Ckatz

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

Archives

Page One Page Two Page Three Page Four

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)

Abdeslam Boulaich

I believe your removal of the CSD from Abdeslam Boulaich to be inappropriate. Your comment was “Actually, this might be interesting if it can be expanded. Bowles is apparently notable for this sort of work”. This article is about Abdeslam, not Bowles (who has his own article). Further, A7 states speedy deletion is appropriate when an article “does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources”. CSD makes no consideration of what “might be interesting”. The article asserts no importance or significance. Although I question the WP:RS/WP:V compliance of the sources you indicated on the talk page, it is moot, as CSD#A7 explicitly differentiates between "importance or significance" and notability. I’ll inform you if I post this to WP:ANI, as this appears to be an unambiguous judgment error. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the remainder of my comment was cut off; a simple search in English found 1,800 hits on Boulaich. Obviously, not all will be useful, but several of the hits (book on Amazon, part of university-level course reading, etc.) are sufficient to establish that a speedy deletion is in fact inappropriate. Beyond that, I would ask that you assume good faith on the part of your fellow editors, and avoid making unwarranted threats suggestions that this action in any way warrants an AN/I report. Note that the speedy deletion policy explicitly states that "deletion is not required if a page meets these criteria" and "Any editor who is not the creator of a page may remove a speedy tag from it." Speedies are a request for deletion, not a directive. As an administrator, I'm expected to assess your request, determine if it is warranted, and act accordingly. As an editor, I'm entitled to disagree with your opinion. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The ANI comment was not a threat. There’s a distinct difference between “if” and “will”. Indicating that I would be honorable and notify you if that is my decision was an extension of courtesy. The comment was made in good faith and it would appear that you need to read not only CSD, but AGF. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 19:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Out of respect for your reply, I've changed "threat" to "suggestion". However, that doesn't change my underlying concern that you would consider this as being even remotely worthy of an AN/I report. Those are generally reserved for serious issues, not minor disagreements over content (which is what this is.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a secondary issue of judgment. You're a relatively new admin exercising, in my opinion, questionable judgment. ANI would be an appropriate forum to confirm or deny, and thus nip potential future problems in the proverbial bud. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 19:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

To quote another editor, "The fact that there's a keep !vote here already indicates to me that it would have been inappropriate to speedily delete the article. Speedy deletion is only for those cases that are so obvious that there is no need to waste everyone's time with a debate." (This is from the deletion debate for Regina Freedman; while that article did end up being deleted, it is another instance where you took issue with an editor who disagreed with your use of CSD:A7.) Look, obviously, we're not in agreement on this matter; why not agree to disagree and put this behind us? --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

SlideRocket

Hi ckatz,

I'm new to wikipedia so I need to try and understand why my post for sliderocket keeps getting removed. How is SlideRocket different from Slideshare which seems to have a post or rather what do I need to do to qualify sliderocket as a legitimate wikipedia entry.

Thanks.

Nat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Natrobinson (talk • contribs) 00:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

External links (Dodge Charger)

Hi, Your removals of the external links for Dodge Charger registries were inappropriate. Please refrain from deleting/removing useful information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.182.9.42 (talk) 00:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Unfortunately, the links don't meet the external links guideline. I've explained in greater detail on your talk page. --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed the linking guidelines and found that the links that I added to in fact meet all of Wikipedia's linking criteria, so in that case, they will remain. Please restrain yourself from unnecessarily removing them again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.182.9.42 (talk) 03:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You have already reverted my edits twice. If you revert a third time you will be reported under WP:3RR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.182.9.42 (talk) 03:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, your links do not meet the requirements. However, we cannot disrupt the page over the links section, so I have followed standard practice as per the guideline and inserted a link to the Open Directory Project. The ODP is, to quote their site, "the largest, most comprehensive human-edited directory of the Web." Wikipedia recommends the use of this search engine as a means of avoiding dispites over external links sections in articles. You are free to submit any and all links you wish to that site; the submission page is here. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

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

User:Tunaissmelly

How is this username possibly a violation? Tuna is smelly, after all. And I don't know many tunas who would take offense. Just wondering. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

...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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Clear VIOLATION of Wikipedia Policy on KJ-52 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.