User talk:Ckatz/Archive 1

Welcome

Hi there! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions. I hope you like it here and stick around. If you want, you can drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log to introduce yourself.

A few general tips before you start doing a lot of editing:

• A few basic rules: Try to write from a neutral point of view, be bold in editing pages, and use Wikiquette.

• A handy page for newcomers is the welcome page. The Wikipedia tutorial also gives a lot of basic info that will help get you oriented on Wikipedia. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or Wikipedia:Where to ask a question.

• When you post something on a talk/discussion page, you can sign your name by using three tildes (" ~~~ ") for your username and four (" ~~~~ ") for your username and a timestamp.

• Remember to provide an edit summary when editing, which I notice that you've already being doing.

• If you ever find yourself with nothing to do on Wikipedia, have a look at the Community Portal, you'll find that there's always something happening.

If you ever have any questions, comments, or just want to say hi, don't hesitate to write to me on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can.

Happy editing and have a great day! :-) Akamad 09:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome! Have you had a look at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Electoral districts in Canada? Perhaps it's of interest to you. Either way, enjoy Wikipedia, and if you ever need anything, you know where to find me. - Akamad 10:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikimedia Canada

Hi there! I'd like to invite you to explore Wikimedia Canada, and create a list of people interested in forming a local chapter for our nation. A local chapter will help promote and improve the organization, within our great nation. We'd also like to encourage everyone to suggest projects for our national chapter to participate in. Hope to see you there!--DarkEvil 17:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Vancouver

Hello. I am Arnold (aka Buchanan-Hermit) and I am writing to invite you to join the newly-formed WikiProject Vancouver. It was created really recently and it's in need of new members and those who are willing to spread the word.

I'd love to see you there. :) Thanks for your time. --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK!. 03:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

North Vancouver

Ok, thanks a lot for your advice in North Vancouver, in the Portuguese Wikipedia. I moved "North Vancouver" to "Cidade de North Vancouver" (City of North Vancouver), created an article about the district municipality, and left "North Vancouver" to comment in the similarities and differences between the municipalities, like here. Best wishes, Leslie Mateus 06:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Gender

No, but that user shouldn't assume. It's easy to get around. Ardenn 20:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I've also previously indicated I'm thinking about becoming a mason, and women can't be masons. Ardenn 20:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Templates

Sure thing! Wikipedia:Template messages Hope this helps! Ardenn 23:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

You are most certainly welcome. :-) Ardenn 03:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Queen's U

I did see this but after several attempts to fix it, I failed. Ardenn 17:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

False Creek South Station/Olympic Village Station

The change to Olympic Village Station is pending a licence agreement with the IOC. I thought it would be prudent to wait until it was confirmed. No big deal. — Usgnus 00:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC) Please see Talk:Olympic Village Station. Thanks! — Usgnus 03:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Quotation Marks

I didn't realize WP followed its own standard on this. Sorry about that. --Usgnus 05:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

University of Alberta

• Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. - pm_shef 01:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• "My concern, however is still with the earlier issue of the comment, and what sort of impression that creates for users." I'm not sure I understand? - pm_shef 02:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Stub sorting

I updated the following to allow a sort key:

• {{Canada-school-stub}}
• {{Gvrd-stub}}
• {{Vancouver-stub}}
• {{Vancouver-bio-stub}}

--Usgnus 14:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• {{BritishColumbia-stub}}
• {{BritishColumbia-geo-stub}}

--Usgnus 16:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Re:Your congrats

Thanks...although that was very confusing to read at first! Hehe. I wasn't sure what Ardenn was mad at me for though. I sure as hell didn't gang up on him for his "Oppose" vote (or even said anything about it, for that matter). But hey, I'm used to people hating me for no reason (even strangers on Burrard Street), so it's not too bad. :) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 06:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Deep Cove

I didn't think having the article at Deep Cove would confuse people into thinking that it was a separate entity from DNV, especially seeing that a number of articles on neighbourhoods within the City of Vancouver (eg. Yaletown, Kerrisdale) don't have the "Vancouver" disambiguation in their titles. (Admittedly the ones within Vancouver are better known around the Lower Mainland than ones on the North Shore.) I don't really mind either way, but I just think it'd be nice to have some consistency in naming. - Hinto 00:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: municipality boxes

I agree completely with the "immediate neighbours" thing. I, too, think the Vancouver one is way too crowded. Bodies of water might be important though, for cities next to, say, the Georgia Strait. It might make sense for places like West Vancouver or Richmond, both of which is heavily influenced by water bodies. Personally, I like the layout of the University Endowment Lands and Richmond, British Columbia municipality boxes. While all boxes are filled, it doesn't look too cluttered (which is a change from the Vancouver one). As for the "hop from one to another" part, I also support that idea but it might run into trouble when a city has many neighbours on one side (i.e. Burnaby's eastern neighbours are Port Moody, Coquitlam and New Westminster).

But in short, I like the style on the University Endowment Lands and Richmond articles, personally. Bodies of water shouldn't be a big deal if it influences the city significantly, I think. I'm not sure if you already did, but maybe you can post something on the WikiProject Vancouver talkpage about this too, to get more input. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 09:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Just did a little experimenting: do you think something like this would work for Vancouver? :) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 09:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Your recent North Vancouver edit

I your recent edit, you deleted a link to North Vancouver, British Columbia -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Vancouver.

I had added that link earlier as it seemed useful to include the information from that site.

Your thoughts?

Cheers, frtzw906 --Frtzw906 22:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point - take a look now. I've updated the link list at the top of the article. --Ckatz 23:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Frtzw906 23:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)I like it.

School infoboxes

Eventhough the address is optional in the template, I believe in including the information when availible. I don't see how keeping the address off wikiepdia enhances safety as this is extremely public information already. There was a significant discussion about how to locate schools in the larger districts, whether we would refer to them by neighbourhood or something more local. So, The inclusion of the address is useful for other wiki editors. Wakemp 15:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you :)

You reverted those "delightful" comments on talk page so quickly I had to look up the history to see them! Thanks heaps ;) - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 09:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

PS: He's been blocked indefinitely now too :)

VandalProof

Have you ever thought of using VandalProof? It makes vandal fighting *so* much easier. You usually have to apply to use it but as I'm a moderator I've preapproved you. If you're interested follow the instructions below. thanks again! - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 10:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Cool... thanks for doing that. I've checked out the page before and had planned to apply to use it. No time like the present, eh? --Ckatz 19:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you think of THIS? :)

-→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 04:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, looks good. You put a lot of work into it, and it shows. Some problems, though - one, we lose the diagonals, which is a fair bit of information. Two, the arrow icons invite people to click on them, which leads to the image page. This will (I think) be somewhat confusing for most readers, so you might want to consider using arrows from a character set (as opposed to Wiki images). --Ckatz 05:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I didn't make it. I spotted it while leafing through the Ottawa article. ;) Although we COULD make our own version WITH the diagonals if we wanted to... -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 05:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Update: Well, we COULD do this (ignore the WikiFrown, hehe). -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 06:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, forgot to leave you a note re: the latest update. Take a look at your sandbox when you get a chance, and let me know what you think. --Ckatz 03:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, so far it looks pretty good. I like it. I'm going to start implementing this format to some of the articles, slowly, to see how it works out. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 18:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think crowding would be a problem, unless we go nuts like the Vancouver article. Take a peek at North Vancouver District or Burnaby. That's as crowded as I can get it now. (Note: I'm only putting the table in for some cities but not all.) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 19:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Omitting some directions kind of makes the navbox look incomplete... those blank spots are just a bit glaring. Just my opinion. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 19:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, it does look empty, but I think the answer lies in reworking the design of the box. (Also, I still want to find a way to allow the code to allow variable layouts, so that we're not limited to the eight spaces.) Again, I really don't think that filling every space is necessary, especially if we end up repeating municipalities. It just doesn't look good, and the "excess" of information makes the box more confusing. The boxes aren't really suited to recreating the functionality of a map; they're too limited for that purpose. They are most effective when used as more of a guide, sort of "if I was at the centre of x, then the centre of y is north, the centre of z is southeast, etc." (Not "part of y is north, part of y is northeast, but so are a and b" - there are exceptions, such as the City of North Vancouver being surrounded by the DNV, but those should be the exception rather than the rule.)

I liken it to the directions assigned to highways - a "north" route doesn't always head exactly north, but it's the best approximation of which way you'll be travelling. Food for thought, so let's keep this discussion going. --Ckatz 19:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay... well, I see your point too. Let's do it your way and see what happens. For the most part, it looks alright. If any problems arise, we'll deal with them when they come. :) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 03:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Very kind - it's important to try and get your ideas in there too. The part that I'm least keen on is having multiple entries for the same municipality (i.e. (SW)Vancouver - (S)Vancouver - (SE)Vancouver). If we can address that issue, I wouldn't be so bothered by having, say, Surrey and Delta in the same cell. On the subject of the empty spaces (which I think can be a good feature if used appropriately), what do you think of the idea of using some colour-coding? I was thinking that we could colour the backgrounds of the individual cells with a very light green or blue (for land or water) to visually tie the cells together. I'll be playing around with the coding later tonight (here) so if you have suggestions please leave a note - colour ideas, styles, "No, Ckatz, the idea isn't worth the paper it's printed on"... (OK, maybe not the last one!) Cheers! --Ckatz 04:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm more or less siding with you here. Repeating municipalities may be stupid unless it's really needed (i.e. City of North Vancouver, which has the District of North Van on three sides). I'm not sure about the color-coding idea -- I'll have to look at it several times until I know how I feel about it. (Not that it's a bad idea or anything -- I just need to see it enough times to form an opinion.) If that goes ahead, I think simply using grayscale colors might be better. I mean, a navbox with green and red and blue would look weird. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 05:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate that. It wasn't necessary (as I'm starting to be a bit open about it) but thanks all the same. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 07:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Surrounding municip.

Interesting format for the North Shore. So it's just adding highways that connect to the surrounding municipalities, huh... That might work.

Also, for the DNV to the northeast of Vancouver: I had to think twice about it too, but after looking at the map, I realized that only a small strip of the DNV is actually across from Vancouver, and most of it lies to its northeast instead; if you go across the Burrard Inlet from Vancouver, chances are that you'll hit CNV rather than DNV. That was my reasoning for that. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 19:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

There might be a problem with the highway sign symbols, now that I look closer: those pics are fair use. I wonder if using them in the municipality box is a violation of the fair use limitations. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 19:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for your help fixing my typos over at the new Political parties and politicians wikiproject. I hope you will consider joining. Ardenn 05:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Vancouver Wikipedians Meetup

Greetings, you're getting this spam (courtesy of Tawkerbot) because you were listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Vancouver. In short, we're trying to have a meetup and we'd appreciate it if you'd join our Yahoo Group setup to figure out a time/place that would work. You can find the group at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vancouver_wikipedians/. If you have any questions feel free to make a post there or on the WikiProject page.

Happy Editing!

Best place to put Salmonbellies external link

Hi; see you've been editing my expansion of the New West page; I've just been fussing with the Salmonbellies article, which I didn't know they had when I added them to the New West page, so just used their own weblink in the article. Now that I know there's a New Westminster Salmonbellies article, what should I/we do with the team's external link? An external link in the sports section, or in the main External Links?Skookum1 22:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

RE: External links- revisited

Hi,

Thanks for the note but I got burned on this once before and that is why I am changing them to 'external link'. I was told that according to the Wikipedia rules that is the way it should be and not 'external links'. I see your point and I think this is just nitpicking but on the other hand I tend to agree with the 'people in charge' that it is better if you write 'External link' if there is only One listed there. PLEASE! do not go back and change the edits I have made. If at some point some one adds another link then it can be changed to 'External links', for now I think it should just be left as is. Thanks. HeMan5 22:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Email

Email for you, please let me know when received. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Vancouverinfocenter.com removal (2nd time)

I'm starting to think that one of the things the Vancouver Wikipedians might do, if we ever get around to meeting, is draft a press release to the effect that such sites are constantly "vandalizing" the Vancouver wikipage with their advertising links. I'm sure I removed this same link just the other day; so at the very least maybe we should all do a joint email to their marketing people; and/or if it persists we find a friendly reporter and blow a lid off such sites; which are not really good public resources, so much as hit-generators for ad revenues. "Gee, us? But we're just providing a public service" - like 100 other similar sites for the city, none of them any appreciably better than tourismvancouver's or any of the other non-profit pages. That they PRETEND on first viewing to be public in nature, when they're really private, is what makes them all the more irritating. But exploitation is the name of web marketing; thing is with these guys is all they need is the "hit" to generate the revenue; people don't actually have to read the sites; which replicate stuff they've stolen from other sites anyway....Skookum1 17:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Vaughan Election "Controversy"

• Hey there, regarding your recent revert of my removal of the "Controversy" section of the Vaughan Municipal Election, 2006 page. Perhaps you're not aware of the situation surrounding that page, but the editor who added that in the first place was one of the prime defenders of the Sockfarmer VaughanWatch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The user along with 2 or 3 others spent the better part of the first half of this year destroying Wiki pages related to Vaughan by filling them with their own PoV nonsense.

The edit that you reverted in particular is typical. The "citation" that they referenced does not mention the supposed "controversy" at all. The article discusses Wikipedia and editwars, not the controversy which ED wrote about. Secondly, the controversy itself is nonexistent. The opposing candidate (Elliott Frankl) has already contacted Vaughan Council, and he received a response which told him, in not so many words, that Councillor Shefman was doing nothing wrong, and that the contest was perfectly in line with his rights as City Councillor. I would respectfully request that you remove that content from the page, as it is irrellevant, unverifiable, and blatantly untrue. Thanks. - pm_shef 01:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Sorry you got dragged into this. - pm_shef 01:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Ya I certainly agree that the Vaughan Citizen article is worthy of mention - it was just the controversies section I meant to remove. Either way, it seems to be fine now! - pm_shef 01:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, the Vaughan Citizen article is not worthy of mention because of you (pm_shef). It is important because we learn that Alan Shefman has instructed his son to do damage control for him on wikipedia. ED209 03:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Ckatz, you'll notice that User:ED209 as readded the "Controversies" section. In your opinion, do you feel that the addition of the section merits a {{comment2}}, {{defwarn}} or even simply a {{test}} warning? Either way, I think it would be better for someone other than me to give the user the warning... however his continued addition of blatantly POV material despite Wikipedia policy surely warrants some reprecussions. - pm_shef 03:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• So says the man who is working on his father's campaign. You are inheriently POV. ED209 03:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• As you continue to claim, yet funnily enough, you still seem to be unable to provide any evidence, proof, or anything besides assertions for that matter. And while we're on the topic, assume good faith. - pm_shef 03:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• You openly admit in the article that you have an agenda. So, how can I assume good faith? ED209 03:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Vaughan Election Page

• What is your reasons for reverting the Shefman Mailing List fiasco? ED209 04:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This reply has been copied to ED209's talk page.

I might ask you what your reason is for persisting in this, frankly, rather pathetic edit war. You've already been taken to task by an admin for ignoring established Wiki procedure, and it was quite a scolding at that. Pm shef obviously has an agenda too, he really should clearly state his personal and professional connections to the Vaughan political process, and he's certainly not without fault in this matter. However, and this is an important point, he at least appears to be doing something on Wikipedia other than arguing endlessly about a municipal election. I mean, really, get a life already. This is an encyclopedia project with a global audience. Absolutely no-one in their right mind cares about this, unless they're from Vaughan. (I'd wager that there are probably a lot of Vaughan residents who would cringe if they knew what sort of presence their (town?city?district?) now has on the Web.) To be perfectly honest, I didn't even know where Vaughan was before I happened to stumble across this dispute, and after watching it for quite some time, I'm even less impressed. If you want to add a controversial point, take it to the talk page and hammer out a compromise. If you aren't satisfied with the results, then there are other avenues to explore in terms of expanding input into a difference of opinion. Why this article exists is beyond me -- it would make more sense to just Afd the thing and hope it goes away. --Ckatz 04:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

pls see new item on WikiProject BC sandbox

Re map standards for mountain range locator maps. Thoughts? Thx.Skookum1 17:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: your reverts to CIVI, CFPL, CKNX, CHRO, and CHWI

The sale of CHUM is irrelevant to the individual stations. The only article it belongs in is perhaps the main A-Channel and CHUM articles. Ardenn 04:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I will revert it, because of the above. Ardenn 04:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The other guy doesn't count. He's not registered. For all I know, he's you. Ardenn 04:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Good plan. Ardenn 04:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

In 24 hours, I'll be reverting your edits. Ardenn 04:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll agree that who owns you is important, but the transaction isn't complete. Right now, it's only speculation. The CRTC may say no. Ardenn 04:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The CRTC very likely could say no, since then there would be only two private broadcasters in Canada. Ardenn 04:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't vandalize. I reverted. There is a distinct difference. Read WP:VAND carefully. Ardenn 05:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

A-channel

No problem. You and Ardenn are both valued veteran contributors here (especially to Canadian pages). I think the RfC on the issue is a good idea. Hope that time will decide this one (i.e. the deal goes through or CRTC blocks it, one or the other...) -- Samir धर्म 06:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Pathetic edit war

You wrote on my talkpage:

"I might ask you what your reason is for persisting in this, frankly, rather pathetic edit war."

I find it amusing that somebody with thousands of edits and lists his 'wikiinterests' on his talkpage, can refer to anything that I do on wikipedia as pathetic. You urked me with that statement, because I honestly feel tired of being pushed around by another user with a strong political agenda here on wikipedia (which he openly admits in the local newspaper). ED209 02:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Route signs in navbox

They don't look very good, if you ask me. To someone that has never seen those signs, they would mean nothing. And you could use BC Ferries instead of the external link. My 2¢. --Qyd 02:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Svalbard Global Seed Vault

The Holocene Extinction Event, if real (and at least 70% of biologists and ecologists believe it is), applies to plants as well as animals, fungi, and to a lesser extent single-celled lifeforms.

Ben Sibelman

Vancouver Re: Air pollution

Regarding your edit at Vancouver and the edit summary, "were there beehive burners in the city in the last few decades?", I vaguely recall that there may have been beehive burners on False Creek on what came to be the Expo lands. However, if there were any, they were gone by 1978, according to these pictures. Agent 86 03:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Hurricanefloyd's comments vs. anon editor at Talk:Stingray

I restated it and signed my name, did YOu delete it again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hurricanefloyd (talk • contribs)

Re: UKPhoenix79

Heyo. Thanks for coming to my rescue in the Solar system article. I don't think this guy's about to give up though. I do not intend to give an inch; he's attempting to undo what I've spent over a year attempting to construct. When I first encountered the solar system article, it was just a random list of objects by class, with no notion of where they were or how they functioned in the system. I did a massive 3-day edit to reorder the objects according to region, and that is how this article must stay. I'm scared I might get banned if I revert too many of his reversions. I don't really know where to go with this. Serendipodous 10:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

re: the the section headers- I got rid of them because I was getting a bit fed up with having to hold the same conversation twice in two different sections. I would post a response in one thread, then have to go and answer another thread, which often would mean repeating myself. It seemed more sane to have only one thread to follow. Serendipodous 15:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Eris

Hi. Can you tell me why it's necessary for the article on the Greek goddess to be disambiguated, when 136199 Eris has only been designated as such for under 24 hours? Ryūlóng 06:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

No; a separate dab page can be made into a soft redirect, which I had done. Ryūlóng 06:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello Ckatz, I know that Eris is not considered an asteroid now, but when it was discovered the astronomers did not have the benefit of our 20-20 hindsight and added it to the list of asteroids. It was number 136199 on the list and that tag will remain with it for the rest of its life - and beyond. Cheers, Paul venter 10:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Looking for me

Were you looking for me last night? I was alseep when you posted the message. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 16:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: changes to Eris and Dysnomia

Some of your changes had to be reverted since they were contrary to the WP:MOS for disambiguation pages. I've left a full explanation at Talk:Eris. Cheers! --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Ok ... hmm, no one's touched my changes on Dysnomia ... I think it was someone else's you edited. As far as Eris goes, technically speaking, you are correct; but given the vote on the move has already gone 3 days, has a very clear result, and is only waiting for someone to carry out the move, then I think reverting the disambiguation page is a little overkill ... as it's only going to get switched again ... and I wouldn't care, but I typed Eris in, and having never heard of 136199 ... never actually found the dwarf planet on the page; so we are simply confusing people for the sake of following the rules to the letter ... which I don't think is the point of disambiguation pages. Nfitz 02:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

North Shore Mountain Biking

Hello-

Thanks for moving my comments to the new sub-topic.

I will be shortly creating a FAQ for the topic of "North Shore Mountain Biking" or something of that sort.

Please note that the "North Shore" style of biking has now become genericized to mean biking on human-built elevated structures. Historically, such structures were built as a way to navigate environmentally sensitive parts of trails located in North Vancouver and West Vancouver. The FAQ will seek to address some or part of these topics.

The FAQ will be linked to the website of the NSMBA - a local advocacy organization. Our organization's volunteers have chosen to use wikipedia as the repository of this FAQ as it seems to be the easiest way to create and manage this FAQ.

Regards

Lee Lau = also info@nsmba.bc.ca LeeLau 17:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Ceres

Ceres is still considered an asteroid by the IAU, as well as being a dwarf planet. You may consult the Minor Planet Center's database for confirmation of this. I think you have misinterpreted the statements on the IAU website. They do not say that Ceres is no longer considered an asteroid.Michaelbusch 05:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Re "Please hold off on reverting the asteroids before you read the reference": I read the references, and checked the MPC listings. Ceres is still listed as an asteroid, as well as a dwarf planet. Please leave the asteroid articles you modified untouched for the moment.Michaelbusch 05:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You provided the following text from the IAU's website:

   "Q: What is Ceres? A: Ceres is (or now we can say it was) the largest asteroid, about 1000 km across, orbiting in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. Ceres now qualifies as a dwarf planet because it is now known to be large enough (massive enough) to have self-gravity pulling itself into a nearly round shape."

   "Q: Didn’t Ceres used to be called an asteroid or minor planet? A: Historically, Ceres was called a “planet” when it was first discovered (in 1801) orbiting in what is known as the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. Because 19 th century astronomers could not resolve the size and shape of Ceres, and because numerous other bodies were discovered in the same region, Ceres lost its planetary status. For more than a century, Ceres has been referred to as an asteroid or minor planet."

The only text here that would imply that Ceres is no longer called an asteroid is "(or now we can say it was)". However, when I check the database, it is still listed as an asteroid. There does seem to be a double standard here. There is a very important reason to classify Ceres first as an asteroid and second as a dwarf planet, however. From a scientific perspective, that Ceres is close to hydrostatic equilibrium (and therefore a dwarf planet) is arbitrary: it is close to hydrostatisticy, but so are many smaller objects, and we could always re-define 'dwarf planet' to require a different approximation to equilibrium. Calling it an asteroid is meaningful, because that describes the evolutionary process that the object has been through. Similarly, Pluto and Eris should first be called 'plutino' and 'scattered disc object' and then be called dwarf planets. I dislike meaningless terminology. If you want to hold a forum on this, be my guest, but you should probably have done that before making the edits.Michaelbusch 06:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Re. naming conventions: you are correct that Wikipedia should not dictate terminology. I am perhaps biased in this respect, being both human and a planetary scientist. That said, I can confidently say that few scientists will call Ceres a dwarf planet. I have described the MPC's double standard. Again, I suggest that you make sure that there is consensus before you start shifting terminology around. I won't be spending any more time on this.Michaelbusch 06:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I redirected because of the vote at the top of this page: Talk:Ceres (mythology)... Though, in retrospect, I possibly should have paid more attention to the date.

Talk:Dwarf planet/Naming#A New Proposal

You know, if most of those of us voting for Option 5, just moved our votes to Option 3, then perhaps we would have consensus, and just end this unhealthy debate once and for all. Nfitz 02:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Lion's Bay discussion

May I ask why you deleted my additions to this index? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.119.232.105 (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry, but I have no idea which index you're referring to - you are editing from what must be a changing IP address, so I can't trace your edit history to establish where we crossed paths. However, if you could please provide some more details, I would be happy to discuss it further. (As an aside, you might wish to consider establishing a user name, as that would give you a stable talk page and allow you to receive notification about new messages and changes to pages you are following.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Lions bay

I found some council minutes, see what you think of them. I posted them on the discussion page for lions bay.

I'll check them out. Thanks. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I got an username it's this `````

21:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

so now, let me know what you think about the council minutes, are they an adequate source?

it's actually this TotallyTempo 22:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Gasoline

Nbound - just to let you know that I've removed the "Brisbane" entry from the price table. I've nothing against Brisbane in particular, but the table should only have one entry per nation or it will quickly become unmanageable. If you prefer Brisbane to Sidney, I'll swap it around. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

copy of Nbound's reply on my talk page
No problem... was just adding it to show the range of prices... as the Sydney prices are generally quite high (upto $1.40/L), while Brisbane enjoys far cheaper petrol (closer to $1/L)... but its fair enough youve removed it...

I agree - it would be nice to see a range, as there's often a disparity in pricing across nations. (It's certainly that way in Canada!) As I mentioned, adding new rows to the table is problematic, as the size will quickly become unmanageable. However, perhaps the solution is to have one row per nation with a range incorporated into the price (such as "$1.00-$1.50/liter"). Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea -- Nbound 23:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

about the page of huang biren

I was the one who set up this page, and Huang Biren actually does not want her age to be known as she has already said in public. So please take away the year that she was born in. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.6.78.218 (talk • contribs)

I appreciate your concern. However, it is important to remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia project, not a PR website. The information about Huang Biren's year of birth is a matter of public record, and it is certainly appropriate to a biographical article about her. There is no rational reason for removing the birth year. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Stargate SG-1 Talk Page

You have reverted changes to the SG-1 talk page, that were appropriate changes. Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, webspace provider, or social networking site, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Deletion of said topics was not vandalism or malicious, only removal of unenclyopedic information. Wikipedia is not a sounding board, and reversing said changes only promotes said inappropriate topics or conversations. -Emhilradim 02:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It's important to note that I never accused you of vandalism or malicious behaviour; in fact, I recognized your intent. However, the manner in which you approached the cleanup was not the best way to do it. Instead of just deleting numerous discussions and replacing them (repeatedly) with the same warning message, you should have created a proper page archive. --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to side with Ckatz here. Emhilradim's interpretation of policy and guideline is a bit extreme in this case. -- Ned Scott 02:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for my misinterpretation. I'm not sure how to go about creating an archive for something. Otherwise, I would have taken said action to begin with, rather than making several edits (which leaves a somewhat ugly history). --Emhilradim 02:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

No apologies needed - it's all about learning here. I'd offer tips on how to archive, but I've never actually done one myself. If I get a chance, I'll try to read up on it and help out. Cheers! --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Recent change to the Jericho main page

Ckatz, having those cities listed in one contiguous line I find really hard to read. Lists more than two or three items should be segregated into bullet points for clarity, hence my reason for doing so. Please understand my reasoning behind this, and restore the changes I made, unless you can cite another so-called "iron-clad rule" that says your method is the "correct" one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.151.114 (talk • contribs)

Your reasoning, while valid in some situations, is not required here. We are talking about a reference to a handful of cities, all of which are listed by name only. They can easily be listed in a sentence (as I did), which improves the layout of the page. Otherwise, we are left with large areas of blank space, and an overly long page, for no particular reason. As to your second point, now deleted, it would be helpful if you could demonstrate some maturity and stop making spiteful, baseless accusations. As I told you before, I have no idea what your dispute with Mr. Fenton is, nor do I care. I only asked that you demonstrate restraint by refraining from continuously sniping at him on the Jericho pages. I do not appreciate you then accusing me of blindly supporting him just because I edited your text. Finally, if you are discussing a matter relating to the Jericho article, please keep the conversation on that talk page. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry,

Don't believe any of this information is unverifiable. But, please state something that is. And, I will help you find your way. Thank you for contacting me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PlanetCeres (talk • contribs)

BSG

Unless im mistaken I dont have mind-reader accross my head.. "please check things out BEFORE you presume they're "fancruft" and delete" - So if youd care to explain what I am supposed to check? MatthewFenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 09:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

This refers to the Battlestar Pegasus article, where you deleted the text:

"Glen Larsen, producer of Battlestar Galactica, attempted a revival in the late 1990s with a feature film project using Commander Cain and the Battlestar Pegasus."

and left the edit summary "Uncited and liekly fan cruft so exterminate." It took all of ten seconds for me to do a quick Google search and confirm the information. All I'm asking is that you take the time to check out plausible information, rather than just deleting it and leaving a sarcastic comment. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not my job to go trawling the internet for cites that people dont add.. your welcome to find one and add them to the article but if its uncited I am well within "rights" to remove it till it can be adequatly cited. MatthewFenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 09:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I never said you didn't have the "right" to do it - I merely asked if you could be a bit more polite about the way you go about doing it. If you wish to think of this as a "job", then you might also want to consider that labelling your edit with "Uncited and liekly fan cruft so exterminate" isn't particularly professional. The possibility of a film involving the BSG universe is a noteworthy addition to an article about BSG, so you could easily have added a "citation" tag and waited a few days to see if anyone responded. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Professional? I dont get paid to edit Wikipedia :\ -- Imo it is better to have an article with 0% uncited info ratehr then an article with a ton of {{cn}}s -- Had I had the time to trawl the web for a citation I likely would of - I did not however. MatthewFenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 09:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

For the record, Larson was working on a Battlestar Pegasus movie for about 8-9 months when it became apparent that Universal wasn't going to go anywhere with the Galactica franchise. It turned out that Larson did have the rights through some contractual snafu on Universal's part to do anything with Commander Cain and the Pegasus, and his planned film involved the search for an ancient battlestar called the Atlantis, which was built by the 13th Tribe and deliberately left in a secret location with the maps to Earth. The film would have dealt with the search, a major battle with the Cylons, and the recovery and use of the maps to reach Earth, all w/o involving the Galactica or the RTF other than being mentioned.

The first article Google shows is this one: [1]. And the Wikipedia set up for BSG had this one: [[2]], although I'm not sure about whether there's some Wikirule about referencing other mini-Wikis. The John Larocque article on the attempt is at: [[3]]. Hollywood North Report has a short blurb about the Larson effort, but seeing as how their site has a *LOT* of popups from spammers attempting to load trojans and spyware, I'll quote it here to save your systems: "In the spring of 1999, it was announced that Glen Larson was making plans to bring Galactica to the silver screen. Impressed with the visual effects and style of the independently financed film Wing Commander, Larson paired with its producer, Todd Moyer, on an estimated $40-50 million film that was to shoot later that year in Luxembourg.

The story picked up where the series left off, but followed the exploits of Commander Cain and the battlestar Pegasus (made famous in the original series episode, "The Living Legend," guest starring the late Lloyd Bridges). In the concept, Commander Cain's search for the lost battlestar Galactica leads him to contemporary Earth, which, according to the story, was settled by humans who arrived here during prehistoric times on the very first battlestar, Atlantis.

Special effects were to be handled by Moyer's company, No Prisoners 3DFX, utilizing several of the artists who worked on Wing Commander. Moyer planned to update some of Galactica's ships, including giving the Vipers the ability to morph into mechanized walkers-à la The Transformers-when on planet surfaces. Moreover, he and Larson planned to expand the Galactica franchise to include an Imax film, a theme ride, and a new line of merchandise.

Then, as quickly as it had been announced, the project vanished from the radar screen. It has been suggested that Larson and Moyer ultimately found themselves at odds over significant creative issues. It has also been suggested that the film rights to Battlestar Galactica were still in some dispute. In either case, the project disappeared into the ethers."

IIRC, Cylon.org had a page on this at one time, but since they revised their site this one and its copies of the concept drawings they had have disappeared. Sixty Six 06:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

"Ships named Enterprise" template removal

Thank you very much but it was discussed in June - we dont know if the NCC-1701 *is* the next ship for all we know there could of been a shuttle named Enterprise that had never been mentioned. Deus Sum (Matthew Fenton) (talk · contribs · count · email) 09:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Matthew, it wasn't exactly "discussed" - you said "Removed the ship table as we dont know much about the XCV and also the Starfleets are diffrent, so.. dont add it back thank you." and deleted it. Also, it doesn't matter if another ship named "Enterprise" turns up someday; we have to act based on what we know now. The template is for moving between articles about ships named "Enterprise", not for establishing an absolute record of said ships. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Doctor Who titles

There's been discussions about this before. The latest round can be found at Talk:Torchwood#Torchwood episode titles. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 01:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Vancouver

This is an important message being sent out too all participants. We are currently recalling our list of participants. Any one who is inactive in the project will be moved to the "inactive" list respectively. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Vancouver#ROLL_CALL_-_All_Read|the project talk page for more details]] -- Selmo ^(talk) 20:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Jericho

I saw, and I know. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I move them if I do not like them during an edit; You are welcome to show me "Guideline" that says I can not move them. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

from the reply left on Matthew's talk page:

It's part of the Wikipedia accessibility guidelines (WP:WAI), and the specific section is here:

"Disambiguation links should be the first elements of the page, before any image or infobox. A text only browser or screen reader present the page sequentially, and otherwise the dablink will be read between the image and the lead section."

It's a common mistake, as many editors move the top-of-page templates for esthetic purposes. However, it creates problems for people who use screen readers. Hope this helps. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

MARTA and airports

Hi Ckatz -- sorry if I sounded pissy -- it's kind of frustrating to see one's reverts reverted, but I do know that accidents happen when two editors are working on an article at more or less the same time! As for the categorization, the distinction, as the text of the Airport Rail Link article states, is between mainline trains (commuter or intercity rail) and local public transit (which could include either heavy rail subway/metro/rapid transit or light rail). MARTA definitely falls into the latter category. --Jfruh (talk) 05:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem whatsoever, and no apologies needed - I presumed it was due to the edit overlap. As for MARTA, thanks for the information. Cheers! --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Falklands/Malvinas apology

(Sigh). Picture me opening my mouth and inserting my foot. As you will see from my (further) comments on the talk page, you were right, and I was wrong. Sorry for sounding so authoratative. You simply would not believe the fight that went on over that thing. Best. -- Gnetwerker 20:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Watchlists

Uh? I was just look at Switchfo0t813's Talk Page. How did that User find out that their Talk Page was in your Watchlist? I'm not try to spy on other Users' Watchlists, but I didn't think that anyone could see them. I'm just asking, that's all. Acalamari 02:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Based on activity, I guess. I monitor several hundred different articles that I've worked on, for changes and vandalism, as well as doing the odd bit of vandal patrol work. When an editor's actions warrant it, I'll leave a warning on their talk page (which is how I crossed paths with this editor) and the Wiki software automatically adds that talk page to my watchlist. After allowing time for them to reply, I remove the page (otherwise my watchlist gets way, way too bulky and s-l-o-w). However, if there's an apparent pattern, I'll keep an eye out for a while - which led to a note on Sw's page today, hence (I presume) the question. As far as I know, the Wiki software won't allow you to check out other watchlists, for privacy reasons. (Perhaps administrators can, but I don't know as I'm not an admin.) Hope this helps! --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Jericho

Hmm.. It doesn't render below the image on some browsers? Hold on.. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Try now.. should work (I hope.. anyway..) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyway.. Yea I watch Heroes.. Sliders, Star Trek, The 4400, BSG, Jericho, Veronica Mars, The O.C., Medium, Odyssey 5, Lost, Dead Like Me, Desperate Housewives, Grey's Anatomy, and odd shows 'n' stuff, etcetera, hehe (and there just the American stuff :-)) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I watch Doctor Who, yea, Torchwood (A 'Who spin-off) has been good, never seen Blake's 7 (not yet anyway) - There isn't much in the way of sci-fi over here though, I watch Red Dwarf, there is/was a new scifi-comedy thing called 'Hyperdrive' - sucks major time though - I watch the odd soap as well, hehe. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You might care...

Hi there. I saw you leaving some intelligent commentary at Talk:White_Canadian. I thought what you had to say made sense and was useful. I've listed the article as a candidate for deletion. This may be inappropriate (To be honest, it's the first time I've done that about an article), and I thought I might invite comments from people who have posted on the page's talk page. I have been around Wikipedia for a little while, but I haven't gotten as deeply involved as some have. I'm certainly happy to be wrong, but most importantly I'd like to have some other people at least think about whether I am or not, rather than have a couple of people (the one or two users most interested in the article - I must include myself there, now, I suppose) dictate it's future, because it obviously has the potential to be an inflammatory discussion. Thanks!!! AshleyMorton 20:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Canada

Sorry for any offense to my revert in the Canada article. Life's too short. Deet 04:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Planet

Sorry for not spotting the in-progress vandalism when I edited. Good work editing it out. Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Economic impact of immigration to Canada

I think I've addressed some of all of your issues, and hopefully some of the Peer Review suggestions. Would you mind if I clean-up the talk page of the article. I'd like to nominate it for a Good Article review and don't want the old discussion to distract. I can archive it or just clean it up. Deet 01:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Vancouver Whitecaps

Hello,

USL is the second largest league as the Major League Soccer is the largest. It's common knowledge therefore no reference is needed. Please amend page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chriswonky (talk • contribs) 01:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Based on the Wikipedia articles about the United Soccer Leagues and Major League Soccer, it would appear that the USL is the largest system, as it encompasses three men's divisions, a women's league, and a youth league, whereas the MSL is a single league with 13 teams. The MSL is the top-level division, and perhaps that is what you were referring to. However, the text in the lead would need to be rewritten to reflect that fact. I've started a discussion at the Whitecaps talk page to figure out how best to handle this. (BTW, it's not really "common knowledge" unless you actually follow soccer.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, didn't know USL as so many divisions/leagues. Good research, I think the lead is better now.

==shifting fortunes==

thanks, ckatz for dividing into paragraphs and removing grammatical curiosities (like the NDP party) (The new democratic party party??) wow, I is educated...and thanks for not reaming me out over my attempt at this area bc politics are fun as hell to document though, wrtiting this section I learned campbell was the first premier in 2 decades to not resign over scandal. cheers from British Columbia TotallyTempo 19:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

COPY EDIT

what is a copy edit, apparentley my section had none? what does that mean? TotallyTempo 19:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

francais?

hey ckatz, check out the new British Columbia since the 70's not bad eh? with regards to french, I really resent having french rammed down my throat, but I'm used to it (I now live in ottawa so I get it a lot) so I won't revert it anymore, not because I agree with presenting it in french but because simply I hate fighting the french as it were, if I surrender they usually shut up. Sorry to sound cynical but then what selfrespecting British columbian isn't at least a little bit cynical TotallyTempo 06:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way about bilingualism - perhaps it might help if you didn't view it as "us versus them". Frankly, I think it makes the country that much more interesting. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

re: external links

Hello,

I don't why you keep deleting links to www.Edmonton.net and www.Calgary.net ? These are relevant city portals for the local population of two largest cities in Alberta.

Link to Calgary.net was added in the external links section for the city of Calgary. What is the point of having this category of links if the most relevant site for this article is constantly removed by you?

Mike

Mike, your links are to a commercial site that is contrary to Wikipedia's guidelines for external links. As such, they are being removed - not just by me, but by a host of other editors. You are compounding the problem by spamming them across a series of pages, and repeatedly re-adding them. Please read WP:EL to better understand why your links are not suitable. Thank you - remember that you are always welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, as long as you follow the project guidelines. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Courtesy Warning

do not delete "recent events" from Stanley Park. Devastation of this park is very important to be noted in the article. Stop deleting large chunks of the article or I will report you to wikipedia admin and request blocking. Bosniak 06:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make empty threats in an attempt to justify your actions at Stanley Park. If you had read the edit history first, you would be aware that your material duplicated text that was already in the article, and more appropriately placed. Furthermore, if you had investigated, you would have seen that I made an effort to incorporate your material into the existing text. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, you blindly reverted back to your last edit, completely ignoring the fact that you obliterated a lot of work by several other editors. Please use more caution, and consider discussing your concerns on the talk page first. Thank you. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for signing my signature book. Current signee number 22!!! --¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 03:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Claire Bennet's history page.

Hi Ckatz,

I had changed the line where it says that Claire "saved a fireman" from the burning train wreck. This statement was false. If you actually watch the pilot, you can see the man has absolutely NO fireman's outfit on. He has dirty, tattered clothing, and he was obviously IN the train when it crashed, therefore it was a drifter.

If you would like, I could even send you several screencaps showing that it's not a fireman.

I am aware that in the newscast about the train derailment that Isaac Mendez watches, the reporter says "a young girl saved the young lieutenant from the burning train" but this is simply an error in writing.

The man she saved from the train was neither young nor a firefighter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.180.44.180 (talk) 18:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

New Year

I Hope You Have A Happy New Year Ckatz!!!! ¿Why1991 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 22:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope that you have a wonderful New Year and will party all night long. If you don't celebrate New year at this time well then happy early or late New Year and I still advise that you have a good time tonight!!! ¿Why1991 ESP. | Sign Here 22:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Spacing

Thanks for pointing me to the discussion on Template talk:User 3 500e. I had not seen it and was unaware of the standard format. Happy editing! AuburnPilot^talk 15:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem... I wasn't either, until a template I created was modified. Of course, it being a user box, you're always welcome to propose a change if you prefer a different style. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 16:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Jericho characters - template

no. - if they are minor or main is your POV, most shows have title screens showing the main characters, Jericho does not, in this case characters are just characters (giving them any sort of status would require a citation then), and I'm pretty sure they've also been in the credits. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 10:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

BC WikiProject Userbox has been made

Made a stab at a userbox; check 'er out: Template:User WikiProject British Columbia (use {{User WikiProject British Columbia}} ). Fudged around with the colours and borders for a while, tried to use colours taken from the dogwood but wound up blue-adjusting the background, not quite happy with the bkgnd colour but it's better than the grey-transparent on the Vancouver userbox. Trying to think which stubs are needed; I think one for mountain and moutain range stubs (there'll be hundreds of these...), though the dogwood won't do for that; could use it for parks stubs, though, no? There's already a protected area stub that has a thing from the US Southwest on it; might as well replace it with the dogwood (d'ya like the dogwood? It's from Wikimedia Commons...I thumbed it down though). Trying to remember which other stubs are needed....bio-stub I guess for biographies, I'm thinking one for communities/settlements, have to think what else. Suggestions?Skookum1 02:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

"The Solar System" or "our solar system"

Please see my comments on Talk:Dwarf planet Bluap 19:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Haha

Sorry, I was editing it while you deleted it. ¬_¬

I needed a template to work around. -- Fishyghost 22:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all - just had to ensure that some of the templates didn't persist, such as the Vandalproof software tag etc. Enjoy. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Fishyghost 22:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi there

Hi there! Thats true you know, a stateless person has indeed filed claim to that unclaimed hunk of antarctica. Anyways you seem like a nice editor...and no surprise as vancouver is great...and i have mixed feelings about wikipedia. its really wonderful of course...so much excellent info...yet as i scan the last few of ur edits, (and trying to remove the grand theft auto stuff from the video game nut or salesperson whichever it was), i see that many times people like you are getting ur time wasted...(yet its better than if u were playing grand theft auto all day)...its such a strange concept that whoever wants can put up what info they want and then it gets subject to constant editing...its so strange that an encyclopedia needs patrolling editors...and that most pages are constantly changing and going back and forth between different peoples versions and takes on things...its an information warfare site to a certain extent...it really makes u think about the nature of information...yet at least its not so bad on many types of pages such as some hard science pages...yet even here things are in dispute and subject to various prejudices...anyways thats great u keep adding astonomy stuff...keep up the good work!...and i guess its best if u keep rolling thru new things so whenever u are editing stuff out u are reading new things so its not such a waste of ur time...there are some great and interesting new things this type of format gives us...yet some peculiar problems it creates as well...so merci viel mal as we would say in switzerland! thank you! when i have time ill look up all the monty python named asteroids...ive been getting into more astrobiology these days and terraforming and colonizing Venus and the like...anything u put up regarding this subject gets cheers from me! u might end up an important "proto-space colonist"...bon jour!...benji --Benjiwolf 22:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. As for the Antarctic 'claim", there's no mention of it at the CIA World Factbook or the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition websites, no results for a Google search (news and web), or on some other Antartica pages I looked at. Wikipedia requires solid references for text, and in the absence of that, we've no choice but to remove the text about the supposed "stateless person" territorial claim. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment on minor planet numbering

I have taken the dispute on the minor planet numbering in the infobox to WP:RFC Bluap 04:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

moon

(I’m co-posting this into Talk:Moon. Let’s continue there – I’m only putting it here so you’ll be sure to see it.)

The problem is every other planet with a moon system has a unique page for the whole system - Mars' natural satellites, Jupiter's natural satellites, etc. The Solar Satellites and SolarSystem footers at the bottom of every Solar System planet or moon article link directly to those pages (see below). Twice in the last 6 months I've searched for additional satellites of Earth via the link to the Terrestrial satellite system on those footers and instead been directed to the page for the Moon itself - obviously not the information I was looking for (I forgot the second time that I’d already looked). If I've done it twice there have got to be other people doing the same thing. Yes, the information is there, but it's one sentence buried in a subsection that no one would ever think to look in (what do other moons of Earth have to do with Luna's orbit and relationship to Earth?). If the Terrestrial satellite system is not to have its own page independent of that of the Moon - which I feel it should, as does every other planet in the system with a moon - then additional information about other natural satellites (even if none of them are actually "real") needs to be somewhere easy for people to find!

Jdmalouff 19:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Hollywood North. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 10:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

Marmite Advertisement Claim

Special:Contributions/Wikiwisher suggests that user (the one who added the template to claim that Marmite reads like an advertisement) is a relatively new registrant, and, occasionally takes "be bold" to mean "boldly excise". Of course, this could be a new alter-ego of a more experienced user, and the tone of their edit comments does suggest that. I do myself suffer from lack of boldness, but think quietly removing the template might be appropriate. I put this discussion here to hopefully keep it somewhat private.--SportWagon 18:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Indeed, but not private enough, evidently! ;-)

The Marmite article still reads like an advert, though!

Regards, Wikiwisher 19:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ha! Busted... :)

No subterfuge intended, of course - I didn't hear back from you, so I presumed you weren't too bothered by the page. Anyway, I'll try to look through it once again to see if there's anything that can be tweaked. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just read through it again, and it seems alright, actually. Maybe I was having a bad day when I tagged it. I think the 'Recipe suggestion' section made me feel like it was an advert. A bit like reading the back of a cereal box telling you how amazingly versatile and tasty the product is. Either way, it's not particularly encyclopedic - but it's certainly not worth tearing your hair out over. After all, there are thousands of articles being vandalized as we speak - but which ones? Hmm... the fight for neutrality goes on!

Best wishes, James. Wikiwisher 19:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of comments

I'd like to know why you removed my comments from the talk page of List of Heroes graphic novels--Energman 07:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Your "comments" involved adding one word - "Nazis" - to a discussion. Prior to that, another editor had to revert you at Torchwood for adding "Chief of Stupidity". Those were your only two edits that day, so it was clear that you weren't serious about making positive contributions. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I did mean that comment on the talk page. The "Chief of Stupidity" one is a long story suffice to say I wasn't the one that made the edit even if it is on my account. What happened to the list of heroes comics page is a classic display of taking the rules too far. So I summed up my views in a single efficient word.

Considering it has already been deleted it's no longer an issue but I'd like it if any future comments would not be removed--Energman 09:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not a question of your intent, it's whether it is appropriate for a discussion on an article's talk page. In this case, it wasn't, and so it was removed. To be honest, if I hadn't done it, someone else would have, possibly going a step farther and adding a warning note. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)