User talk:CyclePat/Archive 3

Date and time!

Hello, I'm looking to be able to set the correct date on my user talk page. Currently it says the 14th when in fact in Ottawa, we are still the 13th for another 1 hour and 20 minutes. Thank you for your help. (I've also looked at WP:CCT) --CyclePat 03:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if there is a way to. Sorry. Have a nice week and god bless. --Sir James Paul, La gloria è a dio 03:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Just go to Preferences at the very top of the page, click Date and Time and set the time you want. That only changes watchlist and history times (not times on signatures) --h2g2bob 04:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Sir James Paul, La gloria è a dio has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thank you... Sir James Paul. After spending the last few hours on this one (all day actually). I think I might have to sleep it over. I'm at currently atthis page right now and it involves programming. Not my speciallity! --CyclePat 04:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay! I figured most of it out! (to be able to see the correct time on the top here of my user talk page. You will notice if you edit my talk page that the time up above is for Ottawa. It should be around 12:42 right now. Here is the code.: This is the code giving the time:Monday 18 November, 16:43 (EDT).

Here is the code: {{#time: l}} {{#ifexpr: {{#expr:({{#time: G }} - 5) >= 0}} | {{#time: j }} | {{#expr:{{#time: j }} - 1 }} }} {{#time: F","}} {{utc|{{#expr:19+{{Current daylight saving offset in North America}}}}}} ([[EDT]]).

There is still a problem... How can I set the day to go back until the 5 hour diference is fixed? ({{#time: l }} --CyclePat 05:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Problem solves as per WP:CCT. Thank you! --CyclePat 03:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject France

Hello! We are a group of editors working to improve the quality of France related articles. You look like someone who might be interested in joining us in the France WikiProject and so I thought I'd drop you a line and invite you! We'd love to have you in our project :-) STTW (talk) 15:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

J'estime que vous parlez français. De temps à autres je porterai un oeil sur le projet mais je ne promet pas d'avoir un intérest furdent. I'll take a quick look. Thank you. --CyclePat 22:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your support

Thank you for your support at Unused highway. The page now looks ungodly awful with all the sources, but it's what the pharaoh ordered :) Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Just a quick search. The big job is making sure that the information is coordinated with a well formated article. I noticed you didn't take all the information such as the Highway Traffic Act link. That entire document could make an interesting section for your article riding on it. And then you have the another section of Police closures. Oh! Street party closures! (I can send you a picture of our street closed for a street party). Then you have parades... (the paradox is that "unused road" appears to often become a used road if it is a "closed road".) Wow! Good luck. Notability wise I think it would be wise to develop the article under "closed road" and then have a section for "unused road.!" (the if that gets big enought split it out. --CyclePat 06:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Tenth Doctor

The character is almost universally known as the Tenth Doctor: if you want a citation to satisfy yourself, here's the relevant page on the BBC's site. I don't think it's necessary to provide a citation for the character's name. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, the general concensus at wikipedia according to WP:CITE and WP:REF is to have references. Please include these references to avoid future conflicts with WP:V, which is also widely accepted by many wikipedians. Currently, the afformentionned url you provided does not specifically mention anything regarding the "term", Tenth doctor. If you honestly follow proper referencing that link would be untruthfull. However a little more research within the BBC's website gives us the answer. I highly recomment that a reference, for such a term, be included. Further research gave me this url. Using The appropriate reference created with www.EasyBib.com gives the following reference which you can place in the article.

<ref>"BBC - Doctor Who - Gallery - The Tenth Doctor." www.bbc.co.uk. - British Broadcasting Corporation. 15 Jan. 2007 <http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/gallery/doctor10/index.shtml>.</ref>

This reference above referenc is proper. Perhaps another reference should be used as well! --CyclePat 03:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Citations and references are necessary for statements whose truth is not immediately obvious to the reader. They are not necessary to confirm that a character is called by the name most widely associated with the character. You will notice that the featured articles Palpatine and Felix the Cat have no citations specifically showing that the characters are called by the name they are called. There is no need to verify that Odysseus is named Odysseus, or that Fagin is called Fagin. I am not challenging the need for references and citations in general, I am challenging the need for references and citations in this case. Since at least two editors (myself and Zythe (talk · contribs)) have questioned the need for a citation for the term "Tenth Doctor", if you still feel that citation is necessary in this case, please raise the matter at Talk:Tenth Doctor.

And if you notice, the link I provided above (which I have also added to the article's "external links" section) is titled The Tenth Doctor, and is a small collection of information and images about the character. (There's a link to the gallery page you noted, as well as some others.) If the title of the page isn't a specific mention of the term, I'm not sure what is. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The examples you gave me appear to be cited but in a different fashion. Fagin has a proper reference which is included directly in the text itself. Odysseus references directly within the article's text the work "odyssey". Felix the cat should have a better reference but again it is possible to see the name directly in the title of the first reference. As for The Tenth Doctor, just the way that it is worded demonstrates that it needs referencing. In the first sentence it is stated: "...is the given name..." Given by whom? Is it the BBC that gave him that name or is it the producer? That was my first question and should be the first question of most people that watched one episode and know only the name "The Doctor. As for Palpatine, this is pretty much that... Palpatine and similar to Felix the cat can be found within the first reference at the bottom of the article. When I encounter a new term it is, as everyone should do, always wise to question and to verify the reliability. It is difficult to do so without references. If I can't find within the first few paragraphs a reference I stop reading and go to the references/end notes to make sure the subject is not bogus and is verifiable. You indicated that references/end notes "... are not necessary to confirm that a character is called by the name most widely associated with the character." However, I have never seen this exception and in fact, I put it to you that there is no known consensus upon wikipedians of what you say. If you wish to contest this, I suggest you bring your concerns up with WP:REF which, again is widely accepted. The consensus is clear as per WP:REF Material that is likely to be challenged your reference should be placed. I am challenging the name The Tenth Doctor. As per WP:V and WP:BOLD I will place the reference. One other reason I am doing this is because there is a conflict. On one hand we have an article called Doctor (Doctor Who) which states that his name is The Doctor, yet on the other hand we have our most recent source which says he is The Tenth Doctor. This ambiguity creates conflict and a greater need to improve the overall credibility, augment the authoritative character, and reduces the likelihood of editorial disputes and to resolve any that arise In the future. I suggest you reconsider and retract your statement that you wish to challenge WP:REF. A term may be well known (in your region) but if you wish to challenge this I hope you do take my aforementioned refutations into consideration. You raise an interesting question which perhaps we could receive feedback via a WP:POLL. But my mind is set on this one. You will need to make hell freeze over before I accept the fact that I shouldn't add a perfect reference into an article. --CyclePat 07:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, are you saying that the external link to the BBC page doesn't provide sufficient verification that the term "the Tenth Doctor" is used by reliable sources? If that link satisfies your concern for verification, then this discussion is really moot.

I stress that I'm not challenging WP:REF; I'm challenging your interpretation of it in this case. I'm challenging the notion that even the most blatant and obvious statements need footnoted references. Would you place a {{more sources}} tag on Sun because there isn't a footnote specifically verifying the statement "The Sun is the star at the centre of the Solar System"? Some simple statements of fact do not require footnoted references: the statement "X is a character from Y" is of this type.

As for the supposed conflict you point to between Doctor (Doctor Who) and Tenth Doctor, I don't really see how that's an issue. Within the fiction of Doctor Who, the character is called the Doctor. However, it has been established that the Doctor can regenerate, and in so doing change his appearance and personality. The different incarnations of the character are distinguished by ordinal numbers: the First Doctor, the Second Doctor, the Third Doctor and so forth. The current incarnation is the tenth. So, the character as a whole is the Doctor, but the current version is the Tenth Doctor. I think that the Doctor (Doctor Who) article explains this adequately, with appropriate citations.

If you still feel that the article Tenth Doctor is not adequately sourced, please raise the matter at Talk:Tenth Doctor. If you think that more feedback from other Wikipedians would be useful, you can file a request for comment. I don't recommend a poll in this situation, though — if you actually read the page at WP:POLL it shows that polling is fraught with problems, and should not be an early resort.

We may have gotten off on the wrong foot in this matter. Perhaps if you explained your concerns anew at Talk:Tenth Doctor we could find a solution that's acceptable to everyone. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You asked me if I think the external link to the BBC is sufficient verification. There are two issues to this. The first one is whether the url is fair and sufficient. The second is whether the formatting and the placement of the reference within the article is fair and sufficient.

In my message dated ‘’03:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)’’ you may or may not have noticed that I did some further research. Within the BBC’s web page there are a couple specific links to the term “The Tenth Doctor”. The link you provided here is, as you stated, the “the relevant page on the BBC's site.” I agree this is the relevant link to “the Doctor’s” main page from the BBC. However, it is only that and ‘’’is an irrelevant’’’, non-verifiable reference which does not mention the term “Tenth Doctor.”

Aside, if this article was a scholarly research paper, “which is one way we should consider work here on wikipedia”, this main page link you originally suggested should be placed in the general bibliography. In our case, since the article doesn’t have a bibliography I think it is fair to place the main page link (BBC’s) in the see also.

Secondly, I do not believe that the placement of such an important reference in the “see also” is a wise idea. It will only lead to the frustration of readers that still want to know who originally or who is now calling The Doctor, The Tenth Doctor. I don’t believe that there is much arguing that someone can become confused between the terms and may easily presume this to be a new definition of a pre-existing term. Warning bells where ringing in my mind in regards to “who’s who?” (Pun intended). Now please bear with me, because this may seem extreme. As per the wiki policy WP:OR, there are guideline on how to avoid the presumption of Original Research. One of the primary suggestions is to WP:OR#Sources provide reliable sources. Again, given the possible confusion and the fact that it does not pass the WP:OR#What is excluded? test… “It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms.”

There is no arguing, as you clearly explained that there are many doctors. You explain it fairly well. Up to what point can you include 10 doctors into one article that probably already has enough in it, right? So the obvious step is to have a content fork. Perhaps a link from the main article that indicates that the main article on The Tenth Doctor is here? At the top of the The Tenth Doctor page a reference back to the main article. Wikipedia:Content forking has some suggestions on this and they specifically state “Wikipedia articles should not be split into multiple articles solely so each can advocate a different stance on the subject.” There does not appear to be a different stance here. However, if you do not have the proper referencing this may be considered a type of Original research, hence a type of POV fork instead of just a content fork. As per general concensus from POV forking guidelines it “is generally considered unacceptable… and may be nominated for deletion.” For the article Sun, again you have provided another example which has in one of its references the term. You will also notice that there is a Sun (disambiguation) and that Sun (astrology) is another article. (bt.w.: I’ve read the rule concerning obvious words… don’t quote me on this one though but I think it had to do with POV rules. Such as the obvious… the sky is blue. Etc.” A further quick glance at the article Doctor (Doctor Who) shows that the word “Tenth” arrives on numerous occasions but it is never specifically referenced. Furthermore this could lead towards Self referencing (For now let us focus on only the problems with “The Tenth Doctor.” If we add the proper reference to the term, “The Tenth Doctor”, we avoid all this hassle and debating.

As for the POLL it is used to help building new guidelines. If you truly foal that someone’s name (which in this case I consider ambiguous or the main “new term”) doesn’t need any referencing, I recommend that you attempt to convince the general population to change the rules. I figured a Poll may eventually help you to elaborate this idea acceptance within the guidelines of WP:REF. The more we argue the more my mind is set that we need to reference the term... and that this will eventually become an ultimatum. Note: I think we should come to a concensus inbetween each other or have exausted all means of tring to resolve this issue prior to arguing on the articles talk page. --CyclePat 16:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm heading out right now and don't have time to make a full response, but although I'm still not convinced of the need for this citation I suppose it doesn't really harm the article either, so I won't object if you wish to add it. (Incidentally, you repeated your assertion that this page doesn't use the term "Tenth Doctor". Did you look at the title bar? On my browser, it says "BBC - Doctor Who - Characters - The Tenth Doctor". Are there browsers which don't display the page's title on the top of the window?)

I'm still not convinced that there is any ambiguity or "new definition of pre-existing terms" in this case, but if you were confused by it I suppose someone else could be as well. Feel free to add the reference yourself. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your continued comments. I'm actually a little tired as well (sorry for any mistakes/typos). What an oversight towards my humility. Here I was looking for the name in the article and didn't even notice it in the title bar. I even read it too! I didn't even expect to find the information there. "Could that have been anymore obvious?" Well maybe... yes! Well, it is important to know why we should add the reference. So I think we should beat at this until not only you but everyone at the article's mainspace understands. On top of thast we still have another 176 more sentences that I wanted to review... (just kidding) (just kidding) Thank you! --CyclePat 04:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Pat, I do understand your perspective. I may think you're being slightly over-vigilant in this case, but I really do appreciate the importance of proper citations and verifiability. I think that my original response was affected by my failure to understand how the term could be confusing — sometimes when you're particularly close to a subject, you forget what terms might seem like jargon to an outsider. I see that you're a bicycle manufacturer: imagine if someone challenged the term Bowden cable, for example. It's possible that you might not recognize that the challenge was made in good faith, thinking "Everyone knows what a Bowden cable is!" (I'm not saying that you would react that way, but it might work as an excercise in seeing where I was coming from.)

Anyway, I've now added a citation to a BBC press release at the time of David Tennant's casting in the role, in which he's quoted as saying, "I am delighted, excited and honoured to be the tenth Doctor!" The capitalization is slightly different, but in combination with the link from the BBC Doctor Who website, I hope that satisfies your concerns (now that you've noticed the title bar!). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

What? Who doesn't know what a Bowden cable is? (Sarcastically?) Actually, to be honest I wish I could say I knew that precise term prior to today, but sadly I can't. I just called it breaking and gear cables, but from now on! (Aside: I'm not really that technically inclined towards bicycles... I just like the business idea of electric bicycles and I hope to launch my venture before the end of winter (Here in Canada). I tend to consider myself more on the social, arts side. Trying to find investors and getting the company up and running to full potential. If you are ever interested it appears to be a high growth industry, which is good to start a new business. Essentially wholesaling affordable electric bicycles for the average consumer! Anyways, let me tell you how I came upon the Doctor Who article. I was having a discussion about Water fuel cell and in my despair, while the television was just about to beginning I actually stated what I was going to do - Watch Doctor Who! I am quite pleased about our conversation and how this entire debate was resolved. It was, fair and I appreciated your level of 3C's (Note the definition of "Cool, Calm and Collective" and not wikipedia's). I am surprised and I believe that the reference you added is quite informative and far better than any previous source we had discussed. (Some fun Doctor Who games I played there though). Heck, it has the information right in the title so you don't even really have to wonder-off. I think it's the best we will get for a wikipedia article at this present time and, asking for a reference in the first sentence, (as I may have alluded), of the article doesn't appear to be fair considering, as you demonstrated, many articles don't do this. (Perhaps an interesting debate for WP:REF if they ever decide to have a meeting on revamping policy) Again, I feel that this is a fair compromise. Though at first I would have personally liked to see a reference right after the term "Tenth Doctor", I now understand that that might was a tad more then, as you said, "slightly over-vigilant." Well thank you. b.t.w. You'll have to get me a reference to the writer of your user page. (Eyebrow lifting) He sure seems like an interesting person! (lol) Thank you again. --CyclePat 01:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You're quite welcome, Pat — and let me reciprocate that you behaved with admirable equanimity in this discussion as well. As for that guy on my user page — who is he, anyway?  ;) See you 'round the 'pedia! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Time Zone calculation

Thanks, Pat, for fixing the template on my user page. :-) [1] --Uncle Ed 17:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Ed, You're welcome. If it wasn't for you WP:CCT would not be where it is today. So, thank you! --CyclePat 01:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Joining WP:RC

I wish to join the Recent Change Patrol for the next month. I will be studying there methods and tools for the next week or so. If you have any advice it would be greatly appreciated. It's time I get some administrator's flying experience (let's start with a little gliding!). Thank you! --CyclePat 15:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox

Do not keep adding Wikipedia:Sandbox to the deletion list WikiMan53 T/C e@ edits 15:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, for your concern. This is the sandbox and I am testing out my new monobook tools from WP:RC patrol. I will be making some more tests however I will also be reverting them. Please ignore any requests from the WP:sandbox. I will even test Java script, RV tool of vandalism. So please don't block me as doing a 3RR of my own edits... or please don't consider me a vandal. Thank you. --CyclePat 16:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

For example the following is a template which I added with the click of one mouse:

Regarding edits made during January 22 2007 (UTC)====

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. CyclePat 16:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

First AMAT proposal

I've made the very first AMAT proposal: look at Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Teams#The Arbitration Team. Yours! --Neigel von Teighen 15:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

CyclePat/Archive 3

---

Thank you for you proposal at the new AMA Teams(AMAT). Your initiative, leadership, and participation are greatly welcomed. As interim coordinator of the AMAT I highly endorse your efforts and I wish you the best of luck in recruiting good wikipedians within the proposed AMAT called: The Arbitration Team. I trust you will lead a good team and I believe such an AMAT has potential for high growth giving this team good experience advocacy and making wikipedia a better place. Wishing you all the best, good leadership, sustained growth and pleaseant experiences all your adventures. Once again, many thanks. Your Trully, --CyclePat 19:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC) p.s.: I will post this template on your user page!

---

FYI about the city renaming issue

You are going to encounter alot of resistance from the "City name" only crowd who seem (in purely my own opinion) to believe that a city's importance is somehow tied into whether or not it has a single city name title. It is oddly perceived as disparaging to have the article attached to a state or province. For more info take a peak at the talk page on the naming convention Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements). For full disclosure, I obviously favor a City, State convention for numerous reasons including the consistency and practicality it gives for projects such as yours to enhance these encyclopedia articles. There is no practical benefit for city name only, but obviously many for city, state. Despite your worthwhile project and good faith gestures, you are going to run into a large wall of resistance. This seems to an emotional issue and it is hard to set aside those motions even when, like in the case of your project, their goals are simply to improve Wikipedia. I wish you the best of luck and encourage you not to take anything too personal if you encounter some negativity. Agne 04:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Agne, Thank you for your support. It read in diagonal through the Naming conventions (settlements) and well... it's funny because I didn't really see the statistical information which we have now. The fact that about, only 10 cities out of 1000 don't have the ", <province>" afterwards. To me it makes sense to go with what the majority of articles are doing. Then all of your above comments on the idea have being more specific, etc. Thank you for the heads up on the contreversy. One reason I ventured off this far and didn't just leave the cities with only one names is perhaps the hope that someone may see what the CCT project is about. I guess we'll have to see what happens now that we have hard facts to back up our statements (unlike what appears to have been happening at the naming conventions (settlements)... meuh! Anyways... So those few cities stick out like a soar thumb. Oh! well... I guess some people like looking at soar thumbs. Personnally, I'dd rather fix it with an antiflamatory. And then I take some water and a nap on the sofa and dream about swimming in the pool with the girl next door whose now gone to study in Guelph... Oh! I'm babling again! Sorry, Ops! Thank you! --CyclePat 04:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I closed the poll at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Current Local City Time. That's not the place, and blanket requested move is not the means, to discuss major changes to WP:NAME. "The general rule is to name an article about a city or town with a name that does not conflict with any other town or concept as city name." Please do bring the question up at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements) if you believe that a major change is necessary. Best regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like the opposition came swift and furious. Though admittedly, I was surprised at how unilaterally they dismissed your concerns without even considering the benefit to the articles themselves. Very narrow focus, I suppose. However, Angus does have a good idea in taking the discussion to the settlements page. Unfortunately, we have become stale in discussion but maybe your new perspective could open some things up. As a personal request though, it would be nice to stay away from polls. They seem to pop up on that page every week and I think hinder discussion more then help. Agne 21:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I think you really should step back and look at how this was approached. Your proposal to develop a "real-time" clock stamp for city pages has merit, and might be an interesting addition - assuming there are no technical glitches due to page refresh/cache constraints. (It's frustrating enough right now with the number of times I've had to wait for the database to "catch up" and show the edit I've just saved.) It's also very nice that you're willing to put so much time and effort into this idea.

However, the proposed page moves are an entirely different matter, and I don't think that you have presented a convincing argument as to exactly why they should be moved, or why it is a problem for the template. To outside viewers, such as the so-called "city name" crowd you described above, it seems as if a Wikiproject dealing with a minor aspect of template coding (and with only three participants at present) is seeking to overturn a series of decisions made by hundreds of other editors in separate and distinct move discussions. Furthermore, when people voice their objections, their concerns are dismissed, and the "Project" proposes to isolate those rogue pages into a different category from the "properly named" articles. Gien the vast capabilities of the Wiki software, I can't understand why your project shouldn't be able to adapt to those few (currently, and possibly more in the future) articles that don't need to disambiguate? --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Ckatz, Thank you for the feedback. I totally agree. I have wondered off a little bit beyond the scope of the CCT project. So what I'm going to do is express my concerns and leave it up to the other projects. It's called observe and report. One of my personal proposed solutions, as I stated somewhere, was to 1) propose changes to article names (Now if you read the changing of article names rules they even suggest that what I was doing could be placed in NON-COntreversial moves... someone objected, so... I had to create the process of getting feedback... isn't that what the entire thing is for!?) or solution 2)make sofware changes (I'll figure out that Parser function eventually... heck Music students can do anything! (sarcastically)) and recategorize. I was exploring the the first option and I do have a couple other ideas in mind for the second one. So who said there was a problem... I just said the common denominator indicates that most cities have a format of <city>.<province>, but hey! Who really cares! In fact, I consider this to be all a fairly minor detail, until someone wants make a major category for all the cities in the world! Oh wait! Is that what I'm trying to do... euh! No I don't think so... No! I want to add the time to every city. Okay! never mind... Anyway, I always question format. We should alway check twice. I've expressed my concerns, possible solutions and reasons. The CCT project will continue to grow and the conversation log will surelly be an interesting read to keep in our loged history. In the mean time I'll be thinking up a couple things back at WP:CCT. Thank you again for you comments. And as I said... It's a growing project. So it migth be a good idea to expect change. --CyclePat 04:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, good luck with it - and again, thanks for making the effort. If I come up with any ideas, I'll pass them along. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Ottawa islands

Hi CyclePat - The decription in the article made it sound like they were in Nunavut. What is clear is that they are in either Nunavut or Quebec, so I've added both geo-stubs to the article - one will be removed when the actual location is determined. They certainly shouldn't have the Canada-geo-stub, since that is inteded for articles about places covering large numbers of different provinces (such as Administrative divisions of Canada and Atlantic Northeast). Grutness...wha? 01:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[www.bartleby.com/69/58/O03158.html This] lists them as having been in Keewatin until a few years ago, so it looks like I was right first time. Grutness...wha? 01:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Good one, good research. I'dd try and find an web-site without pop-ups but it's all good. Remember though, we must be careful not to do original research. I'm a strong believer of having the sources but I'm also a strong believer in not doing WP:OR. If need be, let the reader do the synthesis... but do not state it! So... we can say. With the information we currently have we could say "Ottawa Islands was part of the NWT, however in 2001 (I think) the NWT became Nunavut). We shouldn't go right out and say Ottawa Islands is part of Nunavut because that would sadly be a synthesis. (eyes rolling). Thank you. --CyclePat 01:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Would you prefer deduction to induction, my dear Holmes? They are in the east of Hudson Bay, all of which is noweither in Quebec or Nunavut. Since none of NWT became part of Quebec, then I think it is possible to conclude where they are. We can, at least, say "The Ottawa Islands are in that part of Nunavut which used to be in Keewatin, NWT." :) Grutness...wha? 12:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I would like to think that the existance the Ottawa Islands as being part of the Northwest Territories (NWT) is true. I would also like to think that the division of the NWT, (including the Ottawa Islands), was subdivided into Nunavut. Therefore I would like to take the first option, which is the deduction. Nevertheless, as you indicated, we where not so sure if the Ottawa Islands remained part of the NWT and we have added the other premise that Ottawa Islands did not join Quebec or another province. Hence I would actually opt for some mild abductive reasoning, which according to wikipedia states "which the major premise is known to be true, but the minor premise is only probable." The minor premise is only probably because, again, we are not sure if Ottawa Islands actually remained part of the change to become a part of Nunavut. The abductiion is only used in the classic sense and resembles more or less an analogy or induction. So, if we had to say how we found we came upon this the search for this information I would say abductive reasoning. Then again I'm no psychology major and personnaly I prefer this final option which I will propose. My dear Watson, I'dd rather just work with the fact that we know for sure, according to NRCan, (smilling) that as of 2006 Nunavut is part of Ottawa Islands... or vis versa <-- (check that link). The big question, we should ask ourselfs... can we include this critical reasoning into the article or is it a violation of WP:OR? To answer my own question: I see no violation of WP:OR in to include the the entire induction, if all facts (premises and conclusions) are properly supported by external sources!--CyclePat 15:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Canada,_Routes_of_Explorers,1497_to_1905.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Canada,_Routes_of_Explorers,1497_to_1905.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Infobox City

I have no problem with you adding the category, but you created this big whitespace in all these articles, such as Ahvaz. Is there any way you can do this without making the articles look weird? Khoikhoi 09:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I have no objections. :-) Cheers, Khoikhoi 09:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I guess it's ok now. But now any article that uses the template that has a space between the infobox and the first paragraph will look out-of-place. Simply fixing the Ahvaz article will not solve the larger problem. Khoikhoi 09:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it looks good now. Problem solved. Khoikhoi 09:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

If you insist, but I have no problems with the current version of the template. Regards, Khoikhoi 09:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Cleared

Just to let you know that I (and Benio76 and Zelig33) have been cleared of the sockpuppetry charges, thanks to Mel Etitis who was contacted by Benio76. Thank you for your your help. David Olivier 11:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Mountain Biking on Mount Tamalpais

Hello, An article that I created as a part of Wikiproject Cycling called Mountain Biking on Mount Tamalpais and linked to the Mount Tamalpais article, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mountain Biking on Mount Tamalpais. Thank you, Bob in Las Vegas -  uriel8  (talk) 09:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

{{Infobox city}} Docs

Regarding this edit, I'm not quite sure what you meant by TEST? Paul_012 ^(talk) 10:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Paul! I wanted to see if it would influence the final output of of the template. It didn't have an effect. Obviously, because my inate ability at being lazy, I didn't remove it. Sorry! As I would say to my Dad... I'll go clean my room now! And do the dishes... and mow the lawn. ;) (wisper: That means I'll see to fixing it!) --CyclePat 21:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Cities in the UTC-5 timezone and template:Infobox city

In the past you have revert the page template:Infobox city. You destroyed the category:UTC-5. Recently you done the same and have removed an important part from this template. You have diminished the quality of wikipedia by removing valid information from the category category:Cities in the UTC timezone. Your last edit destroyed the category:Cities in the UTC-5 timezone. Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to template:Infobox city. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. [2]

Your calling my edit vandalism is ridiculous. Your edits break the template. I am restoring the template to a non-broken condition. If you call that vandalism, then I suggest we take this to WP:AN to get some other opinions. older ≠ wiser 02:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Post with no response

Hi - I made a comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Current_Local_City_Time a while ago that you haven't responded to. Did you perhaps miss it? Just curious. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you rick. Yes! I have read through the post and appreciate your feedback. One of the reasons I haven't quite responded was because for the CCT project it appears to make sense. That is why I am currently concentrating on issues which do not specifically require "current" time. You may take a look at Category:Cities in the UTC timezone and notice my recent work which appears to answer some of your questions. --CyclePat 04:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I know you're in the midst of some disputes about this, and again I don't mean to add to your stress level, but are you sure this is a good idea? Categorizing cities by timezone, but not making the categories "currently observed timezone" seems just a little odd to me. Basically, I think this boils down to categorizing by approximate latitude. Maybe you might want to think about making the categories explicitly latitude related rather than timezone. Just a suggestion. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't seem to completly understand. Are saying that my problem is based on a select amount of users from a regional latitude within UTC-5? Why would I want to place the categorization by latitude? Though the latitude is an indicator of many timezones it also varies. If you look at the WP:CCT page and click on the map you will see that in Canada there are a couple exceptions where some cities (such as within Manitoba) don't necessarilly observe the same DST. Some countries don't have the same UTC and are should seemingly be within the same UTC. Some states in the US have different UTC splitting them appart. There are so many exceptions. If we want to make a list of states or countries in UTC... I guess that could be another big job. Personnally I preffered my first category which was UTC-5 plain and simple but someone once said you need to have more for a category. --CyclePat 05:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

p.s.: thank you for your comments! --CyclePat 05:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The issue is that the grouping by "time" changes, because of local DST observation that varies by country (and, in some cases, by even finer grained entities). I'd expect (and this is perhaps just me) that a category of "cities in UTC-5" would include only those cities currently in that timezone. There might be a category wording that is sufficiently unambiguous to convey the meaning I think you're attempting (cities that when they're not observing DST are in UTC-5, perhaps "non-DST timezone"), but this seems to be a concept that's difficult to express (as a category). My question is, what's the actual point? Do we care what cities celebrate New Year's Eve at the same moment? What does this actually say about those cities except that they are in approximately the same latitude? Due to the vagaries of DST, it specifically doesn't mean two cities in such a category have the same local time. They do have the same local time +/- an hour. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I can only re-iterate what is currently being used by the infobox city template. Most articles have this information and aleady use with a display similar to "Time zone Eastern (EST) (UTC-5)". They differentiate UTC vs DST. (See Montreal for example) In this case DST is not important! Why is that? Actually some cities may not be at the same latitude because if you look at WP:CCT map and compare North America with South America you will see that there is a little difference. We do however agree that that "non-DST timezone" is a common mis-conception for the UTC timezone category. I have proposed a solution which involve placing a small warning at the top. You seem to have understood this! category:Cities in the DST UTC timezone is a seperate category and seperate subject. I find it a little naive that you consider "New Year's Eve" as a defining characteristic! Time and location are an important defining characteristics. Wikipedia is a place where we keep historical facts and what you appear to be arguing is a "current issue". Is this city currently observing DST or not? As suggested this can be figured out by the reader clicking on the specific article. Readers should be aware of the information they are reading and not only that but a clear warning is posted at the top of those categories explaining this! I believe the problem is that you are trying to infer more then there is here! We are working with cities that observe their standard UTC. Some countries don't change so there is no problem (as of the currency). Again defining... better yet... I once sung a fairly large work by at University Voices 2000.[3] Which is now on sale in CD... those buggers. The concert's major work was "Credo" from Apocalypsis by R. Murray Schafer which deals with the prevailling themes ot space (motifs of cross choir singing, X, T, polyphony here and there) being more important than the time (which the piece is ironically mesures in... seconds instead of tempo pulsations). (If only I could find that minidisc recording) Anyway... theme was the research is done by people making the articles and they add the relevant UTC. If you wish to discuss the categorization further I suggest we bring it to category:Cities in the UTC timezone. If you wish to discuss the current time project I suggest we go to WP:CCT. --CyclePat 06:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Infobox City Feb 24 edits

Hi CyclePat,
You should really try out your edits in a sandbox first before trying them on the "Live" template. It can avoid any possible revert wars. —MJCdetroit 04:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Post Scriptum: I think User:52 Pickup maybe able to help you with the auto-cat stuff. 04:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Categorization of location

Hi, it seems my little project to categorize location did not appeal to the powers that be (see discussion) and the categories were deleted. I didn't hear any convincing arguments against it, but maybe it is indeed better to do this sort of thing automatically in software, like somebody mentioned on Wikipedia talk:Categorization of location. Cheers, AxelBoldt 19:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

re: something in common

re: Perhaps we have something in common. Would you like to support an RfC on voice of all? --CyclePat 19:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC) and User talk:Voice of All/Archive/2007/November#Deleted in mid edit

And {{AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD}} and WP:AMA. I'm not too put out, as what happened was understandable, and I saved it out in this sandbox. I certainly know enough admins that will put it back in heartbeat... I just despise lack of courtesy of notification or making a query. Childishness... Afd needs should not drive administrative or support pages, and non-notification is a hypocracy extended over from cruft nominations in afd. No question there, nor on the double-standard. All noms should require a good faith effort to contact interested editors, including by email of at least the most active five or six who have editted a page. For the stuff Afd does 'sneaking' on, so what if the guy calls in his buddies. All that needs is a limit on who can vote by contribs, and a concurrent mininum quorum on all votes. The later would help those of us who keep in touch slower, make broader contributions in such pages more often AND help stabilize the whole system. So, 'evil genii789', you've not made 100 edits yet in articles. Sorry, try again later, we can't count your vote, but will take your comments into our deliberations. Done, no fuss. Game-set-match.

But back to Voice of All (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log), this looks pretty good, and I'd rather see 10,000 edits than this count... but he/she is getting there, though awfully light on the user talk counts, so that would indicate someone who 'does' rather than 'co-ordinates' as my experience suggests.

He/she also didn't even extend the courtesy of notifying me that page had been put back, as I just saw, but again, that's more an indicator of focus on doing, vice courtesies to others and good manners. Don't think good manners are required by the five pillars. <G> Shrug. Perhaps she/he is just young and has to learn the tricks of dealing better with people?

After all, I hadn't made a redirect so the cat was empty. It turned out that was a prior edit in the back-edit buffer, also unsaved. (I tend to do strings of things and then backdown and save... that one was open nearly three weeks! Too many details to settle in WP:TSP before really announcing it! I've also been having computer issues... and been stubborn about not rebooting until such old edits are cleared. Hopefully soon today I can!)

And now I'm thinking with some of the other categorisation changes just put in place Wikipedia templates by namespace I need to rethink those names, so no reason for me to be upset with him in particular. It's the societal attitudes which need adjusted. That's on my list too... time permitting!

Anyway, but what's the beef? I'm a little surprised to see a fellow AMA advocate thinking along those lines. Can I intercede in some way for you? I'll look in on it if you've been building an evidence page with some others, but RFC's are pretty drastic unless he's clearly out of control. T'would be better to discuss his behavior via email with some older wiser very well respected admins who could mentor him a bit. Say Radiant!, CBDunkerson, Omegatron, HereToHelp, Slim Virgin, Mel Etitis, and like editors who have been around a long long time. Are there AN/I postings to use as evidence too, ala Zeraeph? Seems unlikely anything that wacko would be involved. I'll take a look at what you got though. Email me if you like. I'm going to reboot sometime in the next hour so I can use that convienience again! Been without since late last Thursday. ttfn // FrankB 20:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Spoken article

Hi. I've noticed that you appear to have been working on converting the second part of the article Bicycle into a spoken version for over six months now, according to your entry on the In Progress secton of Wikiproject Spoken Wikipedia. If you are no longer working on the article, please either remove yourself from the list, or notify me so I can do so, so other editors will know they can work on the article instead. If you don't reply within a week, I will assume you are no longer working on the article. Cheers, H4cksaw (talk) 21:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought I removed myself from that list. Thank you. --CyclePat 21:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Cities in the UTC timezone

The discussion on what type of text should be included in a category was discussed here. Vegaswikian 22:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Conduct RfC process

Hi. A conduct RfC has a predefined structure. To say that it is mandatory to have a Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute section is the same as saying that you must have tried and failed to resolve the dispute, or the RfC becomes invalid. Thanks. El_C 13:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. I've attempted to explain the above as clearly as I could and now ask that you refrain from placing any additional comments on my talk page. If you still wish to appeal my decision, please proceed to do do so through the proper channels. Any admin is, of course, free to reverse my action. Thanks again. El_C 19:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

AMA Request

Hi, I've read your request at the AMA and I'm interested on your case. First of all, I would need bla bla bla... ;) What do you exactly need, fellow? (quite strange situation, isn't it)? --Neigel von Teighen 16:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Bicycle frame material

Seems silly, but okay. There isn't a source verifying that the frame is the main component of a bicycle. There isn't a source confirming that the most common frame design is based on the safety bicycle. There isn't a source specifying that the rear brake cable is most commonly routed along mounts on the top tube. There isn't a source corroborating the claim that a more economical method of bicycle frame construction uses cylindrical steel tubing connected by TIG welding. Why you let these slide while questioning the preponderance of evidence supporting the claim that carbon fiber is the primary and most commonly used non-metalic frame material is beyond my understanding. Is it even the slightest bit controversial? Does this somehow strike you as original research? Do you have support for a counter claim? -AndrewDressel 17:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see comment left on your user page.--CyclePat 05:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. If there is some question about the reliability of the sources I cite, please tell me what it is. I believe there is no point in looking for citations for the examples I highlighted because the points are widely agreed upon and there is not likely to be any source that bothers confirming them. That is why I chose those examples. The same is true of the primacy of carbon fiber among non-metallic frame materials. -AndrewDressel 14:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

UH-60 Black Hawk in popular culture

It was a copy error. Snide "possible vandalsim " remark not appreciated. If I vandalize a page, even you'll be able to tell. Sorry, I'm a bit on edge over defending the mere existence of pop culture items and pages. I'd rather we not have them at all, but as long as they aren't banned outright, I have to defend them. Thanks for your support. - BillCJ 18:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Please accept my appology for my lack of good faith a violation of WP:AGF. When it comes to the following procedures for the "deletion of articles" I am particularly offencive when I notice an anomoly. Again, sorry for the lack of good faith. Good luck in fixing up the article and perhaps adding some WP:CITE (ex.:<ref>reference text here</ref>) --CyclePat 18:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I had to apologize too. - BillCJ 19:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

other comments

You have already used an alternate account for block evasion. The only reason I didn't extend your block is because you stopped at one edit. Your edits leading up to the block were definitely disruptive. I'll leave the unblock template up for a second opinion. NoSeptember 07:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:VPT reply

Just in case you hadn't spotted, I have replied to your post at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Finding cities for your country using, UTC, UTC-5 and other timezones per WP:CCT. Thanks, mattbr 11:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you mat, I'll be testing this on one of my sub user pages.:

1. Abbeville, Alabama
2. Aberdeen, Maryland
3. Aberdeen, South Dakota
4. Abilene, Texas
5. Abingdon, Virginia

the above is just an exemple of what I was able to to pull. (from a list of 3055 places). --CyclePat 19:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:AMA backup

• AMA Home
• Members List
  • Teams
• FAQs
• Joining
• Guide to advocacy
• AMA Handbook
• AMA Coordinator
• Contact Us

AMA Template

Reference

Wikipedia contributors, "Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AMA (accessed March 30, 2007).

AMA

User:CyclePat/AMA/AMA Template I'm getting the rather strong feeling that the AMA migt be delted. I'm glad to see you made a back up in your user space. Æon ^{Insanity Now!} _{Give Back Our Membership!} 03:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I Aeon, award you CyclePat the Barnstar of Diligence for ensuring that the members of Wikipedia will allways have a place to turn to for help and advice. Keep up the great work!!!! Æon Insanity Now! Give Back Our Membership! 03:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow! An award! I would like to thank my Mom, my Dad, My brother, My other brother, and... (2.23 minutes later) I would finally like to thank the Academy of Members Associate. And to think, I couldn't have done it without everyone here. But seriously though. THank you! Its not completly backed-up but it should do. --CyclePat 06:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

To the right is a backup version! --CyclePat 06:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I have requested that all of these "backup" pages be deleted - they are copyvios. If the AMA does not survive AFD, you can request that an adminstrator move the versions to your userspace, or you can save a local copy. copy-past moving them unlinks their history, which is a violation of the GFDL. Hipocrite - «Talk» 08:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, under GFDL, I think all those subpages can be speedied as copyvios since the editing history is destroyed by the cut and paste.--MONGO 14:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

References are easy: As per WP:CITE and WP:GFDL rules... All I have to do is say where I got it from:

Wikipedia contributors, "Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AMA (accessed March 30, 2007).

Pending Mfd results, I have deleted the pages per g12 and g4 as cited by Hipocrite and MONGO. If the Mfd result is delete, you may file on Rfu for an undelete for move to your user space with history intact. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Your campaign pro-AMA

Cycle,

I and surely all active AMA advocates appreciate your efforts to keep AMA living to help and advice people within disputes resolutions. But, I really disagree how you are leading this and ask you to calm down, no matter how disguising this can be to you. The calls and actions you're doing just makes our position worser than they really are. The image you show of AMA is that of a political block that wants to survive no matter if against Wikipedia's policy.

Please, I know your intentions are good faithed, but I know it because I have been working togethet with you and met you before; but people not very near to AMA will think you are a POV pusher. Please, please accept the game's rules: AMA was born from community's consensus and can be shut down by the same (no matter if MfD is or not the right place to do it or not). It is sad and frustrating, yes, but let's show people our respect to policy.

The fight must be done now that we can do it in the discussion, not after its closure. I'll fight strongly for AMA while the discussion is open, but, if we get disbanded, I'll fight strongly against any attempt to disrespect Wikipedia's policies and procedures. To appeal, instead of creating user subpages, use a request for undeletion or a RfC or whatever that it is inside WP's normal procedures and "legal" according to current policies, please.

Anyway, thanks for representing us all advocates. Your efforts are admirable... the problem are the ways.

Shall this be our "war"cry: "Long live AMA!" (We are still not dead). --Neigel von Teighen | _{help with arbs?} 16:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for taking the time to consider my recent RfA, which was ultimately successful. I am aware that you did not feel that my promotion was appropriate. I respect your view, but hope to demonstrate in the future that your concerns were unfounded.--Anthony.bradbury 17:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Editor Assistance != AMA

Since the odds are against AMA being continued in the near future, I'd like to explicitly not have the two projects associated. Thank you. --Kim Bruning 17:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, you may wish to express this at WP:ASSIST where there is a discussion concerning the move. --CyclePat 18:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm really not too sure what you're trying to pull here. Surely you're well-aware that the ASSIST project was explicitly intended to be separate and distinct from AMA? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me. This is a separate project, that has nothing to do with AMA.

Don't try to play games like that again please.

--Kim Bruning 19:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Seeing Requested moves, yeah, that's a straight-out attempt at usurpation. We cooperate on projects on wikipedia, we don't play that kind of game here. --Kim Bruning 20:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

CyclePat, please stop. This is getting tiring. You are disrupting the editor's assistance program. Why? What is the point? --Iamunknown 16:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Pat, AMA is, by common consent, pretty badly broken, probably fatally so. Some people have been thinking and are trying to come up with a lighter, more user-friendly alternative that does not act as a place for trolls to get backup (which is what AMA rather frequently did). It's not in competition, but it is more likely to survive at present. Regardless, merging is not going to happen because the people who came up with the idea recognise that AMA is broken and want no part of it. Leave them be, to see how they can build a better help mechanism. Guy (Help!) 18:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to wait until Guy talks with you before I say anything more. I suggest you stay away from Editor Assistance in the mean time. --Kim Bruning 16:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

CyclePat, I appreciate what you're trying to do with the AMA here, but consensus against the move is resoundingly clear, and if the request is re-opened, it will, no doubt, be snowball closed (as I was about to do to the latest poll, before Kim did so). I'd encourage you to focus your efforts on the internal AMA improvements for now :) Martinp23 16:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Concerns of vandalism

Originally posted at WP:RM. The following comment did not belong there. RM is not a place to have a debate. I moved it here --CyclePat 04:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• CyclePat, it was not vandalism. Vandalism is only "any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." Quite the contrary, Kim was not trying to deliberate compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Stop calling anyone who disagrees with you a vandal. Have you actually read the document WP:VANDALISM? I suggest you do. --Iamunknown 04:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions but you may wish to specifically know that WP:VAN#Types of vandalism states that "Wikipedia vandalism may fall into one or more of the following categorizations:" and it list many exemples of which pertinent to my case is... "Avoidant vandalism" and "Talk page vandalism". The later states "Removing the comments of other users from talk pages other than your own, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc. is generally considered vandalism." My concerns regarding this issue and the expected appology are expressed at WP:ANI (historic link of change) and cover some other issues regarding WP:ASSIST --CyclePat 04:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

CyclePat, I am not vandalising, and I take issue that you continue to accuse me of such. Please stop removing my comment from WP:RM and stop referring to me as a vandal. --Iamunknown 06:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not refer to you as a vandal but, if you say so then I guess it must mean you are. In the mean time you may wish to refamilirize yourself with WP:RM policy and WP:VAN. --CyclePat 06:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

CyclePat, you did refer to me as vandalising here and here and here. You quoted earlier, but seem to have forgotten, that removing talk page comments is itself vandalism as defined by Wikipedia:Vandalism. Wikipedia:Requested moves suggests that "Do not discuss moves on this page. Moves are discussed at the discussion page of the article to be moved." but it does not say "Aggressively remove any comments made on this page." Why, then, are you removing my comments? --Iamunknown 06:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all. I did not call you a vandal. I believe I said something along that lines like... "falls within the definition of WP:VAN." Secondly, your comments where not removed, they where moved to the appropriate discussion at WP:ASSIST as now stated on the WP:RM. Your comments violate the general concensus of elaborate for the use of that page, in such it violates the spirit as elaborated within the first line of WP:VAN. Your WP:BOLD actions are admirable but frankly they should be focused in the correct venue. --CyclePat 06:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

How do they violate the spirit of WP:VAN? Exactly how are my edits "[compromising] the integrity of Wikipedia"? --Iamunknown 06:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, could I please know when you are talking to other users about me? I have Alison's page on my watchlist so I could see your comment on her talk page. It is a common courtesy. --Iamunknown 06:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

'The following was in edit conflict with Iamunknown

Though it appears you have someone that agrees with you, I have posted a reply on her discuss page. To answer your question. Wikipedia is built on several policies and guidelines. The most important and fundemental is WP:CON (concensus). A concensus was elaborated not to have comments on the WP:RM. By adding continuing to add comments when you are specifically asked not too, via concensus, you are violating this fundemental rule and violating the integrity of wikipedia. --CyclePat 06:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

CyclePat, WP:KETTLE might be relevant now. Okay, I am "violating consensus"; you, however, are forcing WP:ASSIST through a ridiculous poll that no one involved supports...kind of violates consensus, so it seems. Whatever, I'm off Wikipedia. Ta ta for now. --Iamunknown 06:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Seriously though, the way you say it... "The irony" or should I say perhaps more "the paradox." I think a merger request and move request fall within the criteria of trying to build concensus. But we'll have to think about that and see what a few more people say or, at least sleep on it. It's late here too... Goodnight. --CyclePat 07:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)