User talk:Ckatz

	Archives
	Page One; Page Two; Page Three; Page Four

Hello! Thanks for dropping by... please feel free to leave me a message below. I don't have a convention as to where I'll respond, be it here, your talk page, or the talk page of the subject we're discussing - but I'll do my best to keep things clear. Let me know if you have a preference... now, get typing! Ckatz

Note: Thank you to everyone who was able to participate in my recent request for adminship, which passed at 55/0/0. I'm working through the list to send a proper note of thanks, but I wanted to let you all know how I appreciate the support, advice, and feedback. Thanks again! Ckatz

Frequently asked questions

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

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

Contents

About the Vancouver College Article

Wow! Thanks for contributing to the VC article! I go to VC, and I'd like to say what a great job you've done. You wrote some stuff that even I never knew about VC! Again, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.43.200 (talk • contribs)

7 Minutes to Midnight Edit

Thanks for the edit. I wasn't sure the best way to word that and not take out the other guy's Gattaca movie trivia. I like your rewording. Thanks!

Banner

You might be happy to find out users are now no longer taken off-wiki by the banner.

Peanuts

Ah - I was confused as to why you had reverted my change, as the rest of the paragraph is written in the past tense, and so it seemed to read better by changing the first sentence into the past tense as well. I wasn't familiar with that particular Wikipedia policy - I will leave the sentance as it is! --DonVincenzo (talk) 04:29, 6 February 2008

Thank you for explaining the logic behind that - it now makes much more sense. --DonVincenzo (talk) 05:07, 6 February 2008

Your edit on page for Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

Hi there,

Just a short response to the removal of my edits with regard to the time frame discussion on the Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets page. I put them in there as I'm actually listening to the Prisoner of Azkaban book on tape at the moment and had remembered reading about the time frame post a couple of days ago. As Jim Dale read the passage about the students' first divination class, I realized it could be another timeframe reference and so I immediately looked up the calendar years and found through a quick web search that there was a Friday Oct. 16th in 1992 and in 1998. Since Chamber of Secrets is claimed to have occurred in 1992-1993 (presumably the October the 16th would have been the one in 1992 in that book), the timeline is thus perhaps not accurate. In chapter 8 (Flight of the Fat Lady) of Prisoner of Azkaban, Lavendar Brown indeed has that "thing that she's been dreading" happen to her: Her pet rabbit Dinky dies and she claims she should have known...it's Friday Oct. 16th! Hermione thinks it's basically hogwash as Dinky was a young rabbit and thus it's unlikely that Lavender would have feared Dinky's death...

Anyway, please check the books for yourself. I've referenced the chapters and you can easily check the past calendars for the dates. Obviously, feel free to edit the text :)

cheers,

Aaron (awoolsey@gmail.com)

Re: A favour...

Eh, those deletion discussions are a bit old and bit light on participation, but you could have gone either way. However, you've got the prime directive to consider, so I suppose you did good here. Good luck with those tools! east.718 at 09:20, March 7, 2008

Reverts

Although you seem to be doing a fine job overall, just thought I'd say, could you be a little more careful (if poss) with your reverts (not going back far enough), see here or here for a couple of examples. Thanks :-) Pahari Sahib 10:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Unfortunately, those articles were vandalized by User:Bnationalp and by that user's IP address; hence the complication when reverting. The user and the IP have been temporarily blocked; please let me know if you see more vandalism from either party. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay will do :-), by the way - judging by the types of edits by the user (and the IP address) - I think the user name is short for British National Party - seems to me to be an inappropriate user name. Pahari Sahib 05:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Gilliam

Thanks for your message. I was glad to do it. I was annoyed at the anon.'s edit on the subject, which seemed designed to make Gilliam look bad: first, that he was disingenuous about his motives for renouncing his citizenship; second, that he was a tax dodge, as you say. We know that this is not the case. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Planet

05:39, 8 March 2008 Ckatz (Talk | contribs) (37 bytes) (moved Template:Infobox Nonstellar body to Template:Infobox Planet over redirect: Revert undiscussed move - should be discussion as to the name, plus a plan for updating the hundreds of pages that call this.)

Hi -- the discussion aside (given the template's use, moving to the more generic name seems uncontroversial to me), did a redirect from "Infobox Planet" to "Infobox Nonstellar body" not work? Seemed to be okay here... Sardanaphalus (talk) 04:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm still here trying to iron out a few wrinkles in (the spacetime of) the template. How about leaving it as "Nonstellar body" and see if anyone objects with reason beyond the principle of having a discussion, unless you already see a problem with the name (I'm assuming an astronomical context) or have a potentially better one? Sardanaphalus (talk) 04:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The name shouldn't have any effect on the tweaks. Okay, if a discussion there must be (still don't see why, in lieu of a non-principled objection) then I guess the template's talk page is the place to start it. So I have. I see, though, that there hasn't been much talk there recently. Sardanaphalus (talk) 05:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...Okay. I was assuming that whatever the outcome, the redirection could handle it. After all, suggesting via the infobox name that Telesto (for example) is a planet is kind of... odd. Coffeetime. Sardanaphalus (talk) 07:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you SO much.

Times like this I wish I hadn't voluntarily given back the mop and bucket. I've been editing this site on and off virtually since its inception and I have never seen a character quite like that Connor guy. I am genuinely creeped out by this user and I am beyond grateful you've blocked him. Please take a look at his photo contribs. They're simply useless. Thank you from the bottom of my heart for shutting him down if even for a few days. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 09:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PMDrive1061 (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'd walked away due to some nasty abuse I was receiving based on the deletions of nonsense. One guy blew a gasket and tried to run me up on a RfC after I deleted his nonsense dicdef...which has stayed deleted. Same thing happened once before. I'd given back the mop and bucket on a prior occasion, wrote Jimbo some months later to ask to be reinstated - which I was - only to have much the same thing happen again. Once administrative blood hits the water, the trolls go into a feeding frenzy and the community kind of sat back and watched. This last time really was the last time. I requested and received de-adminning once more under my old username of "Lucky 6.9" and walked away for almost two years. I wanted to return and do some work on Veropedia, but the only way to do that was to edit here. So, here I am. I'm having more fun cleaning up old articles and doing some whack-a-vandal patrolling. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Planet X crazies

Do you think it might be a good idea to get Planet X semi-protected? The closer we get to 2012, the more that page is going to get savaged by well-meaning borderline psychotics. I have to say the whole thing really freaks me out, especially when you realise that it all started with a woman who thinks she has an alien implant in her brain. Serendi ^podous 18:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor (Doctor Who) edit concerning Declaration of Independence

Just found your re-edit of my restoration of the deleted passage concerning the Doctor and the Declaration of Independence in Doctor (Doctor Who). You have indeed made a better read of it, my compliments. The part which I added and you deleted as, according to your edit summary, opinion was intended to be merely the standard "The canonicity of spin-off fiction is unclear" disclaimer modified because this is actually a scene scripted and even recorded for the official series but left out, presumably to fit the required time slot (a statement I never considered for inclusion in the article because it is no more than my presumption, and I am wide open to correction). That, of course, has more authenticity than something in a novelization that might have been found in one draft or another of the script or came out of the novelist's own imagination. Perhaps leaving that at "It's status as 'deleted' leaves its canonicity unclear, similar to spin-off fiction" would be acceptable. I think the hidden message I included, that many statements from SOFs are discussed in this article, means that deleting this on the grounds given by PMA when he did so is dubious when limited to this one passage, that either a great deal needs to be taken out or this left in. Ted Watson (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are external links that are accepted

You continue to remove links that would be helpful to users to learn more information about a certain famous person. I am considering going to mediation or arbitration with you. You continue to remove sources that would be helpful to people. Interviews are considered good external links. You aren't following your own rules. Pages that include Jaslene Gonzalez and Robin Roberts interviews under external links were good sources. Would you please stop removing things that are good sources. You aren't helping only hurting. I have tried again and again to source real information and real on the record interviews, but you continue to take it down. It is not spam. I am not selling something to anyone. I am only trying to provide good information.

"thesportsinterview" links have been repeatedly spammed across a series of articles for over a year now, and the URL was even on the spam list for a period of time. A host of single-purpose IPs have surfaced, their only goal being to add links to this site to articles. The external links guideline does not condone adding links just because an interview exists; otherwise, we would have hundreds of links on these pages. You have been advised of this repeatedly; please respect the site guidelines. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are not hundreds of interviews on the net with these specific people. If there were others would be sourced and there would be no need to source mine. On many of these biographers there were no other interview links. Many of those links were up for a year and you just come and clean house. That is not fair to me who runs a real outlet with real content that can be helpful to wiki users. I would like to go to mediation with you. This is not fair to me who is trying to provide good information. You have done nothing but cause frustration. I sourced a few dozen pages and I get my head chewed off for it. It's not fair or right. I wish you would cooperate with me.

You are welcome to seek a second opinion, but to be perfectly honest you are in all likelihood going to get exactly the same response. Wikipedia does not exist as a directory for links; furthermore, the fact that your links were "up for a year" does not indicate that they should have been placed to begin with. There are well over two million articles on Wikipedia, so it does take time to clean up problems. You are not the first site owner to question why his or her links are being removed; many, many people have done the same thing, because they do not see the difference between Wikipedia and other web sites. I've said this before, but I'll say it again: do not take it as a comment on your site, merely the reality that the links are not suitable for this project. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. Jackocleebrown (talk) 12:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm in the Middle

Hi - thanks for looking into this. Yes, that user appears to be creating new articles. I don't know the trick, but it's a trick. A couple days ago, those articles were FULL episode descriptions, and now they're gone, along with the edit history. I can show you the original source for the Red Dress article (I saved it long long ago). User TTN had taken them down, and after the Wikipedia team determined that TTN's actions were uncalled for, those episode descriptions were reverted. Again... just a few days ago, those articles were long and descriptive! Geĸrίtz (talk)

I've restored an older version to my user space, User:Gekritzl/Red Dress (Malcolm in the Middle episode). You can see the article used to have lots of detail. Thanks again. I actually retrieved this shortly after TTN deleted it, by using Google and downloading a cached version. Are you an admin? Geĸrίtz (talk)

Thanks for your comments on my talk page, but it wasn't much of a help. The day before Mzaincontributor "created" the Red Dress (Malcolm in the Middle) article, the full article was already there. It is pure speculation on my part that Mzaincontributor was the one who deleted the original, complete article, and replaced it with the skeleton article, and somehow wiped out the edit history. Thanks again... Geĸrίtz (talk)

Source One Television on the Christian Music Page

I am not sure why myself and the company I work for has been unfairly targeted by you and your team, however, Source One Television is a legitimate television show providing music news and artist interviews. I must call into question your repeated removals of links to Source One... and demand you reinstate those links. From my understanding of Wikipedia policy, your actions are a violation. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmatadeen (talk • contribs) 03:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Forward

I would be glad to move forward, however, you and your colleagues have provided threats, and at no point have provided any positive criticisms as to how to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmatadeen (talk • contribs) 04:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for discussing this matter. First off, I'd just like to state that I have never "threatened" you. I have attempted to explain the situation, and have also provided warnings based on Wikipedia's established procedures for dealing with issues like this. (It is worth noting that some of your actions - repeatedly adding the links, addding multiple copies of the same message to my tal page, and so on - could easily have resulted in a block by now. However, in the spirit of "moving forward", I'd prefer to ignore those for now.)

I think we need to clarify another issue as well. Based on the conversations you've had today, I think that you may be under the wrong impression as to what Wikipedia is. This site is not a public forum, a search engine, or a directory service. The aim of the project is to build an online encyclopedia, one that "anyone can edit". That involves several core principles that govern what sort of content is deemed acceptable; we have to ensure that text is verifiable, obtained from reliable sources, notable, and so on. Companies are not permitted to use Wikipedia for advertising purposes, which is why an article about an organization is expected to avoid resembling that organization's promotional material. Related to this, web site owners are cautioned about contributing information that benefits their interests, and external links to sites are not permitted just because (for example) an interview exists. There are millions of companies world-wide that will never be able to have Wikipedia articles, not because they are bad or because Wikipedians dislike them, but instead because they do not demonstrate sufficient notability for inclusion. Think of it this way - you would expect your company to be permitted to have a listing in the phone directory, alongside CNN or the New York Times. Would you, however, be offended if those organizations were written up in the Encyclopedia Brittanica and yours was not? --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time to block for 8 hours

122.2.96.229 as noted due to vandalsim —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thright (talk • contribs) 07:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts of user Andrewmagliozzi's edits

Ckatz, Why did you remove all of those links? For several of those I'd even posted on the talk pages with no dissenting remarks. Was it inappropriate to post if no one disagreed? How does anything ever achieve approval on Wikipedia? Also, did you even take the time to visit those links and read the content associated with each of the articles? If you had, I don't think you would have deleted them. I'd love to talk to you about this. Andrewmagliozzi (talk) 19:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, per the comments that have been left on your talk page, at least three editors other than myself have reviewed your site and felt that it did not meet the external links guideline. This doesn't mean your site is bad, but Wikipedia is not a links directory or a search engine. We don't link to every site with content. The project works on based on consensus, and the consensus so far has been that your links don't belong. Please see my note on your talk page as well. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, what specific problems were there with the site? If there is any way I could fix them, I'd like to know how. Second, should I just leave some talk on all of those pages with the assumption that someone else may read, follow the link, and repost? Sorry if you think this is spam, but it is a great site that I worked very hard to make for the benefit of others and it seems rather unfortunate that it would be rejected from the entire WP community by three people. Andrewmagliozzi (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I have been persistent with these links because I am certain my site is a better resource than several other external links that appear on these pages. Also, I wonder why links to Sparknotes and other painfully commercial sites appear on these pages. Also, while some editors did criticize these links months ago, I made many changes to the site based on their comments. Please clarify. Andrewmagliozzi (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is understandable that you would feel strongly about your site, and it is also commendable that you are trying to adapt it based on comments from others. However, one key problem lies in you being the one to add links to the site, since there is an obvious conflict of interest. You'd need to convince other editors that the site has something unique and distinct to offer, and let them be the ones to add the site. FYI, blogs and user-edited sites often have a more difficult go of it than other sites with stricter editorial oversight. As for the other links you mention, the general feeling here is that the existence of invalid links (again, using "invalid" as a reflection of WP's links guideline rather than site quality) does not justify the addition of more links. If you feel some existing links aren't appropriate, you are encouraged to suggest they be removed. (Ordinarily, I'd say to remove them yourself, but again the "conflict of interest" issue arises.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I'll just try to convince you. First, a link to a recent article about the site )http://thephoenix.com/article_ektid57117.aspx). Second, the point of the site is to encourage open education and academic discussion, considering the dedicated users of Wikipedia, my goal was not the wide promotion of the site as much as encouraging people like yourself to enjoy the site and contribute your own knowledge. Third, I have looked into every hypertext commentary engine on the web, and I guarantee that none is better than the one on TheFinalClub.org. Furthermore, the content of this hypertext commentary is absolutely fantastic. Read Macbeth or Bartleby for ten minutes and I guarantee you'll agree that there is no other comparable website anywhere on the web.

Keep in mind that I'm not the person you really need to convince; while I am an administrator, that role is more one of enforcing the site's policies and guidelines. When it comes to content, my vote is the same as any other editor's. The better approach would be to ask regular contributors on the talk pages of specific articles. If, for example, you can convince the editors at Romeo and Juliet that your site adds value to the article, they may well put the link in. If there is a consensus, you'll see that editors help to maintain that consensus if someone repeatedly removes the link. Likewise, if the Hamlet editors reject the link, it would stay out at that article. (It is very much a case-by-case assessment.)

One point to consider: the message you're currently posting is too "promotional" in nature, and may well cause additional problems. I would suggest you remove the old text and reword it to briefly describe the site and its features in simple, "hype-free" text. Most importantly, be sure to mention your role, the fact it was deemed unsuitable previously, and that you have reworked it on the basis of comments received here. That way, there is nothing "hidden", you avoid the "hey. look at this great site" spam messaging that is discouraged here, and you put everything out there for editors to assess. Again, you may or may not be successful, and it would probably be case-by-case. Hope this helps. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smallville

I think the IP addy that continues to revert back the unsourced information is actually Joey 606. Anyway, I put in a request for semi-protection of the article. Do you think that is the right move? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's probably better if you don't protect the page given your most recent revert of the same information. An Admin decline it on the grounds that there hasn't been enough recent activity, and I don't want to continue the edit war with this IP who seems to blindly revert back without providing any source and blanking their talk page when I ask them for one. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I was right about the IP being Joey, they both just blanked their talk pages back-to-back. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bignole, I would appreciate it if you wouldn’t blindly accuse my of continued editing of that page. As far as I’m concerned the matter is finished, the admin has spoken and i respect that. It is not up to you to blindly speculate. I actually find this quite offensive and I would ask Ckatz to take some form of action on this. Bignole please back down, once again you are not an admin, if Ckatz wishes to investigate into if that IP i can see on the page is me, it is entirely his/her decision. It is not however yours, your here to update information on articles and if you should so wish correct other peoples articles. If you could contact me Ckatz re this matter i would apprciate it as i honestly feel that this sort of attitude and "finger pointing" isnt appropriate on a site such as this. Half the problems that are caused with this member are caused by a lack of communication, he doesnt contact anyone before reverting he just does it, this is what he did to me and what got me sligtly angry with the afor mentioned member. I notice i am not the only member to have problems with bignole. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey 606 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, please be realistic. If Bignole hadn't made the comparison, I or any other editor probably would have. "Joey 606" and "86.153.221.218" have both only edited the Smallville page, making very similar changes. The IP account first began editing on March 6th, adding two unreferenced episode titles, and repeatedly reverting when those were removed for lack of sources. Joey 606 first edited on March 9th, doing exactly the same thing. Both have also edited at around the same time, performing similar actions; your first edit on Wikipedia was to the Smallville article, restoring the identical text that the IP had placed hours before. Yesterday, you and the IP blanked your respective talk pages within two minutes of each other. Today, you both post complaints about Bignole within six minutes of each other. If you aren't the same people, fine, but the comments on both talk pages are still valid, the material is still unreferenced, and the accounts are still edit-warring. Please keep that in mind before making accusations about other editors.

Further to this, remember that on Wikipedia, an "administrator" is just an editor with some extra tools to assist in enforcing policies and guidelines established by all editors. Your actions and the IP's actions contravened a long-established requirement for verifiability, and as such can (and should) be removed when discovered. While editors are encouraged to discuss the matter - as Bignole did by posting on the respective talk pages - it would be inappropriate to allow unreferenced material to remain until said discussion is complete. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: List of moons

Hi. Thanks for the note. Thinking on it, I agree with you that having "known" in the sentence is incorrect. I was originally thinking along the same lines as the intro I wrote for Mars, which has a maximum size for any unknown moons, but in Earth's case I think that limit's sufficiently small that anything discovered wouldn't be called a moon. :) Mike Peel (talk) 22:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]