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.

Date delinking arbitration

Why are we removing another editors comments? How does WP:TPO not apply here? —Locke Cole • t • c 23:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Locke, I'm undoing your action and asking you to please stay out of it. If there is a problem either way, you are best off allowing the clerks to handle it - that is their job after all. They will either revert HWV258's actions, or remove Pmanderson's comments. I mean you no disrespect, but there really is no need for you to intervene (and it would be best given the tensions that are prevalent if you did not). --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I realise that my removal of the original comments could have been handled better. I guess I should have asked Pmanderson to voluntarily remove his comments before taking action. I'm learning too.  HWV258  23:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm failing to see the logic in this. If it's up to the clerks, then shouldn't it be up to the clerks to remove the comment in the first place? Not up to HWV258 to claim ownership over a page/section which he does not own? WP:TPO is clear as glass that removal of another editors comments is not okay except on your own talk page. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not assessing either HMV258 or Pmanderson's actions, as that is the clerk's domain. Neither am I interested in taking sides. However, in this situation, you are clearly a third party intervening where you should not. There is enough drama on the pages associated with this matter; please let the clerks do their job, without muddying the waters. --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Locke_Cole, please note from Wikipedia:TPO#Others.27_comments—Point 3: "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article...". Point 4: "Removing personal attacks and incivility...". Point 11: "If a thread has veered off its original subject...".  HWV258  23:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

NONE OF THOSE BULLET POINTS APPLIES TO REMOVAL OF COMMENTS. It explicitly says, prior to the very first bullet point, that the following items are exceptions to EDITING another editors comments, not removing them outright as you have done. And even if it DID say remove, I'd still take issue with every point you've listed: 3: we're not discussing an article, we're discussing arbitration, 4: WP:RPA failed to gain consensus and IS CONTROVERSIAL, 11: it remained on topic, the subject being your comment. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ckatz. Could I ask you to consider removing the edit made by Pmanderson (talk · contribs)? My actions that are in question ([1] and [2]) removed edits that didn't belong in my arbitrator-requested section. I then politely encouraged Pmanderson to move his edits to a more suitable location—which he did (I even politely offered to move the edits for him). Any actions I did are outside the scope of the date-delinking proposed decision as they do not relate directly to the linking or delinking or dates. If Pmanderson believes I did wrong, he should pursue action at the appropriate location. Thank you for any assistance you can provide in this matter.  HWV258  07:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel comfortable removing the proposals, given that it is an ArbCom page. However, I have left a comment stating that I feel it should be removed. Hope this helps. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand. Thanks for your input at the page though. What a mess. I can't wait to leave date-delinking issues behind so that I can get back to editing articles. Cheers.  HWV258  09:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

NewBlue page

Friendly greetings Ckatz! Thanks for watching over Wikipedia. The NewBlue page is being updated; it's not meant to be advertising but a legit wiki presence like Red Giant Software, Sony Vegas, and other digital video editor companies have. I'm going to provide citations and update the page — if you have more concerns, let's work together to make it better. Thanks graciously. --Torley (talk) 04:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Chatz. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.9.168 (talk) 01:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies

Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change. If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 15:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

My edit

Hello, I accidentally tagged the Wikipedia:Notability page with a speedy tag "G1", so I undid that real quick, and the reason it happened was I have Friendly and Twinkle activated in "my preferences" so I click one and it tagged it, and I quickly deleted the tag.--Cubs197 (talk) 21:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Oops!

I had no idea what the heck I just did, I was sorta freaking out, I'm really sorry!--Cubs197 (talk) 21:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No harm done. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Earth

Can you respond to my question here please? Thanks, CTJF83Talk 23:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Wolf426

Someone has begun discussing your edits at ANI. Thanks, weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 13:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• At this thread, you indicated annoyance with me. Fair enough, but I wanted to take a moment to explain. You have been an active editor on the article in question in this thread. What you were performing were edits that were reverting things that were not clearly vandalism. The line here is not absolutely black and white, but the issue here was a content dispute...not one of pure vandalism. Using admin tools in a content dispute of which an admin is party has resulted in administrators losing their bit before. I'm not threatening you here. I'm pointing out that this has happened. You disagreed with the edits being performed, and thought it worthy of a block. There's no problem with that. But, actually taking the action? That's very well into the grey area, and arbcom has ruled previously that it's sufficient to lose your admin bit over. It would have taken very little effort to request assistance from an uninvolved administrator.
• There's no issue with an administrator blocking a vandal from a page the administrator frequents. There is a serious issue with regards to an administrator blocking someone over content disputes on an article the administrator frequents. ArbCom has been very clear about this.
  • Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Abd_and_JzG#Use_of_administrative_tools_in_a_dispute
    • Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Abd_and_JzG#JzG_admonished (didn't lose bit, but 'admonished')
  • Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Dbachmann#Administrators:_use_of_administrative_tools_in_a_dispute
    • Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Dbachmann#Dbachmann_reminded (didn't lose bit, but 'reminded')
  • Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tango#Use_of_administrative_tools_in_a_dispute
    • Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tango#Tango_desysopped (desysopped)
  • Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar_2#Admin_actions_between_parties_barred
    • Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar_2#Summary_desysopping (essentially a final warning to the admins involved)
• Note that in all of these cases, the arbitration committee was unanimous in their support of this principle. You would be well advised to stay well away from the grey area on this issue. Taking the additional step of asking another administrator to step in takes little time and entirely avoids this problem. Further to the productive editing of the encyclopedia, having another set of eyes look at the situation is helpful.
• As to my general assertions that a casual review found other cases where you may have erred in this regard, I did find such. I felt there was enough in what I found that another set of eyes should be alerted to have a look at the record. Further, that the closing of the thread by a user needed to be undone (and it was by the same user). If need be, I can do the research to show you where this has possibly happened before, but it is not necessary to demonstrate to you that it is important to stay well clear of violating this principle of Wikipedia. I've already done that with the links above. I encourage you to seek outside input from another administrator in cases where it is not blatant vandalism (such as "this show was gay", or "i loved this show", etc). --Hammersoft (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hammersoft, I appreciate your taking the time to reply, and I have reviewed the above cases. One thing that became immediately clear is that this block is in no way whatsoever even remotely similar to the incidents you have referenced. Those cases involved editors (admins) who had been, and remained, directly involved in the articles in question. They had participated in the pages, they were content contributors, and they used their bit to their advantage. The "Wolf426" IP issue here involves the reversal of the repeated deletion of properly referenced material by a single-purpose IP editor. I had no part in the original posting of that material, I had not contributed content to the article, and I had no prior involvement with the IP. My only prior edits to the page involved a few minor style guide issues, so to say I was an "active" editor on the page or that I "frequented" the page is completely incorrect. There is no parallel here at all - as supported by the comments at the AN/I review, wherein at least two other admins have stated that my actions were appropriate given the IP's actions. I could understand your point if I had actually contributed any content to the article, or been a part of the creation process there - but I was not. Again, I appreciate your input, but we will have to agree to disagree with regards to your assertions. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• The point here is that it wasn't vandalism. Multiple people in the thread agree it was a content dispute. Some disagree. But, there's plenty enough that agree that it is obviously not a black/white issue. If it was vandalism, pure and simple, I'd be in perfect agreement with you. But, it wasn't. I'm very disappointed with your answer here. Do you not see the problem inherent in this behavior? I'm trying to keep this amicable. I really am. If you fail to understand how serious this is the behavior is going to be repeated. I'd rather not see that happen, and feel it would be necessary to follow WP:DR to make it clear this behavior is not acceptable. All you had to do was ask another administrator to be involved. It's quite simple. Would you please do so in the future so we avoid this? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Ckatz, I've toned down your title, and I did look before I leapt. Were my comments "damning"? I thought they were a model of politeness, actually, and even hedged by saying "I may be wrong". I was critical of the user on three potential counts. You may be upset, but I was certainly not damning, was I? Please give me that much.

After a few metres of text have been written at ANI on it, and you still hadn't addressed the issue (no one has), is there a protocol (stated or implied) that I should talk-page or email you first? You know that I think a lot of your writing skills and strategic talent: I've said so. And I'm not necessarily against you here—not at all—but why don't you defend yourself, on the only topic that matters [at that location]? I have to go to bed soon. I look forward to hearing from you (calmer); I certainly would like to collaborate with you, if there's ever a topic or project. I'm open to your suggestions. Tony (talk) 18:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I missed commenting at the ANI, so I would like to do so here. I'm sure Hammersoft and Tony are pursuing a noble ideal, but it is too far from reality to be taken seriously. I have followed a number of spammers and their attempts to exploit WP by adding promotional links, and I have noticed a lot of great work by Ckatz in defending WP, both in removing spam and reverting vandalism. A misguided editor (or spammer) can refuse to "get it", and can click "undo" in a few seconds. I hope administrators will be able to take suitable action without thinking "Oh, I did some incidental editing on this page, so I'd better spend five minutes writing a summary of the situation for another admin to review, then they can interrupt their work and spend five minutes reviewing the situation, before deciding that it really is a duck." Of course the community has to be alert for admins who get pushy in an edit war, but this case is far removed from any kind of abuse and I regret that Ckatz has had to expend so much energy on this nonproductive issue. If anyone wants to discuss this further, you are welcome to visit my talk page, although that would not be very satisfying because I am an extremely minor entity. Johnuniq (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Sun FAR

I have nominated Sun 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. SkyBon^{Talk\Contributions} 11:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

As The World Turns and Days of Our Lives Are Going Into the 2010s

Aren't As The World Turns and Days of Our Lives the 2010s television series? Ericthebrainiac (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The reason that I ask is because I heard that you removed the category 2010s American television series and I wanted to know why you did so. Ericthebrainiac (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem - the rationale is that we generally avoid "crystal-ball" type categories and tags. The series may be scheduled to go into the 2010s, and it probably will do that, but until it actually happens... For the same reason, we don't update episode counts until a new episode actually airs, and we list series as "present" rather than a future, scheduled end date. Hope this helps. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

My de-adminship

Thanks for the heads-up. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Doctor Who at FAR

I have nominated Doctor Who 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. Cirt (talk) 02:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello :)

I left you an attaboy here :) TungstenCarbide VIII (talk) 04:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess I spoke too soon, you dumbfuck.