User talk:とある白い猫/Archive/2005/05

Editing My Post
This is getting out of hand. Why are you editing my post on your poll? You actually said that you designed the internet and I have repeatedly told you not to edit my posts. Please stop now. AngryParsley 21:56, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I told you why I dont want it in my user space. Cat chi? 05:23, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

PKK
Why do you insist on adding the "timeline" when it obviously doesn't work properly yet? Stereotek 12:21, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * It works properly and perfectly. Its aligned improperly slightly. Why dont you do something else for a day come back tommorow and see what I got? Allow me to write the article. I am writing this article from scratch. I have basis for my arguments. Cat chi? 12:23, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It didn't work perfectly when I checked. I've commented it out for now. (note: not removed, commented). I have also added a section to the talk page for disputed facts. I've tried to remain not NPOV, but I have stated articles that I have come accross in my reading, I encourage you to do the same. I have I've acknowledged (and contrary to my initial intentions) that i've posted an article that contains "kurd" in the header, please note however that this article is not particularly pro-kurd or pro-pkk, at least in my estimation (especially in the context of the disputed "fact"). I urge to to remove this if you wish in the interest of keeping further references in the spirit of the original suggestion (i.e. without "kurd" or "turk"). You'll note I added a URL that suggests that the accusation of the murder of teachers is a correct accusation. Please take the time to write for the enemy. :) - FrancisTyers 03:19, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Categories on user pages
Would you mind deactivating the categories on your user pages? In particular, User:Coolcat/P142 has a number of "live" categories that result in your page appearing in lists of articles. Categories can easily be deactivated by dropping a bracket or by adding a colon in front of the word "category". Thanks, -Willmcw 09:53, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * My most sincere apologies, I wasnt paying attention to categories. Fixed. Cat chi? 11:55, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Not to worry. It's an easy mistake to make, especially when copying in an article to edit. Lots of us have done it too. Thanks for fixing it so quickly. Cheers, -Willmcw 18:18, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide
Hello Coolcat.

I have just been to the Armenian Genocide Talk Page. It is quite a long page and I have not read all of it, but I find it unusual that your comments are littered throughout. You must be very passionate about your beliefs. How did you form these beliefs? What evidence did you use? If you are very passionate that an entire nation are manking up the idea that their ancestors were murdered, raped, and tortured, then you must either have some evidence to the contrary or a personal/patriotic motive. I would be very interested to hear what you have to say. --User:Drchessman 08:53, 4 May 2005 (unsigned/uncategorised)
 * For one, no one is claiming the whole thing is fictional. I know the Turks are sensative about its classification. My words littering the article does not conflict with this. If you want to discuss the matter further notify me in my talk page. I havent suggested much just got insulted so far. Thanks. Cat chi? 15:15, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Ranks and insignia of NATO Armies
You seem to be having a little trouble with this page. Templates may not be the best route by which to build a table. Some users may be irate. I don't have a strong opinion, but I have technical skills and I can preserve the content before the use of templates falls under attack. Would you like me to help? &mdash; Xiong&#29066; talk* 01:32, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

Picture of the day
Thank you for your help on my attempt to create a "Picture of the day." I know...I didn't know what I was doing. Dbraceyrules 03:20, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
 * And thanks from me too. I normally keep these up to date, but ran out of time recently. However, POTD selections are made from the list of Featured pictures (usually in the order in which they get elected from WP:FPC). I've now replaced your selections for the next couple of days to fit in with the normal pattern. - Solipsist 06:03, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
 * What is the pattern? Cat chi? 23:10, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Well the basic guidelines are at Picture_of_the_day, with a little more on the talk page. But essentially, Pic of the Day is selected from Featured_pictures in the order in which they are promoted. To get the order, its best to check the WP:FPC archive, although it is often easier to get it from the order of pics in Featured picture thumbs.
 * However, we are not yet promoting more than 7 new FPs a week (unlike Featured Articles), so we have to reuse older pictures. To spread things out, I'm currently alternating one new, then one old. The old pics are selected in the order of an earlier Pic of the Day archive &mdash; checking that the pic hasn't been delisted in the mean time. We are currently nearing the end of Picture of the day/June 2004. -- Solipsist 07:35, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Categories at RfA
I removed the subheds because (1) they are counter to the long-established style of the page; and (2) they explode the size of the TOC and make the individuals hard to find among the visual spam. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 20:56, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Spelling
Hi! I see you created a model on commons: "Millitary Insignia". But shouldn't it be rather spelled "Military Insignia" (only one "l" at "Military")? Med 23:00, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes. Fixing. Cat chi? 23:19, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

GenericCountryStub
Hi Coolcat - just found out about these. They would be great - if not for one tiny little detail. They automatically assume that all countries have geo-stub categories. They don't - only about 1/3 of countries do, for the simple reason that for many small countries, it is easier to group countries together into one category. Because of this, if people start using your new template, a lot of stubs are going to end up uncategorised (and therefore out of reach of casual editors). Unless all countries get separate geo-stub categories (which would mean that some countries would have a category with only one or two stubs), it's probably going to cause more trouble than it's worth. Sorry, because in principle it's a good idea - it's just that reality has fallen a bit short this time! Grutness|hello? 06:07, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * If you can get me the list of countries categorised together I can create a slightly more complicated template and subtemplates to compensate for this. - there is a list at WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types, but - to be honest - I wonder whether it's worth the effort. It seems a lot of work to go to, and the result doesn't actually reduce the work that editors will be doing, or make it easier to remember what to code. What's more, there are still concerns with the servers about the use of metatemplates (which this basically is) and the use of icons such as flags on heavy-use templates (and consideriing how many US and UK stubs there are, those flags will be on a LOT of articles!). This is why the icons have disappeared from a lot of stub messages. Also, the list changes regularly and frequently when new Wikiprojects come along or when a country reaches the point where a separate category looks viable, so the new stub template would have to continually be revised and tweaked (as far as country-geo-stubs are concerned, for instance, I've recently gone through all the countries that have yet to get their own stub categories, counting how many stubs are listed for each (the result is at User:Grutness/Geo-stub tallying) - there are about four countries that could well be split off very soon, if there is enough call for it from groups associated with editing these countries). Grutness|hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]] 00:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Original Research
Coolcat, a lot of your work is appreciated in Star trek but it borders on Original Research. Adding ranks that have never appeared in the show, anda re simply based on the theories of fans, is not justifible. Your recent article on the Comparative Ranks and Insignia of Star Trek bears serious looking as to source material. Also, I had to remove your admiral insignia from Ranks and insignia of Starfleet sicne I think you'll agree the insignia you put on the page never actually appeared in Star Trek. Please take a look at what you're doing and remember the rules of "No original research". I appreciate most of your work and would ahte to see some of your articles get deleted. -Husnock 03:25, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Cat chi? 04:16, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Please visit Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek to discuss your new article. I cant stress strongly enough that an unoffical fan web page is NOT source material for an encyclopedia article. -Husnock 05:22, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It looks like the article will stay, but will need some serious revamping. Did you copy the whole thing off another site?  We also need to determine where the rank pips came from for the other races.  No hard feelings here, we just need to do whats right and keep Wiki free on conjectured articles with no sources. -Husnock 05:31, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Exterminate!
wikipedia --> wikipedia

Is there a fast way to transfer images like so? I got most of my NATO ranks at en, want to move them to commons. I knowA I can simply reupload but thats very time consuming... :( For such a transfer do you know anybody who could help? Thanks Cat chi? 17:00, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry I know nothing about media, really. User:Quadell and User:Rama are both involved in media to a certain degree and may be more help. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:05, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Terra Prime
I just started typing give me a break. Cat chi? 22:07, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that - I just saw a blank article and assumed it was a test page. My mistake.  Sheldrake 22:36, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * No problem. :) Cat chi? 22:44, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Support for FAC
Come and show your support at Featured article candidates/Ranks and Insignia of Starfleet. Thanks! -Husnock 07:18, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Rank insignia
I like what you are doing with the NATO rank pages. However, I do feel what fits nicely on one page might not suit another, and that your replacements on British Army officer rank insignia and British Army enlisted rank insignia (which I reverted) and perhaps also the U.S. Army officer rank insignia (& Enlisted) pages, were not as aesthetically pleasing (ok that's POV) but more to the point, they were not best fitted in the page layout. They were also confusing when they said there was no officer designate or student officer equivalent. There may be no distinctive insignia in each case, but, aside from OF(D) in the U.S forces. Where they obviously exist should it not read no insignia instead?. The pages in question are or should evolve into more description including prose, than the comparative pages (excellent though these are) and can present the same stored pictures in a different way to suit the article. Incidentally, I am trying to get an image of a coductor's insignia (the highest WO1 in the Brit Army). It's bascially the same but in a wreath not unlike the WO2 Quartermaser. kind regards Dainamo 23:14, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to fix inacuracies. The british ranks as they originaly appeared occuped too much space and were hard to read. The enlisted ranks looked fine, however the officer ranks had data I could not comrihend. I think a horizontal table looks better, and is more readable. You can fix any inacuracies, my data sheet regarding Of-D and Of-S is incomplete so I have no idea. instead of No equavalent you can write No insignia, which seems to work fine.
 * I'll investigate the coductor's insignia further.
 * I am not going to revert the page, I hope you may reconsider. The reason I used the NATO template is if anyone fixes something on the template it affects multiple pages. Cat chi? 19:45, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Although I don't see what was incomprehensible about the original layout, you have won me over on the point about, when necessary, only having to change just one source of data on a template to effect the changes across a number of pages. I have thereore reinserted the NATO template, but I have also re jigged the page as a whole to avoid large gaps and imbalance. Dainamo 11:43, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Starfleet Insignia
I know you did very good images at that page, and I commend you for them. However, I wish to tell you on what I am doing and why. Instead of using many little images to create the pips, I am making just one graphic for use with the rank. That will reduce the need of having many images to be used. I am doing this, since this was one of the complaints at the FAC for this article. I wanted to address the concern, and also might get that person and others on board for support of the article. I hope you are not upset at what I am doing, but I hope you understand what I am doing. Regards, Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:28, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

"To go when safe"
IMAO North Korea seems like it fits in there better but I've never been either. Thanx 68.39.174.150 07:53, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps Cat chi? 19:33, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Star Trek
Hi Coolcat. I would like to work together to push for Star Trek to be a featured article. However, I feel that the article as it stands is a mess and requires a complete rewrite. The information presented is fine, but it seems to be lacking certain information and links. Please help by contributing your opinions to Talk:Star Trek. Thanks. -- AllyUnion (talk) 22:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Gladly. Cat chi? 00:09, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Image Changes
Please stop reverting Zscouts new images on Ranks and insignia of Starfleet. Your method of pics "side by side" does not appear well on all browsers and causes spacing problems. Many people have complained about it. A single pic for each rank will solve the problem. Please g with te system and not against it. Thanks. -Husnock 02:08, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Death threat?
.           .   .       '       .     .    :  ;       : .   ;    |   _.---.._ .   |    .-"'        `;"--,    L""--..__    | .'J    |:`' - ..`""-.'  | |.       `":J   F    J:   ,-.    .|  J    J    FG)|   ;F  |     L.  `-'   .J   F '     L:        :|  J/,,   .my     |'._      :| /^_,- '  \-)     `c-.__'- .;F/ =_,;_"  F"J   - -=_,) `"--3'7'"    "-J  |  .   ' .-';,F;L,4_  "-.  `  F      ,   ' ;'/    ^-,  "-._J  .%52_._' ,-' ,     .   .-;_  `3_((  "`   .-`;  -' ,5-'  "-._      `-._ .-"    "-; //  \,     "-._          "   itz    `G    L._      `\        	      `L   J  `"-._   \        	       |    L,-"' `\   \        	       J    '     _J;   \        		L     _,-'  `\ ,-) \._,-'       `r',;=-. (f _,/'       				"'

Does this count then? -- Wegge 21:19, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Wobble

3RR violation
You have been blocked for 24 hours under the three revert rule for edits you made to Kurdistan Workers Party. If you wish to appeal please contact another administrator or the mailing list. -- Viajero | Talk 19:38, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

USS Voyager
Hello, Coolcat. I noticed you moved USS Voyager (Star Trek) to USS Voyager (NCC-74656). I personally feel that the former (Star Trek) is the better title, which is why I moved the article there from Starship Voyager last year. I propose moving it back to "(Star Trek)"; if you have any comments, please drop by the discussion page. Thanks! &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 07:20, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Also I'd appreciate your opinion at Talk:Ranks and insignia of Starfleet. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 07:38, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Your ST Images
Thank you very much for the recent images and additions to the Star Trek article. They look really good. Thanks as well for beating me to the punch in splitting up the LTJG pictures. That was on the do list plate.

I see you continue, however, to change the spacing of the rank pics and revert to your previous version of multiple pics, side by side, instead of a single pic for each rank. This has been beat to death on the discussion page and a very large number of people wanted a single picture for the ranks rather than multiple pics side by side which is your method. According to statements, it caused wraparound problems and was an issue with the browser that is used in Great Britain. ZScout fixed the problem, people then said the pictures looked better, so there really is no reason for you to keep going back to the old pictures you had. I ask you please to stop doing this. Your changes will only be reverted by ZScout, myself, and others. Thanks for your understanding. -Husnock 18:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Battle for FAC
The battle has begun again to make Starfleet ranks and insignia into a featured article. Your efforts and time are much appreciated, even if head butting has occurred every once and awhile. Your support would be most welcome! Thanks. -Husnock 18:46, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Good sir, I have put a poll on the FAC nomination page to move that entire section of debate from the person who ahd such views that the article was useless, unacademic, and non-encyclopedic. I see no reason to clutter the FAC page with such things and need support to move that entire section to teh article's talk page.  Thanks for your support! -Husnock 05:27, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Very well, sounds reasonable. Cat chi? 20:39, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

We are under havy attack at the FAC page. People have resorted to name calling again. They now propose to break up the article, get rid of the tables, and one writer is again challenging the image sources while another states he will advocate to delete the article. How low can people go? In any event, thanks for your support. -Husnock 20:43, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Military badges on Commons
Hi! I have responded on my Commons' user talk page. --Mormegil 17:59, 29 May 2005 (UTC)