User talk:Decimal10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Milton

Thank you for your message, I edited the section because it has been in need of some gramatical fixes for some time. I also believe that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a phone book - if you would like to list the stores in a particular plaza then consider starting a new page for that plaza instead of listing them on the Milton page.

[edit] Air Transat logos

Hi, I've marked Image:Air Transat new logo4.JPG and Image:Air Transat new logo.JPG for deletion. They're redundant (and lower quality, logos shouldn't be in JPG format) copies of the existing Image:Air Transat logo.PNG logo I uploaded last December. Ouuplas 21:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Coolcaesar and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration

I have noted you as an involved party and/or commenter upon the behavior of user:Coolcaesar in the filed Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. I greatly wish that you would comment on his behavior, and add references, links, etc. supporting your particular view to the current evidence already there. Please also explain his attitude/comments/witnessed behavior with detail about your experience in dealing with him. I do greatly appreciate it, and note that your reputation is protected upon comments at arbitration, and cannot be used against you. Thanks for your Time. --Mr.Executive 08:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Hortons

Hi. If someone disagrees with one of your edits, and provides his/her reasons in the edit summary (which is common and acceptable practice), it is not appropriate to revert the subsequent edit without any explanation beyond "there is a discussion page" (and then fail to leave any comments on the discussion page). Yes, there is a discussion page, and Tim Hortons' iconic and cultural status has been the subject of lengthy discussion going back months. It would be very helpful if you have the chance to review the past discussion and could contribute. It would be great to have you on board.

As for your specific points, you asked "Do we have proof that most Canadians view Tim Hortons as a notable part of Canadian culture? ". The phrase in question made no claims as to "most" Canadians. It simply referred to "some Canadians", and you yourself acknowledged it is a Canadian symbol. Sources respecting the cultural and symbolic status on Tims are cited in the footnotes. I must say, though, I find the use of the word "notable" problematic -- I think the sentence would be better without it, and you might also find it less objectionable. --Skeezix1000 13:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I appreciate your comment you left on my user page, but Yes I do know "Tim Hortons iconic and cultural status has been the subject of lengthy discussion going back months", as I've read it. I was in a rush and had no time to add any more information to the reason for the edit. I personally don't see it as a big deal. But technically if I feel that information shouldn't be there, I can remove it as I wish as Wikipedia is 'The Free Encyclopedia' That any one can edit. I apologize from the bottom of my heart that I asked "Do we have proof that most Canadians view Tim Hortons as a notable part of Canadian culture? ". I find people are far too "nit-picky" on this website ... including yourself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Decimal10 (talk • contribs) .

Hello. Sorry for the delay in responding, but I did want to reply.

First, of course I am "nit-picky". That's the whole point of an encyclopedia -- to contain well-written, verfiable and correct information. In order to achieve that goal, we all need to be picky, not careless, with our edits. By no means is perfection required, but you should not criticize other editors who are concerned about the details that you do not think are a big deal.

Second, Wikipedia is the Free Encyclopedia, that anyone is welcome to edit. In fact, Wikipedia:Be Bold is a tremendously important guideline for editors. But if someone disagrees with one of your edits, then the applicable guideline is Wikipedia:Consensus. As stated in WP:BOLD, "editing boldly should not be confused with reverting boldly" (see also Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle). It is not as simple as "I can remove it as I wish".Skeezix1000 21:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Air Cananda

Hi. I've solved your concern about "too many pictures" in a roundabout way — most of the images are copyright violations and have been removed pending deletion. Just a friendly reminder, it helps to add your signature to talk page comments (using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date). There were three seperate comments on this subject on the Talk:Air Canada page that were not signed. If people want to respond they have to go searching through the history. Best regards Mark83 20:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I am not trying to remove any reference to the U.S. in the article. As my edit summaries indicated, I simply removed the inaccurate reference to TH being "plentiful" in the northeastern U.S. -- in Canada, TH has practically saturated the market in many regions (there is a TH outlet for approximately every 12,500 persons in Canada), but no state in the U.S. has more than 50 outlets, except New York which has under 100. TH is in the U.S., as it says many times in the article, but it is not ubiquitous the way it is in Canada. If you have a source that states that TH is plentiful in Buffalo or Detroit, then amend the sentence accordingly by all means -- but it is an exageration to extend the concentration of outlets in those two cities to the entire N.E. U.S. Perhaps if you took more time to read the edit summaries and the substance of the sentences you are editing, you would not jump to conclusions of anti-Americanism. Skeezix1000 11:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Horton's

Could you please explain to me why you view the "criticism" section of the article as belonging in a separate section of the article rather than under the "A Canadian cultural fixture" heading? I'm not disputing the inclusion of the material; I'd just like to know why you view it as necessary to revert people who move the paragraph to a different section of the article. Bearcat 16:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the subheading, as per the rationale set out on the discussion page. If you disagree, please explain why on the talk page, as per WP:Consensus. Skeezix1000 12:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright problems with Image:Yorkdale Theatre Historic.jpg

Skeezix1000 13:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright problems with Image:Yorkdale ExteriorB.jpg

Skeezix1000 13:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your vandalism of Tim Hortons

Decimal10, with all due respect, your edits to this article and your treatment of other editors continue to be disruptive, and contrary to WP:Consensus, WP:Civility and WP:Assume good faith.

You seem to be incapable of working collaboratively with other editors. You circumvent efforts by other editors to achieve consensus (see, for example, Talk:Tim Hortons#Doughnuts vs. Donuts, where you obviously did not bother reading the comments of other editors, and you unilaterally made edits to the article in respect of the point in dispute). You repeatedly make the same edits to the article again and again (for example: [1], [2], [3]), without responding to the points made or the concerns raised by other editors in response to these edits, and you ignore messages left for you on your talk page in an effort to discuss the issue with you ([4]).

When you do communicate with other editors in respect of this article, you typically use inappropriate sarcasm (Talk:Tim Hortons#McDonald's Vs Tim Hortons), make unfounded and unnecessary accusations of bias (see edit summary at [5], as well asTalk:Tim Hortons#Weasel Words and User talk:Skeezix1000#Biased Tim Hortons edits.), or strangely accuse others of being too "picky" (User talk:Decimal10#Tim Hortons). Earlier today, you referred to me as a "nutcase" in your edit summary at Yorkdale Shopping Centre (see [6]) due to the fact, I suppose, that I had the temerity a couple of weeks ago to remove two of your images for copyright violation reasons (you also responded today by posting a new copyvio image, taken directly from the mall's website, and by reverting almost two weeks worth of edits, by various editors, of the Yorkdale article). In respect of your "nutcase" comment, I ask that you review Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

Even more troubling, you have used your anonymous IP address (24.36.231.48) to vandalize the article ([7]) and to make edits contrary to WP:Point (see [8], [9], [10], all of which seem related to your belief that the article is "Anti-American"). It also appears from the comments left at User talk:24.36.231.48 that you have also vandalized other articles. At one point, you even staged a fake (and bizarre) edit war between yourself and your own IP address over at the Windsor, Ontario article (see [11]), and on that occasion you called the Canadian editors of the article ignorant and biased. It is clear that 24.36.231.48 is your IP address, as you have indicated that it is on past occasions ([12] and [13]) (not to mention that your edit history is very similar to 24.36.231.48's edit history).

Please stop vandalising this article. I am happy to discuss your concerns and your issues on the article talk page, as are other editors. If you persist in the behaviour described above, however, I will report you for vandalism, and you may be blocked. Skeezix1000 17:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I am well aware that you left a discussion on the article talk page in respect of "doughnut vs. donut". What was inappropriate was that you attempted to circumvent an ongoing attempt to achieve consensus in respect of this issue. Just because consensus has yet to be achieved, or may not be achieved, does not entitle you to ignore the ongoing discussion.

As for your other comments, I again urge you to carefully review Wikipedia:Assume good faith. You seem incapable of having a discussion with any editor who dares disagree with you without engaging in silly accusations. I am not anti-American, I am not "irritated" by Tim Hortons having American outlets (why would I possibly be irritated?), and I do not "have a hate" for your edits. I also am not a "fanatic" for Tim Hortons (I don't even drink their coffee, and ironically, I am the one who added the Rudyard Griffiths critique and the current Red Fridays source to the article). Don't you see the problem? Even now, you are spending more time making accusations and personal attacks than in actually discussing the substance of the issues. Please stop.

By the way, if another editor disagrees with you, that does not make them "biased". They simply disagree with you. Stop looking for ulterior motives, and instead engage in civil discussion and canvass the views of other editors.

In respect of the "criticism" heading, I have no problem with creating such a section -- in fact, the one time you proposed content that would be appropriate for such a section, I responded favourably (see Talk:Tim Hortons#Tim Hotons does NOT recycle?). I left the heading in place for some time, on two occasions, to give you the opportunity to respond to the discussion on the talk page or to respond to the subsequent request made on your own talk page by another editor to explain you insistence on having the heading. You never bothered to respond to either. I am happy, however, that you now appear to be willing to discuss the issue, and appear to have read some of my earlier comments, or the comments of WilyD (and I notice that Stickguy has proposed a helpful alternative). As for the new material on Red Fridays belonging in a criticism section, I don't think that I agree with you on that (it isn't ongoing criticsm, but rather a minor controversy that lasted a few hours in Pembroke, Ontario -- arguably, the information belongs higher up in the article, in the subsection on the Canadian military). However, I don't feel strongly about it, and I will happily leave the issue alone if it will put this issue to rest.

As for "researching" you, you should not be surprised when other editors investigate when you use your IP address to make inappropriate edits.

Finally, I am happy to work with you as long as you stick to the substance of the issue and engage in civil discussion with the rest of us. I generally have no problems with most of your edits (in fact, one time I took another editor to task for reverting one of your edits without having first responded to the concerns that you had earlier raised (see User talk:Sherurcij#Tim Hortons). Skeezix1000 00:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has absolutely no requirement that we use the donut spelling just because it's what Tim Hortons uses; we are not bound by corporate style preferences. Which is why a discussion was raised to determine what the consensus of editors is on the matter; you need to allow that discussion to run its course and not do end runs around Wikipedia process, especially in support of policies that Wikipedia doesn't even have. Please note that you may end up facing a 24-hour editblock if you continue to ignore proper WP procedure. Bearcat 05:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright problems with Image:Yordale 3.jpg

Skeezix1000 20:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Swissstoretoronto1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Swissstoretoronto1.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 04:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)