User talk:Samaritan/2006

CHNO-FM
I own radio edits, do I? Who knew? ;-)

And, for the record, I couldn't have made the edit, as I had no way of knowing that the format change had even happened, what with being in Toronto 362 days out of the year and all (and even the three days that I am in the Sludge, I don't exactly spend my time listening to the radio. Mostly I just drink beer and watch DVDs.)

And where have you been all this time? Okay, other than electioneering, I mean? Bearcat 17:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Radio edit of the day
So I've gone to the trouble of creating subcategories Category:Radio stations in Ontario down by region. Since I'm not convinced that too many Ontario markets beyond the Big Smoke and the Nation's Crapital really merit their own dedicated radio categories, I did it by region: Western, Eastern, Northwestern, Northeastern, Central...and "Hamilton-Niagara" (since it never is quite clear how to file those; there actually are enough stations to do that.)

But I'm left with one outstanding mystery so far: would you file CKNS-FM in Western or Niagara? Bearcat 10:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Rob Davis change
Thanks for catching this -- it was a clumsy mistake on my part, not a deliberate POV (I'm not on the Fantino side). CJCurrie 01:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Political novels category?
Hi. You seem to be adding many works to the Category:Political novels, which is a fine idea, but that category page does not describe itself.

What makes a novel a "Political novel"? Focus on real professional politicians, like "Primary Colors"? What if it focuses on fictional politicians in real governments, like, say "The Manchurian Candidate"? Focus on real governments ... like, say, "The Iliad"? Involvement of real governments in a modern setting ... like most "Tom Clancy" or "James Bond" books? Involvement of fictional governments good enough - like "The Lord of the Rings"?

Just saying it involves "Politics" could lead to most novels qualifying. Could I ask you to please decide what your definition is, then write it on the Category page? Thanks. GRuban 17:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)



==== ...Frankly, I was just seeding the category with indisputably obvious ones (novels directly. concerned. with capital-P Politics.) and was going to wait for the consensus of the community to gel organically around where its edges should lie. So... what do you think? :) Samaritan 18:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ahem. You kind of responded on my user page (rather than my talk page), and didn't stick a colon in before the Category name, which ended up adding my user page to the category. :-P I'll take the liberty of moving your entry here (in "nowiki", so as not to return the favor). But that's a side point.


 * As to your question ... that's a good question! Let's talk it over. I propose something like "Novels focusing on politicians and the state political process.", so The Manchurian Candidate would fit, as would The Glass Key, but most spy novels or war novels wouldn't, since they focus on military or espionage. I want to add "state" so that books about political infighting in a corporation or university don't get in. (Like Barbarians at the Gate or whatever.)


 * But that would also let in The Lion in Winter, and A Man for All Seasons, unless we add the word "modern" or "democratic" or something. Are monarchs considered politicians? In short, you want books about monarchist politics in or out? Same for "The Coup" (John Updike) - does dictatorial "politics" count? GRuban 18:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Answering my own question, Politician says "In Western democracies, the term is generally restricted to those officials who attain their position through election campaigns, rather than all members of the state bureaucracy. Such a distinction is less clear in non-democratic forms of government ... the head of state is a non-political figure, such as a king", so I guess monarchs are out, but dictators are up for grabs. Anyway, what to you think of my proposed defn ? GRuban 18:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * rubs eyes* Oh, bleh! Sorry for my clumsy placement.
 * About your definition, I like, I like. In other contexts I'd lean to a wildly inclusivist "personal is political" train of thinking but, but of course, too wide a definition makes for a contentious and probably not particularly useful category.
 * I'm tempted to think novels about royalty could be a category of its own eventually anyway; if not a child of Political novels, mentioned in its category text?
 * I've gone ahead and used your proposed text for now, with pointers to some close-but-not-quite categories of novel. Feel free to mess it around as you see fit. :) Samaritan 19:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Simon and the land of sock puppets
How do you suppose we get ourselves into these situations? Bearcat 02:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

2.5 party system
Hey Sam, I haven't heard from you in a long time. I just found your e-mail. Thanks for bringing 2.5 party system to my attention. I've never heard that phrase being used seriously. I don't know what to do about it, though. Ground Zero | t 17:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Bush_Clinton_PSA.jpeg
Thanks for uploading Image:Bush_Clinton_PSA.jpeg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 14:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Prairie Giant
Okay, yeah, that too... *laff* Bearcat 00:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Article listed for deletion
Hi Samaritan,

I noticed from the Wikimedia Inclusionist page that you're an inclusionist, too, so I was wondering if you would be able to do me a huge favor and possibly place a vote here: Articles for deletion/List of ethnic slurs. I've been working on the article for months, and now they want to delete it. If you could, I would be greatly in your debt.

Best wishes,

Primetime 17:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, buddy!--Primetime 08:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Judi McLeod and user SlimVirgin
Administrator SlimVirgin is deleting paragraphs for questionable reasons. We're on the verge of a revert war. She explains little in the talk:Judi McLeod page. I made a compromise edit that incorporated many of her complaints and suggestions. I have no idea how to proceed or deal with her further. You have experience in this article and have made recent excellent edits. Can you help? Please? (sigh) Elsewhere she writes in regards to other users, James, I can only assume you are very young, because this level of immaturity is extremely unusual, and you have no idea how tiresome. --Cyberboomer 00:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Cochrane and Cochrane-Superior
I was bold and merged them. the only reason I hadn't done so before was because I hadn't noticed. Most of the text and tables were duplicated, so there was no reason to preserve separate articles. Thanks for catching this. Ground Zero | t 23:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Underground Cafe and Alternative Bookstore
You said you'd be glad to help out with copyediting this article and merging it with another article. Its AfD has been closed as no consensus, so feel free to do whatever you like with the article as you normally would. Johnleemk | Talk 14:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Stock
Thanks for the compliment. I appreciate it.Habsfannova 19:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. -- Poche1 20:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * User:Poche1 left this tag here, the first and only, twenty minutes after charging me with violating 3RR on the administrators' noticeboard. I wasn't editing at the time, or anywhere near a computer, but the moment I had seen such a warning I would have taken it seriously and in good faith. This was not a good faith warning. Samaritan 04:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. Stifle 21:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

My side of the story
'''I did something wrong three days ago. I caught myself, watched myself since, and I'm sorry.' My understanding of how 3RR is applied was mistaken around the edges, and I do'', head hanging, take responsibility for passing three reversions on the twenty fifth, two days before this notice was posted, with five reverts.

'''But I did not do most of what was alleged. I hadn't just violated 3RR, the only material reason for a block, and I hadn't made the other serious lapses alleged.''' 08:53, 25 March 2006 was not a reversion. User:Leotardo had added two new external links, and honestly and in good faith, I annotated the links in what I thought was a more helpful way. So that was five, rather than six.

More importantly, I did not violate 3RR in the second set of claimed reverts.

18:48, 26 March 2006 (with a subsequent m grammatical fix the next minute) was not a reversion.

06:45, 26 March 2006 was absolutely not in a million years a reversion. I was taking the excuse of the most minor style edit to thank User:Leotardo in the summary for his recent edits. Wikilove? I was hoping a mood of moderation and conciliation would last for all of us.

Sadly, it didn't; 07:28 and 08:13 were reversions, my first, and my only two, in over a 24 hour period. The second reverted a violation of 3RR itself, discussed here above under User:Leotardo and which resulted in Leotardo's being blocked. I see that others have identified User:Poche1 as a suspected sock-puppet of Leotardo.

The comment on the noticeboard contains two outright lies about me by Poche1. "Samaritan disputes violating 3RR, perhaps not having read Wikipedia:Three-revert rule#Detail, wherein "Reverting, in this context, applies to undoing the actions of another editor in whole or part, not necessarily taking a previous version from history and editing that."" This is a cut and paste from the comment in my administrators' notice about Leotardo. He had been warned on his talk page and in edit summaries, but disputed the charge so I thought it would only be fair to mention he contested the 3RR allegation, and why I thought his defence was mistaken.

I'm personally hurt that I'm accused of something where the accusation is cut-and-pasted from a discussion of someone else doing something else entirely. The second charge, "As well, he continues to add content which violates the NPOV," only puzzles me because I have no idea where it comes from. Nobody has ever, to the best of my knowledge, even hinted that I've violated NPOV.

Why was this a subject for the administrator's noticeboard, and a block? Three-revert rule writes that "Blocking is always preventative, not for punishment. Historical incidents are of no interest - please do not report anything other than current and ongoing problems." I make this mistake, caught myself, and stopped. To be honest, I surprised myself, and I've been very careful to watch myself since. The second set only had two reversions; it was hard for administrator to sort through because Poche1 did not link to the actual differences I made from the previous version, but the differences between my edits and a much later edit he made on the 27th.

If I was blocked for past history rather than prevention, I think I was wrongly blocked. With an allegation cut-and-pasted from something else, and the charge of violating NPOV I have never heard before, I can't help but worry that someone sees me as an adversary, and is trying to score points by getting a block. This is wrong, on principle, no matter who's involved. Samaritan 04:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Important AfD

 * The article for the G10 Group of Prestigious Canadian Universities is up for Deletion, please go and support Education related articles in Canada. This is a very important group of schools, Canada's version of the Ivy League, and it needs your support! -- pm_shef 04:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Walter Stewart
_ _ You seem to have worked on a number of bios, which is great! (And don't hesitate to add entries on LoPbN for any or all of them, if you care to). _ _ I've merged Walter Stewart (journalist) into Walter Stewart. Please don't create a Dab, nor move an article to a Dab'd title, until there are at least two entries for the Dab, each at least a stub. (Repairing this requires a history merge, which demands admin time.) _ _ A ToP Dab can IMO be created on the page of the only existing article suited to the unDab'd title, even w/ just a rd lk as target. But even if you have several topics deserving articles and all contenders for the same name, the Dab remains premature until there are at least two stubs written. _ _ If you've been creating other premature Dabs, plz let me know; if the answer is "Yes, a lot", that's sufficient, and i'll search thru your contribs rather than your having to make a list. Thanks for all your efforts. --Jerzy•t 20:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

 * Hey, I just wanted to thank you (again) for sticking up for me. I'm at the point where after these AfD's are up, I'm just going to ignore Vaughan Articles. I can't take these sockpuppets and partisan editors constantly accusing me of all this nonsense. So thanks. pm_shef 17:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)