User talk:Mindmatrix/2009

Archive: 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023

Stadtarchiv Frankfurt (Oder)

Thanks for categorization. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 01:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Canadian Do Not Call List

Mindmatrix - At the risk of being seen as an upward delegator, I'd appreciate your maybe taking a look at the section of Canadian Do Not Call List entitled "Regulatory Guides". My guess is that the whole section is linkspam since each of the 3 links and the two citations lead to various commercial websites and press releases. The editor who created the section seems to have duplicated it on other pages as well. If you agree/advise, I'd be happy to do the edit and take whatever heat results.TypicalEh (talk) 04:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yup - it's all linkspam. None of the documents mentioned are freely available (they charge hundreds of dollars for them) at those links - they're behind a paywall, and such links are strongly discouraged by WP:EL and WP:NOT. Official government sources exist for this info, so there's no reason to retain this. I'll delete it. Mindmatrix 17:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The hopeful, the hopeless, Port Hope and thee

HOPE (band) looks pretty borderline to me, too, but it does contain claims (albeit unreferenced ones) about airplay on MuchEast and a spot on the Vans Warped Tour. And according to the discography, while they started in 1992 they're still active and recording today. So I've tagged it for notability and references, but strictly speaking it's not immediately speediable. For what it's worth, though, my actual expertise in Canadian music being made in this decade extends much more toward "what middle-aged or almost middle-aged farts who used to be young rock club hipsters are into" rather than "what the kids like" :-) Bearcat (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Arguments:

Anyone wanna talk to this guy?? you can do so here! User: Mikon8er March, 1st, 2009, 5:18 PM.

This guy is starting to piss me off! What is "StatCan" anyway, whoever they are, the are wrong about the population of Mississauga! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikon8er (talk • contribs)

I've left a message on your talk page about this. Bluntly, a government department whose focus is to generate censal information will provide more statistically rigorous data than any individual. All population data for the country is derived or extrapolated from Statistics Canada data.

If you want to be taken seriously, discuss the matter, instead of vandalising my user page. Mindmatrix 14:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Georgina

Well done on summarising the options, rationales, and what should be the resulting conclusion. It is clear, precise, and I hope will help. I am astonished at the people who say, well I've never heard of the town but I know some politician who has that name so it should be a dab. ??? Why on earth would someone link to or look to Georgina for some particular person? I don't particularly care if this particular article is dabbed or not but the arguments against it are appalling and would be a horrible precedent. DoubleBlue (talk) 15:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Although I included my preferred solution, I'm open to changing the list of options if anybody presents a viable argument to do so. I've seen no such argument to date, though. Mindmatrix 15:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You wrote: "My example about Torontonians referring to themselves as being from the Beaches etc. was a direct comparison to your statement that people from Georgina say 'I am from Keswick' instead of Georgina. You haven't countered this claim at all." I was going to address this point, but, after proof-reading, I decided my response was too long, and that it was a peripheral point. I just checked your user page, and I see you live in the GTA. "I am from Keswick" is not analogous to "I am from Cabbagetown". In my experience the neighborhood names are not likely to be used between fellow residents of Toronto, who are more likely to name the closest major intersection. I suspect that many of the neighborhood names are retronyms, or essentially retronyms, coined or retreaded by real estate developers or civic boosters. Corktown being an example.

Have you ever been to the Swansea Town Hall? It is now just a community center. But when Swansea was an autonomous municipality it was the city hall. It is a beautiful example of that kind of building. I traveled there for a meeting of an NGO, which had booked one of the meeting rooms. But upstairs one large room was devoted to this lovely museum, documenting the independent municipality. Geo Swan (talk) 19:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I realize that some of the neighbourhoods in Toronto are nothing more than retronyms et al, but many also happen to be old communities. If you prefer, I can use the example of Vaughan, which is a more recent example of this. It's made up of Woodbridge (itself consisting of Pine Grove, Burwick, etc.), Maple (including Teston, Hope, etc.), Concord (Edgeley etc.) and so on. Eventually, some of the community names will fall into disuse (few residents of Vaughan identify themselves as being from Hope or Edgeley, but many still refer to Woodbridge, Maple and Concord). For Toronto, this has been more pronounced, as communities coalesced into increasingly larger entities (eg - the borough of Scarborough, from Malvern and Agincourt etc.) Although they may no longer use community names, they may use the borough names (plenty of people refer to Etobicoke or North York). (As an aside, there's no reason why names created today can't be just as valid as historical names. Sure, some may just be marketing tools, but I'm certain that some will stick as 'community' names. I guess only time will tell, as the saying goes.)

Despite the fact I'm in the GTA, I don't get to Toronto much . I've only passed through Swansea, and have never stopped there. I think I may add a visit to the Swansea Town Hall in my list of things to do. Mindmatrix 21:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarify party objectives

Greetings. As you were the last person to revert my edit of the introductory paragraph of the Bloc Quebecois entry, I wonder if you would be so kind as to review the relevant discussion section as I have subsequently added some additional material. Your comments and help in resolving this matter would be appreciated. Thank you. Pinkythecorgi (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Brockville

Just so you know, it actually screws up the infobox formatting to add the reference directly to the population figure — it was causing the infobox to display the population as "21,957?UNIQ10a5,580,121dfa5-ref-00,000,000-QINU?" instead of just "21,957". There's a separate entry field in the infobox for population reference tags. Bearcat (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a bug in MediaWiki. It happened about a year and a half ago too; those bugs were resolved (bug 12154 and bug 12056), so there may be a regression from recent updates in the software. You are right that I should have used the appropriate parameters for it, though. Mindmatrix 14:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

emoticon

Hi!

i would just like to say thanks for your babysitting of the emoticon article. I've been reverting vandalism on that article off and on for a couple of years now, it is nice to have help. Wrs1864 (talk) 01:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

invitation

You're invited to sign up as a founding member, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#WikiProject Historic Sites ! :) doncram (talk) 06:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Ecozones (CEC) and Level II Ecoregions (EPA)

I can't remember if I put in that wording about "the portion" re the Islands, but there's a terminological tangle going on, with "bilateral" aspects that need resolving; maybe you have the patience to work it out. Y'see, while the CEC and EPA ecoregion systems are identical, which is to say they are the same system, the names for the units that span the border differ from one side of the border to the other, and the Americans don't use the term "Ecozone", which is Environment Canada's and I gather also used in the wider world beyond North America (in the CEC's system, that is; this discussion so far excludes the WWF region system, which is parallel, has different boundaries, and a whole different set of names/hierarchies). In other words, while Canadian ecologists and Environment Canada define the Pacific Maritime Ecozone as spanning the adjoining American states, the corresponding Level II Ecoregion in the US is Marine West Coast Forest, which is currently Wiki-wise only a section-heading on List of ecoregions in the United States (EPA). Now part of the wiki-issue is that while the Canadian article is focussed on the one Level (Level II = Ecozones) the U.S. articles are by Level II Ecoregions, which there are not articles for their Canadian co-respondents. That, however, is more similar to the ecoregion level in list of WWF ecoregions in Canada; in that system the equivalent Level II system, though not by that name, is defined differently and they do not neatly align with each other, i.e. the one system to the other. So, again avoiding getting into a WWF <-> CEC/EPA further-confusion problem, simply within the CEC/EPA system he have different terminologies, and they're difficult to merge. We went through this with what is now Western Cordillera (North America), which integrates the Canadian and US topographic/toponymic systems, without OR, or trying not to do OR, but even there Physiographic regions of the United States has different sub-names very different from one side of the border to the other; similarly North Cascades and Canadian Cascades are the asme (the latter is s redirect to the former, both are topographic system names, though have respective ecoregion names in both systems North Cascades (ecoregion) and note Cascades (ecoregion) and Coast Range (ecoregion) - note also Canadian Rockies (ecoregion) - with different boundaries on all three same-named but different-types of regions........); Pacific Coast Ranges vs Pacific Mountain System (not sure there are the same landform, but with two different names on eith either side of the Strait of Juan de Fuca/Dixon Entrance and/or 49th Parallel...OK, OK, now I'm getting distracted by the difference between toponymy, physiogeographic regions, and ecoregions/ecozones - oh, and note geology has yet another system, again with national-terminology differences. Complicating all this is that the geologists as well as the ecologists often use mountain-range toponymic/topographic to name their units, likewise physical geographers, though those usually but not always coincide with the toponymies (BCGNIS/GNIS/CGNDB basically); in the case of the ecoregion people, they've created what seem like mountain-range names such as Boreal Cordillera and Taiga Cordillera which are not even physiographic objects, much less are they official toponymies as such e.g. Muskwa Ranges, Stikine Plateau, and when they do use an official toponymy they mis-apply it, e.g. Fraser Basin and Plateau complex (that's a WWF not CEC/EPA item though); the WWF "ecozone"-level counterpart to British Columbia mainland coastal forests, which doesn't include teh islands that Pacific Maritime Ecozone does, they call Western Cordillera ("western" here meaning hte Coast Mountains and Cascade Range; but the normative use of "Western Cordillera" is everything from Colorado and Alberta westward..... So unsuccessfuly avoiding all those, or trying to but not quite doing it, let's just talk about the CEC/EPA system and trying to "resolve" it. Should, for instance Pacific Maritime Ecozone be maintained separately as Maritime West Coast Forest? Or should the one article refer to the other? Except that the latter is, as noted, currently only a section heading; and the corresponding linked items on List of ecoregions in the United States do not have a parallel hierarchy on the Canadian side of the system.

It's a mess huh? Thing is, we can't get into trying to integrate the two systems, because that's original research. Got much teh same problem with the physiogeographic regions and the geologic zones. I think if we did a similar analysis of any soils system/nomenclature on either side of the border we'd find much the same problem, I know it exists with botanical/biological regions. Note also Biogeoclimatic zones of British Columbia, which si the BC Ministry of Forests system, which is about ecoregions but doesn't use the same terminology and the term "biogeoclimatic zone" is not used in the US......All of this has been on my wiki-mind for quite a while; if there's some tartness in various edits to ecoregion articles and talkpages its' because of my frustration with the needless complexity of it, and how it's not globalized to start with, and how freely and carelessly it coopts and simultaneously redefines and confluses terms from teh toponymy, phsiogeography and geology (and more). Coherent it's not (neither am I but at least I try to make sense....).Skookum1 (talk) 01:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

ACK!! I just re-read the lede to List of ecoregions in the United States (EPA) and saw:

The classification system has four levels, but only Levels I and III are shown on this list.

The "ack!" is for my having gone through respectiev articles from either side of the border and trying to match them up; see my Canada-bylines on the Marine West Coast Forest, Northwestern Forested Mountains and Great Plains ecoregions; which turn out to be Level I, not level II, which is the corresponding level - I THINK to a Canadian Ecozone. Unless a Level I and an ecozone are the same, and Level II is an ecoprovince.....I'll re-amend the corresponding Canadian items, which use the term Level II, and amend them to Level I....I hope I'm right....the dangers of cross-border synthesis, we've run into similar problems with Columbia Basin and the like....i.e. one meaning on one side of the border, a different one on the other, and both probably using names borrowed from other classifications.....and we haven't gotten to the Floristic provinces yet....Skookum1 (talk) 01:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the time to read all this right now. I'll get to it this week sometime. Mindmatrix 02:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I've made some of the correlations on the pages I could correlate; some I just couldn't; see also Talk:List of physiographic regions of the United States (EPA). Enough for now, but it seems User:Northwesterner is on the a related path of inquiry/reconciliation......At some point I'm going to make a list of differing "metageographic regions of North America" where all the different systems - toponymic, geologic, physiogeographic, ecologic, floristic, ethnocultural etc can be placed side-by-side (without synth/ref but more by way of comparison/x-reflisting).Skookum1 (talk) 03:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to harp on this, know you're busy (so am I...) but the earlier fix you were kind enough to get to quickly on Southern Arctic Ecozone (CEC) brought to mind the issue of the need to split Arctic Cordillera Ecozone (CEC) off from Arctic Cordillera - see this although I could probably make the case a little more clearly: dislike articles that span different types of categories, especially when one kind of category/system has a different structure and purpose/meaning, despite overlaps in content (as with First Nations governments vs actual ethnographies vs their languages vs their reserves/communities - all of those belong in different categories, not one article with all four kinds of related categories...). The mountain range Arctic Cordillera and the ecozone Arctic Cordillera are defined differently; terrain is not ecology and the latter has a different boundary than the former. I guess I'm looking for your support for the split, and also to decide what goes in the one, and what gets condensed for the other. The ecozone system has concoted a number of names which "look like" mountain-range names and were in fact written up as such, which is why I renamed them, e.g. Boreal Cordillera (now a redirect) was written as if it were the geographic article for the Mackenzie Mountains and Muskwa Ranges; highly subjective and also co-optive. I got hung up on the Arctic Cordillera because the names are identical, and in fact there is no topograhpic-system term for the mountains of the Arctic Islands; at bivouac.com we kind of invented it, maybe based on the ecozone, and so it's a "reflexive cite", and not widely used; the mountains of Greenland, ultimately, are even part of the same system (though "bent around" the Davis Strait/Baffin Bay). As you probably know I'm attempted to inter-relate (without being OR) the WWF and CEC/EPA systems, where possible ;here it's matter of keeping mountain-range/landform categories/article names distinct from ecoregion/ecozone ones (and NB as in the section above, the US does not use the term "ecozone"). I'll leave it at that for your consideration; I'm of a mind just to do the split and move and condense material, but have been preoccupied elsewhere....Skookum1 (talk) 00:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Song of the Free

I have nominated Song of the Free, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Song of the Free. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. billinghurst (talk) 01:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Southern Arctic Ecozone (CEC) vandalism

Hi; I reverted the most recent vandal attacks on this page, and then saw some more garble where the word "features" should be, but even that's an incomplete sentence; trying to sort out where to revert from, I discovered that a number of the refs were also vandalized in various ways; there's nowhere to easily revert from, as more material was added since and in the process between the various vandal edits, which are all from different IPs and IP-domains. I see you're the "founder" of the article, and maybe (one hopes) are more familiar (than I) with the refs and the meaning of the vandalized passages before they were garble-hacked. Would you mind cleaning it up, I just got in the door and have a backlog of "burning issues" as it is.....Skookum1 (talk) 21:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

All the damage was done in these edits by an anonymous user. I've fixed it. Mindmatrix 22:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Toronto Swimming Pools

Hello Mindmatrix, Thank you for helping me to put together article Colonel Samuel Smith Park. Today I put a list of Toronto swimming pools (List of Toronto Swimming Pools). My thinking was that it is a starting point for new section about city of Toronto (the same way as List of Toronto parks). Would you consider that new article is just a directory and has to be deleted or a starting point for new section? Thanks a lot, DreamGYM (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page. Mindmatrix 00:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

IUCN

I asked somewhere (can't find it now) what category Conservation Areas should go under, and apparently the decision was to go with Category II. Don't get thrown off by the "national" parks title though -- all provincial parks are Category II as well. --Padraic 15:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Great work! Good to have that sorted out. --Padraic 23:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

About your revert edits

I'm new on Wikipedia, so forgive me for my lack of knowledge on navigating this site. I saw that you reverted nearly all of my edits. We spent a couple weeks going through all the guidelines and policies, and it said external links were ok, especially if the link has information which can be added to the article. Somewhere along the line, we either made a mistake by placing it in the wrong area, or Wikipedia does not allow external links to "credible" and "valuable" information. Our news stories are credible, they offer unique content which can be used on Wikipedia, and they are distributed across Google News, Yahoo News, Microsoft's Website, and AOL. Can you help explain what we are doing wrong? Or, guide us to the proper ways to submit this information in link pattern? Newsoxy (talk) 05:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Burnaby rename categories

Hey there, I check on on Burnaby's talk page you support renaming the main article from Burnaby, British Columbia to Burnaby and I was wondering I propose the nominated categories for 5 Burnaby related categories to be renamed and I did so if you want to check the categories go to today's Categories for discussion to match the main article title and let you if you could support renaming those categories click on this link that is located above. Steam5 (talk) 04:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, but it'd be better to simply note this on WP:CWNB instead of canvassing for votes. Mindmatrix 20:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Hey, User:Jc37 and User:Peterkingiron has oppose to rename those Burnaby categories, he is talking about it's surname fom British/Scandinavian name 1100/1200 years ago. Go to Categories for discussion again and talk to User:jc37 and User:Peterkingiron to only talk about it's largest Canadian city in the province of British Columbia, And I will read it's discussion when everything is going to change. I'll be waiting for you at the Categories for discussion and I hope it's going to settle. Steam5 (talk) 01:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Once again, please don't canvas for input. I already stated I was aware of the discussion and would contribute to it. Mindmatrix 14:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

Hey Ya, I came here for apologized for the categories for discussion on Friday, cause I was too eagered for opposing users for renaming, Anyway, we won't talk about the past so that's done. So I came here to talk to you for the nominated requested move on Victoriaville, Quebec to rename Victoriaville and I did. If you want more about a requested move to Victoriaville go to Victoriaville's talk page. for more info. Steam5 (talk) 23:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks for cleaning up the work on Canada–Kazakhstan relations, we need more editors like you. Cheers -Marcusmax(speak) 23:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I only made a few minor edits to it - you did most of the work to salvage it. Mindmatrix 01:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Your helping cleaning this up should help the Afd process. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Ontario Municipal Board

Given that the OMB has released three or four high profile cases in the last month or so, this page may see further efforts at turning it into an advocacy piece. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen those edits pop up in my watchlist. I haven't had the time to investigate them yet, though they clearly needed de-POVing. I'm sure there's some material that can be salvaged from those edits, though your revert was justified. Mindmatrix 16:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I salvaged the quote from Jim Watson, and left a note at User talk:JeffLoucks suggesting how he can best proceed. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I accept the edits. I don't like the anonymous nature of Wikipedia and therefore I will stop contributing and using it JeffLoucks (talk) 14:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I've applied a temporary "new and unregistered users" protection to the page to keep this from spiralling out of control. (This won't prevent you or Skeezix from being able to edit the article, obviously.) Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Swift Current Requested move

Hey there, I came here to apologize for the categories for discussion a few weeks ago, now I came back to talk to you for a "friendly notice" about this requested move is to rename and move from Swift Current, Saskatchewan to Swift Current so if you want more info on this requested move, click on this talk page and I will meet you at the Swift Current's talk page. Steam5 (talk) 00:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll post a comment there. In the future, just post such requests at the Canadian Wikipedians' notice board (I see you've done this for this request). I read that board daily, so I'll come across new requests. I don't participate in all discussions, but I do post to a few of them. Mindmatrix 13:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Oak Ridges Independence

I am puzzled by the objectionable approach you have taken to sequester, remove, or change any sections on multiple pages when they reference the Oak Ridges Independence movement. Please clarify why you have done this and taken a very non objective stance on this issue. You may claim that it is because it was not cited, however many sections of those pages have vast swaths of on information that are not cited and you choose to only remove those specific sections. Why have you done this? Outback the koala (talk) 22:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Because most of the other text or material in Oak Ridges, Ontario, for example, is standard fare and has the potential for references to support those claims, as well as being fairly common knowledge. The Oak Ridges Independence movement, on the other hand, is known by a handful of people, has never been mentioned in the media, and gets exactly zero hits in an internet search (there are 10 hits if the search phrase isn't wrapped in quotation marks, but none of them are related to this movement). So, not only does it fail the reliable sources criterion for inclusion on Wikipedia, it also fails the verifiability criterion. the other text easily qualifies for inclusion based on this criterion. Mindmatrix 23:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarity and transparency on this issue. Outback the koala (talk) 02:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Lizzie Lloyd King

On May 17, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lizzie Lloyd King, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royalbroil 22:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Baby Point

I have set up the 'requested move' of the article, rather than the copy/paste. I forget that there is a process sometimes. :-( Alaney2k (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

NetBSD False Port Distributions

I believe you have been bias instead of thorough in your research. The very proof is that not a single distribution will boot on a Dreamcast. We have had the best coders review and burn these various distributions - none have worked. I provided proof of different factions in the world of Dreamcast, apparently you did not check this out either. The new 5.0 distribution has been posted in various Dreamcast sites in which some have asked the question "did anyone have luck getting this to work?". NetBSD needs to prove that it does work by having a distribution that can be downloaded, burned and then bootable from a Dreamcast. It seems that the NetBSD Organization is lacking in R&D like Ford and GM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeeman3 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. The Wikipedia article made no claim that NetBSD runs on Dreamcast, and you have no reliable sources for what you state. That's why the material was removed. Random blogs and fora are not adequate sources for citations and references on WP. In fact, you don't provide supporting links, just a list of "various factions of international Dreamcast clubs" which have supposedly found a problem, linking to their homepage. Moreover, did any of these people try asking on the NetBSD Dreamcast mailing list, because it doesn't seem to be the case (yes, I checked). I've found a few very old messages in the os.netbsd.ports.dreamcast newsgroup, which hardly qualify for the criteria I've mentioned above. I'm reverting the material again. If you want to include it, find reliable sources to support the claims made. Mindmatrix 22:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Outback the Koala

So if the edit on the Aurora page was fine, what would be a proper or more wildly accepted summary of the edit made? Thanks for commenting on this by the way, I haven't been sure about this. Outback the koala (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Also since you provided me with info which that statement is based on then could the 'citation needed' be removed as pertaining to the statement the its Affluent? Outback the koala (talk) 00:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Croome collection

. --Kudpung (talk) 13:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I only edited that article to disambiguate a link... Mindmatrix 13:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Peel Regional Police

Could you please express your concerns on the talk page so other folks know how to repsond to the tag? Thanks. Wiggy! (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I expressed these concerns on the talk page in 2006 and 2008 (see talk page sections "Bias" and "Peel Police Censorship and Vandalism"). In a nutshell, there is selection bias of information presented, in which the controversies receive undue weight. Mindmatrix 19:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. My bad for not looking closely. It would still be useful to refresh that info for anyone else who comes along. I live in Peel and have kept half an eye on the page because it was looking like there was too much anti-police stuff being posted that was poorly sourced or too virulent in tone. I spent some time trying to find sources or remove some of the rhetoric/inflammatory language, or where it was possible to indicate what the resolution was so stuff was "closed" one way or another. For better or worse some of that stuff just can't/shouldn't be buried. It just needs to be as non-POV and honest as possible. Wiggy! (talk) 20:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'll add a new entry to the talk page. I agree some mention is required, but I think it doesn't warrant the current level of attention. I'll note other concerns on the article's talk page. Mindmatrix 22:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

This is good. I agree that its heavy handed, but for a while there is was getting pushed too far one way and then the other by anons on both sides. Most of what's there looks to have pretty much gone stale or been resolved one way or another. It hasn't received tons of attention lately either so it seems that your approach is timely. Thanks for the consideration. Wiggy! (talk) 02:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

BLP

I don't think the name should exist as a redirect at all, if it wouldn't be admissible in the article under BLP. It's not just about the categories, because the redirect, and hence the name, would also be visible to anybody who ever clicked on "What links here" whether the categories were present or not. Bearcat (talk) 19:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Software "Awards"

Re User talk:Ivan sus77#Awards, While I wasn't crazy about the formatting, I don't see those as violating WP:EL and WP:NOT. There was a small discussion about these the other day and a few of these type of additions that were completely out of place were removed. It isn't a bad idea to have an "Awards" section in some of these articles but it could be formatted much better. In any case, the editor who added these is new to wikipedia and was clearly trying to add good content. I do not believe him to be a "spammer" and I think your comment on his talk page may come across as overly harsh. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello MindMatrix,

You have reverted my contributions to Wikipedia, thinking that they are a spam. But they are not.

Please, allow me to explain myself. I was in no way attempting to 'spam' or clutter those articles, but was only trying to provide every program's description with a list of rightful awards, as neatly as possible, without marring the overall design of the articles. Should you have a different view on how such a list is to be implemented (objectionable links, grouping, whatnot), please describe it for me to follow it thereafter. If I may, software.informer.com keeps every program's awards all in one place - would it be proper to use its pages as substitutes for complete lists of awards?

I myself am of the opinion that these awards (at least, most of them) can actually assist users in adequate comparison of similar programs - providing them with compact qualitative descriptions. Ivan sus77 (talk) 12:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

HTO Park - Links to sites

>if they have a webpage about this project, include those, but generic links to the developer/designer websites is not appropriate

They do have webpages about these projects but they are total flash sites (an annoying trend in design sites) so you can't link to the content directly. That's why I linked to the generic sites. What are the alternatives? Seems like it's better to have a link than non at all. Your thoughts? Landskippy (talk) 03:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Request

Hi. I’m looking to add free-licensed photographs of the various season residences of MTV’s The Real World to the articles for those seasons, so I’m contacting editors whom it appears may live in or near those cities. Do you live in or near Key Haven, and if so, would you be able to take some high-quality pics of the Key West residence, and upload them here if I give you the location? If not, do you know anyone who can? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 14:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Uh, I live near Toronto, which isn't anywhere close to Florida, let alone Key Haven. I'm not sure why you assumed that. Mindmatrix 16:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Why this edit?

Concerning this edit: Why does it matter whether it's inclusive when a set containing just one point has probability zero? It's the same cdf and the same probability distribution either way.

Also one should use "nowiki" when writing half-open intervals in this notation, lest a bot come along, or a mathematically illiterate Wikipedian, and "fix" the "incorrect" punctuation. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I was reverting an edit by an anonymous user who didn't supply an edit summary to explain the change made, and cited a reason for my reversal (based on the standard definition for Box–Muller transform). To be honest, I wasn't really thinking about the cdf et al in this context. Mindmatrix 20:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Grammar

I do not know if you are a native English speaker. However, The word it's is only a contraction for the words it is. It is not a possessive, such as John's book. As for the so-called debate on the placement of quotation marks (relative to commas and periods) in American English, there is none (and I only correct American English articles). The Catholic Church (and its forcing Galileo to recant) did not make Galileo wrong. The fact that some computer code-writers at Wikipedia reject the English language does not make them correct, either. As you acknowledge, certain people reject all of the style sheets of the English language. That certainly doesn't make them correct either. The English language is not determined by computer logic code. If you are in need of some good English grammar books I can refer you to them. I used to teach college English in Boston; what about you? --Onesius (talk) 00:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Onesius

Onesius (talk · contribs) continues on his insistence that he is right and we are wrong about punctuation and quotation marks, is it worth doing anything more? Dougweller (talk) 06:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

List of Major League Baseball Players with 4000 Total bases

Hi, I've seen that you have converted the rest of the table on the List of Major League Baseball Players with 4000 Total bases that I was working on. I saw your edit summary and found out that you used something called "wiki formatting". Is this tool something that only administrators can use? If not, can I use it?? Can you please tell me? I've converting them the hard way and was trying to find a way to do it more easily. Thanks. Jonathansuh (talk) 18:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

There's no tool available only to admins. Wiki formatting is the syntax that was used for the table layout (ie - what you see in your editing window). I use the FreeBSD operating system, and vi as my editor (most novices to it find it quite difficult or annoying). Within vi, I used a regular expression substitution command to replace text with the new wiki table syntax. You can achieve the same result by cutting the text from the wiki editing window to your preferred text editor, and using a "search and replace" substitution. Mindmatrix 20:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Raynham Hall

Oh, I didn't see that one...well, if a reference could be found I suppose it would help, but "the first Valentine sent in America" still seems excessively trivial. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hhhum, bogus?

Hello Mindmatrix. I was frankly amused, and almost disappointed and annoyed, at your claim that my research on Italy containing 70% of the world's culture is 'bogus', on the Italy talk page.

Firstly, what do you mean by bogus?

Secondly, if you really do think that it is 'bogus', then look it up anywhere on the internet, and you'll have countless sources proving that it is true.

Reply

--Theologiae (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem

Ok, you asked me to give sources, no problem Mindmatrix. Not all sources prove that Italy contains exactly 70% of the world's culture, yet there are many which prove that Italy contains the vastest amount of art and architecture.

To see, go on:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

So, rather than writing 'Italy contains 70% of the world's culture', I would write 'Italy contains one of the richest collections of art, history and culture in the world'.

Reply

--Theologiae (talk) 18:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Microcredit

Hi! Could you have an eye on the Microcredit article? As soon as the semi protection wore off the old IP was back and beginning the same old game of "spamming" the article lead with Khan, while ignoring the discussion page and other authors. regards, --Kmhkmh (talk) 20:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Benford's Law

Care to elaborate on your summary "Uh, no" reversion that took away my carefully-crafted layman's conceptual description of Benford's Law, one that might help people gain an intuitive grasp easier than a proof of the logarithmic relationships underlying scaling? You cannot claim the example is mathematically incorrect. Perhaps it was not formal or encyclopedic in tone, but as an editor, it is your job to edit such content as needed. 20:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.219.236 (talk)

The example wasn't particularly good, and as you note was not in an encyclopedic tone; likewise, my edit summary was poor. You're right that there needs to be a better layman's example for the article, though. I'd like to point out that I have no "job" related to Wikipedia, nor do I have a duty to do anything with respect to it. I edit articles on the site based on my interests. Mindmatrix 18:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Pagerank Update

Hi, what's wrong with the external link i add? Emile Barker, 01:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It's promotional, and doesn't elaborate on the subject. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Mindmatrix 14:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Amaretto

Hi. There is a request to move Amaretto to Amaretto (liqueur). See Talk:Amaretto. --Una Smith (talk) 05:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that when you created it yesterday. I'll add my opinion to the discussion. Mindmatrix 15:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Varanasi

Just wondering if you'd read my comment at Talk:List of cities by time of continuous habitation... Pasquale (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Coloured hat

Thanks for your sensitive improvements to my Coloured hat page, and related article headers. Your contributions are kindly received. Neuralwarp (talk) 10:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Eddie Francis

Mindmatrix, What did I write that was incorrect? Did the integrity commissioner not conclude his 16 month investigation in November? I do not know what your problem is with what I wrote. If you were to read what is on the Eddie Francis page and were well enough educated in the poltics of Windsor you'd realize that everything on the page is biased and candy coated without providing the complete story of the mayor's tenure. By invlving yourself in the manner in which you deny a neutral but more widely accurate listing of events, you are doing a disservice to the purpose of Wikipedia.

How am I to provide an accurate portrait? (Epicvision (talk) 01:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epicvision (talk • contribs)

Mindmatrix, thank you for your support, it is appreciated. PKT(alk) 16:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Troll (internet) revert

The image I selected is used in another Wikipedia article. So it is not "non-free." See Troll Doll.

Thanks --71.80.121.0 (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I've answered on your IP/anon talk page. Mindmatrix 20:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Vitruvian Man

Dear Mindmatrix,

I don't understand why my contribution of the original italian text of Leonardo da Vinci on the Vitruvian Man is deleted. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vitruvian_Man&diff=prev&oldid=329448669 Should be pleased with your answer. Best regards, Rob ten Berge 82.75.23.125 (talk) 23:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Harmonized Sales Tax

Hi Mindmatrix,

I noticed a few of your edits on other articles. I noticed that the Harmonized Sales Tax article was pretty bare considering it's such a national topic of conversation. Would you mind helping me contribute to it? Thanks for your consideration! --Pdelongchamp (talk) 21:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I Dislike You

I dislike your face, lol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.95.133.173 (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Good for you. Mindmatrix 13:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Open IPTV Forum in not IPTV enough for you ?!?!?

I don't understand why you deleted a link to the industry group Open IPTV Forum. It's a well established group [7] whose members are some of the industry heavyweights. They published some standards/recommendations and work with other well-establised projects (DVB), standardization bodies (ETSI) and iniciatives (DLNA). I'm reverting the edit you made. 174.6.87.98 (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah , that link's OK. I mistakingly thought it was the same spam link I had deleted some time ago. Mindmatrix 14:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Vitruvian Man 2

Do you please want to replace the image with the first complete Italian text of Leonardo da Vinci of the first version of Vitruvian Man?

Vitruvian Man 2. With Leonardos Italian text of the first version. Rob ten Berge 1984. Translation 2009.

Just click on the image for more information. Please investigate before you erase a contribution. Further, I guess you don't believe in reincarnation :-) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLTcYvQOxZw

On this moment there is not a single word about Leonardo da Vincis text left. (About Vitruvian Man 1). (And about the corrections I made). All contributions till now are about Marcus Vitruvius Pollios text. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxbIkvJw2hA&feature=related

Version 2 not important? Vitruvian Man 2 on You Tube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GQf1OrqQHo&feature=related

Your comments? Best regards & Happy X-Mas (MY Birthday) (*** Orions Belt on Manipura-Chakra of Vitruvian Man 2)

Rob ten Berge

Image:Vitruvian_Man_&_Last_Supper.jpg

Please click on the second image too, before you delete it. Just to see a censored animation about Vitruvian Man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob ten Berge (talk • contribs) 21:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Mantror

Anything to do with you? User talk:Mantror Dougweller (talk) 15:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be a partial copy of my userpage on both that user's personal page and talk page. Given that the user is indef banned, I've deleted those pages. Mindmatrix 03:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

You've been loved by HaiyaTheWin

Hey there! HaiyaTheWin has loved you by placing a heart icon in the top-right corner of your userpage. Don't worry, it's not vandalism, but simply a small way to spread the WikiLove. If you don't really like it, feel free to revert it and make it go away, and no hard feelings; after all, it's just a small token of appreciation. If you like it, just add your name here, but again, there's no need to feel upset if you don't. Love and best wishes, HaiyaTheWin IS The Win! 15:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

=)