Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:05, 14 October 2009

User talk:Ckatz

Ckatz is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.If you have an urgent matter, it may be best to use email. I'll check in when I can, but please understand that circumstances may create a significant delay between when you post and when I am able to respond. Thanks for your patience and understanding.

Archives

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

Frequently asked questions

• Where can I learn more about editing Misplaced Pages?
  • 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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?

Misplaced Pages'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.

Hello: I have sent you two messages before this but not heard back. As you know, Wiki guidelines require editors to explore differences of editing opinion through the talk page. If there is not sufficient resolve through this method of conversation, third party opinion and conflict of interest protocols are the next step. I would appreciate hearing back from you on this matter to avoid moving to these next levels of problem solving.

I am monitoring the Salt Spring Island site and see that you have edited out a link I added and other links community members have added, but have kept others in place. Can you please share with us your rationale for keeping some sites included and others not? You are keeping commercial vested interest sites in place, so why have you deleted others? Do you have an association with those links you are keeping in place? I would like your insight so that our community website which represents a cross section of Salt Spring Islanders can be listed under external links.

I see you are very active on wikipedia so I assume you are getting my messages. Please take a moment to respond, it would be appreciated.

````slinctank, Suzanne Little, Editorial Manager, www.saltspringcommunity.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slinctank (talk • contribs) 17:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Our Prattville removal after User:AniMate created the entry

On entry 07:41, 17 September 2009, Admin Animate reworked the Prattville Wiki and added the Our Prattville link where it should be under Media. Then on 10:16 of that same day IP Address 76.73.140.26 undid his revision and stated no reason. Then on 11:57 of the same day IP address 98.89.12.105 properly undid that revision and at 13:05 Admin Baseball Bugs calls 98.89.12.105 a spammer and undoes it.

Therefore, if 98.89.12.105 did not create the entry and only undid what 76.73.140.26 undid, all of this refers back to the original poster Admin Animate as the spammer, right? I highly doubt that one of your administrators could be considered a spammer? What in the world is going on here? Please, somebody clarify this for me. Should not Animate's revision stand? Why is it being removed? He said he would do that for us and he did and we thank him for that. Now it is removed...why? Please advise.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtp1960 (talk • contribs) and associated IP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.89.12.105 (talk)

I read the guidelines

Nowhere did I find information in the external links guide that would lead me to believe that the link I published was inappropriate.

What should be linked: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Misplaced Pages article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons."

Links to be considered: "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources."

The website SkiingtheBackcountry.com is a leading source of information, resources, gear reviews, where to ski and all sorts of other stuff related to ski touring. My understanding is that it's based in Jackson Hole, but I don't even know who is behind it. It's a core site, and I was simply trying to share information, as I said before, about an activity that I love, to the people who are involved in the sport.

Is ski touring something that you care deeply about? If so, have you been to the site I was linking to? And if so, why would you care to remove it? And if you are not interested in ski touring, please leave the page alone. -MBailey

Cantinflas

Please stop removing information about Cantinflas personal life. He has relatives in Houston Texas and Miami, Florida. I would appreciate if you respect my family from removing this information from my uncle's page. Best regards, Carlo Moreno —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjmoreno79 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem lies in the fact that the material is unreferenced. You may say that it is true - and it may well be true - but Misplaced Pages requires sources that can be verified by readers. If you can provide proof from reliable, verifiable sources, then it would help in allowing the material to remain. --Ckatz<sub>spy</sub> 21:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

My word is more than facts cause that is my relative that Misplaced Pages is reporting. Like I mentioned before THE NAME AND IMAGE OF CANTINFLAS IS PROTECTED BY INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHTS LAWS, WHICH WE HAVE RIGHTS TO AND NO ONE ELSE. If you don't comply I will ask to have my relative's information deleted from this website.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjmoreno79 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Jon Gettman

Hiya. Earlier today you removed all information from the Jon Gettman article sourced by ProCon.org (without giving a reason). While it is not the best source, and I did find replacements, I would like to know why you did that, so I can avoid repeating whatever error I made in the future.

Also, one replacement source I found is Gettman's personal resume, which is especially useful as it is the only page where I have found his birth date. It is apparently hosted on a lawyer's website who has worked with Gettman. Is this a reliable source?

Thanks, Mnation2 (talk) 22:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Your attempts to hide the notable and controversial use of GMC Yukon by self-described "environmentalists"

Please stop deleting properly referenced information on the use of the GMC Yukon by self-described "environmentalist" politicians such as Congressman David Wu. Whether an individual editor likes it or not, the particular automobile model is an integral part of this developing story. Maybe you're unaware that this story is in dozens of newspapers around the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.199.178 (talk) 13:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you are the one who needs to stop your repeated efforts to add Wu-related material to articles where it does not belong. The class' of vehicle is relevant, but the make is completely irrelevant to the story, as evidenced by the news article you've linked to. (In the Times article, "SUV" is mentioned four times, in the headline and the first, third and ninth paragraphs, whereas "Yukon" is only a passing mention in paragraph seven.) Note that your terminology ("self-described "environmentalists") strongly suggests a POV on your part, one that cannot form a part of an article. --Ckatz<sub>spy</sub> 14:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You're being ridiculous. You apparently believe that no one beside me reads the news and believes the matter to be notable, which is not a reasonable assumption since I copied most of the new section from another article (David Wu) on the day I heard this on the news. The term "self-described environmentalist" is not offensive. It was the most neutral accurate term I could think of. If you believe "self-described environmentalist" in an unacceptable term, why not just replace it with a term you like better? Instead you pretend the term is "vandalism" and necessitates semiprotecting the article. The fact is that two or three or four users apparently agree that this matter is appropriate for this article and you are abusing your administrator authority by calling it "vandalism" (which it is not), refusing to explain yourself (though explicitly asked to do so), and personally semiprotecting the article despite your obvious conflict of interest.

Per , since you are apparently "the protecting admin" I'll state this explicitly to you first: Please unprotect Chevrolet Tahoe. --24.187.199.178 (talk) 19:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, I could add another 50 or 100 articles about the incident which have since been published. It's ignorant to challenge the matter's worthiness to be included. --24.187.199.178 (talk) 19:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to open discussion regarding the matter on the article's talk page. However, I would point out that you are making several presumptions in your statements that are not grounded in fact. First and foremost, please do not presume that anyone who does not embrace your perspective on the matter is trying to cover something up, or that they hold an opposing view with regards to Wu. Simply put, an article was being repeatedly changed by IPs whose edits served only to further one and the same purpose, that is to add material only tangentially related to the subject of the article. Secondly, note that no-one is "challenging the matter's worthiness to be included" in the Wu article, where it belongs. However, the focus of the controversy is not that Wu specifically drives a Yukon, but that he drives a SUV when making statements about environmental issues. The make of the SUV does not matter; for that matter, the fact he drives an SUV is irrelevant to the article about SUVs, and as such we don't add details on Wu to that article either. Beyond that, you were repeatedly adding the material despite being advised it was not appropriate to this article, a pattern that was proving disruptive to the article. Hence, semi-protection. If you can achieve consensus to add the material here, it can certainly return - but keep in mind that you would have to convince others that this abstract reference to a Yukon is more relevant than any other cultural reference to it. --Ckatz<sub>spy</sub> 21:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You're being hypocritical.

I'm the one who has been writing at the article's discussion page. You're ignoring others' request to do that.

You've accused me of "vandalism" when you and I know well that there was no vandalism. Your baseless accusations seem far worse than my innocent use of the term "self-described environmentalist".

I haven't previously accused you or anyone of a "cover up" in this controversy. The act of "hiding" connotes results rather than motives, whereas "cover up" connotes motives. Maybe you do have motives; that would explain certain things, but I'm not making that accusation. Throwing baseless accusations is a sign of intellectual dishonesty.

I'd agree that the make (GM) is of lesser importance than the model (Yukon), since GM makes many vehicles that do conform to David Wu's advocacy of what Americans should be allowed to drive. You are lyingly stating that I've argued to include the make when I believe readers benefit much more from learning the exact model. Without knowing the model, how could a reader compare its statistics with those Wu has voted for or against?

Another lie: I have not been "repeatedly adding the material". I added it the first time, and restored it once. Your accusations would be more persuasive if they weren't based on lies. --24.187.199.178 (talk) 21:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

If you have concerns, discuss them on the article's talk page, so that all editors can participate. As for your actions, I must say that your decision to go through my recent contributions and look for problems with them is an interesting course of action. It may not, however, help you in your desire to appear innocent in all of this. --Ckatz<sub>spy</sub> 21:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You're paranoid, and you're continuing to pretend that I haven't done what I already had and have done what I haven't. You're a bad admin. By the way, what is your studied alternative to the term you claim is unacceptable: "self-described environmentalist"? If you haven't come up with one by now, it's clear you "blurted" an empty excuse of a criticism. --24.187.199.178 (talk) 13:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Remote goat

Hi. I see you've been deleting lots of links to Remote Goat reviews. I'm sure that some of these deletions were justified, but I think some of them might not be. If I explain how the site works, perhaps you'd let me know whether you'd still consider them all to be spam/inappropriate links.

Remote Goat is a bit like IMDb in that any visitor to the site can create an account and post a review of an event. Unquestionably, I think such reviews should be deleted as self-published/personal reviews. However, there are also "official Remote Goat" reviews which are submitted by an official reviewer and edited by he Remote Goat staff before publication. You can tell these reviews from the personal reviews because the review says "by X for remotegoat". Compare this "official" review with this personal one .

I know remotegoat is not well known, but there are so few sites that review theatre productions, particularly fringe/amateur/local, theatre that it would be a shame to lose this resource which, for the official reviews at least, appears to me to meet the requirements for being a reliable source.

Let me know what you think. GDallimore (Talk) 09:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Article Dog Sex

Per the discussion pages at Talk:Dog sex and Talk:Canine_reproduction#Dog_Sex, it seems clear that the article Dog sex will become a disambiguation page whether you personally like it or not. You should probably not continue to embarrass yourself by blocking the inevitable and claiming imaginary "vandalism". Please unlock the article. --24.187.199.178 (talk) 17:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)