User talk:Ckatz/Archive 11

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Archive 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10

Re: Sockpoppet

Hello, Ckatz,

The point of my telecom-related sockpuppet is to track specifically these types of articles in my watchlist. LABcrabs also includes music-related articles such as ZOEgirl, hence the need for two separate watchlists and hence accounts.

However, it often seems like i'm the One and Lonely when editing cellular articles on Wikipedia. Why did others leave?

As an aside, it would also be great if Wikipedia had better mobile support, like official apps and text-to-wiki for reading or even writing.

Sincerely, --LABcrabs (talk) 02:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Behind the Voice Actors

Hey Ckatz thanks for getting back to me. As I am basically new here I tried reading up on some of the rules and guidlines but kind of find wiki to not be th emost user friendly place in the world unless you want to read novels j/k. But in all seriousness I apologize for any hassle myself or the site has given you.

It was my understanding that wiki allows external links that provide content that wiki cannot and since we provide both visual and audio samples of all these voice actors that you cannot find anywhere else on the web that it would be worth a link. We are much different than your everday voice actor database like voicechasers etc in that respect. That being said I do understand the conflict of interest angle. However, I notice that IMDB is linked on just about every voice actors page which begs the question.

1. 1. How do we eventually find a way to get that priviledge when our content is usually much more extensive and accurate than IMDB for voice acting since they are so broad and we focus solely on the voice actors.

I appreciate and thank you in advance for any help you can provide.

I was also curious, the Frank Welker link we had up there had been up for over 6 months without a problem and it wasnt until we added a couple others that they all got taken down. We were not trying to spam and add links for all our pages but rather just the ones that we had done extensive work in getting to a 'complete' stage. Optimussolo (talk) 03:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you help me out at all here Ckatz with any additional information?

98.213.114.196 (talk) 22:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Ckatz I am not trying to be rude but it has been about a month since I posted these questions and I am very anxiously awaiting your response.

Optimussolo (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It has been almost 3 months now So I guess I will see help from someone else

67.175.180.218 (talk) 21:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to bring all of this back up but I have been trying to get a response from you for over a year now :(

Optimussolo (talk) 19:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Solar System

In a relatively short time, I'm going to be too busy to edit Wikipedia on a regular basis, possibly permanently. You, it appears, are in the same situation. Given that, despite its 871 phantom watchers, we are currently the only regular editors of Solar System, how can I rest assured that this article will remain FA class after I'm gone? Serendi^podous 20:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Blacklisting of filmindustrynetwork.biz

Hi. In 2010, you blacklisted filmindustrynetwork.biz. I noticed this when I attempted to include their article "NYC Photographer Jamie Beck Discusses The Cinemagraph" in the article Cinemagraph. Do you think the blacklisting is still required? Regards,  Sandstein  13:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 July newsletter

We are half way through the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; there is less than a month to go before we have our final 8. Our pool leaders are Adabow (submissions) (Pool A, 189 points) and PresN (submissions) (Pool B, 165 points). The number of points required to reach the next round is not clear at this time; there are some users who still do not have any recorded points. Please remember to update your submissions' pages promptly. In addition, congratulations to PresN, who scored the first featured topic points in the competition for his work on Thatgamecompany related articles. Most points this round generally have, so far, come from good articles, with only one featured article (White-bellied Sea Eagle, from Casliber (submissions)) and two featured lists (Hugo Award for Best Graphic Story, from PresN and Grammy Award for Best Native American Music Album, from Another Believer (submissions)). Points for Did You Know and good article reviews round out the scoring. No points have been awarded for In the News, good topics or featured pictures this round, and no points for featured sounds or portals have been awarded in the entire competition. On an unrelated note, preparation will be beginning soon for next year's WikiCup- watch this space!

There is little else to be said beyond the usual. Please list anything you need reviewing on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, so others following the WikiCup can help, and please do help if you can by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup- points are, of course, offered for reviews at GAC. Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 11:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

MLS domestic cup

hi ckatz. please read the talk page (believe its one archive back) on the country of origin of MLS. it is very clear that MLS is a US league, not a US/Canadian league. because of this, only the US domestic cup is accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.224.158.59 (talk) 13:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

asteroids

Really, stop censoring WP. It's practically academic fraud. Your personal POV is irrelevant: we go by sources, and the sources do not support you. As you know. — kwami (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 July newsletter

The finals are upon us; we're down to the last few. One of the eight remaining contestants will be this year's WikiCup champion! 150 was the score needed to progress to the final; just under double the 76 required to reach round 4, and more than triple the 41 required to reach round 3. Our eight finalists are:

• Casliber (submissions), Pool A's winner. Casliber has the highest total score in the competition, with 1528, the bulk of which is made up of 8 featured articles. He has the highest number of total featured articles (8, 1 of which was eligible for double points) and total did you knows (72) of any finalist. Casliber writes mostly on biology, including ornithology, botany and mycology.
• PresN (submissions), Pool B's winner and the highest scorer this round. PresN is the only finalist who has scored featured topic points, and he has gathered an impressive 330, but most of his points come from his 4 featured articles, one of which scored double. PresN writes mostly on video games and the Hugo Awards.
• Hurricanehink (submissions), Pool A's runner-up. Hurricanehink's points are mostly from his 30 good articles, more than any other finalist, and he is also the only finalist to score good topic points. Hurricanehink, as his name suggests, writes mostly on meteorology.
• Wizardman (submissions), Pool B's runner-up. Wizardman has completed 86 good article reviews, more than any other finalist, but most of his points come from his 2 featured articles. Wizardman writes mostly on American sport, especially baseball.
• Miyagawa (submissions), the "fastest loser" (Pool A). Miyagawa has written 3 featured lists, one of which was awarded double points, more than any other finalist, but he was awarded points mostly for his 68 did you knows. Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, including dogs, military history and sport.
• Resolute (submissions), the second "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Resolute's points come from his 9 good articles. He writes mostly on Canadian topics, including ice hockey.
• Yellow Evan (submissions), who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool A). Most of Evan's points come from his 10 good articles, and he writes mostly on meteorology.
• Sp33dyphil (submissions), who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Phil's points come from his 9 good articles, 4 of which (more than any other finalist) were eligible for double points. He writes mostly on aeronautics.

We say goodbye to our seven other semi-finalists, Another Believer (submissions), Piotrus (submissions), Grandiose (submissions), Stone (submissions), Eisfbnore (submissions), Canada Hky (submissions) and MuZemike (submissions). Everyone still in the competition at this stage has done fantastically well, and contributed greatly to Wikipedia. We're on the home straight now, and we will know our winner in two months.

In other news, preparations for next year's competition have begun with a brainstorming thread. Please, feel free to drop by and share any thoughts you have about how the competition should work next year. Sign ups are not yet open, but will be opened in due course. Watch this space. Further, there has been a discussion about the rule whereby those in the WikiCup must delcare their participation when nominating articles at featured article candidates. This has resulted in a bot being created by new featured article delegate Ucucha (talk · contribs). The bot will leave a message on FAC pages if the nominator is a participant in the WikiCup.

A reminder of the rules: any points scored after August 29 may be claimed for the final round, and please remember to update submission pages promptly. If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

A year long attemtp so far to get a response from you :(

Is there a reason why it is nearly impossible to get a response from you? I tried for over a year and the only response I have received so far only responded to the very first post I made and has seemingly ignored all of my subsequent questions - Very frustrating!!

Optimussolo (talk) 20:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

A lot of activity occurs at Wikipedia and it is not always possible for volunteers to answer all questions. If you are asking about an external link in an article, please add a new section at WP:ELN, perhaps using the article title as the section name, and briefly outline the issue. Do not mention other editors there (it is a place to discuss external links, not other editors). Johnuniq (talk) 01:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

DPs

The IAU set the def for DPs. If we have RS's that a body is a DP under the IAU def, then as far as we're concerned, it's a DP. Unless the IAU says otherwise, of course, but they haven't been doing that. The current def has nothing to do with whether the IAU names the body as a DP, only whether it's in HE. We have a RS these bodies are in HE. QED. — kwami (talk) 10:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

They may well be added to the category by the IAU in due time. We can't prematurely rewrite articles to do so. --Ckatz^chat_spy 14:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no "category" the IAU "adds to". There is a physical and dynamical definition. If a body fits the definition, it's a DP. We have a RS these fit the def, and you've failed to provide any RS to the contrary. We go by sources, not opinion. — kwami (talk) 23:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I've heard other star systems described as "solar systems", as distinct from Solar System. Which makes sense, since they orbit other stars. However, I get your problem with it, & IMO "orbiting other stars" works fine. (No need to reply, unless you really want to. :D ) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Ckatz, people aren't "dishonest" just because you disagree with them. That's really a stupid thing to say. You have repeatedly failed to support your claims with any evidence whatsoever. Insisting on getting your way without RS support is inappropriate for reference work. Find something to support your POV, or at least have the integrity to admit that you can't find anything. — kwami (talk) 04:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

You are "dishonest" in making spurious claims that I have not provided reliable sources, when in fact I most certainly have: the IAU. Furthermore, you are taking Brown's own statement wherein he describes these four objects as "very likely" to be dwarf planets and using it to claim the are. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Please revert your latest series of edits, or I will report you for violation of WP:3RR and ask to have you blocked so you stop disrupting WP.

I would say you're being dishonest in claiming the IAU as a ref, since I have asked you several times for an IAU ref that supports your claim, and you have failed to provide one. The IAU refs you gave initially belie your claim, as I'm sure you know since it's been repeatedly pointed out to you by more than one person.

Brown's claim that they "are virtually certain" and "must" be DP's is the same wording he uses for Eris, Haumea, and Makemake. If you want the "compromise" wording here, then we need to use the same wording for them. By your argument, Eris is not a DP, only "virtually certain" to be a DP: No-one has demonstrated that it actually is a DP. The IAU simply took it as being virtually certain. Nothing is 100% in science, so when things pass the realm of reasonable doubt, we do describe them with "are". You don't get to pick and choose which are which. We follow RSs, period. Now please revert your unsupported POV edits before I report you. — kwami (talk) 05:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

How about the IAU's announcement from 2008 regarding Haumea? Or, for that matter, the official "dwarf planet" section of the "Gazetteer of Planetary Nomenclature" from the IAU's Working Group for Planetary System Nomenclature, which lists five dwarf planets? I'm not sure how much more reliable you can get with respect to this matter. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

TNO image

I've just created an updated version of the "8 TNOs" image, but I'm having trouble updating the original in the Commons. Do you think you could help? Serendi^podous 20:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

What sort of problem? I can try taking a look, but may be limited in assisting as I'm not a sysop on Commons. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

You can't upload a picture onto the commons unless you're registered, and for some reason the registration process isn't working. I was hoping you might upload it for me? Please?Serendi^podous 23:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

James Naismith

Just a simple request. I now understand why you changed "honor" to "honour" but I have 2 problems with this. 1, Yes James Naismith was Canadian, however, I feel the country where the majority of the readers come from, should dictate what regional spelling of English is used. Being that basketball is bigger in America than any other country, its more likely that the majority of the readers of the article are American, so American spellings should be used. If the international spelling of honor is to be used, the I feel to maintain that consistency, that the dating (ie birthdate and deathdate) should be the international dating as well.--Rockchalk717 (talk) 02:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Canadian English for this article. FYI, Canada uses both dmy and mdy date formats, so either is acceptable. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll leave it alone, but the question I have is that you say on this page the wikipedia manual of style recommends the regional variety of English used must be dicated by the content of the article, so an article about the inventor of the 3rd most popular sport in the 3rd most populated country in the world, and the fact that Naismith died an American citizen, shouldn't it apply to WP:TIES and require American English?--Rockchalk717 (talk) 14:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Addition of links to user's personal site

Is there a reason that for almost two years I have been trying to get a response from you and you have yet to give one? Don't take this the wrong way because i am not trying to offend but I have left numerous posts over the past 2 years and can't understand why you won't respond

Optimussolo (talk) 08:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I responded on your talk page quite some time ago; I'm sorry if the answer was not to your liking, but the links do not appear to meet our criteria. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Syndicated series

Was there a consensus reached on this issue somewhere? It seems to me that if great athletes (e.g. Michael Jordan) can have dozens of templates and great entertainers (e.g. Barbara Streisand) can have dozens of templates, that great TV shows can have dozens of templates. Shows syndicated by many networks are the most notable ones. What is wrong with showing what networks have syndicated a show? Couldn't we use a system where we collapse syndicated networks for shows?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 10:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I have noted that you removed loads of encyclopedic content with misleading edit summaries like this. Please explain why you would try to justify your removal with such a misleading edit summary as "removing syndicated; not what we cover, not used on those articles at any rate". If we don't cover syndicated listings why does each titular article have syndicated content detail?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, why the need for such an aggressive claim? "Misleading"?!? If you find the wording confusing, please say so, and ak for clarifiaction - but do not presume an effort to "mislead". --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Plus, we're not discussing "loads of encyclopedic content"; we're talking about a template listing syndicated shows. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

We are talking about a template presenting the content of a list article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Why not just feature a link to the list, instead? --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Navboxes serve the purpose of linking related articles at the touch of a button. People reading one network show may want to read about others that they see advertised on that network (syndicated or original). Right now only a few networks have templates (half of them I created in the last 24 hours). Links, categories and templates all are sometimes substitutes for each other that are a matter of preference. If we had templates we could tell things about the subject article at a touch of a button. In other areas on WP templates enable the reader to look down and get a feel for the subject. As I said before Michael Jordan or Peyton Manning have a lot of content depicted by templates. Template use is prevalent in several fields of entertainment with Barbra Streisand, Elton John or Jack Nicholson. Even works such as Rent (musical), Rocky and Titanic (1997 film) all have several templates. The best television shows have very few templates linking them to similar and related articles. Look at a show like I Love Lucy. It has very few linkages to other similar articles. Clearly people consider syndicated shows encyclopedic since all the list articles include them. Including them in templates may cause a few great shows to have a lot of templates, but it is no different than in other fields where the most important subjects in that field have many templates.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

"Lots" is an understatement... if we added a category or template for every network or station that carries an older series, we would easily overwhelm the bottom of the page. Can you imagine adding templates or links to the Simpsons article for every station that carries it? --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Not station, network. Do more than a dozen networks carry Simpsons reruns. Think about a show like Police Woman (TV series). It is hard to figure out what shows are similar or related without navigating away from the page. That was an important and groundbreaking show. Networks that carried reruns of it probably carried similar shows like Murder, She Wrote. These are shows that give us Angie Harmon and Stana Katics and a host of female enforcement officers of today.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Jack FM

You said "It was commented out because of sourcing issues." The comment does not state any issue with sourcing. The comment was that the criticism section was too negative, which I attempted to address by toning it down. Even if you think it is still too negative, it should be noted somewhere in the article that Jack FM usually does not use DJs, and there has been criticism/comment that this makes Jack FM stations closer to personal music players (e.g., ipods) rather than traditional radio.Tinman44 (talk) 13:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Cast information problems

If you have some time, your expertise would be greatly appreciated at Talk:List of The Big Bang Theory characters#"Regular" and "Occasional" main characters. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Watches

Hello. Without discussion, you reverted out one addition I made to the links in the Watch article. I had added a link to a Watch Wiki. To wit:

• Chinese Watch Industry Wiki

I made the addition in good faith since it was topical as so many lower middle watches have Asian mechanical movements or are made there. Unsure of your take on it except the obvious shredding. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Dwarf planet

This is going nowhere. Two admins edit warring is not particularly edifying, for you or Wikipedia. We should take this to arbitration. Serendi^podous 07:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

CKatz, I don't know what your long term plan is. You seem to be basing your tactics on the idea that Kwami will back down at some point. But he hasn't yet and I don't think he will. So regardless of your reluctance to take this on you have two choices: let Kwami have what he wants or take this to a higher level. Serendi^podous 11:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 September newsletter

We are on this year's home straight, with less than a month to go until the winner of the 2011 WikiCup will be decided. The fight for first place is currently being contested by Miyagawa (submissions), Hurricanehink (submissions) and Sp33dyphil (submissions), all of whom have over 200 points. This round has already seen multiple featured articles (1991 Atlantic hurricane season from Hurricanehink and Northrop YF-23 from Sp33dyphil) and a double-scoring featured list (Miyagawa's 1948 Summer Olympics medal table). The scores will likely increase far further before the end of the round on October 31 as everyone ups their pace. There is not much more to say- thoughts about next year's competition are welcome on the WikiCup talk page or the scoring talk page, and signups will open once a few things have been sorted out.

If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 12:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

If you remove ref pleease remove text

If you remove ref pleease remove text also — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.66.212 (talk) 05:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Please review these blocks

There was a bug in MediaWiki 1.18 that caused blocks made via the API to have talk page access disabled when it should have been enabled. This also affected scripts such as User:Animum/easyblock.js. Please review the following blocks to make sure that you really intended talk page access to be disabled, and reblock if necessary.

1. 168.11.96.76 (talk · block log · block user) by Ckatz at 2011-10-06T18:25:20Z, expires 2011-10-20T18:25:20Z: {{schoolblock}}
2. 76.79.184.66 (talk · block log · block user) by Ckatz at 2011-10-13T19:10:13Z, expires 2011-10-27T19:10:13Z: [[WP:Spam|Spamming]] links to external sites
3. Chertok licencing (talk · block log · block user) by Ckatz at 2011-10-07T01:01:45Z, expires infinity: {{uw-spamublock}}
4. Premiumsat (talk · block log · block user) by Ckatz at 2011-10-13T07:51:30Z, expires infinity: {{uw-spamublock}}

If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to post at User talk:Anomie#Allowusertalk issue. Thanks! Anomie⚔ 02:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Revised - thanks for letting me know. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you!

I'll correct the source - thanks NealeFamily (talk) 07:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ckatz

I've left a response on the ISS talkpage, just wanted to ask if you have any problems with the candor of the language, I'm happy to change any words your not comfortable with. Just leave a note on my talkpage. Good to see you Ckatz ! Penyulap _talk 09:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Angola

@Ckatz: Could you please explain why you eliminated the book title (P. Southern, Portugal...) from the "Angola" article? I didn't put it there; I'm just interested. -- Aflis (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The user who added that note added similar ones to a number of articles. All of the text added is for one particular writer, suggesting spam. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I see - but I have in the meantime found out that Paul Southern, "Portugal: The Scramble for Africa" is in fact relevant additional reading for articles related to Angola and Mozambique (which I am following). So, how do we go about this? Wouldn't it be best if you reverted your revert yourself? Or would you prefer if I did it? -- Aflis (talk) 12:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC) PS: I just discovered that Halwinter added the same reference in pt:WP, in articles on Lusophone Africa. Thus no spam, but a useful addition to the bibliography, especially as this is the most recent study on the subject. Aflis (talk) 17:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

If the material can be used to reference facts in the text of the articles, or to add new information, that would be much better than simply adding a book to so many articles. The "spam" issue lies in that there is only one individual adding the book, and that account is only adding the note, strongly suggesting a conflict of interest (i.e. the author, or someone affiliated with him). --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The merit of adding the title consists in calling possible editors' attention to the existence of a new and relevant source. This is something I myself have done occasionally. I agree, of course, with your argument that tha addition would be all the more valuable if it was used as a reference. I shall do so myself, in one article or another, on en:WP as well as on pt:WP. In the meantime, and as a first step, I have now reverted your revert - certain that you have by now no objection. -- Aflis (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Term of Patent

@Ckatz Would it possible to have some attention be paid to the term of the patent article "Term_of_patent". I do see some initial stuff but not really there and looks messy and really incomplete :( Shirishag75 (talk) 22:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Accidental article

Hey, um I accidently created another article for Goodie Mob's dicography when I was just trying to make a link to it on Cee-Lo Green's page. I just wanted to tell someone that so they don't get made at me for it or anything like that. Please get back to me about this situation and what to do as soon as possible. Thanks. I'm No Winner (talk) 21:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Dwarf planet

This will never end. If you're not willing to take it to arbitration, I will. Serendi^podous 18:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Sigh. Just really really pissed off about this. Serendi^podous 08:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Marvin Heemeyer, international popularity and "folk hero" status

Citation provided, not anyone's fault you cannot read the Russian language. If Marvin Heemeyer is listed as a major "meme" on the Russian internet community by a site that aims to catalogue them, then he is indeed well-known there. The sarcastic style of said meme wiki does not change the fact that it only carries articles on major memes, ones that are approaching "household name" status on runet and are expected to be understood and known by others without explanation. Hence, please revert your removal. I could, if you REALLY deem it necessary, find loads of links to Russian-language Marvin fanclubs, t-shirts and other memorabilia sold of Marvin, etc. etc. And, btw, to the Russian community, he's not even Marvin Heemeyer - he's just known as Marvin, and anybody talking about a Marvin is automatically assumed to be talking of THE Marvin, unles otherwise stated. It's that big. Heck, I live in America, and I only ever heard of Marvin Heemeyer from Russian friends, and repeatedly ran into mentions of his "feat of heroism" in blogs, articles, even academic discussion somewhere. People celebrate his birthday and the day of his rampage there. He's much better known in the former Soviet Union than in the USA. I believed that a link to a site that catalogues major memes and has a lot of info on Marvin would be the perfect evidence thereof, and that dozens of Russian-language links about the phenomenon would hardly be appropriate here - but if you need them, I'll give em to you, easy enough. 208.127.80.59 (talk) 08:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• The below copied here for 208.126.80.59 who was being prevented by an edit filter false positive Black Kite (t) 10:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 October newsletter

The 2011 WikiCup is now over, and our new champion is Hurricanehink (submissions), who joins the exclusive club of the previous winners: Dreamafter (2007), jj137 (2008), Durova (2009) and Sturmvogel_66 (2010). The final standings were as follows:

1. Hurricanehink (submissions)
2. Sp33dyphil (submissions)
3. Yellow Evan (submissions)
4. Miyagawa (submissions)
5. Wizardman (submissions)
6. Casliber (submissions)
7. Resolute (submissions)
8. PresN (submissions)

Prizes for first, second, third and fourth will be awarded, as will prizes for all those who reached the final eight. Every participant who scored in the competition will receive a ribbon of participation. In addition to the prizes based on placement, the following special prizes will be awarded based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, the prize is awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round.

• The Featured Article Award: Casliber (submissions), for his performance in round 2. Hurricanehink (submissions) matched the score, but Casliber won the tiebreaker.
• The Good Article Award: Yellow Evan (submissions), for his performance in round 4.
• The Featured List Award: Miyagawa (submissions), for his performance in round 4. PresN (submissions) matched the score, but Miyagawa won the tiebreaker.
• The Recognised Topic Award (for good and featured topics): PresN (submissions), for his performance in round 3.
• The Did You Know Award: The Bushranger (submissions), for his performance in round 1.
• The In the News Award: Candlewicke (submissions), for his performance in round 1.
• The Reviewer Award (for good article reviews): Wizardman (submissions), for his performance in round 3.

No prize was awarded for featured pictures, sounds or portals, as none were claimed throughout the competition. The awards will be handed out over the next few days. Congratulations to all our participants, and especially our winners; we've all had fun, and Wikipedia has benefitted massively from our content work.

Preparation for next year's WikiCup is ongoing. Interested parties are invited to sign up and participate in our straw polls. It's been a pleasure to work with you all this year, and, whoever's taking part in and running the competition in 2012, we hope to see you all in January! J Milburn and The ed17 00:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

ISS Tracker

you keep deleting the ISSTracker.com link from the ISS page.

If you feel that it's inappropriate to have it linked there then you need to also remove heavens above. You're being discriminatory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maikuru (talk • contribs) 15:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I will continue to add ISSTracker to the ISS page until you either delete heavens-above and ISS tracker or you allow ISS tracker to be there. Changing the description to be something other than " user friendly" iss viewer is fine. But there is no reason that heavens-above is allowed on there and not ISS. From an advertising stand point I don't care about the 50-150 users a month that come to ISS tracker from the article, plus all advertising revenue on ISStracker barely covers the cost of hosting the site

The ISStracker.com website is a highly content relevant website that has been around since early 2007 and I think readers have the right to know about it from the wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maikuru (talk • contribs) 14:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Kwamikagami's disruptive editing at Ceres

Since you are engaged in an edit war against the compromise wording at Ceres (dwarf planet), and refuse to get a new compromise on the talk page first, I will ask to have you blocked if you do not stop. — kwami (talk) 01:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Simply put, you are repeating the disruptive behaviour that let to your block-and-editing ban at dwarf planet. PLease don't make threats. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Amos Lee

Thanks for the tweaks and help on Amos Lee, cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem, you deserve the credit as you're doing a lot of good work there. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

name sign links

Hi Mr Katz, I will sign my post in the future.

I also wanted to speak to you about another matter. I have been posting references to many car sites for quite awhile. The main site I use is zautos.com when needing to reference car specs etc. I must admit I am a little bias towards zautos because I meet the CEO a few years ago at NADA and I thought he was pretty cool. I find it very easy to find ref info there. Plus they are a California company and I am from Cali.

What I don't understand is why you chose have them blocked from wikipedia?

I have posted, what I believe, is a considerable amount of valuable content and references to wikipedia that are still available. Many of my additions took lots of effort and time

As you can see from my history I have posted using several different sites as references not just zautos.

Tonight I was shocked to find that when I attempted to make a posting that referenced zautos.com that the site is now blocked.

I know I was told you can’t canvas wiki with my own links but these are not my own links anymore than the links I posted on Billy_Stewart (the scat singer)(days and days of work finding crash history) Neil_Diamond or many of the other places I've posted.

I apologize if my postings were against wiki policies. I thought my postings were adding value to the wiki pages. Please don't block zautos.com for something I did, they didn't have anything to do with it. You have my word that I will not post anymore links to them. Please unblock them.

Thanks

Michael Slauson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.66.207 (talk) 05:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.66.207 (talk)

TELUS World of Science no longer exists

Hi - I'm fine with you updating the tone of the content, but if you google the organization you'll see that your wikipedia updates are completely out of date. They opened in a location a month ago as TELUS Spark, the new Science Centre, with completely different content. This listing should reflect that. As the locations of science centres in other cities do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.101.43 (talk) 15:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: S5

Thanks! I'm hoping to promote the series to a good topic...so far I've got 2 episodes passed, but 2 are waiting to be reviewed and 3 are waiting to be nominated when those are done. I've been sort of adding things to the Series 5 article as I go along. I'm not sure whether I should go for GA or FL on it. Do you have any particular suggestions? Glimmer721 ^talk 20:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Stargate Atlantis season 1 premiere is chronological after Stargate SG-1 season 8 premiere

Hello. I still do not understand why this edit happened... Sometimes, I edit without login, and, at that time, I was 83.132.91.125 (my IP varies) ... but, check New Order (Stargate SG-1)#Part 1 and New Order (Stargate SG-1)#Part 2 (ie, read the plot)... why can't it be in SGA article that the season 1 premiere was after the season 8 premiere?... in my edit, I have explained why this is true, in the summary:

(O'Neill was put in stasis at the end of "Lost City (Stargate SG-1)" and was already awake in the pilot episode of Atlantis... between them is the episode "New Order (Stargate SG-1)")

Come on... The summary is correct, my edit as 83.132.91.125 was also correct (proven by the New Order article)... Why delete info, when it is correct, and relevant?

If you are going to answer me, and not put the info back on the article, then answer me in my talk page, please. Thanks. Mrmagoo2006 (talk) 04:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Sliders article

I know you've watched the Sliders article in the past, and there's currently an issue with someone deleting content without discussion. I've liked having the information there and would like it to stay. However, the deletions of this user seem haphazard; they're deleting some comic strip references but leaving others - it's like watching a game of favorites.

Anyway, thanks for any help you can provide. DBHughes (talk) 01:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Gratuitous punctuation?

I don't agree with your opinion on not putting a comma before a quotation because the rule is that punctuation "should be kept to a minimum." First of all, I did not put a comma in front of every quotation, I put it before direct quotations. There is a good reason for this. Take these two sentences. Art Tatum said "The Beatitudes", and Art Tatum said, "The Beatitudes." The first sentence means that he recited all of the Beatitudes from Christ's Sermon on the Mount. The second means that he said the two words "the beatitudes". It is not gratuitous. It serves a purpose. Mike Hayes (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Dwarf planet changes again

You're now reverting corrections to data at dwarf planet? Have you become a common vandal? — kwami (talk) 21:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

You could, if you had bothered to seriously consider the matter, have surmised that I inadvertently reverted the data updates while undoing yet another tendentious edit on your part. Ridiculous, unfounded, and needlessly provocative nonsense accusations are pointless and only serve to demonstrate how disruptive your behaviour has become with respect to this matter. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Katz, I seriously suggest that we take this to arbitration, as I have suggested multiple times. I can't think why you don't want to do it. Serendi^podous 00:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Image

Hi, you might want to replace the cow image on your user page with File:Cow female black white.jpg. CommonsDelinker already fixed most usages, but your page is protected. --:bdk: 14:22, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

2012 WikiCup

Hi! As you've previously expressed interest in the competition, I'm just letting you know that the 2012 WikiCup is due to start in less than 24 hours. Signups are open, and will remain so for a few weeks after the beginning of the competition. The competition itself will follow basically the same format as last year, with a few small tweaks to point costs to reflect the opinions of the community. If you're interested in taking part, you're more than welcome, and if you know anyone who might be, please let them know too- the more the merrier! To join, simply add your name to Wikipedia:WikiCup/2012 signups, and we will be in touch. Please feel free to direct any questions to me, or leave a note on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! You are receiving this note as you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Please feel free to add or remove yourself. J Milburn (talk) 01:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Green Party of Alberta

You are invited to the discussion at Talk:Green Party of Alberta#Requested move. 117Avenue (talk) 07:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Evidence/Blocks

In the course of an ongoing case, the Arbitration Committee has decided to collect all relevant information regarding Malleus Fatuorum's block log and, as such, has created a table of all blocks, which can be found here. Since you either blocked or unblocked Malleus Fatuorum, you are welcome to comment, if you wish. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Nicolaus Copernicus

Hi. You semi'd Nicolaus Copernicus a year ago. At least one anon since then has been unable to make a helpful edit. You might want to unprotect William M. Connolley (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

More Kwami dwarf planet issues

Do not remove POV tags from disputed articles, as you did at Makemake and {{Moons of dwarf planets}}. Doing so is disruptive, and if you continue, I will ask to have you blocked. Also, the lead is supposed to summarize the text, not vice versa, as you should know by now. — kwami (talk) 12:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Your claims are spurious and disruptive, and your insistence on hammering away at the DP-related pages due to your utter inability to respect the views of numerous other editors who have disagreed with you is equally disruptive. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, what in the world is wrong with Orcus? It seems that you motivation is to oppose me rather than to improve the article. The lead summarizes the text. If the material is not in the text, it shouldn't be in the lead. You know this. Discovery and naming are placed in their own sections once the article is developed enough. That's how all the rest of them work. How is this one different, apart from who made the edit? — kwami (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Your claims might hold more weight if this were not yet another take on your repeated efforts to focus on your POV regarding the dwarf planet debate. Honestly, you'd get more respect from other editors if you would show respect for them and the consensus that develops. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

But no consensus has developed. The minority is for NPOV, the majority for authority (IAU-only). Consensus isn't just numbers, but policy. Yet in the edit war that you are participating in, it's numbers that win. So I tag the articles for POV, and you edit war over that, along with an editor who doesn't even know what a DP is. It's hard to have respect for someone who will edit war to prevent adherence to our own guidelines in FA's. — kwami (talk) 18:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, this[1] edit of yours seems fine to me. It says what the sources say: some accept it as a DP (not just think it might be, which includes hundreds of other TNOs), but the IAU hasn't. The only thing I'd change offhand is priority: furthest from the Sun is 1. likely DP is 2. Surface composition is a distant 3. Now, if we could only be that straightforward with Haumea, Makemake, Ceres, and the DP article. — kwami (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Any RfC at Talk:Dwarf planet?

Hello Ckatz. Do you want to open a formal WP:RFC at Talk:Dwarf planet? This might allow the outstanding issues to be addressed, and the 3RR case to be closed. This would require you to come up with a statement of the issue, stating what should be done with the template {{Moons of dwarf planets}} and with the three articles listed in the 3RR report. I don't know whether you or Ruslik0 is the best person to do this, but I hope you will propose something. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Ed, thanks for your input. Unfortunately, there already has been an RfC addressing this matter, one that was in fact formally filed by Kwamikagami in September 2011. He even used virtually the exact same section heading. Despite significant expressed opposition to his approach, he continued to proceed in the manner he is still employing today, and he has disregarded the consensus developed through that RfC. --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I've commented in the 3RR report, and I hope you will make a further answer there. I wonder if anyone has the patience to review the entire discussion at Talk:Dwarf planet and summarize the opinions. You appear to believe that Kwami ignored the result of the previous RfC, but it seems it was never formally closed. Do you want to attempt your own summary? Another option is to advertise for an uninvolved admin to close the previous RfC (Kwami's of September 22). EdJohnston (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a new RfC running at Talk:Dwarf planet#RfC: What "is" a dwarf planet?. I have run out of ideas for how to address the 3RR report, but this RfC is at least going in the right direction. Let me know if you have any other suggestions of what to do. If the process goes off the track again, mediation may be worth a try. EdJohnston (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, someone needs to address Kwamikagami's behaviour, as it is at the heart of the entire issue. A simple review of his contributions to the articles and talk pages will clearly demonstrate a confrontational, divisive and disruptive approach to editing. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Derek Bailey Link

Why do you keep removing this link * 'Audio ad' for Incus records featuring Bailey speaking and playing from the Derek Bailey (guitarist) article without giving a reason? 94.168.114.80 (talk) 18:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

misleading line at DP

Sorry, but the line "Thus, as of January 2008, [Stern] and his team still referred to Pluto as the ninth planet, while accepting the characterization of dwarf planet for Ceres and Eris." is misleading. It implies an inconsistent approach: that Pluto is a planet, while more massive Eris is not. But that is not Stern's POV: he accepts Pluto as a dwarf planet (he even AFAIK coined the term), and he accepts Eris and Ceres as planets. — kwami (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

If the position of Stern were consistent then Pluto would be the tenth planet, not ninth. Ruslik_Zero 07:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Does he call it the ninth? I don't remember. — kwami (talk) 08:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you dumb? Ruslik_Zero 13:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

11 July

NOTE: this was false-positive intercepted by the Edit Filter as a personal attack. Forwarded by JohnCD (talk) 15:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

About 11 July, it is very important day for mankind the event that took place in Srebrenica in 1995. It was the first genocide after the Holocaust and happened in Europe, in the same Europe that mankind said 1945 that after this genocide it will not be more genocide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_massacre

And also I can ask you, because I see you are administration to change the headline on this article. Because in Srebrenica was genocide not massacre and International Court of Justice were said that in Srebrenica was genocide.

I hope you will understand and change this things on wikipedia. You and I want to people read and learn correct stuff on our wikipedia.

(input 14:20, 29 January 2012 by SA-1987 (talk))

WikiCup 2012 January newsletter

WikiCup 2012 is off to a flying start. At the time of writing, we have 112 contestants; comparable to last year, but slightly fewer than 2010. Signups will remain open for another week, after which time they will be closed for this year. Our currrent far-away leader is Grapple X (submissions), due mostly to his work on a slew of good articles about The X-Files; there remain many such articles waiting to be reviewed at good article candidates. Second place is currently held by Ruby2010 (submissions), whose points come mostly from good articles about television episodes, although good article reviews, did you knows and an article about a baroness round out the score. In third place is Jivesh boodhun (submissions), who has scored 200 points for his work on a single featured article, as well as points for work on others, mostly in the area of pop music. In all, nine users have 100 or more points. However, at the other end of the scale, there are still dozens of participants who are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly!

The 64 highest scoring participants will advance to round 2 in a month's time. There, they will be split into eight random groups of eight. The score needed to reach the next round is not at all clear; last year, 8 points guaranteed a place. The year before, 20.

A few participants and their work warrant a mention for achieving "firsts" in this competition.

• 12george1 (submissions) was the first to score, with his good article review of Illinois v. McArthur.
• 12george1 (submissions) was also the first to score points for an article, thanks to his work on Hurricane Debby (1982)- now a good article. Tropical storms have featured heavily in the Cup, and good articles currently have a relatively fast turnaround time for reviews.
• Sp33dyphil (submissions) was the first to score points for a did you know, with Russian submarine K-114 Tula. Military history is another subject which has seen a lot of Cup activity.
• Sp33dyphil (submissions) is also the first person to successfully claim bonus points. Terminator 2: Judgment Day is now a good article, and was eligible for bonus points because the subject was covered on more than 20 other Wikipedias at the start of the competition. It is fantastic to see bonus points being claimed so early!
• Speciate (submissions) was the first to score points for an In the News entry, with Paedophryne amauensis. The lead image from the article was also used on the main page for a time, and it's certainly eye-catching!
• Jivesh boodhun (submissions) was the first to score points for a featured article, and is, at the moment, the only competitor to claim for one. The article, "Halo" (Beyoncé Knowles song), was also worth double points because of its wide coverage. While this is an article that Jivesh and others have worked on for some time, it is undeniable that he has put considerable work into it this year, pushing it over the edge.

We are yet to see any featured lists, featured topics or good topics, but this is unsurprising; firstly, the nomination processes with each of these can take some time, and, secondly, it can take a considerable amount of time to work content to this level. In a similar vein, we have seen only one featured article. The requirement that content must have been worked on this year to be eligible means that we did not expect to see these at the start of the competition. No points have been claimed for featured portals or pictures, but these are not content types which are often claimed; the former has never made a big impact on the WikiCup, while the latter has not done so since 2009's competition.

A quick rules clarification before the regular notices: If you are concerned that another user is claiming points inappropriately, please contact a judge to take a look at the article. Competitors policing one another can create a bad atmosphere, and may lead to inconsistencies and mistakes. Rest assured that we, the judges, are making an effort to check submissions, but it is possible that we will miss something. On a loosely related note: If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Kwami and dwarf planets, yet again

I am reporting you to WP:AN3 for edit warring. — kwami (talk) 03:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Your choice, of course. From my perspective, I welcome additional eyes to see just what you've been up to. --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Confused

What are "ags"?[2] 98.82.34.127 (talk) 06:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Still wondering.98.82.34.127 (talk) 05:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, "tags" - still needs more references etc. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Doomsday clock

Hi,

Just wondering why you removed the reference in popular culture to Iron Maiden on the Doomsday Clock entry. I'm not angry or annoyed just want to uderstand why. I can see that you are far more involved in the Wikipedia project than I am and want to make sure that I ahven't broken any rules.

Cheers

Bizzy Whizz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzy Whizz (talk • contribs) 15:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

FoundersCard External Link

Hello Ckatz,

I was just wondering why you reverted my change to include an additional FoundersCard link. Is there any particular reason? To the best of my knowledge, it was completely relevant and correctly documeted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbarnsdale (talk • contribs) 16:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:EL; Wikipedia is not a directory, and the fact a site exists does not mean we link to it. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Dear friend, thank you for your help Shahrulazwad (talk) 08:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, no problem, glad to help. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Explain to me

Why Canadians with their hatred for the US want to be suddenly part of the Pacific Northwest? In between your daily hate sessions on the CBC of making sure everyone knows you're definitely not Americans, you hate how fat and stupid we are, how many guns we own, how the NFL sucks compared to the CFL, and how you dread "Americanization" please tell me why BC is Pacific Northwest because as far as I have been taught it's simply not the case. 99.99.50.100 (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Ckatz,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 02:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Erazmus Ciolek Witelon

Would it be possible for you to undelete this redirect ? I thought it was useful. Thanks. --He to Hecuba (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

logicmuseum.com

Please see MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#logicmuseum.com. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Before you think like a robot, think like a human!!!

I will explain this only once: do not delete the information I post. Edit the information that you understand. You removed a link from an article written by Richard Posner on the Richard Posner's Wikipage, you removed a link to book summary written by Marco Iacoboni on the mirror neurons on the page of Mirror Neurons in Wiki. Please, be clever and intelligent: the fact that I contribute with links is not that I am a SPAM! Before you think like a robot, think like a human. Ask yourself: "Is the provided link valuable, how related to the topic it is, and what is its quality?" These are basic questions an editor should ask before crippling the text... I have no time to repair the mess you created, but take a note! It seems that you don't understand the subjects you edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.91.198.186 (talk) 03:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Over a Year and Still not a proper response

Here is the whole string so far - I would GREATLY appreciate it if you could read through the whole string and reply :)

Ok, you finally responded :) but you responded to the original post and not to all of these that were made later...

Hey Ckatz thanks for getting back to me. As I am basically new here I tried reading up on some of the rules and guidlines but kind of find wiki to not be th emost user friendly place in the world unless you want to read novels j/k. But in all seriousness I apologize for any hassle myself or the site has given you.

It was my understanding that wiki allows external links that provide content that wiki cannot and since we provide both visual and audio samples of all these voice actors that you cannot find anywhere else on the web that it would be worth a link. We are much different than your everday voice actor database like voicechasers etc in that respect. That being said I do understand the conflict of interest angle. However, I notice that IMDB is linked on just about every voice actors page which begs the question.

   1. How do we eventually find a way to get that priviledge when our content is usually much more extensive and accurate than IMDB for voice acting since they are so broad and we focus solely on the voice actors. 

I appreciate and thank you in advance for any help you can provide.

Can you help me out at all here Ckatz with any additional information?

98.213.114.196 (talk) 22:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Ckatz I am not trying to be rude but it has been about a month since I posted these questions and I am very anxiously awaiting your response.

Optimussolo (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It has been almost 6 months now...

Optimussolo (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Does this make sense now?

05:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

WE also now have a credit verification where we provide images/documents that prove the voice credits, something NO other site does. I guess my main question remains (and I know I can't be the one to add links etc due to a conflict of interest) how some sites like bcdb, voicechasers, tv.com, imdb etc etc seem exempt from having any of their links removed and meanwhile we see our links (which are not put up by any of us) constantly removed.

Optimussolo (talk) 07:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Did you see my reply last September permalink? Johnuniq (talk) 10:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow, somehow I missed that!! Thanks so much for the information Optimussolo (talk) 02:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It Must be Nice

I sent an article you have been working on, It Must be Nice, to AFD and wanted to inform you. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've sent a note to JBW regarding a comment friend that you might be interested in. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

hidetopcontrib

I initially thought I could replicate a problem, but that was due to an unrelated script. What problem do you see, on what skin(s), and in what browser(s)? Mark Hurd (talk) 03:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I tried loading your monobook.js and you have the same akeytt issue I saw (in User:Markhurd/recent2.js; documented here) in User:Js/watchlist.js. Until it is fixed, try commenting that out and see if you get HideTopContrib back. Mark Hurd (talk) 04:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I followed some of the discussion you linked to (thanks!) and tried this change. So far, it appears to have fixed the issues with both your script and another one. I'll have to monitor it for a while to see if there are any problems as a result of the addition, as I'm not sure what exactly it does! -Ckatz^chat_spy 06:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Dr. James Naismith re middle initial A.

Naismith never had a middle initial A. The Encyclopedia Brittanica contacted me today from New York head offices and are getting rid of the middle initial A. due to the research I have done dating back 30 years when I talked to his surviving children. You may check out there website also for the correction. cjphillips@shaw.ca — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.53.178.51 (talk) 08:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

ok, you got me.

But it may be the most famous Olive Garden in the world now.[3][4][5].--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm pondering if there is encyclopaedic content there. The restaurant itself is not noteworthy, but if the meme persists it might be worth a mention. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

There was an article on the reporter a few years ago that got speedied, I've had it userfied to try to work in the content there, but I am hoping to avoid BLP1E concerns first by checking how longstanding she is. User:Milowent/Marilyn Hagerty.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Naismith never had a middle initial A

Go to Encyclopedia Britanica and check out the correction. Naismith never had a middle initial A. They have now corrected this with my research I showed them! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.53.178.51 (talk) 08:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Television episode and season articles badly needed

Because of the high number of edits that you have made at Wikipedia talk:Television episodes, I would like to call your attention to a list of the most critically acclaimed episodes and season articles that need to be created: Wikipedia:TV-EPISODE#Important_articles_to_be_created.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

AN posting

Please note this discussion. Since you have interacted with Bruce in topics unrelated to AIDS, you may have a different perspective from some of the other contributors. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Recent Doctor Who fandom edit

I am curious why the recent editing of the Doctor Who fandom page was reverted. I believe the only alterations that were made included a refernce to fandom thriving via virtual organisations like facebook and local meetups. There was also the inclusion of an Atlanta area fan group called UNIT. I had considered also including Chicago TARDIS in the convention section, but had not done that yet.

If there were technical issues, please let me know. If additional citations or something is required also please pass that along.

Thank you,

esh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esherrouse (talk • contribs) 17:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

References and filmographies

Are unreferenced (likely unnotable) films ok in a filmography of a BLP? Does an editor need to have every TV show they have edited on in a filmography? I can see adding notable films, but not every project, and no real reason to list complete tv shows for a tv editor, it just isn't that big of a deal and seems would be better served by a couple paragraphs of prose that touch on the more notable tv projects. These editor articles are bordering on lists of trivia. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd say your instinct is correct. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

You're the one with the mop, not me ;) I'm trying to not antagonize a situation where my input might be interpreted as "retaliatory" after I was the guest of honor at ANI (to which it was dismissed and the initiator was blocked instead). I've tried to be careful and measured in correcting the articles, but exaggeration and purposefully misinterpreting someone's words seems to be a form of art for at least two people I know. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you have a look?

Black ocean king can you have a look at this? The User:Blackoceanking causing lot of trouble. Shriram (talk) 08:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Syamsu/Free Will

Just wanted to say thanks for stepping in and banning Syamsu. While I've used wikipedia for years I've only just started getting involved with editing. I had no idea there was so much process involved, and I'm really impressed how well it works.

Best,

Garamond Lethe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garamond Lethe (talk • contribs) 09:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

We're back to edit warring there again, I'm afraid. S is up to 3R, and I'm stopping at 2. Hopefully soeone else will weigh in, but given this is basically the same stuff you blocked him for before, is there any chance of admin intervention?

Looking at his contribution history, he basically does nothing except free will (even the few edits he makes elsewhere are dodgy refs to his own views on FW, like [6], which just get reverted out by others) William M. Connolley (talk) 11:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

He went up to 4R, so I've put it on WP:AN3 William M. Connolley (talk) 13:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Hbah427

This user, whom you blocked indef two years ago, is now requesting unblock. Since your block message indicated a belief the account was compromised I'd like some input from you. Daniel Case (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 March newsletter

We are over half way through the second round of this year's WikiCup and things are going well! Grapple X (submissions), of Pool B, is our highest overall scorer thanks to his prolific writings on television and film. In second place is Pool H's Cwmhiraeth (submissions), thanks primarily to work on biological articles, especially in marine biology and herpetology. Third place goes to Pool E's Casliber (submissions), who also writes primarily on biology (including ornithology and botany) and has already submitted two featured articles this round. Of the 63 contestants remaining, 15 (just under a quarter) have over 100 points this round. However, 25 are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly. 32 contestants, the top two from each pool and the 16 next-highest scorers, will advance to round 3.

Congratulations to Matthewedwards (submissions), whose impressive File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg became the competition's first featured picture. Also, congratulations to 12george1 (submissions), who claimed good topic points, our first contestant this year to do so, for his work on Wikipedia:Featured topics/1982 Atlantic hurricane season. This leaves featured topics and featured portals as the only sources of points not yet utilised. However, as recent statistics from Miyagawa (submissions) show, no source has yet been utilised this competition to the same extent it has been previously!

It has been observed that the backlogs at good article candidates are building up again. While the points for good article reviews will be remaining constant, any help that can be offered keeping the backlog down would be appreciated. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: Surrogates movie article

What exactly is the reason the section about the differences between the movie and novel keeps getting deleted?

~DS — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarknessSavior (talk • contribs) 02:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Syamsu on Free Will again

Hi Ckatz,

Thank you for your earlier intervention regarding User:Syamsu over at Free will. His one-week block has expired and he has immediately picked up the old edit war he has been at for over three years now. He has violated 3RR at least four times that people have been counting recently (warnings on his talk page) and I'm certain more if you look at his history; almost every time he surfaces, this happens, and he edits almost nothing but this one article.

He is now at the point of flatly refusing to address concerns on talk. I believe administrative intervention is required at this point. Please help in any way you can.

Thanks, --Pfhorrest (talk) 10:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Just to echo the above: his edit has been reverted 6 times in the past 24 hours by myself (twice), User:Pfhorrest (twice), User:Vsmith, and User:Richardbrucebaxter. We could use a hand. Thanks. Garamond Lethe (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Update: User:Syamsu now banned indefinitely. Garamond Lethe (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Heroes

Wikipedia:WikiProject Heroes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Conversion to a task force is proposed and discussed in the talk page. Although I have no interest on the show, feel free. --George Ho (talk) 15:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks

Amityvillechris (talk) 08:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Telus is always spelled with CAPS

TELUS is their branded name and used for all references for the company.

You've undone my edits, i think twice today, and read your note.

If that's still not allowed, please let me know.

Thanks, Wayne. wayne.burke@gmail.com or wayne.burke@telus.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.93.189 (talk) 01:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)We don't care about branding; the Wikipedia Manual of Style calls for "Telus", not TELUS. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Abuse Filter on the Article Feedback Tool

Hey there :). You're being contacted because you're an edit filter manager, At the moment, we're developing Version 5 of the Article Feedback Tool, which you may or may not have heard about. If you haven't; for the first time, this will involve a free-text box where readers can submit comments :). Obviously, there's going to be junk, and we want to minimise that junk. To do so, we're working the Abuse Filter into the tool.

For this to work, we need people to write and maintain filters. I'd be very grateful if you could take a look at the discussion here and the attached docs, and comment and contribute! Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 April newsletter

Round 2 of this year's WikiCup is over, and so we are down to our final 32, in what could be called our quarter-finals. The two highest scorers from each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers overall, have entered round 3, while 30 participants have been eliminated. Pool B's Grapple X (submissions) remains our top scorer with over 700 points; he continues to gain high numbers of points for his good articles on The X-Files, but also Millennium and other subjects. He has also gained points for a good topic, a featured list, multiple good article reviews and several did you knows. Pool E's Casliber (submissions) was second, thanks primarily to his biology articles, with Pool H's Muboshgu (submissions) coming in third, with an impressive 46 did you knows, mostly on the subject of baseball. Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both scored over 600 points. Pools E and H proved our most successful, with each seeing 5 members qualify for round 3, while Pools C and D were the least, with each seeing only 3 reach round 3. However, it was Pool G which saw the lowest scoring, with a little under 400 points combined; Pool H, the highest scoring group, saw over triple that score.

65 points was the lowest qualifying score for round 3; significantly higher than the 11 required to enter round 2, and also higher than the 41 required to reach round 3 last year. However, in 2010, 100 points were needed to secure a place in round 3. 16 will progress to round 4. In round 3, 150 points was the 16th highest score, though, statistically, people tend to up their game a little in later rounds. Last year, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 points were needed. Guessing how many points will be required is not easy. We still have not seen any featured portals or topics this year, but, on the subject of less common content types, a small correction needs to be made to the previous newsletter: File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg, our first featured picture, was the work of both Matthewedwards (submissions) and Grandiose (submissions), the latter of whom has also gone on to score with File:Map of the Battle of Guam, 1944.svg. Bonus points also continue to roll in; this round, Ealdgyth (submissions) earned triple points for her good articles on William the Conqueror and the Middle Ages, Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both earned triple points for their work on Western Jackdaw, now a good article, Dana Boomer (submissions) earned triple points for her work on lettuce and work by Stone (submissions) to ready antimony for good article status earned him triple points. Jarry1250 (submissions) managed to expand Vitus Bering far enough for a did you know, which was also worth triple points. All of these highly important topics featured on 50 or more Wikipedias at the start of the year.

An article on the WikiCup in the Wikimedia Blog, "Improving Wikipedia with friendly competition", was posted at the end of April. This may be of interest to those who are signed up to this newsletter, as well as serving as another way to draw attention to our project. Also, we would again like to thank Jarry1250 (submissions) and Stone (submissions), for continued help behind the scenes. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Hbah427

Since you never responded to my query about this user's history, when that was brought to my attention I revisited and unblocked the user. Daniel Case (talk) 14:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ckatz. You have new messages at WDGraham's talk page.
Message added 07:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thought you might be interested that he's still not letting this drop. W. D. Graham 07:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

2001 QF298

You may be interested in this discussion. Ruslik_Zero 17:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Related Shows

Last I checked the term "related" meant connection. Shows that are established taking place in the same universe as one another counts as a related connection like a spinoff would to a parent show. You'll see the same thing for a lot of shows listed on here that have crossed over with another. So that IP user you were talking about was only doing what's been done numerous times for years by other editors that no one has found anything complicated about. For iCarly, I noticed you left in Victorious as the related connection. Well, the iParty With Victorious special counted as three iCarly episodes made from the show's third season cycle of filming featuring characters from Victorious. iCarly had two episodes featuring a character from Zoey 101 and an episode featuring characters from Drake & Josh. I don't see why the latter two shows can't be referenced in relation since their character crossovers weren't really any different from the Victorious crossover with iCarly. - Jabrona - 19:52, 18 April 2012

I am an oral historian. Self-promotion would imply profit to be made. What you say his self-promotion I say is information.

We are a legitimate off-shoot of the Real Life Super-Hero movement which has its own page. If you feel as though pop-culture as not turned the tide to include the RLSV of having their own page, then allow for a addendum to the RLSH page.

I have cited legitimate news sources of the The Toronto Metro and author Nadis Ferrani.

Call it what you will, you are missing a segment of pop-culture that will have its day, with or without Ckatz of Wiki. TamerlaneRLSV (talk) 18:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Relevance..

The one to, revealall to all has arrived. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.166.145.85 (talk) 19:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ckatz. You have new messages at Talk:Srebrenica massacre.
Message added 19:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 19:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Why reverse revision in volvo 850

Just curious as to why you reversed it but left the other forums and sites up. Thanks talk back please MystroR (talk) 19:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

About the link i Added ........

It is relevent object i added well if you do not wnat the world to see it fine ..........

i make it easy for people to access conbtent i found it in that website and i found it useful so i shared the link .

any way thanks ........

I guess i will keep what ever i have....... not going to share with u ....... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atulsohan (talk • contribs) 20:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Look Before u do some thing

Did you vist the website before removing the link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atulsohan (talk • contribs) 20:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ckatz. You have new messages at Talk:Srebrenica massacre.
Message added 09:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 09:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 May newsletter

We're halfway through round 3 (or the quarter finals, if you prefer) and things are running smoothly. We're seeing very high scoring; as of the time of writing, the top 16 all have over 90 points. This has already proved to be more competative than this time last year- in 2011, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 was the lowest qualifying score. People have also upped their game slightly from last round, which is to be expected as we approach the end of the competition. Leading Pool A is Cwmhiraeth (submissions), whose points have mostly come from a large number of did you knows on marine biology. Pool B's leader, Grapple X (submissions), is for the first time not our highest scorer at the time of newsletter publication, but his good articles on The X-Files and Millenium keep him in second place overall. Miyagawa (submissions) leads Pool C, our quietest pool, with content in a variety of areas on a variety of topics. Pool D is led by Casliber (submissions), our current overall leader. Nearly half of Casliber's points come from his triple-scored Western Jackdaw, which is now a featured article.

This round has seen an unusually high number of featured lists, with nearly one in five remaining participants claiming one, and one user, Muboshgu (submissions), claiming two. Miyagawa's featured list, 1936 Summer Olympics medal table, was even awarded double points. By comparison, good article reviews seem to be playing a smaller part, and featured topics portals remain two content-types still unutilised in this competition. Other than that, there isn't much to say! Things are coming along smoothly. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Linking, UK etc

This is an interesting comment. I've always thought/assumed many people acquiesce over link-stripping because they think it's quasi-official (or because they don't care either way) - rather than the broad indifference/silence being evidence for implicit consensus in favour of link removals, as often claimed. N-HH talk/edits 15:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both for your commentary and efforts regarding this, at Canada, UK, etc. This is a much larger issue that I believe needs to be dealt with (including said editors), but I am unsure how. Thoughts? Ubiquinoid (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Southeast Asia

I'm afraid you're somehow discriminating against non-registered editors, in contrary to Wikipedia's 'Don't bite newbies' rule. Paul 012 deleted one whole paragraph from the article but you don't go after him. To repeat, all I did was to restore that paragraph, which was deleted with no consensus. (Please reply at my user talk page.) 119.236.141.31 (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Merlin edit

What is the reason for you edit to the Merlin article at 19:30, june 4? There has not been 4 series there has been 4 seasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.28.30.92 (talk) 04:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

British shows use the term "series" to refer to a group of episodes, whereas North American shows use "season". --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

DP wording

Come on, now. You told me to take that trivial rewording to Talk, and then you complained that I brought it up at talk. Now you're back to reverting wording that comes from your own source. Do you have any actual objection? — kwami (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Need help ASAP

Can you (or some admin that sees this) protect the article Wu-Tang Clan right now on the spot? WP:RPP is taking WAY too long. • GunMetal Angel 00:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Stargate Atlantis and Stargate SG-1 relation

First of all, hello.

Second, you have regularly reverted my edits regarding Stargate Atlantis pilot:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stargate_Atlantis&diff=481044054&oldid=481006982
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stargate_Atlantis&diff=458674443&oldid=458673322 (sometimes I do edits without login to wikipedia)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stargate_Atlantis&diff=423995414&oldid=423951277
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stargate_Atlantis&diff=421617392&oldid=421586596

I would be happy with it, if I was wrong in someway in my edits... the fact is that... I saw those episodes, so my edit is correct... And you? Have you seen the episodes, to make the claim that the SGA pilot does not continue from SG-1 8th season episode?

Of course, I already made the correct edit, again... do you think it is possible for you to start see the episodes, and only afterwards can you make some kind of wrong edit (and preferably, with a summary that states the reason for your wrong edit)?

In one of your revert-edits, you state "Not sure this is needed"... Well, I am sure this is needed, as stated in the summary of my next attempt-edit:

"In Lost City (SG-1), O'Neill is put in stasis... In Rising, O'Neill is ok... New Order (SG-1) is in the middle of these 2 eps... This is info regarding the episode sequence to be watched... do not delete"

In another of your revert-edits, you state "rv again; discuss first"... Well, with good information, I do not need to discuss... You, on the other hand, are the one who should discuss first (before reverting good/correct edits).

If you are going to continue to do those wrong edits, I believe that you are a bad-faith editor, since you obviously want to omit relevant information from wikipedia. Here is what I place in the summary of yet another of my correct edits:

"in Lost City, O'Neill is put in stasis ; in Raising, O'Neill is already not in stasis - New Order is in between"

If you are going to answer this, I would thank you if you do it on my talk page, instead of yours. Mrmagoo2006 (talk) 04:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 June newsletter

Apologies for the lateness of this letter; our usual bot wasn't working. We are now entering round 4, our semi-finals, and have our final 16. A score of 243 was required to reach this round; significantly more than 2011's 76 points, and only a little behind 2010's 250 points. By comparison, last year, 150 points in round 4 secured a place in the final; in 2010, 430 were needed. Commiserations to Pool A's igordebraga (submissions), who scored 242 points, missing out on a place in the round by a whisker. However, congratulations to Pool B's Grapple X (submissions), whose television articles have brought him another round victory. Pool A's Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came second overall, with an impressive list of biological did you knows, good articles and featured articles. Third overall was Pool D's Muboshgu (submissions), with a long list of contibutions, mostly relating to baseball. Of course, with the points resetting every round, the playing field has been levelled. The most successful Pool was Pool D, which saw seven into the final round. Pool B saw four, C saw three and Pool A saw only the two round leaders.

A quick note about other competitions taking place on Wikipedia which may be of interest. There are 13 days remaining in the June-July GAN backlog elimination drive, but it is not too late to take part. August will also see the return of The Core Contest- a one month long competition first run in 2007. While the WikiCup awards points for audited content on any subject, The Core Contest about is raw article improvement, focussing heavily on the most important articles on Wikipedia. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 10:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)

Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:

• Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of the article

Hello, I noticed you deleted the article Grand Duchy of Flandrensis that I created. Please let me explain the situation: I don't know what happened in 2009, and why was the original article deleted, but mine has nothing to do with it: this is the translation of the article in Russian Wikipedia, this one: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D4%EB%E0%ED%E4%F0%E5%ED%F1%E8%F1 As you may see, it was created in March 2012, and was considered as suitable. All I did is translated it from Russian to English. Now, I would to know why an article translated from the other version of Wikipedia, where it was considered as valuable, shall be deleted from the English version just because three years ago somebody created an unsuitable article with the same name? Looking forward to your reply, sincerely Escargoten (talk) 17:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Houston Gamblers Info?

The information contained on the USFL Houston Gamblers page is, frankly, pretty crappy. If you plan on removing the contributions I'd like to make as the team's historian, it will just have to remain crappy. Good luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Policefan71 (talk • contribs) 07:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Told I was Marketing?

Hi Ckatz, In my account it said I was posting things that were marketing after I updated a page for Film Editor Michael Kahn. I added a bunch of links to articles and videos of him. I am just wondering why that would be considered marketing or I guess Spamming? I am a film editor and wanted to add to the various film editors stubs. Gburkell — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.222.91 (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Ckatz, since it appears that you may have stopped editing for the moment, I took the liberty of responding to this query on the user's talk page. I will also leave a note on the IP talk page, directing the user to their logged-in talk page. 76.105.171.161 (talk) 17:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

DPs

Now that everyone seems to accept JorisvS' wording on the DP-moon template, would you agree to using it in the DP article? — kwami (talk) 17:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no reason to make such a change. Honestly, I wish that you'd accept the way it has worked out (through the multiple discussions and RfCs) instead of repeatedly bringing this up... --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

But it hasn't worked out, not in the main article. We've never addressed the problem that it's factually incorrect, though we've done a pretty good job in 2ary articles. I'm trying to wind down here, but this is one of a few open issues. — kwami (talk) 09:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Can I recreate the page Flanderesis on Wikipedia?

Please, Can I recreate the page Flanderesis on Wikipedia?

I will add references. Can I add references from MicroWiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dancarblog (talk • contribs) 19:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) :(talk page stalker) Wikis such as MicroWiki are seldom regarded as reliable sources for articles here. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

As a creator of the recently deleted article, let me clarify that this is just a translation from Russian Wikipedia:

http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D4%EB%E0%ED%E4%F0%E5%ED%F1%E8%F1

As you may see, it was created in March 2012, and was considered as suitable. All I did is translated it from Russian to English. Now, I would to know why an article translated from the other version of Wikipedia, where it was considered as valuable, shall be deleted from the English version just because three years ago somebody created an unsuitable article with the same name? There are plenty of references to Flandrensis in various newspapers, TV and magazines, being provided in the Russian article. Looking forward to your reply, sincerely Escargoten (talk) 14:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Add Belgian micronation

The page List of micronations is protected, therefore I would like to inform you that I want to add a Belgian micronation. Coincidentally I notice that another peson contact you about the same micronation (see previous message about Flandrensis).On July 23rd, 2012 two Belgian newspapers (Het Belang van Limburg and Gazet van Antwerpen) published a full article about Flandrensis as part of a reportage of European micronations. Another Belgian newspaper Het Nieuwsblad will pubslih an article this week. Those are no regional but national newspapers and by my opinion reliable sources. As prove you can download a copy of those articles of the website of the micronation ([here). I look forward to your opinion and I hope for a positive message. --Lyam Desmet (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 July newsletter

We're approaching the beginning of 2012's final round. Pool A sees Cwmhiraeth (submissions) as the leader, with 300 points being awarded for the featured article Bivalvia, and Pool B sees Grapple X (submissions) in the lead, with 10 good articles, and over 35 articles eligible for good topic points. Pool A sees Muboshgu (submissions) in second place with a number of articles relating to baseball, while Pool B's Ruby2010 (submissions) follows Grapple X, with a variety of contributions including the high-scoring, high-importance featured article on the 2010 film Pride & Prejudice. Ruby2010, like Grapple X, also claimed a number of good topic points; despite this, not a single point has been claimed for featured topics in the contest so far. The same is true for featured portals.

Currently, the eighth-place competitor (and so the lowest scorer who would reach the final round right now) has scored 332, more than double the 150 needed to reach the final round last year. In 2010, however, 430 was the lowest qualifying score. In this competition, we have generally seen scores closer to those in 2010 than those in 2011. Let's see what kind of benchmark we can set for future competitions! As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 22:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

'preciate the assist. --EEMIV (talk) 15:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 August newsletter

The final is upon us! We are down to our final 8. A massive 573 was our lowest qualifying score; this is higher than the 150 points needed last year and the 430 needed in 2010. Even in 2009, when points were acquired for mainspace edit count in addition to audited content, 417 points secured a place. That leaves this year's WikiCup, by one measure at least, our most competitive ever. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:

1. Grapple X (submissions) once again finishes the round in first place, leading Pool B. Grapple X writes articles about television, and especially The X-Files and Millenium, with good articles making up the bulk of the score.
2. Miyagawa (submissions) led Pool A this round. Fourth-place finalist last year, Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, and has reached the final primarily off the back of his massive number of did you knows.
3. Ruby2010 (submissions) was second in Pool B. Ruby2010 writes primarily on television and film, and scores primarily from good articles.
4. Casliber (submissions) finished third in Pool B. Casliber is something of a WikiCup veteran, having finished sixth in 2011 and fourth in 2010. Casliber writes on the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. Over half of Casliber's points this round were bonus points from the high-importance articles he has worked on.
5. Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came second in Pool A. Also writing on biology, especially marine biology, Cwmhiraeth received 390 points for one featured article (Bivalvia) and one good article (pelican), topping up with a large number of did you knows.
6. Muboshgu (submissions) was third in Pool A. Muboshgu writes primarily on baseball, and this round saw Muboshgu's first featured article, Derek Jeter, promoted on its fourth attempt at FAC.
7. Dana Boomer (submissions) was fourth in Pool A. She writes on a variety of topics, including horses, but this round also saw the high-importance lettuce reach featured article status.
8. Sasata (submissions) is another WikiCup veteran, having been a finalist in 2009 and 2010. He writes mostly on mycology.

However, we must also say goodbye to the eight who did not make the final, having fallen at the last hurdle: GreatOrangePumpkin (submissions), Ealdgyth (submissions), Calvin999 (submissions), Piotrus (submissions), Toa Nidhiki05 (submissions), 12george1 (submissions), The Bushranger (submissions) and 1111tomica (submissions). We hope to see you all next year.

On the subject of next year, a discussion has been opened here. Come and have your say about the competition, and how you'd like it to run in the future. This brainstorming will go on for some time before more focused discussions/polls are opened. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The Golddiggers and The Dean Martin Show, Pt. 2

Hello, Ckatz. You have new messages at 119.236.141.31's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You asked that I "refrain from reposting the links until this matter is resolved." That begs the question: How is the matter to be resolved?

Beyond that, if these rules apply to me, shouldn't they apply to ALL contributors to Wikipedia's article on The Golddiggers? And if that's the case, then all links added by the user Freedomsgold should be removed, because that individual is herself one of The Golddiggers, and all of the links that she's added pertain to articles about herself and her sister and/or the book that they have co-authored and are selling. What's more, most of their citations are drawn from a website called The Dean Martin Fan Center, which is operated by the manager of The Golddiggers, so that site is no more neutral than you are contending The Golddiggers Super Site is -- and accordingly, all links to that Fan Center should be deleted, as well.

In addition, the link to the so-called "Golddiggers' Authorized Official Website" should be removed, because it was placed there by a user going under the name of Metromusic, who is a representative of the 6 women who are currently performing, for profit, under the name of The Golddiggers. Indeed, it is those six who are the main focus of their so-called "Authorized Official Website" -- NOT all of The Golddiggers and their history. And what little history that's provided on that site is riddled with inaccuracies. If you'd like proof, I would be glad to offer it, in the form of verifiable documentary evidence.

An objective history of The Golddiggers is, however, covered, both thoroughly and accurately, by The Golddiggers Super Site. And in stark contrast to the examples that I cited above, my contributions to Wikipedia should pose no conflict of interest because: 1) I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of The Golddiggers, nor one of their representatives -- rather I am simply an impartial chronicler of their history; 2) The Golddiggers Super Site is a noncommercial, independent, not-for-profit project, so I have nothing to gain from the inclusion of the links that you have removed -- unlike the ventures touted by either of the aforesaid Wikipedia users, whose links you have left in place.

And by the way, if you're going to strictly follow Wikipedia's "reliable sources policy", then the External Links to the IMDB should be jettisoned, as well (WP:USERGENERATED) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Interbang (talk • contribs) 23:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

With respect to Wikipedia's article on The Dean Martin Show, your removal of all links to The Golddiggers Super Site, while leaving in place all of the information that I contributed, means that there will NEVER be any first-hand attribution for that information, because it was The Golddiggers Super Site that reported it exclusively. By this logic, if an exclusive New York Times story that had a direct bearing on a Wikipedia article was cited in that article, and the citation was inserted by the person who wrote the story for The Times, it would be disallowed!

Are Wikipedia's rules really so rigid and inflexible as to discourage the spread of accurate information, just because it's included by someone who happened to uncover it? If the answer is no (and hopefully, it is), then all of the evidence that I have provided of The Golddiggers Super Site being a legitimate news source should qualify it as a source of reference for Wikipedia.

As had been previously explained to me by another Wikipedia administrator -- Wildhartlivie -- Wikipedia's policies do not automatically prohibit those connected with another website from posting links to it in a Wikipedia article, but rather advise that one should avoid "adding external links to pages in which you are involved in a promotional tone or manner." And indeed, that's exactly what I have done -- the links that I included were free of any sort of hype or promotion. They were placed there simply to provide visitors to the Wikipedia page on The Golddiggers with more information, and in no way yield any financial gain to me. If you read my User Talk page, you'll see that In the end, Wildhartlivie made the determination that the external link to The Golddiggers Super Site could remain.

In view of these facts, as well as the pedigree and accuracy of The Golddiggers Super Site as I tried to briefly outline it in my previous message to you, it seems to me that in this instance, you are applying Wikipedia's rules in such a way that they are winding up actually promoting commercial interests, while at the same time, running counter to the dissemination of greater knowledge -- which is what I thought was supposed to be Wikipedia' primary objective.

I would appreciate your response to what I've written here.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Interbang (talk) 22:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Vancouver

o h d e a r g o d help me from these Toronto film editors promoting Toronto on the Vancouver page... Mkdw^talk 19:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Yudu Media

The IP is a Yudu Media IP address, no wonder it looked like an ad! Dougweller (talk) 10:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The Last Ounce of Courage Article

So, what's your issue with the edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.7.212 (talk) 21:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Canmore, Alberta

Hi, I notice you just reverted my edit to remove the MD of Bighorn as Canmore's Municipal District. I was wondering why? Canmore is not in the MD of Bighorn, it is a neighbouring municipality.Evilmoose (talk) 20:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, welcome. Sorry, there was no explanation for the deletion, so it was reverted. If you're sure it is correct, please feel free to restore it - but make sure to explain the change in the "Comments" section before you hit save. Thanks for asking. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! I've done as you suggested - I'm only a sporadic editor, and forget the correct procedure for these things. Evilmoose (talk) 22:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Anytime, and thanks to you as well for taking the time to add to the project! --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Last Ounce of Courage Article

Are you stupid?? There is no edit war there. DP67674 and I figured it out 66.87.7.227 (talk) 10:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The Box Office Section is Wrong

This is your job now to fix this, as you locked me out.

Boxofficemojo says this, "Last Ounce of Courage opened in 15th place with an atrocious $1.59 million from 1,407 locations. Unlike many Christian movies which rely primarily on word-of-mouth, Last Ounce actually ran commercials in major markets like Los Angeles (where a movie like this usually doesn't even open), which means this is probably a pretty serious financial disappointment." - It never says the film IS a disappointment, it says it probably is, and bases that on nothing except speculation. Is that encylopedic? 66.87.0.238 (talk) 17:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC) 17:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Chicken Alaska, WOW

Hey there. MANY thanks for the eagle eye on the population being 7. I missed that for certain. I LOVE small places in the USA, and Chicken has become near and dear if you will along with Red Devil (which I did indeed double check the population stats on). I added the ref fpor the fact finder table for it.Coal town guy (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the ref... I recall being in Chicken years ago, when the general store had a sign up about the firing of a cannon (along with another note asking people to help find the cannon). Small towns are cool. --Ckatz^chat_spy 16:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

VERY COOL.....I grew up in small Appalachian places......these places need a Wikipedian following. My next project is to get back to Cucumber WV and set the facts straight on the town being named after a plant and not the vegetable......Coal town guy (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Cucumber, that's great. I'll have to read through some of the town articles you're working on as it sounds as if it could be quite interesting. --Ckatz^chat_spy 16:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

You have not lived until you bask in the glory of Chicken Bristle KY, or for that matter, Turnip Hole PA...........God bless our small townsCoal town guy (talk) 16:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Up here, there's Spuzzum and (on the other side of the country) Dildo... --Ckatz^chat_spy 16:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

EGAD, that rivals Three Way TX and Spunky Puddle OH for certain.....I saw a TV special on Dildo, nice folks. At that time, I was in Orgas, WV, nice folks there as well. I still miss Tater Peeler TN....BUT, no sense in getting all misty, is there?Coal town guy (talk) 17:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about CBC article

Hi. I see that you've been working on the CBC article since your last message on the talk page, and appear to have moved on to other articles now, so I want to make sure that you see that I have replied. CanadianJudoka (talk) 05:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 September newsletter

We're over half way through the final, and so it is less than a month until we know for certain our 2012 WikiCup champion. Grapple X (submissions) currently leads, followed by Sasata (submissions), Cwmhiraeth (submissions) and Casliber (submissions). However, we have no one resembling a breakaway leader, and so the competition is a long way from over. Next month's newsletter will feature a list of our winners (who are not necessarily only the finalists) and keep your eyes open for an article on the WikiCup in a future edition of The Signpost. The leaders are already on a par with last year's winners, but a long way from the huge scores seen in 2010. That said, a repeat of the competition from 2010 seems unlikely.

It is good to see that three-quarters of our finalists have already scored bonus points this round. This shows that, contrary to criticism that the WikiCup has received in the past, the competition does not merely incentivise the writing of trivial articles; instead, our top competitors are still spending their time contributing to high-importance articles, and bringing them to a high standard. This does a great service to the encyclopedia and its readers. Thank you, and good work!

The planning for next year's WikiCup is ongoing. Some straw polls have been opened concerning the scoring, and you can now sign up for next year's competition. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

existential risks edit

Nanotechnology cannot be said to be threat to humans - at all - definitely not in the league of nuclear war (used in the same context) - which is a much more clear and present danger — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.181.130.13 (talk) 09:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Articles on The Golddiggers & The Dean Martin Show

Ckatz,

In regard to the Wikipedia entries on the topics of The Golddiggers and The Dean Martin Show, I wrote to you on September 9, requesting further clarification about several of the points that you made in your reply to my original message to you (both of the latter communications were also dated Sept. 9; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Interbang and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ckatz/Archive_11). But since Sept. 9, I have yet to receive any further word from you.

Your last correspondence to me raised several questions for which I was attempting to seek answers. For instance, you asked that I "refrain from reposting the links until this matter is resolved." -- to which, in turn, I asked: How is the matter to be resolved?

I also inquired as to why you deemed it necessary to delete links to The Golddiggers Super Site, yet left in place links to other clearly self-published sources, such as The Dean Martin Fan Center, the IMDB (which apparently, Wikipedia also frowns on -- see WP:USERGENERATED -- and which also happens to be riddled with inaccuracies about The Golddiggers), and even some sites created by former members of The Golddiggers that are purely commercial and promotional in nature and contain little or no objective information.

In my first two posts on your User Talk page, I furnished credentials which attest to the credibility and independence of the information contained on The Golddiggers Super Site. Additionally, I offered to provide further verification from third-party published sources as to the veracity of the objective reportage featured on the Super Site.

As I had noted previously, I wrote the first several paragraphs of the Wikipedia article on The Golddiggers and almost the entire section on The Dean Martin Show page pertaining to DVD releases of that series. The information presented therein was drawn from the first-hand, impartial, enterprise reporting of The Golddiggers Super Site, which employs the highest journalistic standards and bases it coverage directly on documented research and extensive interviews with key sources.

Since much of this information has been exclusively mined by The Golddiggers Super Site, there are no other sources that can be cited for it. Moreover, in some instances, it is The Golddiggers Super Site that has served as the verifying source for a report from another entity. To give but one example:

In July of 2011, I added a paragraph to the DVD section of Wikipedia's article on The Dean Martin Show that reads:

In an online report posted July 9, 2011, Deana Martin, one of Dean's daughters, told columnists Marilyn Beck and Stacy Jenel Smith that the first sets of Dean Martin Show DVDs released by Time-Life in the late Spring had sold so well that a second collection was already being planned, and that she (Deana) would be contributing commentary to it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dean_Martin_Show#DVD)

I cited as the source for the foregoing information the website on which the item appeared. But note that it appeared in a gossip column! It was The Golddiggers Super Site that confirmed the story with senior officials at Time-Life. And yet, in your editing, you left the citation of the Beck-Smith website as is, but removed the link of the source that provided actual official confirmation of the story -- The Golddiggers Super Site. What sense does that make?

If The Golddiggers Super Site -- or for that matter, ANY well-established, reliable, proven journalistic entity -- cannot be cited in a Wikipedia article as the source for information which cannot be found anywhere else, then it logically follows that the information itself must be purged. Ergo, if The Golddiggers Super Site cannot be regarded as a valid source, then any information about The Golddiggers and The Dean Martin Show contained in Wikipedia entries on those subjects that is sourced from The Golddiggers Super Site must likewise be held to be invalid.

Should that be the case, then it would necessitate removal of not only all of my contributions to the Wikipedia articles on The Golddiggers and The Dean Martin Show, but those of other self-published sources, as well. The net effect of that would be the decimation of both the DVD section of the Dean Martin Show article and most of the entire Golddiggers article. How would THAT result possibly contribute to the furtherance of knowledge?

Borrowing the essence of an old cliché: To leave the message in place, but kill the reliable messenger that delivered it, is intellectually incoherent and indefensible. And isn't this kind of selective, subjective exclusion of material exactly what happens in countries that censor sources of which they don't approve?

…Which brings us to the definition of a reliable source…

An examination of Wikipedia's policies on Identifying Reliable Sources reveals that there is no unequivocal prohibition on the use of self-published sources (WP:USERGENERATED). In fact, these policies go on to state that "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field…" Since, as I mentioned in my previous messages to you, The Golddiggers Super Site is written and published with the ongoing input of alumnae of The Golddiggers and The Dean Martin Show, as well as executives directly involved in the reissuing of The Dean Martin Show on DVD, it would certainly qualify, by Wikipedia's own standards, as a legitimate source of attribution for Wikipedia's articles on the selfsame subjects.

I would also point out that if you take a look at earlier entries on my User Talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Interbang), you will see that the whole issue of the validity of The Golddiggers Super Site as a legitimate citation source came up more than four years ago, and at the time, another Wikipedia administrator, Wildhartlivie, reviewed the matter and concluded that such citations could remain, so long as they were free of self-promotion -- an abstention to which I have strictly adhered in the intervening years.

So, given the fact that another Wikipedia administrator approved of The Golddiggers Super Site as a legitimate source back in 2008; that there have been no complaints about it since; and that the articles on The Golddiggers and The Dean Martin Show, as they were constituted until your edits just a few short weeks ago, were rich in accurate information and credible source citations -- in view of all of those factors, what is the value -- indeed who benefits -- from henceforth suppressing this fount of knowledge?

If the only remaining objection to the citing of The Golddiggers Super Site as a Wikipedia source is that the citations were placed by me, and because I'm an administrator of the Super Site, that poses a Conflict of Interest, then surely that conflict could be resolved simply by dint of a non-affiliated third party making the contributions and citations.

CKatz, you make reference at the top of your User Talk page to the fact that you are very busy, and I can certainly appreciate that. I, too, lead a busy, hectic life, and so I have tried to be patient in awaiting a reply from you. But with all due respect, I would point out that it has been a whole month since I last contacted you about this matter, which would seem to be a reasonable length of time for you to have drafted a response. Still, I have yet to hear back from you, addressing the issues and concerns that I had previously raised and raise again herein.

In this regard, I would call your attention to the following section from Wikipedia's policies pertaining to Administrators:

Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, and unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. (ADMINACCT).

I would hope that all of the facts that I have delineated in my message above would put to rest any lingering doubts about the suitability of The Golddiggers Super Site as a credible source for the Wikipedia articles on The Golddiggers and The Dean Martin Show, and that there would be no further objection to the restoration of the citations that were included in those articles for many years prior to last month, if such insertions were made by an independent third-party, rather than by me. However, in the event that you continue to have reservations about the inclusion of these vetted and authoritative first-hand sources, I could, if need be, provide you with further evidence of their legitimacy.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Interbang (talk) 14:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peru, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spanish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

hey man.

trying to improve this terrible article.

now you've rolled it all back.

guess you're happy with the way things are.

I won't be returning to wikipedia any time soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.193.65 (talk) 08:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The article in question has a long history of problematic edits. You would be best off discussing major changes on the talk page first. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: "bureaucracy" article

Hey. You've blocked me from editing the "bureaucracy" article. The reason given is "IP edit battle." You also reverted the page to a previous version.

Do me a favor. Look at my edits to the article, and the edits of the other person involved. And look at the page as it was right before you reverted it, and the way it looks now.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.193.65 (talk) 09:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Please look at the template

It's not simply about the MLS club but all clubs with the Whitecaps name, my edit was appropriate while you're trying to push your POV again. Please stop now. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Since there's disagreement, the next step is to restore the previous version and resolve on the talk page. Simple as that. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not a disagreement, its you misunderstanding completely the nature of the template. Since you pointed to WP:BRD, I trust that you will discuss. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: Welcome!

Hello, Ckatz!

Thank you for writing on my talk page!

Obviously I've done something wrong when add the link to simulation of gravitational collapse in Gravitational collapse and another one in Three-body problem. Can you explain to me please, what exactly is wrong with this links? The website to which they point is not commercial and even more - the simulations has Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported license.

Here are the links:

• Simulation of gravitational collapse

• 3-body symmetric orbit simulation

Breny47 (talk) 21:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

over/underlinking

Could you take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Linking#What_generally_should_not_be_linked_--_can_we_bring_this_to_closure.3F

The "one link" rule/enforcement has gotten out of hand, I'm trying to get something closer to rationality. You observe the obvious on the link talk page: "The problem lies in the (very small) group that is rigidly adapting and applying the linking guideline to endorse their methodically marching through the project using scripts to strip away links "just because" they don't see them as necessary. It is a troublesome mentality." I agree with you -- the point of links is function, not some aversion to black-and-blue.

I'd appreciate any refinements to the proposed replacement language at the top of this section, and if its something you can support, I'd appreciate it if you could drop a note to that effect. Thanks Boundlessly (talk) 22:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Popular Examples on the "Tortured Artists" Page

Hello.

I'm curious as to why you keep deleting the popular examples that are displayed on the "Tortured Artists" page. I realize that there aren't any citations given but that's the way that it was before an unreasonable amount of examples were added. Personally, I feel that it is a good thing for the page to show examples of tortured artists because it provides people with a better context of what the term actually means.

I really hope that you'll reconsider allowing the examples to be displayed. I also hope that you'll respond back to me when you can.

Goodbye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.186.250 (talk) 08:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 October newsletter

The 2012 WikiCup has come to a close; congratulations to Cwmhiraeth (submissions), our 2012 champion! Cwmhiraeth joins our exclusive club of previous winners: Dreamafter (2007), jj137 (2008), Durova (2009), Sturmvogel 66 (2010) and Hurricanehink (2011). Our final standings were as follows:

1. Cwmhiraeth (submissions)
2. Sasata (submissions)
3. Grapple X (submissions)
4. Casliber (submissions)
5. Muboshgu (submissions)
6. Miyagawa (submissions)
7. Ruby2010 (submissions)
8. Dana Boomer (submissions)

Prizes for first, second, third and fourth will be awarded, as will prizes for all those who reached the final eight. Every participant who scored in the competition will receive a ribbon of participation. In addition to the prizes based on placement, the following special prizes will be awarded based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, the prize is awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round.

• The featured article award goes to Grapple X (submissions), for four featured articles in the final round.
• The good article award also goes to Grapple X (submissions), for 19 good articles in the second round.
• The list award goes to Muboshgu (submissions), for three featured lists in the final round.
• The topic award goes to Grapple X (submissions), for three good topics (with around 40 articles) in round 4.
• The did you know award goes to Cwmhiraeth (submissions), for well over 100 DYKs in the final round.
• The news award goes to ThaddeusB (submissions), for 10 in the news items in round 3.
• The picture award goes to Grandiose (submissions), for two featured pictures in round 2.
• The reviewer award goes to both Ruby2010 (submissions) (14 reviews in round 1) and Grandiose (submissions) (14 reviews in round 3).
• Finally, for achieving an incredible bonus point total in the final round, and for bringing the top-importance article frog to featured status, a biostar has been awarded to Cwmhiraeth (submissions).

Awards will be handed out in the coming days; please bear with us! This year's competition also saw fantastic contributions in all rounds, from newer Wikipedians contributing their first good or featured articles, right up to highly experienced Wikipedians chasing high scores and contributing to topics outside of their usual comfort zones. It would be impossible to name all of the participants who have achieved things to be proud of, but well done to all of you, and thanks! Wikipedia has certainly benefited from the work of this year's WikiCup participants.

Next year's WikiCup will begin in January. Currently, discussions and polls are open, and all contributions are welcome. You can also sign up for next year's competition. There will be no further newsletters this year, although brief notes may be sent out in December to remind everyone about the upcoming competition. It's been a pleasure to work with you all, and we hope to see you all in January! J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

"at least"

Ckatz, the statement that "the Solar System also contains at least five dwarf planets" is ludicrous. The IAU reference we use for that claim says there may be dozens to over a hundred. "At least five" implies the established lower bound is five, which is not what our refs say. It seriously misrepresents our knowledge of the Solar system. — kwami (talk) 00:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Theatre

Sorry, I didn't know about the earlier reverts. Please see Talk:Theatre. Please take a look at the links I've put up and comment. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

And let me know what I am doing more than asking oponents for arguments?

Dear Ckatz, I ask all time for arguments, see my talk page and giving the arguments, see my entrances in the article discussin pagers. The only arguments which I got is "WE DO NOT GIVE YOU CONSENSUS" Be clear cosensus is only a result of dispute and both sides arguments should given (paralery) in article if consensus can not be reach. But arguments - i.e. sorces of facts not dilikes. This is what I do. Let me dispute with the oponents in one place under you suppervission and we will see.--Burham (talk) 16:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I ask Prototime many time for arguments and give him all necessary mine. Finally, his answers are removing "technocracy" and "meritocracy” from OLIGARCHI class - I conclude he got the point "bureaucracy" would be in different class of GOVERNMENT with "technocracy" and "meritocracy” . When I finally noted it, my proposal was to put a class "Cliques". He accuses me for Editor war? Is it OK? I do not think so. I rather would argue to include all three "technocracy" , "meritocracy” and “bureaucracy” in OLIGARCHY, but I met his demands in middle point. Now it seems the most important for Prototime is NOT TO INCLUDE “bureaucracy” as form of governments – which is totally wrong. I repeat TOTALLY – please read my whole research result at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Forms_of_government#Bureaucracy Midele point for Prototime is also EDITOR WAR, unbilivable. Regards,--Burham (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Also see my last conversation with Jim1138 on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Burham#Request_for_comments and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jim1138#Your_info_not_in_the_lead._Why.3F Is Jim1138 serious serious person? --Burham (talk) 18:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Attention Silesia

I would like to put your attention to activity of users: Rsloch, Dominus Vobisdu on article Silesia. 1) I returned table in 'lead' which was existing long time before on the Article. 2) The above users systematically erased it saying the table cannot be in lead 3) Following some other more experienced user the table was moved out of lead, although no rules against such table in lead exists 4) The two above editors opposed any way 4) They were asked for merit of their action or mistakes in table and they provided ZERO. Who is making the editor war and how stop such obstinate individuals to erase something which has solid source and informative value - it only does not fulfill their POV (I would say nationalistic propaganda view) I am not against subjective point of view until it is clearly indicating source of the information. However they pretend they have monopole for the edition as they like. Regards,--Silesia1 (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

"Minor edits" tag

Hi Ckatz,

I'll say the same thing here I said to kwami. You've used the minor edit tag for reverts as part of an edit war on Solar System (most recently here). Whatever the merits of the dispute, this is clearly inappropriate and should stop.

—Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 23:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The comment is appreciated. However, please note that with respect to my edits, the minor tag is not being placed intentionally. There are certain reverse edits that - whether commented or not - seem to automatically trigger that tag, and I have not been able to identify the combination or script that causes it in order to disable it. Often, I'm not actually aware when this bug occurs unless someone points it out, although I will try to look for it in my contributions list in the future to double-check. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

That's an odd bug. Thanks for the clarification. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 00:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for catching it, as I've had issues with that for quite some time. I've accumulated quite a number of different script and tools over the years, and never really seem to get the time to look through my .js pages to figure it out. I'd thought it had gone away but it appears that you found one. (This is of course separate from the Kwami problem; the back-and-forth is regrettable on my part but I find that the frustration of trying to deal with him across multiple articles can lead to one getting caught up before one realizes it.) Thanks again. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Ckatz, how do YOU decide ...

what is "trim trivia/fancruft"? is there a class for that?

i just watched a lot of 'The Time Tunnel' (TV) DVDs, for the first time in 40+ years, and made a few additions/edits to that page. you deleted a lot of a previously existing portions (incl some of my stuff) as 'speculation/cruft/trivia', which is what ALL knowledge is, depending on one's perspective, and, pun intended, what the 'time' is.

the content of the pre-extant article provided the reader a 'feeling' for the show's production style and settings. that way, it is NOT just rote regurgitation of IMDb stuff or what a regular encyclopedia would 'do'.

( btw, i love that Wiki Film 'disclaims' IMDb as a reference, still every film article has links to IMDb ).

the noted observations are (or were) 'clearly obvious' to a reasonably intelligent viewer upon WATCHING the show, hardly speculation. since the reader may NOT have seen the show beforehand, for an article LIKE THIS, with detailed plot 'summaries', just what exactly is trivial?

your edits seem highly subjective, but/and i now understand the fiefdoms Wiki Power Users love to control.

or maybe the storage of an 'extra' 3,000 bytes costs too much ? i've noticed the ongoing 'pitch' for funds ...

```` anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.243.103.34 (talk) 10:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

State Debt Items

Hi Ckatz,

Thanks for all your work keeping Wiki a reliable reference source.

Curious to know the background on removing the state debt data in the states that I added it to — KY, IL, HI, NJ & CN.

My logic was that if each state "economy" section reports the gross state product, per-capita income, and unemployment rate, the states' taxpayer debt is just as valuable. The comment you posed "rm - is the individual making this designation notable enough to warrant coverage internationally?". Is that note in reference to Institute for Truth in Accounting not being big enough to reference? I came across IFTA data after seeing it used in a few different articles from reliable papers.... The Chicago Sun Times, New York Times, Forbes, etc.

Is it better to list those publications as sources (or reference them both in the article?) When citing, I figured it would be more appropriate to list the original source, not the reporting source.

What are your thoughts? -Cheers StickerMug (talk) 16:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Let me know your thoughts on the inclusion of these statistics. I'd rather not add them in again without your input only to have them removed again. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky#Economy)

-Regards, StickerMug (talk) 20:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

How I Met Your Mother

There is a discussion underway about "Websites", a section that you removed from How I Met Your Mother. The discussion may be found here. Your participation in this discussion is encouraged. Thank you. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Hollywood North

Any advice about the order of Hollywood North, or should I simply drop it? Mkdw<sup>talk</sup> 21:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 starting soon

Hi there; you're receiving this message because you have previously shown interest in the WikiCup. This is just to remind you that the 2013 WikiCup will be starting on 1 January, and that signups will remain open throughout January. Old and new Wikipedians and WikiCup participants are warmly invited to take part in this year's competition. (Though, as a note to the more experienced participants, there have been a few small rules changes in the last few months.) If you have already signed up, let this be a reminder; you will receive a message with your submissions' page soon. Please direct any questions to the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! J Milburn 19:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ckatz. You have new messages at Talk:Earth#Changing "Moon" section to "Moon, asteroids, and artificial satellites".
You can remove this notice at any time.

--Pine<sup>✉</sup> 09:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I noted that you commented on my trying to put information on Cinema 16 and Amos Vogel in Wikipedia. "Beyond my ken" has blocked me, I believe. I told him that my doctoral dissertation is an important contribution to Wikepedia. It is the most complete source of information in the world on Amos Vogel and Cinema 16. This is what Wikipedia users will not have access to. Thought you might want to know

• Dobi, Stephen J., Cinema 16: America's Largest Film Society. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. New York University, 1984.

Contents: Introduction; The Formative Years; Something for Everyone; The Art of the Film; Conclusion. Appendices: Arthur Knight on the Experimental Film; Film Courses at New York University; Film Courses at The New School; The Children's Cinema; Films Shown at George Eastman House; The Robert J. Flaherty Awards; The Creative Film Foundation Awards; Organizational & Institutional Renters; Index of Filmmakers (Alphabetical and also Premieres); Index of Films (Alphabetical List, Features Premiered by Cinema 16, Shorts Premiered by Cinema 16, Films "re-introduced" by Cinema 16; Speakers at Cinema 16 events.

Abstract: This study examines the sixteen year history (1947-1963) of this unique film society. It looks at its beginnings, goals, motives, biases and method of operation. It examines how the organization saw its role in film art and commerce; how it defined the job it set out to do, and how it accomplished that job.

It examines in detail the many projects Cinema 16 created for its membership of over 7,000 cineastes. These included Regular Programs, Special Events, Film Appreciation Courses, The Children's Cinema, excursions to George Eastman House, Robert J. Flaherty Awards, Creative Film Awards, program notes, and its major contribution to American Avant-garde film exhibition and distribution. Cinema 16 introduced to America the works of Lindsay Anderson, Kenneth Anger, Michelangelo Antonioni, Stan Brakhage, Robert Breer, Robert Bresson, John Cassavetes, Shirley Clarke, Bruce Conner, Carmen D'Avino, Vittorio de Sica, Ed Emshwiller, Pierre Etaix, John Hubley, Tadashi Imai, Humphrey Jennings, Gavin Lambert, Jan Lenica, Norman McLaren, Andrzej Munk, Leopoldo Torre-Nilsson, Yasujiro Ozu, Roman Polanski, Karel Reisz, Tony Richardson, Jacques Rivette, Lionel Rogosin, Arne Sucksdorff, Shiro Toyoda, Stan Vanderbeek, Agnes Varda, Herbert Vesely, among others.

In sixteen years it presented over thirteen-hundred films ranging in length from sixty seconds to features, most in premiere showings. It arranged for subtitled versions, music tracks, paying for "dupe-negatives," importation costs, customs fees, and always paying rental fees.

Cinema 16 conducted symposia and lectures on films and related topics. Personal appearances were made by Rudolf Arnheim, Joseph Burstyn, Joseph Campbell, James Card, Salvador Dali, Maya Deren, Ralph Ellison, Frances Flaherty, Richard Griffith, Nat Hentoff, Alfred Hitchcock, Stanley Kramer, Fritz Lang, Lotte Lenya, Norman McLaren, Sidney Meyers, Arthur Miller, Jean Renoir, Hans Richter, Dylan Thomas, Parker Tyler, Willard Van Dyke, King Vidor, Tennessee Williams, Archer Winsten, Robert Wise, Fred Zinneman, and others.

Its greatest contribution was to the avant-garde--all of the leading and subsequently famous names in the film avant garde of the period were premiered at Cinema 16. It helped create reputations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmdoctor1 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

To clarify: I am not an admin, and cannot "block" anyone. I have, however, asked him not to post on my talk page because of his WP:IDHT behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Further, I have pointed out to Filmdoctor1 on his talk page that if he is interested in improving the Cinema 16 article, any information in his dissertation which is properly referenced can be inserted into the article using that reference. What he can't do is cite his dissertation as a source, because it does not meet our standards for a reliable source. That Filmdoctor1 has not taken up this idea and continues instead to agitate for the use of his dissertation suggests to me that he is more interested in plugging his own work than he is in improving Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved and ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

• • Then go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
  • Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
  • Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
  • You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (Your account is now active for 1 year!).
• If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelpcengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
• Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
• Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 18:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Questia email failure: Will resend codes

Sorry for the disruption but apparently the email bot failed. We'll resend the codes this week. (note: If you were notified directly that your email preferences were not enabled, you still need to contact Ocaasi). Cheers, User:Ocaasi 21:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

"script errors"

Not errors: they were manually added and subtracted by judgement. Tony (talk) 11:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Tb to Talk:Earth

Hello, Ckatz! Three things briefly, #1: I opened a discussion at Talk:Earth#Conversion about your two reverts of my edits. #2: Aside from our present conflict, you probably don't remember, but you were the very first editor to welcome me to Wikipedia with this edit a while back. It's good to "see" you! and #3: I'm considering taking on the task of admin, and I'd like to know how you would compare being an editor to being an editor+admin. Do you find that you get bogged down in admin duties to the extent that you feel you cannot do other types of edits you like to do? Anything you can tell me about your admin experience would help a great deal. Thank you for "everything"! – Paine (Climax!)  21:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Questia email success: Codes resent

Check your email. Enjoy! Ocaasi <sup>t | c</sup> 21:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 January newsletter

Signups are now closed; we have our final 127 contestants for this year's competition. 64 contestants will make it to the next round at the end of February, but we're already seeing strong scoring compared to previous years. Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) currently leads, with 358 points. At this stage in 2012, the leader ( Grapple X (submissions)) had 342 points, while in 2011, the leader had 228 points. We also have a large number of scorers when compared with this stage in previous years. 12george1 (submissions) was the first competitor to score this year, as he was last year, with a detailed good article review. Some other firsts:

• 12george1 (submissions) was also the first to score for an article, with the good article Hurricane Gordon (2000). Again, this is a repeat of last year!
• Buggie111 (submissions) was the first to score for a did you know, with Marquis Flowers.
• Spencer (submissions) was the first to score for an in the news, with 2013 Houphouët-Boigny stampede.
• Status (submissions) was the first to score for a featured list, with list of Billboard Social 50 number-one artists.
• Adam Cuerden (submissions) was the first to score for a featured picture, with File:Thure de Thulstrup - L. Prang and Co. - Battle of Gettysburg - Restoration by Adam Cuerden.jpg.

Featured articles, portals and topics, as well as good topics, are yet to feature in the competition.

This year, the bonus points system has been reworked, with bonus points on offer for old articles prepared for did you know, and "multiplier" points reworked to become more linear. For details, please see Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. There have been some teething problems as the bot has worked its way around the new system, but issues should mostly be ironed out- please report any problems to the WikiCup talk page. Here are some participants worthy of note with regards to the bonus points:

• Ed! (submissions) was the first to score bonus points, with Portland-class cruiser, a good article.
• Hawkeye7 (submissions) has the highest overall bonus points, as well as the highest scoring article, thanks to his work on Enrico Fermi, now a good article. The biography of such a significant figure to the history of science warrants nearly five times the normal score.
• HueSatLum (submissions) claimed bonus points for René Vautier and Nicolas de Fer, articles that did not exist on the English Wikipedia at the start of the year; a first for the WikiCup. The articles were eligible for bonus points because of fact they were both covered on a number of other Wikipedias.

Also, a quick mention of The C of E (submissions), who may well have already written the oddest article of the WikiCup this year: did you know that the Fucking mayor objected to Fucking Hell on the grounds that there was no Fucking brewery? The gauntlet has been thrown down; can anyone beat it?

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Ping

Just in case you didn’t notice, I requested (further) advice on Talk:The Walking Dead (comic book)#Delete the Plot section. I also tried to make that section more manageable in the meantime. —Frungi (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Would appreciate some advice, unless ignorantly hacking away at it would be acceptable—because that, I could do. —Frungi (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 February newsletter

Round 1 is now over. The top 64 scorers have progressed to round 2, where they have been randomly split into eight pools of eight. At the end of April, the top two from each pool, as well as the 16 highest scorers from those remaining, will progress to round 3. Commiserations to those eliminated; if you're interested in still being involved in the WikiCup, able and willing reviewers will always be needed, and if you're interested in getting involved with other collaborative projects, take a look at the WikiWomen's Month discussed below.

Round 1 saw 21 competitors with over 100 points, which is fantastic; that suggests that this year's competition is going to be highly competative. Our lower scores indicate this, too: A score of 19 was required to reach round 2, which was significantly higher than the 11 points required in 2012 and 8 points required in 2011. The score needed to reach round 3 will be higher, and may depend on pool groupings. In 2011, 41 points secured a round 3 place, while in 2012, 65 was needed. Our top three scorers in round 1 were:

1. Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), primarily for an array of warship GAs.
2. Miyagawa (submissions), primarily for an array of did you knows and good articles, some of which were awarded bonus points.
3. Casliber (submissions), due in no small part to Canis Minor, a featured article awarded a total of 340 points. A joint submission with Keilana (submissions), this is the highest scoring single article yet submitted in this year's competition.

Other contributors of note include:

• Sven Manguard (submissions), whose Portal:Massachusetts is the first featured portal this year. The featured portal process is one of the less well-known featured processes, and featured portals have traditionally had little impact on WikiCup scores.
• Sasata (submissions), whose Mycena aurantiomarginata was the first featured article this year.
• Muboshgu (submissions) and Wizardman (submissions), who both claimed points for articles in the Major League Baseball tie-breakers topic, the first topic points in the competition.
• Toa Nidhiki05 (submissions), who claimed for the first full good topic with the Casting Crowns studio albums topic.

Featured topics have still played no part in this year's competition, but once again, a curious contribution has been offered by The C of E (submissions): did you know that there is a Shit Brook in Shropshire? With April Fools' Day during the next round, there will probably be a good chance of more unusual articles...

March sees the WikiWomen's History Month, a series of collaborative efforts to aid the women's history WikiProject to coincide with Women's History Month and International Women's Day. A number of WikiCup participants have already started to take part. The project has a to-do list of articles needing work on the topic of women's history. Those interested in helping out with the project can find articles in need of attention there, or, alternatively, add articles to the list. Those interested in collaborating on articles on women's history are also welcome to use the WikiCup talk page to find others willing to lend a helping hand. Another collaboration currently running is an an effort from WikiCup participants to coordinate a number of Easter-themed did you know articles. Contributions are welcome!

A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 11:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter

We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate Miyagawa (submissions) (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's Casliber (submissions) (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr ( Hawkeye7 (submissions)), on the European hare ( Cwmhiraeth (submissions)), on the constellation Circinus ( Keilana (submissions) and Casliber (submissions)) and on the Third Epistle of John ( Cerebellum (submissions)). All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Help needed for "unwatch"

Hello, Ckatz. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Tvoz/talk 06:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Srebrenica Massacre

This comment from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&action=edit&section=18 is relevant to the recent intervention at the Srebrenica Massacre article

Roscelese has misrepresented the true nature of the situation in the talkpage of the Srebrenica Massacre. There is NOT concensus on the talkpage and Roscelese knows that. Furthermore, no editor wants to use Geller's blog as a reference for anything other than showing her own opinion. Meanwhile, all editors agree that her blog is an accurate reflection of her own opinion. After misrepresenting the situation among editors on the Srebrenica Massacre talkpage, Roscelese is now taking this discussion and presenting the opinions of the editors here such as The Red Pen of Doom and claiming that there is consensus that under no circumstances should Geller's blog be used as a reference. In other words Roscelese is lying. There is not consensus here that Geller's blog should not be used under any conditions. The consensus here is that the blog can not be used as a reliable source, as The Red Pen of Doom says, "for anything than her own opinion." So how is that Roscelese can take this discussion and present it as supporting his position when it does not? And how is it that Roscelese can claim consensus on the Srebrenica Massacre talkpage when it clearly and obviously does not exist? It appears that Roscelese is working the system here. Furthermore, it would behoove Roscelese to inform all the other involved editors when he starts a discussion here. Instead, he instigated a discussion here without informing others, twisted the results of this discussion and manipulated the situation on the Srebrenica Massacre page such that his preferred edits have been locked in place. This is not what wikipedia envisioned when setting up these systems. They are not meant to be gamed but rather assist good faith discussion, something Roscelese has avoided constantly misrepresenting other editors both here and on the Srebrenica Massacre talkpage. What is not clear is what his actual agenda is and why he is objecting to an example of opposition to the description of genocide being given in a section titled Opposition to the description genocide. Two reliable sources -- The Guardian and the Southern Poverty Law Center -- have been cited showing that her opinion is notable whiel her own blog has been used solely for the purpose of showing her opinion, something most editors here have explicitly approved. What is going on here? Fairview360

≃ ∋ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.119.88.34 (talk) 02:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 April newsletter

We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with Sven Manguard (submissions) claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and Cwmhiraeth (submissions) claiming for a did you know of sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place Casliber (submissions) and second place Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.

The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.

A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 16:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 June newsletter

We are down to our final 16: the 2013 semi-finals are upon us. A score of 321 was required to survive round 3, further cementing this as the most competitive WikiCup yet; round 3 was survived in 2012 with 243 points, in 2011 with 76 points and in 2010 with 250 points. The change may in part be to do with the fact that more articles are now awarded bonus points, in addition to more competitive play. Reaching the final has, in the past, required 573 points (2012, a 135% increase on the score needed to reach round 4), 150 points (2011, a 97% increase) and 417 points (2010, a 72% increase). This round has seen over a third of participants claiming points for featured articles (with seven users claiming for multiple featured articles) and most users have also gained bonus points. However, the majority of points continue to come from good articles, followed by did you know articles. In this round, every content type was utilised by at least one user, proving that the WikiCup brings together content contributors from all corners of the project.

Round 3 saw a number of contributions of note. Figureskatingfan (submissions) claimed the first featured topic points in this year's competition for her excellent work on topics related to Maya Angelou, the noted American author and poet. We have also continued to see high-importance articles improved as part of the competition: Ealdgyth (submissions) was awarded a thoroughly well-earned 560 points for her featured article Middle Ages and 102 points for her good article Battle of Hastings. Good articles James Chadwick and Stanislaw Ulam netted Hawkeye7 (submissions) 102 and 72 points respectively, while 72 points were awarded to Piotrus (submissions) for each of Władysław Sikorski and Emilia Plater, both recently promoted to good article status. Collaborative efforts between WikiCup participants have continued, with, for example, Casliber (submissions) and Sasata (submissions) being awarded 180 points each for their featured article on Boletus luridus.

A rules reminder: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on the 29/30 June, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. We are currently seeing concern about the amount of time people have to wait for reviews, especially at GAC- if you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 10:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)