi, Ckatz. In reverting my recent edit of Calvin and Hobbes, you said: rv. change to past tense (as per WP style guide - C&H should be "IS". It "WAS" produced during a certain period, but it "IS" a daily comic strip unless the strips no longer exist.) Can you direct me to the part of the style guide that addresses this issue? I searched through it and couldn't find anything about verb tenses. Thanks for your help. Oh, and I'd appreciate it if you would answer here -- I think it's much better when these conversations happen in one place, so that third parties can follow them easily. Pat Berry 04:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello... no problem replying here. As for the return to "is", it's based on parts of the style guide, examples of other articles, and related discussions. I'll give you what links I can off the top of my head, and try to add to the list as I find more examples. (Unfortunately, there's nothing concrete in the Style Guide that spells out a guideline, as I discovered while trying to find an answer to a related topic a few months back.) Generally speaking, writing about fiction is to be done in what the MoS calls the "perpetual present tense". Beyond that, an unwritten but oft-repeated convention seems to be that a work of fiction still exists, regardless of whether or not it is out of production. That is to say, Casablanca still "is" a film, Firefly and M*A*S*H still "are" television series; and Calvin and Hobbes and Peanuts still "are" comics. They don't cease to be films, TV shows, or comics just because there is no new product. However, we would then switch to past tense to describe the production dates (i.e. "Peanuts is a syndicated daily and Sunday comic strip written and illustrated by Charles M. Schulz, which ran from 2 October 1950, to 13 February 2000..."). Here's a related discussion at the Television project. I tend to agree with the idea of "is", despite the potential for grammatical clunkiness, but either way I'd like to see some sort of guideline emerge as it would help a lot in clarifying one aspect of the project's style. Please let me know what you think of this, and I can incorporate it into some sort of push for a discussion about establishing a guideline. Thanks. --Ckatzchatspy 07:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. I read the "Check your fiction" guideline, and I think it makes sense -- but not in this context. The guideline is about the verb tense to use when describing the events that occur within the story. All of the examples in the guideline are statements about what the characters do or what happens to them within the fictional world. That's not what we're discussing here. We're discussing the verb tense to be used when talking about the real world in which the work of fiction exists. So I don't think the "perpetual present tense" applies.
I changed "is" to "was" in the Calvin and Hobbes article because that's the tense used in other Wikipedia articles about defunct comic strips (those that are no longer being published in newspapers). Peanuts isn't a good example of this category because it is still being reprinted in newspapers, so it exists in a kind of gray area. I looked at the article for every defunct comic strip I could think of: The Far Side, Li'l Abner, Smokey Stover, Terry and the Pirates, and Lance. Every one of them uses "was", not "is", in its first sentence.
The Was vs. Is discussion you cited is interesting, but I don't think it is consistent with current Wikipedia practice. I looked at the articles for a bunch of defunct TV shows (no longer in production) and magazines (no longer published), and very few of them use "is" in the first sentence. I'll be happy to supply examples if you like.
I don't mean to be argumentative about this -- if the Wikipedia community reaches a consensus that "is" should replace "was" in this context, I will comply. But I don't think this has happened, and my unscientific survey of the way Wikipedia articles are currently written leads me to believe that the consensus favors "was". Pat Berry 15:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yellowsnow - what to do?

He's clearly beyond the pale of Wikiquette, farther than nearly anything I've seen, what with this AFD thing and the claim that you and Mkdw "blanked" the talkpage and so on; see my latest on User talk:Mkdw which ironically enough I posted just before he began his latest onslaught; the US edition of Entertainment Tonight used H.N. tonight - to refer to Sundance, without mentioning the Canadian context at that festival, which of course the Canadian edition which follows it did...but I could only chuckle because the Hollywood machine behind Entertainment Tonight, or that show's writers anyway, seem to use the term to mean anywhere in the cold; not even north of the border...anyway, seems to me that Yellowsnow needs a big spanking; but which area of WP:AN/I is the right one to use?Skookum1 04:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was that a "camouflage section-title" on my talkpage or what? Or did you accidentally copy-paste something into the subject line? As for the situation, it's too clear that these are "attack edits" and hostile to the existence of the concept, never mind the article. I was hostile to the way the Hongcouver article got bloated, and I do have my reservations about the varying interpretation treatment of the notion of Hollywood North, but since it's come into use to mean the industry, by way of volume and even Toronto's particular taste in using it, it's a different situation than Hongcouver, where the term was used to write something that was a Vancouver variation of the Chinese immigration to Canada article (if so, it should have been titled as such). In Hollywood North's case, whether Yellowsnow likes it or not, it IS a term that's in wide usage, even if not (in his mind) the American entertainment industry (there's twenty people I could get on the phone tomorrow who would laugh at his line of argument; one, my former acting teacher and previously my agent, worked for Merv Griffin for a number of years; oh, and Larry Flynt...and she's just a hometown girl from Hazelton...I know what she'd say: it doesn't matter what this yellowsnow person thinks or wants, the fact is that thosands of people use and/or know this term, and nobody has a right to tell them not to; especially since it's often Americans who are using it - I know, because of the number of film sets I've been on and the number of yanquitos I know who've used it in my presence; for them it's a fascination, almost an allure; but as I've noted elsewhere in Vancouver it means the working environment; in Toronto it means the glamour machine. Whether anti-runaway production people don't like it is beside the point; the term exists, and is widespread in print and in media - including American media, if not Variety, which surprises me but "Great White North" is a pervasive cliche about Canada in general - it's not a reference to the film industry here, it's a reference to the whole country...that was, of course, coined by a Canadian (Mike Myers). Whatever; I don't think a mediation is what's needed here; I think Yellowsnow is FAR out of line with his behaviour, not just on the talkpage but also with his hostile edits to the page overall, and over a period of time. Myself, I think he should be blocked....(it might be a "she" but somehow I don't think so....).Skookum1 08:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously Entertainment Tonight (an American-based and produced television show) is referring, very much tongue-in-cheek, to Sundance as "Hollywood North" (quotes). Sundance, as you may not know, is located in the United States. Again, use of a protologism especially by a flippant fluffy show does not mean that there is an actual place called "Hollywood North," and it doesn't have any context to the Canadian film industry in this example whatsoever. You might as well be arguing about Santa's Village at the North Pole. "Hollywood North" simply doesn't exist. You guys can't even agree on what it means, which is proof that it doesn't support Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. And when you just blatantly erase my changes you are not being "neutral" as you have tried to claim to be, BTW. - Donteatyellowsnow 01:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You still have not given PROOF that "Hollywood North" exists nor even "what" it is. What you have said basically confirms the fact that this is not a widely know nor widely understood nor remotely widely-agreed upon term. This is something you and "twenty of your friends" use. It therefore doesn't belong on Wikipedia -- a site for the whole world. I suggest that you change the name of this page from "Hollywood North" to "The Canadian Film Industry". You wouldn't have as many problems then; unless you are using it exclusively to push various Canadian film commissions' advertisements which is also against Wikipedia rules. Because there is no written proof of the existence of a place called "Hollywood North" anymore than there is proof of a "Bermuda triangle", I suggest that you guys refer to Vancouver as... surprise... Vancouver. That you continue to refer to Toronto as, gulp, Toronto! Again, taking the Hollywood name and misappropriating it in a backhanded attempt in order to promote the Canadian film industry is EXACTLY the definition of protologism -- both advertisement and wish-fulfillment. Also this article is full of citations that have nothing to do with the context of the statements being made (particularly about Toronto being referred to as "Hollywood North" when the cited sources saying nothing of the sort). You can try to get me banned as you have repeatedly threatened; but I believe that would be fruitless. Note: I have not threatened you nor made personal attacks on any of you as you have repeatedly done to me. I have not put graffiti nor threats on your talk pages as you have done on mine. I have followed Wiki criteria and have edited appropriately and will continue to do so, despite your threats and lack of neutrality or your lack of objectivity on the subject. Reminder: no one here has allowed almost anything I've edited to remain on this page. So... you guys be the judge. Who is being neutral and who is blanking the other person's edits? - Donteatyellowsnow
If you review the edit history at both Runaway production and Hollywood North, you'll see that I'm not just "blatantly reverting" you - I am making a concerted effort to incorporate your points into the text. However, that does not extend to just leaving every single word you wrote intact, as much of your material requires a major overhaul to suit an encyclopedia article. Examples include:

though proclaiming that unilaterally in an effort to promote his city doesn't make it true

and

"Hollywood North" is not clearly understood as to what exactly it is; but it is clearly not to be confused with the actual cities or long-time film communities of Hollywood, California or North Hollywood, California. "Hollywood North" the protologism does own its name however, to Hollywood, California, the most notable film centre in the world.

The goal is to provide a "neutral" article - that means that any inaccuracies on the Canadian side should be corrected, but it also means that you can't just rewrite the text to push the American industry point of view. It is also appropriate to discuss major overhauls of an article on the talk page first, especially when there is an ongoing dispute over content. --Ckatzchatspy 02:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And - once again - I would ask that you avoid making misleading accusations about anyone who disagrees with you. In this case, your messages imply that "I" have threatened to have you banned, or that I have put graffiti and threats on your talk page, and several other comments. I HAVE DONE NO SUCH THING, and any examination of the history of our interactions will reveal just that. (In fact, I have NEVER left a message on your talk page. Why? Becuase you tend to delete comments from it, so it is easier and more reliable to interact with you on the article talk page.) Please be civil, at least. --Ckatzchatspy 02:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And just to note, there's a big difference between warning someone about the probability of a block if their uncivil behaviour and anti-encyclopedic edits continue, and threatening to have someone "banned". There's also a BIG difference between a disciplinary block, and a "ban", which is much more severe. But such misrepresentations are stock-in-trade from DEYS, and it's rather cute of him to complain about someone vandalizing his webpage (which I myself make a point of avoiding visiting altogether) given his own very-many vandalisms of both the HN article and its talkpage....Skookum1 03:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"twenty of your friends" is more like "twenty million of your friends", but again untrue hyperbole is something of a trademark of DYES' style. Even a google search turns up usages on American-based websites, but even if it didn't, the fact is that the term is common in Canadian English and Canadian culture, whether DYES likes it or not; as such, it's of encyclopedic interest. Whether or not if offends "Hollywood" loyalists. Period.Skookum1 03:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Heroes

I'd settle for "area,"—as in the front page, talk, history, etc.—but the point is to avoid exclusiionary terms. The template may be added to categories, images, etc. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Runaway Productions

While D. W. Griffith is perhaps the most important and notable early film maker of all-time, the word legendary pertains of legend. You will find that almost no encyclopedia will refer to a person as legendary unless specific context such as Pegasus, a legendary horse. They will use notable, important, influencial, famous, etc. but legendary in my experience has very hard referencing problems. Some circumstancial cases I've come across have been Babe Ruth but the article itself will not quote itself as calling him legendary, but rather "he was considered a legend" etc. by other sources. I won't revert your edits, but you may want to consider it. As for the AfD for Hollywood North and other related articles, I just want to see a good collection of information assembled, but these days its seems difficult. =) Mkdwtalk 08:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I swapped in "notable", but it didn't read quite right in this context - so I've removed it altogether. What do you think of "pioneering"? --Ckatzchatspy 08:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I made a change to the sentence, but I'm not sure if it works. What do you think? Mkdwtalk 08:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the kind words concerning my edits. I don't know that I can provide much in the way of advice, but will certainly pass on anything that comes to mind. Victoriagirl 07:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian pioneers in early Hollywood

Yeah, I thought it was an interesting link, too, which is why when I found it at Cinema of Canada it obviously belonged, especially in the context of the Canadian role in Hollwood-as-Hollywood, and also the old ties between the Canadian entertainment/talent pool and the American one; I see Mkdw mentioned D.W. Griffith while I was writing this (edit conflict) but the name that came to mind from my end was Mary Pickford..... I was actually hoping to find a List of Canadians in American entertainment and media, which would be an interesting and somewhat provocative list - e.g. in publishing Lewis Lapham of Harper's, also whomever that re-founded Vanity Fair, and also the guys from National Lampoon, and and and etc; then there's Peter Kent et al in news reportage - especially when the contemporary onslaught of Canadian actors, directors, writers and other talent in "American film" (increasingly a misnomer, as this year's Oscar nominations remind us that "national" cinema is increasingly multinational in scope and content); whether they're naturalized or still paper-carrying Canucks; maybe the real resentment is that we've invaded them and have in fact somewhat taken over ;=) That Pamela Anderson can write a letter to the Prez complaining about Col. Sanders on a stamp, and exhorting the release of another Elvis one instead, says something all by itself; entertainment people have no nation; the stage/lens is their nation, as with all guilds/professions. I'd go with reducing the lists of productions in TO vs Vancouver, though, down to main article templates, except for maybe HN-defining productions such as X-Files and Stargate (in Vancouver) and maybe (?) Relic Hunter and other American-market productions in TO; but to be fair then also Calgary, Halifax, Winnipeg and Montreal productions should all get coverage as well; so I'd agree with the guy on the AFD who said the Vancouver list is overblown and erratic; so's the TO list (My Big Fat Greek Wedding, for instance, was from a Winnipegger and largely short there, post-production I guess was in TO; likewise Quest for Fire, where a lot of the locations were in the West but maybe the production offices were in TO (?). Anyway, I knew the AFD would backfire on our friend, rather spectactularly; he's obviously not an actor or he wouldn't have parroted his own lines in the IP-address persona '-). BTW while I understood why you took out the Silicon Valley North link (and it's equally applicable to Greater Seattle + the Evergreen Corridor incl. Portland) when I saw it before I "read" it as another example of the transposition of the image/guise of an American milieu given a "North" label; there are other examples but I'd have to scratch my head to think of one. I'd venture that IP address, as noted in my comment on the AFD, is from a corporate infranet; it might be "interesting" to find out which corporation, in fact....Skookum1 08:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And re the idea of a List of Canadians in American entertainment and media, I did manage to find Canadian-American, which currently has a POV template; but maybe a List of Canadian-Americans might be kind of fun....Skookum1 08:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jericho characters

Dude, the only reason they are listed a main charachters is because that is what the Jerichowiki page says on cbs.com. Also they all have pictures and Depty Bill and Jimmy have maine articles that I wrote

Again, check the show's page at CBS.com. That is the list of characters - 12 in total, not including any of the ones you added. The fact that you created an article about a character on a TV show does not make him or her a "main" character, it just means that there is an article. You can still link to your article from the entry in the "minor" characters section. --Ckatzchatspy 20:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the JerichoWIki page on cbs, Jonah, Gracie, and Mimi are listed as main characters. As far as april green, she is a very important roll. I see where you are coming from with Mary. As as for The Deputies article, they have main articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwk14724 (talk • contribs)
Once again, it does not matter if you, or I, or a TV reviewer, or anyone else thinks a particular role is "important". The show's producers and the network decide who the "stars" are, and who gets promoted as such, in conjunction with union agreements. The Jericho "Wiki" is not the same as the official site, and - even if it was - the deputies are listed under "supporting characters". I could write an article about the guy who died from radiation poisoning (just as you did for the two deputies) but it still wouldn't make him a main character. I'm going to restore the list to what it should be based on the official CBS website, as your own examples prove that the changes you've made do not reflect the actual character list. Please take your concerns to the article talk page if you wish to seek a change, rather than just changing the article over and over again. Thanks. --Ckatzchatspy 20:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you've linked here from the edit summary, please note that the discussion has been relocated to Talk:List of Jericho characters#Main vs. minor characters to allow for wider input. Thank you.

Thanks and what to do?

Hi Ckatz,

Thanks for letting me know about the external linking; I am quite new to Wikipedia, though I did quite a lot of contributions in the Dutch Wikipedia. I do think that the wiki.worldflicks pages are an interesting contribution to the big city articles; It differs from other kind of google maps applications 'cause it filters and select the best photos to be shown, giving a good vision of what the city looks like from 'groundlevel'.

Do you agree with this? and if so, do you know which way to follow to have them linked? RonaldWF 20:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

katz, gawin daw bang chatroom ito?! baka mahuli tayo ng admin ng wiki! hahaha! grabe sis, pg my tym my sasabihin ako sayo. ingatz ka jan!ClashEdRoom 05:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huang Biren

Why?? Why do you all keep deleting the awards section. Once you delete it, the page would be spoiled! Because one small paragraph about her awards is not enough. People would not be able to see it. So, I'm going to put back the awards section for the page. Please do not delete it anymore.

As for the {{sprotected}}, I put it there because the page was not protected. The page was being vandalised time and again. Not only were the awards section deleted, the nominations section was also deleted!

So I hope you would not delete it. Thank you!

fatty 04:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a dispute over the "Awards" table, please take it up with Wizardman. The material wasn't deleted, it was incorporated into the body of the article. As for the "semiprotected" tag, your use of it is inappropriate because the action of adding the tag does not actually protect the page. (Note, too, that this is at least the seventh time this template has been improperly applied to the page, including at least three attempts by you.) If you wish to seek protection for the page, you should go through proper channels and file a protection request. --Ckatzchatspy 04:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to go against you on Pluto and Ceres

Unfortunately the little blighter who made the edits did back it up on Pluto. I looked into the matter add it was quite clear and correct. I also made the appropriate rvt to Ceres. Normally we are in synch with each other on these matters, so hence why it pained me to go against you on it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abyssoft (talk • contribs) 16:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The Rugby move

Yeah...*sigh*...I'm familiar with that exchange; Toronto is actually on my watchlist, after the proposed move from the Time Police. I read both tirades at the time, and my spell checker had a nervous breakdown. I've witnessed what passes for logic on various other move requests...like Yoghurt and Florian Gate -- or whatever they are called at the moment. Cheers. --SigPig |SEND - OVER 09:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAC discussion for Solar System

What do you think of where the discussion is going? Should I be taking Idiogram's ideas on board, or should I leave things be? He's suggesting some pretty radical revisions and judging from your recent reverts I can't imagine you'd agree with them. I'm asking you because I am considering shifting the Extrasolar systems and Discovery and exploration sections off the article, and I wanted to clear it first. Serendipodous 18:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood/Runaway

I noticed you addressed the message to User:Langara College as well. I took the liberty of informing him since you only posted the message on User talk:Mkdw. I honestly have no patience for vandals and Donteatyellow has now proven that. Biased trolling is another form of vandalism on Wikipedia and its amazed me so far that no one has even mentioned it except for on Hollywood North's AfD. We all spend a considerable amount of time on Wikipedia and this one user continously works against the contributions of many by changing articles opinions and adding unreferenced facts that are false. He's also been noted for several personal attacks, and as you know Wikipedia has no tolerance for comments as such. He broke WP:CIVIL and I personally don't think there is reasoning nor justification to try and live with this situation. Passive abuse is something than can be dealth with by due process of policy set forth by Wikipedia rather than go to pain-staking lengths to co-exist with someone who has no interest to do the same. As for User:Langara College his comments may have been strong, but you'll notice his message was {{Comment4}} which is a standard warning for continous NPOV vandalism. If you are unfamiliar with warning templates, their use, and warning orders you can read more at WP:NPOV. Basically users who patrol vandalism are allowed to post warnings and its required if vandalism is reverted by that user. Various levels of warning templates are made available to users as level or number of vandalisms increase per user. {{Comment4}} is a high level warning for NPOV vandalism. While admins are the only 'true' judges to pass sentences on Wikipedia, users are greatly important to controlling vandalism. It is not uncommon for users to post the highest level of warnings provided for them to users who are at the edge of their warnings. Remember, warnings are different than threats. Mkdwtalk 22:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually stumbled upon an LA paper which was critical of the DGA [report.http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m5072/is_31_21/ai_55471397] Almost everything there comes from advocacy groups. And I found out today that most of the rest is used in a problematic way. I made a few edits but only got a about halfway through the article. And that's just sourcing, before we get to the NPOV problems. The funny thing is that the subsidies are only part of the problem for the advocacy groups like DGA, FTAC and CEIDR. Somehow Wikipedia has managed to have an article that is more extreme than the Hollywood groups. It is really incredible. --JGGardiner 01:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red FM India

Hi!

Kindly refresh ur information Red FM is not owned by NDTV, this FM station is a owned by TV Today Network. This is a popular group of India which has a 24 Hours News Channel AAJ TAK. Kittu 12:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You might wish to read the following news items (NDTV, Astro, Value Labs to buy out Red FM and Radio Today in talks to dilute 20 per cent to foreign strategic investor), which explain how Red FM was sold to a consortium of NDTV, Value Labs, and Astro in 2006. --Ckatzchatspy 20:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have a new message :)

Hi friend,

I am responding to your message on my talk page. I somewhat agree with you - and I will change it (no problem), however I wanna show you something. Make sure your anti-virus is up to date. Go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ivan_Kricancic and then click on "You have a new message". Cheers.

PS (Off Topic): I see you are Canadian. By the way, I am proud Bosniak Canadian and I love this country. But some people want to erase us from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bosniak_Canadian Anyways, nobody will erase my Bosniak Canadian identity. Bosniak 07:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RED FM india

Nice to know u have a huge interst in Indian Radio service but... Red FM is still run by TV Today Network. U can check it on India Today offical website. http://www.india-today.com . check it the below About Us menu. Kittu 09:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've checked that - the radio page gives a "not available" message. Various news items (here's another one) indicate there was a change in ownership as well. --Ckatzchatspy 17:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ceres

Well, Eris does not have miles, although Pluto does. The asteroids do not have miles either. And while I understand your desire for consistency, if it is "right" to include the US/imperial units at all, then it is better to be inconsistent and hope for the later addition to other articles and sections than to remove any additions. In things we should be striving for on Wikipedia, consistency should always come behind correctness. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 18:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that User:Toddles29 actually added the US/imperial to Eris as well, although he was immediately reverted in that case. One could argue that he was inconsistent in not updating all the statistics to include US/imperial units (while there are subtitles in the infobox, it's all one infobox). └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 18:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, Mercury (planet) and Neptune do not have US/imperial units in their orbital characteristics section, and Earth has them on only some characteristics. So it's not really that consistent. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 18:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ckatz

Could you please ensure that I nominated this article for deletion properly and that I placed deletion tag properly. Thank you. Click here to read —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bosniak (talk • contribs) 20:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Run! vs Run! (Heroes)

Hello, recently you opposed the move of the article Run! (Heroes) to Run!. However, I have recently posted several points that support this move, namely that Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(television)#Episode_articles clearly states: "For an article created about a single episode, add the series name in parentheses only if there are other articles by the same name". Since there is no article at "Run!", per the guidelines, the "(Heroes)" is unnecessary. If you have a chance, I invite you to return to the article's talk page and discuss this further, and perhaps my arguments (and those of others) can convince you to change your opinion. Thanks! -Seinfreak37 15:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to revision $1 dated $2 by $3 using popups

Just FYI: I don't think your reversion popup script is working properly. A number of reverts that you've made since 14-Feb have the edit summary as "Revert to revision $1 dated $2 by $3 using popups". Just thought you'd like to know in case you didn't notice it. Thomas Dzubin Talk 16:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative views

The views now being described as "Alternative views" at the Srebrenica Massacre article are alternatives to the findings of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. If I suggest that the ICTY is not a validly constituted legal forum would that count as a valid "Alternative view"? --Opbeith 14:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll on Srebrenica massacre

As a result of persistent edit warring on Srebrenica massacre, I have proposed that a straw poll be taken regarding one of the issues involved—namely, how to title the section currently named "Alternative views". This will help us to determine whether there is a consensus on what to title this section, or at least a consensus on what not to call it. The straw poll can be found at Talk:Srebrenica_massacre#Straw poll on "Alternative views" section. I have posted this announcement to each of the 19 users who have made multiple edits to Srebrenica massacre this year. —Psychonaut 13:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

edit to battlestar galactica

Hi Ckatz - would you take a moment to explain on the Talk:Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series) why you reverted User:Thethinredline's edit? It is especially important to explain reversions when the reverted edit was clearly done in good faith. Thanks! Debivort 20:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to this edit, I believe that you may have misread the edit history. As my comment ("Undid revision 109341872 by 69.77.132.17 (talk) rm. trivia") states, I only removed some trivia about a mention of BSG on The Office. This is in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines on avoiding trivia. Thethinredline's work on the "Theology" section hasn't been altered. --Ckatzchatspy 20:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ckatz- you're completely right. I mistook the edit history. Sorry about the mind-lapse. Debivort 21:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all. While I find the "Undo" feature to be very useful, especially for removing entrenched vandalism, the default comment can be a bit hard to decipher. With all the text about who is being undone, the what tends to get lost. --Ckatzchatspy 21:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh start

Hi! Given that the Srebrenica massacre article seems doomed to get stuck on endless discussion on details (such as the current unproductive discussion on the peripheral issue of what to call Mackenzie et al.) I've proposed a 'Fresh Start', setting out some basic principles which should help us to make some real progress with the article. Unfortunately, so far no one seems willing to support such an initiative. I would much appreciate if you took a look at it and gave some comments. Regards Osli73 10:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver Intro

I tried to rework the intro (User:Bobanny/Vancouver), but feel I've somewhat lost perspective on the article and know you have an opinion on the subject. Feel free to leave comments or make changes. Also, if you know of any city articles with a killer intro, that might be helpful too. I've looked at some other featured cities, and haven't seen any particularly exceptional intros. Cheers, Bobanny 20:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

toomuchtrivia template text

I disagree strongly that what you reverted the template to better reflects the guidelines regarding trivia. As currently worded, it's basically a mealy-mouthed mess that says nothing (OK, it says it "requires cleanup", whatever that means). Please explain how this is better than the much clearer text that I put in there, which explicitly pointed out that trivia sections are not wanted, and that the material therein should be put in the article proper or removed. +ILike2BeAnonymous 00:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Attribution

If you can find a citation please restore it, but please observe an official policy, Wikipedia:Attribution, "Although everything in Wikipedia must be attributable, in practice not all material is attributed. Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material. If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heroes CM

Indeed, no problem. I expect so, there are a few Americans that believe because Wikipedia is primarily US based we need to do everything the "American way". Just keep leaving notes, if they don't heed, then to me it is just malicious editing on the part of them. At TV.com they apparently enforce a "American only date rule", even on non-American shows. Anyway yea, I like the term Americaland, don't you :-P? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who

More then likely will be a March/early April air date - New Earth was mid-April last year, Rose was early March so I don't think it'll be later (I hope). thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

/me thinks Torchwood is brilliant and wished it was returning sooner. Apparently the Doctor Who magazine slates it for Jan. 2008 (Talk:Torchwood#Series_2_Details), a long wait :-(! thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ckatz — we haven't met, but I noticed your comment on Matthew's talk page. The latest scuttlebutt is that the first episode of Doctor Who series 3, "Smith and Jones", will air on March 31. (This is a recent change, due to some sports scheduling, apparently.) Details are here and here. It's gonna be a long month... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unjustified revert

[1] can i ask why you reverted this edition? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.103.33.94 (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Claire

I disagree and will be reinstating my edit at first opportunity. This is the first time Claire has been shot, and the episode verifies that the bullet did not leave her body before she began healing. That's all the verification we need. By the same logic, we could and perhaps should remove the entire stake paragraph because we can't really verify that either. All we know is she took a long time to start regenerating, and "Six Weeks Ago" established that her regenerations are not always instant. 23skidoo 20:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unofficial Links

Wow I don't get what is wrong with some people here, some can be so uptight... I don't get what's so wrong with the fan wiki, considering it's a free non-profit source of information like anything else that is allowed here. I just wanted to other people who might stop by here to know about other good sources of information. It seems to me you are just removing it because it goes against some belief of yours, however I think it's widely accepted. There are many unofficial links in many other articles here in Wikipedia as you should know. 2 subsections are even made in most cases under External Links - Official sites and Unofficial coverage. And to consider my action as "damage" is unfair. Will you excuse me if I'm saying rubbish, but I am new to Wikipedia and I'm not constantly here so I'm not 100% into the rules. I mainly follow what I see regularly in other articles and my concept of freedom (I don't think we want Wikipedia to be run by narrow-minded dictators who censor most things that slightly deviate from their perspective of how things should be, do we?). Pedrovsk 13:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understand. You might want to take a look at the Wii article by the way. It could be one of those who are not following the unofficial links rule, even though they are linking to pretty good gaming sites. Thanks.Pedrovsk 17:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Re: Simone & Power Speculation

I was going to leave it as Unknown to minimize edits, but back to None is good as well. Thanks for keeping an eye on that. The promos cause lots of trouble, eh? ;) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Valaqil (talk • contribs) 22:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Flags

Indeed, I used to believe that it was easier just to use them then to have them converted till that essay popped up and I realised I'm not "alone" in my dislike for them, I personally can live with them but they don't format correctly in my opinion, not to mention they could be ambiguous. Matthew 08:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:BSG genre

Okay, no problem.. Have a nice day/night :) ..Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 22:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I feel that flags are pointless, redundant, and in many cases, space-hogging.. I will admit-I liked them at first, but I've since grown to dislike them with a passion :P Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 22:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Add On-Also, I agree with you 100 % :) Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 23:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asgard

I still do not see any relevancy, nor do I see how it's an "in-joke", it is a proper question, the Asgard do look very similar and they do have different voices. --Matthew

Torchwood

Hey, what do you think about this edit? I removed the recurring info in it, but if you don't like it, you may revert, and I'll leave it alone. Please reply to me on my talk page.. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 18:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jericho page moves

I'm sorry I didn't understand the rule about leaving the simplest article titles in place for as long as possible. Thanks for doing the reversion work to set them back. - Bevo 15:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Planet Earth

Please think:

There are 267 administrative divisions, including nations, dependent areas, other, and miscellaneous entries. Historically, Earth has never had a sovereign government with authority over the entire globe, although a number of nation-states have striven for world domination. Independent sovereign nations claim all of the land surface except for some segments of Antarctica. The United Nations is a worldwide general international organization, but it is primarily an international discussion forum with only limited ability to pass and enforce laws.

1. What is being said? 2. Is it clear? 3. Is there a simpler way to say it?

The fact that this is not "simple" Wikipedia is irrelevant. Language is your tool. You need to be clear.

I concede that the above paragraph does not imply "interplanetary governments". However there is no excuse for this paragraph to remain in its current state.

I have not read the entire "Earth" article -- and if the rest of it reads like this paragraph, do you seriously think anyone would?

- Abscissa 03:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems ok to me. For what its worth.--Raymm 19:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ceres

I've restored a lot of the reference details that were removed by MatheoDJ, as well as fixing some other changes from the same edits. I'd appreciate it if you could please look over the article to make sure that the information you added is still present. Thanks. --Ckatzchatspy 21:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is good. Michaelbusch 21:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SG-U

It was actually italics you removed (all articles I've seen still use the italics for some reason, or another, I believe it's because it forces it into plain text), yea.. needs a better title, I restored the lead-in as it just seemed to "stern" (can't think of a word) to me, i.e. it didn't "flow". Matthew 09:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just hoping we get a new ship in this new series (pref. loaded with Asgard tech :-)) Matthew 09:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's actually four Stargate series, SG-1, Infinity, SGA and now SGU. SG-Inf was only produced by MGM (with DiC), see Stargate Infinity, so third seemed correct to me. Matthew 09:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's because italics are hard coded into the infobox. Matthew 10:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earth

Thanks for your input at Earth. Sorry about the mix-up - I didn't see your second rewrite until later in the day, well after posting a reworked version of your first rewrite. (I've tweaked the talk page discussion to reflect this.) I'd be happy to help out if you're going to rework the text, but I'll have to withdraw from interacting with Abscissa. I feel that editor has taken a hostile (and I believe unwarranted) approach to the matter, and I'm also not comfortable with the comments he/she has directed toward me. Thanks again. --Ckatzchatspy 08:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links

These are not spam, they're valid show-related links, specific to the entry.

They're actually links to unofficial, advertising-supported blog site which do not meet WP:EL. --Ckatzchatspy 18:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi, thanks for [2]. I don't even remember going to that request for adminship today, let alone reverting it. I just saw it in my contributions. Weird. Garion96 (talk) 10:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver

Thanks for your warnings. I'm not very worried about my comments to him. When I wrote it I choose my words carefully like "one of the editors" and "successful nominator" as there had been previous nominators. Nothing in my message actually states ownership. It was more an attempt to discourage an edit war over the disguise of 'vandalism' since I had brought it to the discussion page. From my experience, off-topic additions, or loosely placed additions are almost reverted on site for most featured articles I have seen, with the similiar idea about talking about them first for a better way to integrate the idea. Usually under the Featured Article Criteria, 1. e and 4. But thank you for your comments. I have come to realize that while Wikipedia almost expects this 'perfect society', I cannot give up who I am and forbid my personality in my work, even its short-comings. =) Mkdwtalk 17:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC) P.S. Have you thought about adminship for yourself? Mkdwtalk 17:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alvensleben's buddies

I'm not sure I ever heard the Ribbentrop bit before, but if there's a source that says "rumoured but uncomfirmed etc" it can be cited as saying that, even though the report is unconfirmed it was reported as a rumour in print. What I can do, provided memory and time, is dig out some of the other guests and goings-on at Wigwam Inn from the chapter on the Germans in Strangers Entertained, a BC Centennial publication from 1971 that's quite dry but has lots of details, sometimes personal details; there were various notable German guests, and others that will make an interesting register-of-notables. Roosevelt and Astor were also the guests of other society notables in these parts in their visits to BC, also, not just the Alvenslebens; guys like that couldn't go anywhere without a hundred people lining up to kiss their you-know-whats, even under cover of secrecy there's still protocol, and power always meets up with power, even if it's en route to a fishing/drinking/dancing retreat (place sounds like it was wild times...); Alvensleben was no doubt their pal, but they got wined and dined all over the place. Or footed the bill, whichever (esp. in Astor's case...)Skookum1 08:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Falkland Islands

Hi there, I note you reverted an edit to this page and warned Swuekilafe for vandalism. I don't know if you are aware, but you have reverted to a version which is not in line with the talk page consensus. You may wish to consider reverting to an older edit. DrFrench 22:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops... thanks for catching that. It's been really hard to keep track over the past while. I've made the change (and I notice that the page is now protected as well.) Cheers! --Ckatzchatspy 22:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, thanks for making the change. I actually asked for semi-protection as there appeared to be a lot of anon IP edits (and I have a sneaking suspicion of IP sockpuppetry, but am not sure). Hopfully this will give the breathing space needed. Cheers! DrFrench 22:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gender of the Cylon God

Hello. I have started a Talk item here so that we can try to get this resolved without reverting too many edits. Would appreciate your views. Thanks --Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 19:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cylon Monotheism

The Cylons clearly refer to their god as He. Chiss Boy 21:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Jericho

Yea, I saw. The header you changed it to is fine with me as a stop-gap. I'll see if I can draw the energy to c/e the page some time soon. Matthew 21:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earth's Temporary Moon

Would an article form Sky & Telescope serve as a reference? [3] --Daveonwiki 18:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jericho

.. is getting pretty darned interesting now, don't ya think :-)? Matthew 19:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty much feel the same way, except I like Skylar :-P. I just really hope they don't jump ship for season two, it has so much potential. I wonder if they'll be pulling out the town's tank (-:! I think the whole New Bern arm-up thing is slightly iffy though, how could they get the resources to rage war :-\? Matthew 22:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

The revert from New Bern did indeed look too suspicious since there was no reason given, and it was an unlogged user. But since you say it's been discussed, well then it must've been :P. And I the addition of the morse codes, because i felt that they should be on the list, beucase they have a meaning in relation to the episode, and can be considered like a sub-title. Cloud02 19:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

to Ckatz

ok Ckatz, I provided a link to the article. Taiwan was never the largest source of Chinese immigrants to Canada.Sonic99 16:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jericho map

Yeah, I thought I would try and settle the situation once and for all :) Hopefully it should be the last new map the page will ever need! -- Chuq (talk) 09:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Central Lonsdale

I was going through CAT:CSD and deleting speediable articles when I noticed that you tagged Central Lonsdale as a CSD A1 (no context). Although it's a very short article, and may merit deletion as a non-notable geographical area, it does provide enough context not to be speediable. I've removed the db tag, but you can list it at WP:AFD if you want, or alternatively use a {{subst:prod|reason}} template. Walton Vivat Regina! 19:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in fact a merge and redirect would be a very good idea. I'll leave you to do that, since I imagine you know more about Vancouver than me. Alternatively, you can leave the article and see if it grows beyond a stub. Walton Vivat Regina! 19:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jericho Sheriff's Department

If i put s spoiler warning up and remove any speculational info. Can you put up the Activity in the Episodes section. --cwk14724 15:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a matter of whether or not there is a spoiler tag - it is that the material isn't considered encyclopedic. That level of detail about a series is better suited to a fan site, or to the Jericho wiki. --Ckatzchatspy 20:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re Heroes

'Tis cool. Lets face it my edit it pointless anyway, in under a week it'll be removed for a full plot and my edit will be part of the history books. ≈ Seraph 20:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

== TfD nomination of Template:100,000e ==

Template:100,000e has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — JPG-GR 08:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm alerting you as I've seen your previous discussions on this matter, as well as your intent to integrate the "|comma" attribute. Thanks again. JPG-GR 08:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit count

The 'edit count' link you provide on your userpage seems to be broken. This link works correctly. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 19:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JerichoForum move?

I note that you moved an entry named JerichoForum to Jericho Forum - unfortunately it appears to have overwritten the correct entry for Jericho Forum which no longer exists!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Simmondp (talk • contribs) 19:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]


With respect, some questions re "Alexis Bledel (Gilmore Girls) breeds mutants"

I'm new at wikipedia and would welcome your guidance.

I'm not trying to start an argument with you. I'm just looking for some guidance on the criteria used to remove my light-hearted humorous observation.

There is tension a-plenty in the talk pages, I was inviting people to a pleasant exchange that I thought some might enjoy, that might alleviate some of the angry exchanges I've seen.

I imagined that I was in a room filled with people discussing Heroes, and I thought that my observation might bring a smile to someone's face. Is there no room for light-hearted comments on the talk pages?

Not allowed? How sad.

--Raymm 19:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, emphasising I'm not trying to fight, I'm just trying to learn, at Editing Comments - Others Comments I see this: 

   *In general, editing others' comments is not allowed. Exceptions are:
   * If you have their permission
   * Removing prohibited material such as libel and personal details
   * Removing personal attacks and incivility. Please read WP:ATTACK#Removal of text and WP:CIVIL#Removing uncivil comments before removing anything.
   * Unsigned comments: You are allowed to append —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])  or one of its variants to the end of someone's comment if they have failed to sign it. The form is —The preceding unsigned comment was added by USER NAME OR IP (talk • contribs)., which results in —The preceding unsigned comment was added by USER NAME OR IP (talk • contribs) ..
   * Interruptions: In some cases, it is OK to interrupt a long contribution, either by a short comment (as a reply to a minor point) or by a headline (If the contribution introduces a new topic. In that case, add "Headline added to (reason) by Raymm 20:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)"). In such cases, please add —This is part of a comment by USER NAME OR IP , which got interrupted by the following:  before the interruption.
   * When a long comment has formatting errors, rendering it difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible.
   * On your own user talk page, you may remove comments from others, although archiving is generally preferred. The text of another user's comment, however, may never be directly edited to misrepresent the person or change the meaning of the comment.[reply]

I'd be grateful if you could explain under which exception you judged that you could delete my comments.

After further research, it seems my contribution might be prohibited as OR:

Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."--Raymm 21:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

five years gone.

Hey, CKatz! You know, we work well together. We often agree on alot. About the article's history, you commented that it is unknown if the Haitian is dead. I'd have to strongly disagree with you on that point. Not only did Mohinder say that Isaac's comic "shows me killing him", but "Nathan" (AKA Sylar) was the one who ordered Mohinder to begin his plan of genocide with killing present-day Hiro. I've watched the episode twice (once on NBC, once on the SciFi channel) and that's what happened. I can look for sources within the plot summaries written by critics by searching on Google, if you wish. I did the same thing when it was debated on if it was really a piece of hair and blood which fell to the floor when Peter was getting his head sliced open in Parasite (Heroes). dposse 00:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Billywhack's edits at Five Years Gone

I don't care what you would appreciate. the matter was already settled until you and your buddy decided you own the page. Look at Sylar's entry and it's history. I am warning you that you will be reported. If you feel threatened, maybe you should look into what in your life causes you to feel victimized. Have a nice day. Billywhack 22:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I propose a survey. But I don't see the point what with the decision already being settled on the Sylar page. I mean do you see a point in repeating the same argument that was already settled elsewhere? Billywhack 22:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for this. I misread the sentence. --Wafulz 12:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

possible solution to five years gone.

http://www.cinemablend.com/television/TV-Recap-Heroes-Chapter-20-Five-Years-Gone-4030.html

This blog-type review of the episode is the closest thing i could find to a source for the debated infomation on which powers were used during the episode. I'm not sure if it meet WP:RS standards, though. Please take a look at it and tell me what you think. dposse 16:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of world records

I have no idea why my edits to Movie Totals also impacted the Longest Running Sct-Fi Series. It was unintentional. Dr Who is by far the longest running, and I do not consider the fact otherwise. (forgot to sign in: Maggott2000) 60.234.242.196 18:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heroes Episode 21

Okay, sorry I guess I'm still a little confused as to what a stun actually is. All I was complaining about was that you were reverting the article back to way it was before the episode summary was written. I wasn't sure why you were doing that, but seemed from your description of a stub that you were retoring it.
Sorry I accused you of something you didn't do. I just wasn't sure what a stub was. annoynmous 00:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Jericho Flag

It's the same flag mate. Stars are in the same order and there's the same amount of stripes. I dont see why the user generated one isn't better to use. By using that one, we're even away from any copyright issue. Cloud02 21:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user created flag isn't free. Nor is it better, it looks like a botched photoshop... imo. I should really replace that screen capture though, it's really poor quality :\. Matthew 21:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He created it in paint and saved is as JPEG and that's it. I dont see how you can get a better look at the flag, other than having a user-made image of it. Unless of course one is provided by CBS, which I doubt they will do. Cloud02 21:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
or from the episode its self... which the flag is shown in... Matthew 21:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The curretn image is in so poor quality that it doesnt make sense to use it. Also I don't see why a user-made flag cannot be used. Cloud02 12:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Screen name = Alias?

The alias page (pseudonym) says that screen names count.--Ice Vision 17:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Srebrenica article

Ckatz,

I do not know why that user keeps changing the "Alternative views" sentence. The version that you are enforcing is obviously better. Thank you for keeping an eye on it. Fairview360 00:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I left a message at User talk:Perspicacite. Hopefully that will work. Sometimes people new to Wikipedia do not read the edit summaries of edits by others, so it's better to communicate with them via their talk page. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"spam"

Ckatz, i work at Yahoo in Santa Monica. i'm trying to update all the pages for our TV shows by adding a direct link to our site on their wikipedia sites. is this not allowable? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gpie944 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Cancellation

Indeed, it isn't a press release. That's my mistake for trying to read two things at once. What matters though is it clearly states: "Not making the cut: freshman drama 'Jericho'". I'm just as upset as you that Jericho is cancelled (if not more), but it doesn't look like there's any light at the end of the tunnel. Matthew 09:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have they made their announcement at Carnegie Hall yet then? Matthew 21:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's only a TV show, but I feel quite sad... I also feel slightly betrayed by the American network CBS. It really sucks to leave shows on a cliff hanger :-(. Matthew 21:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Ckatz/Archive_2"