User talk:Ckatz

User talk:Ckatz

Hello! Thanks for dropping by... please feel free to leave me a message below. I don't have a convention as to where I'll respond, be it here, your talk page, or the talk page of the subject we're discussing - but I'll do my best to keep things clear. Let me know if you have a preference... now, get typing! Ckatz

Archives

Page One Page Two Page Three Page Four Page Five Page Six

Frequently asked questions

• Where can I learn more about editing Wikipedia?
  • The best place to start is at the Help Desk. Other useful links include the style guide, the list of policies and guidelines, and the guide to editing. Please feel free to ask on my talk page if you have any questions.
• Why was the link I added removed from an article?
  • Typically, links are removed because they fail the external links guideline. Although many links are deleted because they were placed by spammers, links to good sites are also removed on a regular basis. This is because Wikipedia isn't a directory service; the mere fact a site exists does not mean it warrants a link.
• Why was my article deleted?
  • Pages can be deleted for many reasons; there are very specific criteria that govern the process. Please review this article for more information.
• Why was information relating to my company or organization removed?
  • This is a very common question, based on a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's purpose. This project is not a directory, forum, or search engine, and as such it is not a place for you to post advertisements about your company or your product.
• Why were my spelling changes reverted?

Wikipedia's Manual of Style recommends the use of regional varieties of English, based on the topic and the article's contribution history. Please avoid changing spellings unless they differ from the appropriate version. Most spell checking software can be configured to use British and American English; some extend this to include other varieties such as Canadian or Australian English.

Contents

Solar System

I have nominated Solar System for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

List of free software project directories

Hi Ckatz, I just found that my update to " List of free software project directories" page has been rolled back. Just wanted to check the reason for the roll back. If I have violated any guidelines, knowing that will be helpful for me in my future updates. Thanks. -Balaje Sankar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.225.196.111 (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy note

Replied at my talk page. Orderinchaos 05:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The Notability Issue

Ckatz, following your speedy deletion of almost most of the comments made about notability and the inappropriate means through which you and your colleagues deleted the references and even that independent film festival, I did a little bit of research on your wikipedia pages. Turns out there is a whole section of microbreweries listed that do not meet the notability criteria. I would like to nominate most if not all for a speedy deletion. Otherwise please explain to me and the rest of the reading public how those listings - which are nothing short of a yellow page advertising sheet - are notable?????? I will post this comment at the D'ark Night Film Festival deletion discussion page since you guys were so zealous in wiping out most of the comments that made sense out of the discussion. I will monitor your progress and in the absence of a satifactory and consistent conduct this issue may be brought forth to the attention of a major news outlet. Thanks and keep up the good work. I will keep a box of kleenex tissue ready for you in case you need it.

Contributions/75.84.21.239 (talk) 09:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete file

What do you think about the discussion at Talk:Lunar phase? Should we play it safe and put the file up for deletion? The fact that the Turkish user as gone to such lengths about this matter adds weight to his claim. It is quite plausible that the file was uploaded with the wrong license by a new user. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{WIKIPROJECT ATHLETICS NEEDS YOU!} 13:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been monitoring Commons, and it appears the file attribution has now been adjusted to allay his/her concerns. That would seem to address the issue. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

DVancouver et al.

Hi; I note your 2nd reversal of DVancouver's SPA-spam, and as you probably noticed I reverted one too. There's an increased growth in sites masquerading as legitimate tourism sites which are actually cash-generating ad-hit-based sites, no doubt with web optimization in place to bump them ahead of "official" sites and even Wikipedia pages in google and other search engines; there's another on Salmon Arm, British Columbia - didn't take that one out, as it pretends to be a webzine/online newspaper but its content is really nothing special...we've always made an exception of http://www.britishcolumbia.com as they often are the only source of information on some places and are open to being corrected...and they always play by the rules, or try to. I'm fairly certain at some recent tourism-business conference there must have been a seminar on "how to use Wikipedia to promote your business/town" as there's been an outbreak of this kind of thing lately; see the edit history at Ucluelet and talkpage comments there re User:Tourism Ucluelet. I brought this subject up, indirectly, at the Wikimedia Canada talkpage although spoke of it there in terms of "outreach' to such groups (inclusive of museums and FN govs) to teach them how to contribute properly; I see another editor at Ucluelet has taken an interesting in trimming the peacockery and brochurism, and I tried to be polite with User:Tourism Ucluelet about what's acceptable and what's not and what the MOS is and such, but they clearly haven't listened. In DVancouver's case it's a clear business agenda - especially when you see their link placed ahead off all the official ones, as if it's the most important; the Salmon Arm/Shuswap "contributor" did the same...no doubt that's part of the same course/seminar in how to use Wikipedia to promote your whatever-whatsit as it's a recurrent pattern. I'm thinking that maybe a special template be designed for COI/SPA-spam/CoC users that's both welcoming and stern, cautioning them not to use Wikipedia for purely mercenary efforts and giving links to all the relevant MOS/NOT/OWN/COI-AUTO/peacock/essay etc etc things that if they want to "use Wikipedia to promote themselves", they should do it properly so they don't make more work for less mercenary-minded contributors/editors such as yourself and myself and so many others who wind up cleaning up the garbage (over and over).....RDs and municipalities also seem to be "in on it"....and I know the Public Affairs Bureau has been actively "massaging" all kinds of articles to its own ends, though that's more political than commercial-based....Skookum1 (talk) 17:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ckatz

I see you have made numerous contributions to Wikipedia. Thank you for all your work. I appreciate Wikipedia and took on the challenge of contributing something myself. This is my first article, and I have put considerable effort into it. Generally I have supported my entries with references, where they are most needed. You have interrupted me in the midst of my edit, just as I was about to fix an error in one of my entries. While my change to the lead was significant it does not represent an error. Unless you can show me otherwise, the terminology is consistent with transit usage elsewhere, where track sharing occurs. I used other Wikipedia articles for reference. Since you didn't mention any specific issue it is not possible to go into any further detail. But before you chastise me, I recommend you discuss the issue with me, as I am certainly open to correction, if necessary. You certainly have ample experience. You refer to a serious error. If so, then this should be easy to proof. What discrepancies are you referring to? Whatever2009 (talk) 22:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The error lies in referring to the line as being two lines, and in describing it as the "third and fourth lines" in the area. All Translink information describes the Canada Line as a singular line, and it is not up to us to reinterpret it as "two lines". Furthermore, your description in the lead incorrectly gave the impression that there were two distinct lines totalling 30.2 km of track. --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of what Translink calls it there will be two lines. When people board in Vancouver they will have to pick one or the other. However, the way I put it may initially cause confusion. It will be the same when people get on the train Downtown and realize they have to wait six minutes for the train to Richmond Center, while people who transfer at Bridgeport will at most wait 3 minutes. However, the 19.2 kilometer figure is misleading too, since it suggests that the line is that long, while no line is longer than 15.7 km. An alternate possibly more appropriate description would be to say that the line is 14.5 kilometers long with a 4.7 kilometer airport spur at Bridgeport Station or alternatively a 15.7 kilometer line with 3.4 kilometer spur to Richmond.

But this would still be technically incorrect. Since most people will travel the "main"line and not the airport spur, the 14.5 kilometer length would be preferred. The airport section could be seen as a turnaround for picking up bus riders from Bridgeport. In this sense there would still be a long line and a truncated line 11.0 kilometers long. It is not the job of an encylopedia to put things the way Tranlink states things, but to put it in a way that is consistent within the encyclopedia. Anyways I may try one more edit along these lines later to see if we can come up with something we can both agree on, is correct, and that does not deviate drastically from the way the service has been introduced.

Whatever2009 (talk) 23:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Any revised wording would still have to reflect the "one line" concept, as that is how the line will be described (and though of) by the public. Translink is (in all likelihood) going to be describing runs as "Canada Line to Richmond-Brighouse" and "Canada Line to YVR-Airport", as this would mirror what they do with the other lines. I have reworked the lead to reflect the main/branch/length issues. --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ckatz. Your latest version gives a more accurate reflction of the line and contributes numbers which are not often used in the promotional literature. The more precise measurement of the track length also automatically allows some people to see that the track is now only 19.2 km rather than 19.5 as previously planned. Although the airport branch is not operated as a spur line as had been planned at some point, it is impossible to reflect that easily without appearing confusing. The issue is more than just a nomenclature issue. For example, it is possible to operate a train from the Airport to Richmond also, and this would constitute another line. However, without clear agreement on terms this could also be called a service. If line means track than we could say that two types of service operate on the Canada Line. However, in that case we would run into such terms as express service, or full-stop service along a single line. If service were introduced from Surrey City Center to Lougheed Mall, what would this be called? Millennium Line to Lougheed Mall maybe? and Millenium Line to King George? In this case it would be more elegant to simply give the line a new name to reflect its unique route. Whether we have the imagination to go beyond Surrey-Coquitlam Line, or simply give up on naming lines and just give destinations only, such as Coquitlam via New Westminster, or Surrey City via New Westminster. The former would then change to Vancouver via Lougheed mall after passing New Westminster. We could also resort to numbers such as 1,2,3, etc, like the bus. In bus terminology this would be a route, but I don't think this term is used for railways or metro. I will do some more research, and it may be possible to enhance the Line(disambiguation) entry in Wikipedia. Cheers Whatever2009 (talk) 02:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to comment to this, as this has been been going off like crazy in my watchlist. As far as I'm concerned, Ckatz is right, there is only one line with it splitting up at Bridgeport. There is no spur line. The trains alternate between YVR and Brighouse. A service does not need a unique name, although I would have liked it to be named "Canada Line" and "Airport Line". The Expo Line is eventually have a service running from Metrotown to Waterfront, it WILL not receive a new name. Even if there was a service from Surrey Central to Lougheed Centre (which is very unlikely considering there are no switches from the Skybridge to the M-line, going past Columbia wouldn't solve anything), I don't see why it should have another name because it does not have its exclusive branch.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 04:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Response to (and a question for) Ckatz

Ckatz, 2+2 = 4. Do we need multiple consensus over that fact? Srebrenica genocide was a fact. Why do we need consesus over that? Can you please elaborate? Thank you. Bosniak (talk) 04:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Unblock of Das Ansehnlisch

Hi Ckatz, thanks for the note. I've noted the past behavior and dropped him a little note about that. I see this unblock as either acknowledging a now valuable editor turning over a new leaf and positively contributing to the site....or someone shortly to use the rope they've been given to hang themselves and gain an indefinite block. I've seen it go both ways with editors with their history and will watch with interest - Peripitus (Talk) 08:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

RE: Sam Tyler

I put "or" in because I did not want to run out of text space in the edit summary box by posting the whole lot. Even though I think "hit and run" would be a better term, I am willing to leave it as it is. I have no interest in pointlessly edit warring. Thanks. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] (talk · contribs)☺ 08:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

braincomputerguy

there is nothing wrong with adding the details to the supreme court lawsuit against the RCMP in reference to non-consensual cranial wiretaps...not unless you think it's ok for the RCMP to be doing this to people? oh I know you must be a cop...well if you are a cop you will be bitchslapping the RCMP in Nanaimo of ever winning this lawsuit if you keep it up...so i'd just leave it if I were you