Jump to content

User talk:Ckatz

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ardenn (talk | contribs) at 04:43, 25 July 2006 (→Re: your reverts to CIVI, CFPL, CKNX, CHRO, and CHWI). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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




Welcome

Hi there! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions. I hope you like it here and stick around. If you want, you can drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log to introduce yourself.

A few general tips before you start doing a lot of editing:

  • When you post something on a talk/discussion page, you can sign your name by using three tildes (" ~~~ ") for your username and four (" ~~~~ ") for your username and a timestamp.
  • Remember to provide an edit summary when editing, which I notice that you've already being doing.
  • If you ever find yourself with nothing to do on Wikipedia, have a look at the Community Portal, you'll find that there's always something happening.

If you ever have any questions, comments, or just want to say hi, don't hesitate to write to me on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can.

Happy editing and have a great day! :-) Akamad 09:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Have you had a look at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Electoral districts in Canada? Perhaps it's of interest to you. Either way, enjoy Wikipedia, and if you ever need anything, you know where to find me. - Akamad 10:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Canada

Hi there! I'd like to invite you to explore Wikimedia Canada, and create a list of people interested in forming a local chapter for our nation. A local chapter will help promote and improve the organization, within our great nation. We'd also like to encourage everyone to suggest projects for our national chapter to participate in. Hope to see you there!--DarkEvil 17:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Vancouver

Hello. I am Arnold (aka Buchanan-Hermit) and I am writing to invite you to join the newly-formed WikiProject Vancouver. It was created really recently and it's in need of new members and those who are willing to spread the word.

I'd love to see you there. :) Thanks for your time. --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK!. 03:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North Vancouver

Ok, thanks a lot for your advice in North Vancouver, in the Portuguese Wikipedia. I moved "North Vancouver" to "Cidade de North Vancouver" (City of North Vancouver), created an article about the district municipality, and left "North Vancouver" to comment in the similarities and differences between the municipalities, like here. Best wishes, Leslie Mateus 06:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gender

No, but that user shouldn't assume. It's easy to get around. Ardenn 20:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've also previously indicated I'm thinking about becoming a mason, and women can't be masons. Ardenn 20:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

Sure thing! Wikipedia:Template messages Hope this helps! Ardenn 23:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are most certainly welcome. :-) Ardenn 03:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Queen's U

I did see this but after several attempts to fix it, I failed. Ardenn 17:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

False Creek South Station/Olympic Village Station

The change to Olympic Village Station is pending a licence agreement with the IOC. I thought it would be prudent to wait until it was confirmed. No big deal. — Usgnus 00:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC) Please see Talk:Olympic Village Station. Thanks! — Usgnus 03:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quotation Marks

I didn't realize WP followed its own standard on this. Sorry about that. --Usgnus 05:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University of Alberta

  • 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. - pm_shef 01:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "My concern, however is still with the earlier issue of the comment, and what sort of impression that creates for users." I'm not sure I understand? - pm_shef 02:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moo!

You get a cowstar for being SUPERGREAT!

--217.134.237.125 19:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Stub sorting

I updated the following to allow a sort key:

--Usgnus 14:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Usgnus 16:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Your congrats

Thanks...although that was very confusing to read at first! Hehe. I wasn't sure what Ardenn was mad at me for though. I sure as hell didn't gang up on him for his "Oppose" vote (or even said anything about it, for that matter). But hey, I'm used to people hating me for no reason (even strangers on Burrard Street), so it's not too bad. :) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 06:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Deep Cove

I didn't think having the article at Deep Cove would confuse people into thinking that it was a separate entity from DNV, especially seeing that a number of articles on neighbourhoods within the City of Vancouver (eg. Yaletown, Kerrisdale) don't have the "Vancouver" disambiguation in their titles. (Admittedly the ones within Vancouver are better known around the Lower Mainland than ones on the North Shore.) I don't really mind either way, but I just think it'd be nice to have some consistency in naming. - Hinto 00:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: municipality boxes

I agree completely with the "immediate neighbours" thing. I, too, think the Vancouver one is way too crowded. Bodies of water might be important though, for cities next to, say, the Georgia Strait. It might make sense for places like West Vancouver or Richmond, both of which is heavily influenced by water bodies. Personally, I like the layout of the University Endowment Lands and Richmond, British Columbia municipality boxes. While all boxes are filled, it doesn't look too cluttered (which is a change from the Vancouver one). As for the "hop from one to another" part, I also support that idea but it might run into trouble when a city has many neighbours on one side (i.e. Burnaby's eastern neighbours are Port Moody, Coquitlam and New Westminster).

But in short, I like the style on the University Endowment Lands and Richmond articles, personally. Bodies of water shouldn't be a big deal if it influences the city significantly, I think. I'm not sure if you already did, but maybe you can post something on the WikiProject Vancouver talkpage about this too, to get more input. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 09:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just did a little experimenting: do you think something like this would work for Vancouver? :) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 09:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent North Vancouver edit

I your recent edit, you deleted a link to North Vancouver, British Columbia -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Vancouver.

I had added that link earlier as it seemed useful to include the information from that site.

Your thoughts?

Cheers, frtzw906 --Frtzw906 22:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point - take a look now. I've updated the link list at the top of the article. --Ckatz 23:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frtzw906 23:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)I like it.[reply]

School infoboxes

Eventhough the address is optional in the template, I believe in including the information when availible. I don't see how keeping the address off wikiepdia enhances safety as this is extremely public information already. There was a significant discussion about how to locate schools in the larger districts, whether we would refer to them by neighbourhood or something more local. So, The inclusion of the address is useful for other wiki editors. Wakemp 15:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :)

You reverted those "delightful" comments on talk page so quickly I had to look up the history to see them! Thanks heaps ;) - Glen TC (Stollery) 09:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: He's been blocked indefinitely now too :)

VandalProof

Have you ever thought of using VandalProof? It makes vandal fighting *so* much easier. You usually have to apply to use it but as I'm a moderator I've preapproved you. If you're interested follow the instructions below. thanks again! - Glen TC (Stollery) 10:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool... thanks for doing that. I've checked out the page before and had planned to apply to use it. No time like the present, eh? --Ckatz 19:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof!

Hi Ckatz, thank you for your interest in VandalProof. I am happy to announce that you are now one of our authorized users, so if you haven't already simply download VandalProof from our main page, install and you're all set! Template:User VandalProof

Please join the VandalProof user category by adding either: {{User VandalProof}} (this also places the user box attached) or, [[Category:Wikipedians using VandalProof|{{PAGENAME}}]] to your user page.

If you have any problems please feel free to contact me or post a message on VandalProof's talk page. Welcome to our team! - Glen TC (Stollery) 10:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of THIS? :)

-→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 04:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, looks good. You put a lot of work into it, and it shows. Some problems, though - one, we lose the diagonals, which is a fair bit of information. Two, the arrow icons invite people to click on them, which leads to the image page. This will (I think) be somewhat confusing for most readers, so you might want to consider using arrows from a character set (as opposed to Wiki images). --Ckatz 05:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I didn't make it. I spotted it while leafing through the Ottawa article. ;) Although we COULD make our own version WITH the diagonals if we wanted to... -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 05:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Well, we COULD do this (ignore the WikiFrown, hehe). -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 06:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, forgot to leave you a note re: the latest update. Take a look at your sandbox when you get a chance, and let me know what you think. --Ckatz 03:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, so far it looks pretty good. I like it. I'm going to start implementing this format to some of the articles, slowly, to see how it works out. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 18:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think crowding would be a problem, unless we go nuts like the Vancouver article. Take a peek at North Vancouver District or Burnaby. That's as crowded as I can get it now. (Note: I'm only putting the table in for some cities but not all.) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 19:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Omitting some directions kind of makes the navbox look incomplete... those blank spots are just a bit glaring. Just my opinion. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 19:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, it does look empty, but I think the answer lies in reworking the design of the box. (Also, I still want to find a way to allow the code to allow variable layouts, so that we're not limited to the eight spaces.) Again, I really don't think that filling every space is necessary, especially if we end up repeating municipalities. It just doesn't look good, and the "excess" of information makes the box more confusing. The boxes aren't really suited to recreating the functionality of a map; they're too limited for that purpose. They are most effective when used as more of a guide, sort of "if I was at the centre of x, then the centre of y is north, the centre of z is southeast, etc." (Not "part of y is north, part of y is northeast, but so are a and b" - there are exceptions, such as the City of North Vancouver being surrounded by the DNV, but those should be the exception rather than the rule.)
I liken it to the directions assigned to highways - a "north" route doesn't always head exactly north, but it's the best approximation of which way you'll be travelling. Food for thought, so let's keep this discussion going. --Ckatz 19:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay... well, I see your point too. Let's do it your way and see what happens. For the most part, it looks alright. If any problems arise, we'll deal with them when they come. :) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 03:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very kind - it's important to try and get your ideas in there too. The part that I'm least keen on is having multiple entries for the same municipality (i.e. (SW)Vancouver - (S)Vancouver - (SE)Vancouver). If we can address that issue, I wouldn't be so bothered by having, say, Surrey and Delta in the same cell. On the subject of the empty spaces (which I think can be a good feature if used appropriately), what do you think of the idea of using some colour-coding? I was thinking that we could colour the backgrounds of the individual cells with a very light green or blue (for land or water) to visually tie the cells together. I'll be playing around with the coding later tonight (here) so if you have suggestions please leave a note - colour ideas, styles, "No, Ckatz, the idea isn't worth the paper it's printed on"... (OK, maybe not the last one!) Cheers! --Ckatz 04:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm more or less siding with you here. Repeating municipalities may be stupid unless it's really needed (i.e. City of North Vancouver, which has the District of North Van on three sides). I'm not sure about the color-coding idea -- I'll have to look at it several times until I know how I feel about it. (Not that it's a bad idea or anything -- I just need to see it enough times to form an opinion.) If that goes ahead, I think simply using grayscale colors might be better. I mean, a navbox with green and red and blue would look weird. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 05:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barn + star = Barnstar

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For your continued diligence and hard work towards Greater Vancouver-related articles. :) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 03:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I appreciate that. It wasn't necessary (as I'm starting to be a bit open about it) but thanks all the same. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 07:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Surrounding municip.

Interesting format for the North Shore. So it's just adding highways that connect to the surrounding municipalities, huh... That might work.

Also, for the DNV to the northeast of Vancouver: I had to think twice about it too, but after looking at the map, I realized that only a small strip of the DNV is actually across from Vancouver, and most of it lies to its northeast instead; if you go across the Burrard Inlet from Vancouver, chances are that you'll hit CNV rather than DNV. That was my reasoning for that. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 19:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There might be a problem with the highway sign symbols, now that I look closer: those pics are fair use. I wonder if using them in the municipality box is a violation of the fair use limitations. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 19:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you for your help fixing my typos over at the new Political parties and politicians wikiproject. I hope you will consider joining. Ardenn 05:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver Wikipedians Meetup

Greetings, you're getting this spam (courtesy of Tawkerbot) because you were listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Vancouver. In short, we're trying to have a meetup and we'd appreciate it if you'd join our Yahoo Group setup to figure out a time/place that would work. You can find the group at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vancouver_wikipedians/. If you have any questions feel free to make a post there or on the WikiProject page.

Happy Editing!

Hi; see you've been editing my expansion of the New West page; I've just been fussing with the Salmonbellies article, which I didn't know they had when I added them to the New West page, so just used their own weblink in the article. Now that I know there's a New Westminster Salmonbellies article, what should I/we do with the team's external link? An external link in the sports section, or in the main External Links?Skookum1 22:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: External links- revisited

Hi,

Thanks for the note but I got burned on this once before and that is why I am changing them to 'external link'. I was told that according to the Wikipedia rules that is the way it should be and not 'external links'. I see your point and I think this is just nitpicking but on the other hand I tend to agree with the 'people in charge' that it is better if you write 'External link' if there is only One listed there. PLEASE! do not go back and change the edits I have made. If at some point some one adds another link then it can be changed to 'External links', for now I think it should just be left as is. Thanks. HeMan5 22:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9617 Grahamchapman

Thanks for creating the above article, I think it inspired C-w-l to create articles on the rest of the "Monty Python asteroids". Quite the nice set we've got now! Have a great day, — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • 08:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Email for you, please let me know when received. FT2 (Talk | email) 12:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouverinfocenter.com removal (2nd time)

I'm starting to think that one of the things the Vancouver Wikipedians might do, if we ever get around to meeting, is draft a press release to the effect that such sites are constantly "vandalizing" the Vancouver wikipage with their advertising links. I'm sure I removed this same link just the other day; so at the very least maybe we should all do a joint email to their marketing people; and/or if it persists we find a friendly reporter and blow a lid off such sites; which are not really good public resources, so much as hit-generators for ad revenues. "Gee, us? But we're just providing a public service" - like 100 other similar sites for the city, none of them any appreciably better than tourismvancouver's or any of the other non-profit pages. That they PRETEND on first viewing to be public in nature, when they're really private, is what makes them all the more irritating. But exploitation is the name of web marketing; thing is with these guys is all they need is the "hit" to generate the revenue; people don't actually have to read the sites; which replicate stuff they've stolen from other sites anyway....Skookum1 17:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vaughan Election "Controversy"

The edit that you reverted in particular is typical. The "citation" that they referenced does not mention the supposed "controversy" at all. The article discusses Wikipedia and editwars, not the controversy which ED wrote about. Secondly, the controversy itself is nonexistent. The opposing candidate (Elliott Frankl) has already contacted Vaughan Council, and he received a response which told him, in not so many words, that Councillor Shefman was doing nothing wrong, and that the contest was perfectly in line with his rights as City Councillor. I would respectfully request that you remove that content from the page, as it is irrellevant, unverifiable, and blatantly untrue. Thanks. - pm_shef 01:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Sorry you got dragged into this. - pm_shef 01:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ya I certainly agree that the Vaughan Citizen article is worthy of mention - it was just the controversies section I meant to remove. Either way, it seems to be fine now! - pm_shef 01:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be clear, the Vaughan Citizen article is not worthy of mention because of you (pm_shef). It is important because we learn that Alan Shefman has instructed his son to do damage control for him on wikipedia. ED209 03:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ckatz, you'll notice that User:ED209 as readded the "Controversies" section. In your opinion, do you feel that the addition of the section merits a {{comment2}}, {{defwarn}} or even simply a {{test}} warning? Either way, I think it would be better for someone other than me to give the user the warning... however his continued addition of blatantly POV material despite Wikipedia policy surely warrants some reprecussions. - pm_shef 03:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vaughan Election Page

This reply has been copied to ED209's talk page.
I might ask you what your reason is for persisting in this, frankly, rather pathetic edit war. You've already been taken to task by an admin for ignoring established Wiki procedure, and it was quite a scolding at that. Pm shef obviously has an agenda too, he really should clearly state his personal and professional connections to the Vaughan political process, and he's certainly not without fault in this matter. However, and this is an important point, he at least appears to be doing something on Wikipedia other than arguing endlessly about a municipal election. I mean, really, get a life already. This is an encyclopedia project with a global audience. Absolutely no-one in their right mind cares about this, unless they're from Vaughan. (I'd wager that there are probably a lot of Vaughan residents who would cringe if they knew what sort of presence their (town?city?district?) now has on the Web.) To be perfectly honest, I didn't even know where Vaughan was before I happened to stumble across this dispute, and after watching it for quite some time, I'm even less impressed. If you want to add a controversial point, take it to the talk page and hammer out a compromise. If you aren't satisfied with the results, then there are other avenues to explore in terms of expanding input into a difference of opinion. Why this article exists is beyond me -- it would make more sense to just Afd the thing and hope it goes away. --Ckatz 04:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

pls see new item on WikiProject BC sandbox

Re map standards for mountain range locator maps. Thoughts? Thx.Skookum1 17:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your reverts to CIVI, CFPL, CKNX, CHRO, and CHWI

The sale of CHUM is irrelevant to the individual stations. The only article it belongs in is perhaps the main A-Channel and CHUM articles. Ardenn 04:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will revert it, because of the above. Ardenn 04:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The other guy doesn't count. He's not registered. For all I know, he's you. Ardenn 04:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good plan. Ardenn 04:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ckatz&oldid=65693792"