Jump to content

User talk:Gatoclass

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mjroots2 (talk | contribs) at 13:13, 21 February 2010 (→Bradford Scobie: Priwall). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Saturday
16
November
16:31 UTC

Please don't issue bogus "warnings"

Your “warning” was meant, I suppose, to deflect attention from your own conduct. The IP in question – which you supported – has since been blocked for deceptively hiding his/her identity to avoid scrutiny. Though it was completely obvious this was happening even before the block, you nevertheless ignored the warning signs, including the incredibly inappropriate comments the IP sock emitted on talk, comments which you refused to discuss in any way, other than to assert I was wrong to bring them up. Which is curious, isn’t it? I’m wrong to criticize the IP sock’s remarks, but you refuse to say why the IP sock’s remarks are in fact appropriate. Indeed, you kept insisting I “drop it,” which I in fact did – and then you decide to aid this process by… issuing bogus warnings to me? I won’t “warn” you back, but I will offer a piece of unsolicited advice. What you are doing now could be construed as an abuse of your sysop role – indeed, I think it’s quite clear that it is. I highly recommend that you give a serious rethink to your approach here. I’m sorry if I’ve gotten under your skin, but inappropriate threats are an unhelpful reaction. IronDuke 13:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So now it's "clear ... abuse" of my "sysop role"? You seem to have quite a fertile imagination IronDuke. However, I'm sure you won't be taking any action against me for this alleged "clear abuse", anymore than you were prepared to do more than make insinuations at the I/P page - because you know in either case you wouldn't have a leg to stand on. At this point I am not planning to take this matter further, because I am not a litigious Wikipedian and because I think everyone is entitled to a second chance - even though I'm sure you've been hanging around this project long enough by now to know better. However, I do want to make it clear that I'm not prepared to tolerate being made the subject of completely baseless and offensive insinuations - made the minute I dare venture back momentarily into the IP topic area. As you surely must realize, that is precisely the kind of WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct ARBPIA was established to prevent. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 05:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will I be "taking action" against you? Not likely. Getting an admin even admonished is very, very difficult on WP. And I'm not particularly wiki-litigious myself. That doesn't mean your behavior here has been acceptable -- it hasn't. And certainly, if it were part of a larger pattern, this incident would be a compelling bit of evidence all on its own. But, following your lead, I am prepared to give you a "second chance." And you should feel free to edit in the I-P area wherever and whenever you like -- I certainly won't be tracking those edits. But if I do encounter you engaging in the same sorts of behavior, I will once again object. If that means you then attempt to engage the cumbersome wiki-bureaucracy to silence me, you're welcome to try. That a tatcic like that shouldn't work doesn't mean it won't. Cheers. IronDuke 20:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you got cat class and you got cat style

Don't get drawn into his game Gato. Trust the intelligence of even casual readers. Your meaning was clear, and judicious, all strenuous and exasperating innuendo aside.--G-Dett (talk) 00:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, thanks :) Gatoclass (talk) 05:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYKVerified

[copied this over from my talk for the sake of keeping conversation readable]

Is there a method of adding this script to my toolbox? I'd like to try it out for a while. Gatoclass (talk) 06:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course. Just add:
importScript('User:Bawolff/DYKVerified.js');

To special:mypage/monobook.js (change monobook to vector if you use vector, or whatever skin you use). Currently its triggered to look for <span id='DYKUpdateVerified'/> and replace it with a button (if you have the script installed, it should appear here: ). If you want to add it to a link in the toolbox, just add (in addition to the importScript line): 

addOnloadHook(function () {addPortletLink('p-tb', 'javascript:DYKUpdateVerified();void%200', 'Update DYKVerified');});

Cheers, let me know what you think (the updates will appear in User:Bawolff/DYKVerified) . Bawolff (talk) 07:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've done that, looking forward to giving it a try :) Gatoclass (talk) 07:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A note

One of the plans after the Arbs moved to ban me was a second mentorship proposal where I would be restricted to article space, not allowed to post on talk pages, not allowed to revert, I could nominate DYK, GAs, and FAs but I couldn't edit in response, and that I'd have a page of admins only that I would request various things and they could either approve or veto with no discussion from me.

As Wizardman said, none of the Arbs voting to ban me thought I deserved it. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they have looked at all the evidence and I haven't. Personally I would have thought something like that a more appropriate response, I can't see what a ban will achieve, but it looks like they've made their mind up already. Gatoclass (talk) 16:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there were 7 active people really. 2 should have recused. They ignored both mentorship plans. The chat proves that they made up their minds before anything was said. The finding of facts doesn't verify a ban. You'd think they would pad it with some real problems - try to find edit warring, some real nastiness, or something. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, unlike them, I have not reviewed all the evidence. But we do seem to have swung from an arbcom that didn't do enough about problems, to one that sometimes overreacts. I tend to think that our entire dispute resolution system is too arbitrary, problems will often fester interminably with no effective action taken at all, until finally when action is taken, it's too harsh. Personally, I've often thought it would make more sense to have some sort of graded sanction system so that sanctions get progressively harsh as offences are repeated. I mean, in a real judicial system, one has set penalties for offences, not normally a situation where a judge can hand out anything from a parking ticket to a hangman's noose depending on the prevailing mood.
In your case, it seems to me that as there is a general consensus you've made a worthwhile contribution to mainspace, it would make more sense to allow you to continue to edit but to tighten up the conditions for participation elsewhere. My impression is that the main problem is that you don't know when to walk away from a dispute, so if admins were empowered to hand out short blocks or bans when you were filibustering, it would probably address 90% of the problem. I'm suprised that arbcom has decided to go further - particularly when the community itself seemed to have accepted the less draconian solution - but that's the chance one takes at RFAR. Gatoclass (talk) 16:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, take care. Though we fought over the little things, I think it was the right choose to support your adminship because you do a lot of good for DYK. :) Take care. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or, what I said before: "Support My experience with Gatoclass has proven that he is fair, neutral, and tries to go out of his way to help the project. This alone would make a good admin. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)"
- Ottava Rima (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for your review of Cyber Rights, and the kind comment. Much appreciated. :) Cheers, Cirt (talk) 18:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Balinese history

'Puputan' - try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Per_Honor_et_Gloria - thats where the comment came from SatuSuro 09:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, that's where the article came from? Okay, but the article talk page is also a legitimate place for such a query. Gatoclass (talk) 09:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is - I agree entirely - but in this case I did nothing to his text - and in the Indonesian project we are often visited by fly by editors - who dump articles (or attempts) and are never seen again - so there is a certain level of skepticism on my part in relation to expecting a reply within a reasonable amount of time, unfortunately SatuSuro 09:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am proved wrong - it has been noted and changed - I will gladly eat my own edits with vasts amount of christmas pudding on that one SatuSuro 06:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYKVerified

Currently it does not copy stuff in the section Older nominations Since i assumed they are no longer of interest (being older and all). The original version of the script did not copy the holiday section, that should be fixed now (do a hard refresh to make the script update itself). Does that account for all the missing entries? or are there more still missing? Bawolff (talk) 11:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009

Merry Christmas

A NobodyMy talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nobo, same to you :) Gatoclass (talk) 10:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Design 1105 ship

I noticed you created the Design 1013 ship article, and wondered whether you could do the same for the Design 1105 ship. I've just got as far as Empire Buffalo (ex Eglantine) in the Empire B ships and found that this ship was a Design 1105 ship. I've started a template in my sandbox, please feel free to tweak it as necessary. I'm not sure that the link to the list of US Navy auxilary ships is correct here. Mjroots (talk) 08:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little busy right now but I could probably whip one up sometime over the next few days if you can wait that long. Gatoclass (talk) 10:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I can wait. I just need the template up and running (and added to the existing linked ship's page), article can wait a few days. Mjroots (talk) 12:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean about the list of aux. ships - but I notice they are also on the Design 1013 ships template, and they were not strictly speaking auxiliary ships either. So perhaps some other list would be more appropriate. Anyhow, I guess it won't hurt to have the aux. ships list there until a more appropriate list can be found. Gatoclass (talk) 12:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a link to Skinner & Eddy would be more appropriate? Mjroots (talk) 14:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that would work, there were half a dozen companies that built 1013s. Gatoclass (talk) 14:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But only Skinner & Eddy built the 1105s? Mjroots (talk) 15:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, I forgot. I'm not really sure what the bottom link is supposed to be reserved for anyway - or even if it's required. But I was just thinking, maybe in this case it should be for a "List of USSB freighters" or something? Of course, someone would eventually have to create such a list for the link ... Gatoclass (talk) 15:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009

Did you mean this book on Marine steam engine?

Hi, you added a <ref> tag with the name sennettoram12 to Marine steam engine, but it didn't work correctly, because there was no reference in that article with this name yet. I fixed that, but I want to make sure I did it correctly. Did you mean page 12 of the book Sennett, R.; Oram, H. J. (1911). The Marine Steam Engine. ASIN B0029KWE4E.? Svick (talk) 13:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for advice

Hi Gatoclass,

I am writing to ask you for some advice about how to proceed to have the actions User:Sandstein over the last two days reviewed. I'm not sure if you have been following what has happened, but a couple of days ago, Sandstein topic-banned User:Nableezy for another two months based on this WP:AE report. As you can see by the ensuing discussion on his talk page here, seven editors have expressed their shock/disagreement/dismay regarding the decision, which came only a couple of days after Nableezy's last controversial two-month topic ban had ended. The ostensible infraction was two edits Nableezy made over a month ago to the Jonathan Cook AfD, restoring the comments of Nishidani and Nickhh, which other editors had deleted, citing their topic bans as a rationale.

Following this newest topic ban, Nableezy made a poor decision to issue a legal threat to Sandstein, so that he would block him. He was blocked indefinitely by Chillum, with said block lifted by Gwen Gale after he retracted the threat and apologized. Nableey put a retirement template on his page and stopped editing altogether after that. Until today, when he filed a sockpuppet investigation report against Lovely Day350. He was then blocked for 24 hours by Sandstein for violating his topic ban. (See User talk:Nableezy). He is now talking about coming out of retirement to protest Sandstein's actions against him.

I was wondering how best to proceed with getting a review of the entire situation. I believe Sandstein has abused his admin tools in placing the topic ban and subsequent block on Nableezy. I say this because he effectively wheel-warred a prior decision by Tznaki in which he decline to take action regarding Nableezy's edits to the Jonathan Cook AfD, in a complaint filed on that issue previously (See here.) I realize this is a long, complicated story and that you are quite busy with other things (as we all are). However, any advice you have on how best to approach this issue would be deeply appreciated.

Thanks. Tiamuttalk 18:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a draft rundown of what has happened User:Tiamut/Sandstein's ban of Nableezy. Its still missing some diffs, but you can get an idea of the general sketch. Tiamuttalk 22:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replied via email. Gatoclass (talk) 23:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply Gatoclass. FYI, Nableezy has decided to file an appeal at AE. Tiamuttalk 21:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010

My RfA

Hi Gato. I just wanted to say (a somewhat belated) thanks for your vote of confidence at my RfA. It was nice to see how many editors - from DYK and elsewhere - that I respect remembered my edits. I've been toying with the idea of getting involved there again when I have the time to dive into the guidelines and work out what's changed since I left, so maybe I'll see you around. Cheers, Olaf Davis (talk) 22:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian National Football team

Hello,

Could you please help me, Armenian users keep preventing me to add historical score, when Armenia national football team did lost in 1997, to Georgia, which was their heaviest loss next to Chile game. Big thanks.--NovaSkola (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

  • gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

DYK noms

PFH, would you mind if I asked you to quit adding noms to the DYK Suggestions page for a while? We have a ridiculous backlog, and we just don't need any extra noms right now. Gatoclass (talk) 08:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Sir. I'm not supposed to be online today, anyway.... Have fun with the backlog. Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 08:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

DYK Queue 4

Hi mate, picking on you fairly randomly and because there's no talk page in the relevant spot, but in DYK Queue 4, the first hook that's there had an alt by Art LaPella and myself that read...

...which on reflection I think reads much better than my original that's made its way into the queue, even though it omits the bit about plane damage (four bullets going harmlessly though a flying suit seems interesting enough). Ultimately up to the DYK admins but I'd suggest using the alt instead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Argh drama

So I told another editor I would back off on the AE but really wanted to respond to your last comment. It is directed towards you and not the AE so this is the best place anyways. You, being so heavily involved in the military project and as a hopefully example setting admin, should be stoked to see an editor who has spent time improving Wikipedia's coverage of military history. You are supposed to be better than throwing accusations at other editors with the responsibility you have earned (The one you made towards me was somewhat understandable and only slightly less annoying) So start acting like it.Cptnono (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) As it happens, I have refactored my initial comment, as I felt it was a tad harsh given that Juijitsuguy has only about 1,000 edits - although he has been here almost six months. I can't respond to your comments re the quality of his editing since I've only glanced at his work, but certainly I'm prepared to AGF without evidence to the contrary that he's been a worthwhile contributor. My comment at AE is only in regards to his description of himself as "uninvolved", which is clearly not accurate given his editing history. But while constructive feedback is always welcome here, the patronizing tone is not. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and in regards to my comment at AE to you, as you may have noticed, I refactored that long ago, without any prompting on your part or anyone else's. It would have been nice to get some credit for doing so, rather than a belated brickbat, but I guess that's par for the course in this topic area. Gatoclass (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually had not noticed until just now. I want to give you a hard time for being a dick in the first place but I have refactored my comments in the past as well. It happens. Your last comment at the other article was again a little off but not too bad. If you have thoughts on how to improve an article I think a different perspective is always a good thing.Cptnono (talk) 11:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think all of us tend to overreact a little from time to time, and at other times we just fail to express ourselves accurately. The important thing is to recognize when it happens and refactor when necessary. Thanks for the response. Gatoclass (talk) 12:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I am the first to be a dickhead usually so no problem with saying how you feel.Cptnono (talk) 13:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Wolverine/Wolverene

Hi Gatoclass, I did the write-up on the ship and the question bothered me too. I have checked the two primary sources (Colledge and Winfield), and there was only Wolverine. Problem was, at that time spelling was perhaps a little less rigid than today. (I am reminded of Mark Twain's (AFAIK), "It's a pretty poor mind that can't think of three or four ways to spell something.") The Wolverine/Wolverene situation is not unique. Try Sybille/Sibylle/Sibyl. And there are others. regards,Acad Ronin (talk) 23:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

Carrie Jones

Hi. Thanks for your tweaks to the Carrie Jones article. Hope you liked reading it. -- James26 (talk) 04:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, nice little read, thanks :) Gatoclass (talk) 14:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Woodson

I respect your judgment, and if that is the consensus will cheerfully abide by it. Question -- would you have the same objection to a sentence here, augmented w/a quote from the store's spokesman?--Epeefleche (talk) 13:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Re the store addition - I would have to say yes. Thus far the guy has only been charged with illegal possession, which is a very common crime, and not even convicted of anything. Should there be a list of every criminal incident involving a QuickChek store? I think it will be better to wait and see how the case against this person transpires before adding anything about the incident to the encyclopedia. Gatoclass (talk) 13:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, its a bit more than that, but that may not sway your judgment. Have you seen the article that was AfD'd? If not, its here.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand that it's not a trivial possession case, and that there is some disturbing circumstantial evidence, but ultimately it's still only a guy arrested for possession at this stage. Gatoclass (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With admitted intent to commit a violent act. With military-grade weapons the prosecutor indicates are highly unusual there (though not in Afghanistan). With the detailed map, which led to an immediate call to the Fort. With worldwide coverage (approaching 10 countries), and hundreds of news articles in just a week (you didn't have the benefits of see the refs to them at the AfD). So, there is a bit more than "just a guy arrested for possession" at this stage. No? And the hundreds of articles that mention Quickchek and Woodson together this week are more than the articles that mentioned Quickchek in all of last year.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, because all sorts of rumours can fly around in the early days of a case like this. This is an encyclopedia, we can't create articles based on speculation or presumptions about the degree of someone's guilt or innocence here. If this guy turns out to be notable in some way, there will be plenty of time to create an article about him. In the meantime, he gets the benefit of the protections inherent in WP:BLP just like anyone else. Gatoclass (talk) 15:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, not going to beat a dead horse, so this will be my last comment and I will go away and give it a think. But I'm not clear from your comment that mine was understood. Nothing I alluded to is speculation or rumour. I did not allude to his guilt or innocence. I just alluded to the facts. As they were reported in RSs. And the level of coverage of the facts (and the level of coverage relative to all other coverage mentioning the company). People aren't just notable once/if they are convicted, of course, they are notable if they attract coverage. But here we're not speaking of AfD notability, but rather whether a sentence (which could be ref'd to over 300 articles) is a reasonable one.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Facts are fine but not when they are used to jump to conclusions. It's for the prosecutors to determine what the conclusions will be, and I think we can afford to wait until they have done so. Gatoclass (talk) 15:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Martin Tupper DYK hook

Could you possibly re-review the Henry Martin Tupper DYK hook? I have provided two additional sources which directly confirm the hook and should alleviate your concerns. They sources have been added to the article directly after the sentance they support. If you need additional sources, could you let me know so I can add them? Thanks! --Jayron32 15:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 3 update

Hi Gatoclass. Would you mind taking a look at Queue 3 that I had recently moved over from the preparation area and see if had been done properly. It looks like MS had already protected a cropped image, so that should already be fine also. First Queue and all :) Thanks in advance. Calmer Waters 19:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Parma (barque)

I take it you mean the "Official Numbers and Code Letters" section by your comment. I don't see how that info can really fit into either the description or history sections. Maybe it could be renamed "Identification" and reworded? Mjroots (talk) 06:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It justs seems to me you don't need to include it in individual ship articles when it's already in the infobox. Why not just leave a link in the infobox to a small article about code numbers and letters? Then you won't have to duplicate the same information in article after article. Gatoclass (talk) 08:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which means a ref in the infobox. I thought an infobox was akin to the lede, containing a concise summary of info presented in the article. Mjroots (talk) 08:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why you need a "ref". Just a link to the words "Code Letters" in the infobox, would do the job. Gatoclass (talk) 08:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Linking to the article isn't the problem. But if I state that Parma had the Code Letters RBWN and OHQQ at different times without a ref in the infobox, how can a reader check this? Mjroots (talk) 13:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay. Well, what's wrong with that? I often put cites into the infobox. In fact, some people cite every single statistic in the infobox! I don't do that myself, but for things that aren't referred to in the article itself, I do. Gatoclass (talk) 13:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kundalini Yoga

Would like to discuss your addition of "Kundalini syndrome" to the Kundalini Yoga page. This connection is not substantiated, and also, it is a misnomer... If you had checked the Kundalini syndrome page which you cross-linked (un-referenced), you would see that it is poorly referenced, single-source article posting, that additionally has been recommended for deletion and needing professional verification. The entire existence or validation of such a 'syndrome' itself is questionable at best. Additionally, Kundalini Yoga and Kundalini syndrome are only associated because of the word "Kundalini", which is used by both names, but the meaning is different. Kundalini Syndrome only associated by a small number of non-scientific claims related to the entirety of spiritual practices, and therefore equally relates to any practice, Hatha yoga, buddism, qi gong, etc. Therefore it's not appropriate to include this reference, especially on the front page of "Kundalini Yoga", unless you aim to include this in ALL spiritual practice pages. If you look at the "Kundalini syndrome" page, it is NOT associated with "Kundalini Yoga" per se, but just "Kundalini energy". Thanks.--Fatehji (talk) 08:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally just deleting the header call for 'professional validation' of the article Kundalini syndrome just for its being "old tag" (November 2008) doesn't make sense if the article still hasn't been validated [[1]]. What should instead be deleted is the article itself. It is terribly unprofessional. At the very least, you should have just updated the date on the header tag.--Fatehji (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you have an issue with my edits, please discuss them on the article talk page where everyone can participate. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to do this, but it appears you have consistently neglected to approach changes and discussions on the talk page before taking personal action and edits.

Furthermore and as per this point, you have taken a stance which disagrees with only this article, but not the way such articles are presented in other yoga forms (see [talk page] please). Your edits constitute [Undue Weight] and demonstrate an outright act of [Content Forking], both of which are worrisome.

By including sections on the subject of "dangers" of yoga and attempting to relate yoga to a culturally-bound syndrome called "physio-kundalini energy syndrome", you are attempting to relate studies of psychiatric literature and information from writers in the fields of transpersonal psychology and near-death studies to a particular form of yoga. This is an idiosyncratic contribution and POV opinion which is not informative, and misleading to the topic of yoga as a holistic system of self-improvement (see talk page).

Please do not continue to replace this information. Third party opinion has already been established, and if you continue to take a POV stance on this further action will be taken.--Fatehji (talk) 16:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Timezone

Could you have a look at prep1, which is to go for Q4 (UTC 00:00). What do you think about presence of local hooks there (which are in a dead night for their time)? Just wanted your relaxed opinion, as I am actually not worried about those things and reshuffle only when get in a mood for that :-) As long as we are here, another question, would you agree with my planned demotion of the lead in prep2? (not an approval request, but why not discussing things sometimes). PS As it happens, I misread pm for am in queue 4 which obliterates my first question above (sorry, unfortunately, such blunders do happen with me), though it might remain as a hypothetical if prep1 were going to an UTC 00:00 zone. Materialscientist (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 2 is a pretty weak lead by the look of it, neither a good image or article, so I'm sure you won't have a problem finding a better one :) Gatoclass (talk) 01:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

Edit Assistance Please

Don't seem to be able to figure some small editing flag to place pictures correctly. Could you help? This is for the article on tuff-e-nuff (tugboat). Is there a better way to ask you questions then this page? Thanks! Cknerr (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heyo. You were correct. The link that I had to Luttwak's comment was a dead link. Apparently, JPost updated its web page. Now all links to the old format are re-directed to the current addition of the Jpost. I don't know why that is but it's unfortunate. Anyway, thanks for the heads-up. Respectfully,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problems at Kundalini yoga

Hi, Gatoclass. I've responded to your last comment at the talk page. In case you can't find it, it's buried under here inside the continuing avalanche of comments by the other editor. The jist is this: a history section is needed in the article; only the highest quality references can be used; only people who are noted in those references as particularly notable (for both good or bad) can be mentioned; if problems of propaganda or inappropriate endorsements result, than the article can be protected. It's the same approach we have used for other contentious articles on religious movements, like all the Scientology articles. Anyway, that's my opinion, for what it's worth. Cheers. — CactusWriter | needles 20:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Schloss vs grape, DYK prep area 2

Of course I am biased, but I think the picture of Schloss Johannisberg for Rheingau Musik Festival would tell a bit more than that of another grape. Please have a look - I ask you because I saw your name close by, - please let me know also whom I should address as the editor. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably you are asking me to swap the lead hook over. I'm afraid I can't agree to do that. The existing lead is a very comprehensive article and yours is less so. The only images that seem to be available for the festival hook are building hooks, and we feature lots and lots of them. Also, the images are quite small and will be smudges at 100px. So there is really no reason at all I can see for swapping the lead. Sorry, Gatoclass (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining, understand. I would like to invite you to come to a unique building with lots of music some day, also to the world heritage site Lorch and the many other locations. Information about the festival appears in articles of artists and places, work in progress. - Also: no image would fit Schloss Johannisberg vinyard better than that of a grape, smile, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a token of thanks for your attention I would like to show you a close look at the altar piece in Lorch, as I did to my praiseworthy copy-editor who "traveled" a lot to polish several German towns. Btw the logo of the Rheingau Musik Festial is a - grape! (The altar piece can be seen in the ref of Lorch, Hesse) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

FYI

I noticed your comments here and like the closing Admin who agreeded with them your logic was sound. I now see that the forum has changed, to this forum here and I feel the logic of your comments still hold true. Since you may not have been aware of this change of forum, like the other editors [2][3][4] I just wanted to give you a heads up. --Domer48'fenian' 14:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Freeman buildings

I do live in New York and close enough to the city to get there and back in a day, and I do that frequently enough, but honestly the person who could really get you this would be Dmadeo, who's photographed a lot of the NYC NRHP lists. He lives in Manhattan and getting over to Brooklyn would be a snap (ahem) for him.

If he can't do it, I can suggest other people in the city. Daniel Case (talk) 14:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City would be a better venue for finding someone to take these pictures. Anyway I've got business on Jay Street on Sunday and was already planning to snap the Crescent Athletic Club House afterwards and now I see we've got a few new Brooklyn articles (some lacking Brooklyn inlinks and categories) each having a lovely old picture that could use a new picture in addition. The eastern and central Brooklyn ones will have to wait for bicycling weather (at least, if they must wait for me) but I visit Downtown about once a month even in winter. Jim.henderson (talk) 18:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I managed to score a couple of new pictures from Flickr members last night, for the Herman Behr Mansion and Eagle Warehouse, so no need to worry about those anymore. The existing Crescent Club image I'm quite happy with, as it's an aerial shot that would probably be hard to duplicate, but I'm happy to see what you can come up with.
What I could really use is a photo of Villa Maria in Water Mill, there are virtually no images of this building on the net at all. But I guess that's a little further away from where you are. Gatoclass (talk) 02:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good going with the Flickr work. User:Americasroof is the only Wikphotographer I know who spends much time in the Hamptons, so he's the one to contact. I went there every summer until a couple years ago when family business started interfering. Surprizing that nobody got the Eagle Warehouse long ago, not even me. Further east targets are to be expected misses. One of the first things come warm weather, I'll bike along Bedford Avenue and snap up a landmarked armory and other items on the way. Tomorrow I'll be afoot in Downtown Brooklyn unless I rise early enough to bike there in time. Prime target after my morning appointment is St Ann's and Holy Trinity Church, of which we have pix but all dreadful, especially mine (the lovely 150 year old pic in the article is the wrong building). That's in the heart of the Brooklyn Heights Historic District which has a few targets that I might as well snap for comparison with pictures made by more skillful minds in the 19th century. And for the geotags. Jim.henderson (talk) 02:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: DYK: Greater Austin

Thanks for looking at the nomination. I replied to your comments on the nomination page.

--Mcorazao (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Key Largo Woodrat

Darn, I thought I was going to get away with it... Drmies (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK: Bernard-Anselme d'Abbadie de Saint-Castin

Thanks for your comments. I have addressed the issues you pointed out on the nominations page. Arctic Night 06:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now it's fixed :) Thanks for seeing through my stupidity! Arctic Night 09:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bradford Scobie

"A donut a day keeps the doctor away".

C'mon, Gatoclass, really? I have great respect for you as an editor, so I hope you're being playful and were pulling my leg with that last comment. I KNOW YOU KNOW whether it was a birthday party, a moon launch, a pie-eating contest, or a bar mitzvah is totally irrelevant. There are actually very few things one can do to make one notable. It's usually about who notes it and how. Fine, the DYK nomination has been withdrawn. Fine, the article is slightly anemic. Fine, his notability is just the minimum for inclusion. But please avoid exaggerating the article's deficiencies as if I need to be reprimanded for subordination or something. If you're not kidding me, at least a little, it's like your going out of your way to send the message that my contributions aren't wanted and I don't know that I've done anything to warrant that. --Griseum (talk) 08:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, goodness me, certainly not. All I intended to do was clarify my own position. I think we are entitled to have a good faith disagreement as to what may or may not constitute notability now and then :) Gatoclass (talk) 08:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Priwall

I've amended the article and hook at DYK in response to your comments. Mjroots2 (talk) 13:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gatoclass&oldid=345416207"