User talk:BalthCat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] A welcome!

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, BalthCat, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• Your first article
• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.
  
  

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

— Dismas|^(talk) -- 06:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Hello, thank you for the welcoming message. I appreciate it very much. You are right, I haven't found the article yet (I actually haven't had a chance to look), but I deleted the comments because it was in response to the (many) previous responses, and so was pointless being there seeing as the rest of the discussion was not presant. I don't mind if you put it back up if you would like. And thank you again for the welcoming message. (Also sorry if I did something wrong, I am fairly inexperienced with wikipedia.)

[edit] Etc.

G'day, BalthCat...in response to your question on my talkpage, I suppose you could go either way with the redlink issue. The wiki page that discusses it says both "Links to non-existing pages are common. They are typically created in preparation for creating the page, and/or to encourage other people to do so" and "However, it may be better to wait with creating links until after creating the new page, especially if the new link replaces one to an existing page."

My intent in removing the "redlinks" was to indicate that no page existed for these topics. However, if you agree with the other interpretation, go ahead and restore them. Cheers, --Marysunshine 03:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jixby and Dirksen

I see that you just placed db-bio tags on the two articles refered to above. If I were you, I would watch the articles closely, as their author likes to simply remove the tags---I've placed two on each article in the last 15 minutes and he removed them all. In addition, at least one of the articles is a recreation of an article that had already been deleted. In addition, when I placed warnings on his talk page, he deleted those as well. I have reported his actions to an administrator. ---Charles 05:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Godwin's Law

Okay, I had a look at that article. So here's my question. What did you read that led you to consider I might gain some wisdom by reading it? Terryeo 03:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall the specific article discussion pages right now. All I recall was the very first comment was you suggesting that some one would wear the Nazi armband well. You lost the argument before it even began! - BalthCat 03:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I see. May I request your chronological age, please ? Terryeo 04:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It has no bearing, so why ask? ---- I took a brief look through your list of recent edits, in the hope that by looking for "visited links" in the list I could see which talk page you had christened by invoking Godwin's Law, however your extensive editing of Scientology talk pages has rendered this a task which I do not have the motivation to complete. I'm sorry I cannot point out WHICH article discussion page you called some one a Nazi in. I should have been more careful. Either way, it remains true that it's more effective to present reasonable arguments instead of relying on the lazy method of attacking opponents by comparing them to mass murderers. - BalthCat 05:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for a civil reply. I recall mentioning "nazi armband" once, some while ago. I intended to point to group think in a disparging way. I didn't intend to point toward individual action. I see what you're saying. The articles are not all well cited, as you know. One of the recent problems I've had is requesting a citation. WP:CITE spells out details of how to, WP:RS includes that any editor can simply remove information that isn't cited. It would stabilize articles if articles were better cited. The other difficulty has been editors insisting that personal website opinion should be included as a secondary source of information within articles. Those persons who have chatted for years on alt.religion.scientology (newsgroup) have, oddly enough, some tendency to A) think alike and B) control the Scientology articles and C) commonly edit toward an inaccuarate presentation of the information which comprises Scientology and D) present any controversy they can dig up. I used the "nazi armband" statement within that context. Later Terryeo 13:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

    Thinking about it, the actual comment may have been months old, I do recall it being a little dated, but I'd seen similarly severe responses from you in other Scientology articles so I still felt that addressing it was relevent. (One could keep the 'spirit' which leads to the events described by Godwin's Law but not actually trigger it specifically.) Also, your explanation still leaves what you said within the context of Godwin's Law. Without an adequately severe example of intolerance and hate to compare it to, bringing up the Nazis or Hitler is over the top.

    I admit that the part of me which feels that one day anti-Scientology dogma will some day be seen by the majority in the same light as anti-Semitism or other religious or racial prejudices, however I am dubious that Scientology will ever be a religion of great history and legacy. As an agnostic, it's hard enough for me to believe the words of men 2000 years dead, let alone one less than a century dead who wrote mediocre science fiction and even went so far as to state that (if I recall correctly) the best moneymaking venture would be to found a religion. So yes, I view Scientology with skepticism at best, though I do maintain the possibility that some of the accusations are not true. Again, when it's hard to believe the words of men thousands of years dead (and thousands of years maintained and revised) it is nigh impossible to believe the far-fetched ideas associated with Scientology (though I admit to having never read Dianetics, but that's in part because of how terrible Battlefield Earth was...) such as Xenu, Thetans, and the *way* in which Scientology opposes certain medical theories and practices. (Not to mention an anecdote from a friend, who told me that while in Edmonton, Alberta, he took a questionnaire at a Scientology site and was told that according to the results he was on drugs. He wasn't, he told the auditor so, and the auditor denied what he said. He said that even a drug test would be pointless because the questionnaire showed he was on drugs.) There's also the constant stream of Hubbard fiction being published posthumously (beating a dead horse that wasn't too lively to begin with) and the rumours that Scientology adherents run out and buy multiple copies of pro-Scientology or Scientology-associated materials.

    The 'religion' (which I have read is viewed more as a philosophy in some nations) has what I consider to be toxic behaviour throughout. Reclusive, anti-'social' behaviour abounds. Scientology's knowledge is not free, which is to me, ultimately repulsive. (The same goes for healing methods. I believe it was Reiki which is not to be taught or performed without charging a fee.) A real religion does not sue to protect its secrets; a real religion has none. A real religion does not sue to silence its critics; a real religion seeks to counsel and convince, there are no irredeemables. A real religion does not redirect critical websites to its own. What is odd, is that I believe fairly strongly that Scientology would not be in the situation it is now (generally mocked by the public and reviled by the internet) if it were not so anti-social. (Which is an odd thing, considering Scientology's take on Antisocial people.) That's not even including concepts such as "Fair Game", which is as repugnant a concept as I have ever seen and despite its repeal deserves mention because it came from the mind of the religion's author. It demonstrates character and might *never* become irrelevant in Scientology discussions. One can easily be worried that it is similar to polygamy... that despite the public condemnation it remains morally correct. Secret ostracism and persecution are more dangerous and insidious, not less... I never hear Scientology deny Xenu, only say that it's IP. I never hear Scientology debate, only respond or attack. I see it only absorb or destroy competition...

    Perhaps if Scientology came as healers, as mentors and as family, not as lawyers, dictators (of truth) and fanatics (single-mindedness), one could see it integrating into the real mainstream. I could settle on saying "Xenu isn't really that much crazier than a guy coming back from the dead." However it didn't, and it doesn't, and the longer it doesn't, the longer it will take for that stain to lift... if it ever *can* come clean. Fair Game is almost blood-stain calibre... a terrible terrible mistake.

    I'm going to end now so as not to ramble more... I'm not sure whether any of this will impress anything upon you. I'm not sure if you can respond to anything to my satisfaction. Many of the concepts associated with Scientology are so scary... dead agenting, dirt and smear tactics, suppressive persons and fair game, litigation and organisational cannibalism... all ideas and behaviours that seem so hateful at their core... that -perhaps- nothing short of a real apparent revelation and attempt at societal reconciliation could sway me away from my unease. - BalthCat 03:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Your ramble told of your education in areas that the common adherent of alt.net.scientology would be educated in. Nothing in any of what you say addresses what Scientology is, or is doing. Regards. Terryeo 18:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

However I have never read alt.net.scientology (that I recall). Despite a respectable history on the internet, I never really got into usenet. You not only ignored MY personal anecdote, but you, like Scientology, did nothing to deny its litigious nature, it's claim to "ownership" over spiritual truths or the fact that "Fair game" ever existed. You appear unwilling to do true missionary work. - BalthCat 00:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not intend to do either missionary work nor do I intend to do true missionary work. So perhaps there would be a problem, since you were, apparently seeking a true, missionary - like reply. Alas, about that I can be of no assistance to you. I understand what you have said, you have not been active in alt.net.scientology. Thankyou for saying so. It was my impression that your ramble was based on what you perceived to be addressed by Godwin's Law. Was there a personal anecdote which I didn't address? I'm like, hey, I'm perfectly willing to address any issue you raise (I think), but I'm not sure what issue you are raising. I replied about my use of "nazi armband" as I remember it. I'm not representing the Church of Scientology, I don't have their edorcement or even their permission. So what issue are you raising, there's too many there to reply to, I think. Terryeo 05:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: oftenest

No doubt that most often is now used... more often. But 50 years ago it would be regarded as sloppy. Webster's 3rd and AHD still hold on to oftener and oftenest, and so did the Oxford English Dictionary, as of 1989 (but the 2004 revision points out how "more/most often" are now more common). Anyway, the original editor (namely, thine truly) chose oftenest, so... Best, JackLumber. 19:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright. Just wanted to make sure you meant it. (Though I do question it, really, as being dated.) And really, the original editor chose "usually" :P Ciao. - BalthCat 19:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yup, but usually was too strong a word in that context---but maybe that's because I'm a real estate freak who never goes to the movies... JackLumber. 12:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colin Meloy

Howdy! I found the image during a trawl through flickr for usable photographs to add to Wikipedia. The original photograph is here, and it's of The Decemberists playing live at the 2006 Sasquatch Music Festival. Hope that helps! GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 06:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Is Flickr Creative Commons? o_O Also, your t/c thing looks a lot like the Targetted/Controlled logo for controlled non-narcotics in Canada - BalthCat 06:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, I hadn't realised that about my talk/cont. :) And yep, Flickr allows uploaders the option of either reserving all rights or choosing one of the 2.0 Creative Commons licenses. Of course, only the by- and by-sa are acceptable here, but it's easy enough to find them by using either Explore or Advanced Search. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 06:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

I edited my entry in the discussion page for "Hate (MMORPG terminology)." As a programmer, it's annoying to see someone using phrases out of context. But don't get me wrong, I'm not the "Comic Book Guy" (worst misrepresentation of computer code EVER!), but I just like to clear people up. I guess I failed at that though... Anyway, I added a few links to it so you can delve deeper into the mysteries of the MOB/mob! Enjoy!

207.207.58.100 13:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Age of Decadence

Sorry about the jargon, it's one of the first pages I actually started on my own so it's not fully formatted and all that. Will look into it. -- Solberg 00:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Solberg

Here's isometric, by the way: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isometric_projection

-- Solberg 00:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Solberg

Okay, I'm done with the editing of the page (I think). Is it all clear now? I wiki-link-ed to most of the things that could be confusing. -- Solberg 01:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Solberg

[edit] Mouth ulcer / aphthous ulcer Merger

Perhaps this article should be more appropriately titled "aphthous ulcer." I'm proposing that this page should be moved, since "mouth ulcer" is too generic a term for this condition. Andrew73 12:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

What other kinds of mouth ulcer are lacking from this article? I came here looking for 'canker sore', to be honest, not "mouth ulcer" and definitely not "aphthous ulcer", but if you can list other mouth ulcers that should be in the article, I might agree. User:BalthCat 2006.03.12

Perhaps we need both titles. 'Mouth ulcer' (UK) / 'canker sore' (US) could be an overview, with links to more specific conditions such as 'aphthous ulcer'. Most people who have an aphthous ulcer, or aphthous stomatitis, don't know that that's what it's called. --Heron 11:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

It's been a while since you placed that comment, but I have made some heavy modifications to these pages could you please input your reaction to the changes to these two pages on preferably the Mouth ulcer page or secondly the Apthous ulcer page :) thanks. I have included many "other types of ulcers" on the mouth ulcer page with multiple links/ references to aphthous ulcer(canker sores). I have had one user who thinks the changes could be contraversial. Thanks again (Bouncingmolar 07:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Oxford Dictionary

Everyone in UK, from the primary school teachers to the Parliament, any universities, BBC and another other institution considers the oxford english dictionary as the de facto authority of spelling and pronouncing english. as far as i knew the same applied through out the commonwealth (australia, new zealand, canada and the plethora of african and caribbean countries). so maybe its not the fact.

eitherway my personal position is that if one is going to speak english one better adhere to british english, where english comes from. although i appreciate that people from other countries have other ideas i still try my best to convenience them not to speak american english, which is rather crude. and whenever possible i correct american english. for example if the article is to do with any UK geographical location and it has a "trasportation" section header i always correct it to "transport", same goes for colour etc. although i never change american spellings on america related articles. as i am originaly russian (and somehow i feel that i represent all russians ;-) ) i also change any russia related article to british english.

i know some wikipedians will say that this makes wikipedia incoherent, i feel that upholding something so important as the proper english language is far more important then few annoyed yanks.

and forgive me for any spelling mistakes, i am quite the retard when it comes to those.

--Greg.loutsenko 23:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the points you made about modern languages changing with new words being passed around and grammatical rules being changed for art's sake. and i understand that there are local dilects and sounds.

you should know that OED does actually change over the years, certain words are put in (i think that 24/7 is considered a word now by OED) and certain others are dropped or the spelling changed.

still, i try my best to speak and write in british english. and i dont think saying that there are more non british english speakers is a good justification for deprecating british english. culturaly UK is very important. i think per person UK out produces north america in terms of music, theater, literary work (although not films), at least in terms of the significant works. when english is taught the prefered version is usually british english.

at the end of the day this argument is pedantic. i strongly support british english, other dont. the basis of this is just personal opinion (no matter what anyone says about english being born and raised in uk or usa being the cultural leader in modern times and so on). i try to use british english wherever i can but i think that the wikipedia rules are right when they say that ther first person to write the article gets to choose the english version they use, unless the article is about something that directly refers to a specific country. just for you reference check out this:

• [1]
• [2]

--Greg.loutsenko 12:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CHSR

I understand that...it's just that CHSR isn't unique in that regard. Almost all campus-based radio stations in Canada call themselves campus-community, actually, so the campus radio category would just become redundant if we filed all of those stations in both categories at once. Bearcat 23:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] unscientific

Hello, i saw that you changed the article "the berber people" after my edit titled "minor edit", and your argument was "this is Not a minor edit". Well, the big "Not" might be true denpeding on your defenition for the minor edits. My previous edit was changin "most sources" to "most unscientific sources" and "European Languages" to "modern European Languages". I did that because it is more accurate, since there is a difference between the modern and the ancient languages. As far as the sources are concerned, i think i corrected it to be more honest. the scientific sources didn't claim that the berbes were known as barbarians or barbarois. It is the daily sources that claim that. I agree that neither "daily sources" nor "unscientific sources" are good descreptions. What is the best descreption according to you? Thanks in advanc! Read3r 10:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You said it was a minor edit, changing something from a "source" with no qualification to "unscientific source" with a definite negative qualification is NOT a minor edit, even if it is "small" in "size". That kind of change should NOT be called minor, and should be justified with a source, and an explanation as to why you changed it to read that. - BalthCat 20:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, don't use big letters because they're considered as shouting which is not peaceful in such a discussion. Secondly it was me who wrote "contrary to the most sources" and then i noticed it is not correct, because i didn't read it in any serious source, and therefore, i changed it to "contrary the most unscientific sources". It is logical that i won't write something self and thereafter, i will provide sources that is not correct. Please, try to understand it, and then explain me your objection. You asked for a citation. Which citation can I provide as long as i say it doesn't exist?!! Should i give an accurate source emphasizing that the berbers were known as Barbarians to the romans and greeks to proove they were not known as barbarians to them? Read3r 12:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand that you want to be helpful, and accurate (as you see it) but I am finding that your your skill in English leaves your responses confusing. I read over your talk page and some of your additions to articles and they are just not quite right. Perhaps it would be better, when editing the the English Wikipedia, to get the assistance of some one who is proficient in English to refine your entries. To address what I think you are asking... you say that the sources are inaccurate, unscientific, etc. To say that is unnecessary, and it looks like you are being defensive, not factual. I attribute this to your English, which is ok, but leads to confusion. And yes, you DO have to cite what you say, for example, if MOST sources say something, why are they wrong? Also, in my opinion, CAPS text, used once in a sentence, provides emphasis like italics would, but is shorter to type. To use them in a whole sentence would be shouting, I agree. - BalthCat 17:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting it. It is true that i cannot express my opinions in advanced English. I can give sources that the berbers were known as "Numidians", "libyans" and "Maures". But it is difficult to proove that the berbers were not known as Barbarians to them with a source. But i can give many historical sources were they are named "Libyans", Numidians "moors"....; I read also some sources calling the Berbers as Barbarians, but this was not a general name for the berbers, because it was used to describe the non-romans in all the world including the Europeans and Indians. I think it was Strabo who said that word "Barbarian" is uncorrect since many people called "barbarians" are civilized like as the Indians. By the way, I'm Berber and sometimes i can be subjective, or defensive, so please, help me to be objective, although i'm not very active in Wikipedi, atleast in this period. Thanks in advance! Read3r 18:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signing

Thanks. I keep forgetting to do that

--James Warner-Smith 02:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

np! - BalthCat 05:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plaid Tongued Devils

All I know is the article says they started as one, so if that's wrong, then a rewrite's in order rather than a slap on my wrist ;-) Bearcat 02:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I switched it to folk :) I'm not even sure why I said anything to you at all, really! Ah well, didn't mean it to be a slap exactly.  :P - BalthCat 02:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Jericho

Trivia is bad (have a look at Wikipedia:Trivia) - I want to keep this article upto a good standard for when the show airs, if we can avoid trivia then we must. If it has any significance then it should go in the article but the info can go in Jerichos own article when we have more information. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of WP:Trivia, you have to admit a large number of articles have trivia. In fact at least seven of those listed as interests on your user page have trivia sections. I would argue that as WP is set up now, trivia is best kept in check, rather than culled mercilessly, especially in the case of a new, incomplete or stublike article. There may never be a Jericho (fictional Kansan town), and until such a time as there is more information about the show for the snippet about Jericho to be worked in, it is a valuable addition as a trivia item. My concern is primarily with losing information. If the talk page was a reliable location to store trivia or "in progress" items of not-yet-established notability, or if Wikipedia had a Jericho (TV series)/Sandbox option for you to store information for later inclusion, I would agree completely. - BalthCat 08:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The information will never be lost (it is stored in historys) if you look at all the trivia sections of articles im interested in theyve become unmanagable and full of unneeded stuff. If we can stop it on this article before it is infected we could quite possibly make this a good article as the show progresses. If we can avoid unneeded trivia.. then we should. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

How far back in the history will you read when it comes time to expand the article? I can't imagine the exercise in abject tedium that would be. Losing something into the history is the same as deleting it, if it's far back enough. (And with Vandalism and Tweaks it will be.) And while some trivia is bad, I disagree that all is bad just because it doesn't deserve inclusion, or deserve its own article. Stubs exist on Wikipedia too, even if they aren't the idea. And you HAVE to be familiar with TV show fans from watching those articles to know that more and more trivia is going to be shoved in no matter HOW good a job you do at the beginning. (God, I watch a Final Fantasy game article, it's terrible.) It's more about keeping it relevent. And I flat out believe that that information about Jericho belongs in the article, and as such is not Unneeded. You don't think a first question is going to be whether Jericho is real or not? - BalthCat 09:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

See you tomorrow (my tomorrow at least! :P) - BalthCat 09:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox feature deliberations.

Hi. A while back, you expressed concern about some of the shades used in album infoboxes. Deliberation is currently going on at the WP Album project discussion page. Please express your concerns there, as well as any proposed revisions. Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 14:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've replied! - BalthCat 21:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, are you proposing the adoption of a new spectrum (i.e. the one used for illustrative purposes on the project's talk page? If so, could you please declare it as such? That way, the community can vote on the entire list, per the recommendation made by ReyBrujo/MightyMoose. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 02:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

There... though I'm not sure about those two bluish colours :/ - BalthCat 04:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The studio album template discussion is just about done; the poll on switching to lightsteelblue from orange was successful. Thank you for taking the time to participate; it is greatly appreciated.

Your input was rather helpful in getting the effort underway, and I am grateful that you were present at its completion. --Cheers, Folajimi (leave a note) 16:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ISBNs

I think another user's bot is going around putting dashes INTO ISBNs... Just FYI. - BalthCat 04:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:ISBN, dashes shouldn't cause problems, and are in fact "stylistically preferred". From what I've seen so far, the ISBNs flagged with {{Please check ISBN}} are failing to pass an ISBN length and checksum test (i.e., they are not 10 digits long, or their 10th digit is not the correct checksum of the other 9), regardless of whether or not they include dashes. (There was one so far that I've looked at that had 2 consecutive dashes, which is an easily corrected typo.) If you know of a specific set of edits being done by someone, bot or not, that is incorrectly inserting dashes, let me know. Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, you fixed one and the result was dashless so I thought you might be going through and removing them, so I wanted to mention someone was doing the opposite. Cheers. - BalthCat 14:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to maintain dashes where I can deduce their "correct" usage, especially now that I see that dashes are supposedly preferred. But I am unaware of any formal structure, so I can't add them where they are missing. If you can point out who is adding them, I'd appreciate it, as I'd like to ask them how they decide where to place dashes. Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] thanks

leaving story alone now. 132.241.246.111 06:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I left the welcome as a welcome, not to chase you off. If we disagree about what is appropriate for the article, then we can discuss it on the talk page (ie: the discussion tab) at the top. In case you got some sort of "this is my turf" vibe from me, it's an illusion, I'm not a prolific editor. I mostly revert vandalism and try to keep a hold on some of the chaos you see from time to time. If you'd added the list in again, I would have taken the discussion to the talk page. I also just felt that the list was a overly morbid for so early in the story. (And I won't be accused of being overly sensitive:] ) Have a good night. - BalthCat 06:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] punk stuff

FTR a student with what looked like a small mowhawk said he looked "punk". 132.241.246.111 05:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as well as the first eyewitness interviewed on CBC Newsworld on Wednesday. I also heard a CBC reporter relay that the g-word (goth) had been dropped by some witnesses. I wasn't implying they made the title up out of his hairstyle, it was labelling him the sensational title of 'punk killer'. A mohawk does not a punk make. And it's jumping to conclusions about the person based on a hairstyle, and doing so to be sensational. (C'mon, you can feel it can't you?) I find it disrespectful to the tragedy and damaging to those punks (I'm not one, FTR) who don't go around shooting up schools. - BalthCat 06:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I said the student had what looked like a small mowhawk and it was this student who described the shooter as "punk". 132.241.246.111 17:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you said that almost verbatim. I addressed that, saying it wasn't the students saying it, it was how the newspaper put it. "He looked like a punk" and "PUNK KILLER" are two different things. - BalthCat 21:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh..Ok 132.241.246.111 22:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

BalthCat, I have dealt with punk and goth kids before in my high school days. Since most of my friends dress like this, I know that they wouldn't shoot up schools. In fact, some punk and goth kids can be friendly at times, as I have found out around fall 2004-spring 2005. When I had my first year of college, I had problems with them, and when I started using MySpace, I got an e-mail from a friend to not get impressions of them wrong. But here's the problem: When this comes to mind about a recent shooting or murder, the names Jeff Hardy and Bam Margera come to mind, as BOTH of these guys dress in punk and gothic fashions (Jeff Hardy is a WWE superstar, Bam Margera is a professional skateboarder).

After what happened with Kimveer Gill, I can say that I don't think Jun Kazama from Tekken 2 would like this Dawson article very much. If she got her hands on him, she'd K.O. him with one of her 10-hit combos in the arcade game. This is probably why I prefer to stay the heck AWAY from VampireFreaks.com. So my best advice for encountering punk and goth teens is to not get your impressions of them wrong. You could make friends with one of them, which could be a life-changing experience. --D.F. "Jun Kazama Master" Williams 22:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Uh, I never once said anything negative about punks or goth. In fact a significantly large portion of my music is goth and related genres (industrial, etc.). What I said was that the article was assuming he was a punk (just because he looked "punk" to some witnesses) and sensationally calling him a "PUNK KILLER" because it's a clever attention-grabbing headline. And like I said above, it's disrespectful to be sensationalist during a tragedy, and it's damaging to real punks for being lumped in. It turns out he was more of a goth (he didn't look punk at all). I'm not entirely sure why I got your reply. Sounds more like you should direct it to the Sydney Herald than me. (The only reason I'm not likely to make friends with a goth teen is that they're teens, though I might go to the same show some time... I attended Projektfest.) - BalthCat 23:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing comments

Please be careful when treating with unsigned comments, cause you removed a few comments. --Deenoe 23:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I managed to do that... I wouldn't have had cause to delete text. Oops. Thanks for mentioning it. - BalthCat 23:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

Thanks for the input. Cheers!--TruthSpreader^Talk 06:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Glad you took it well. It's not fun to be criticised. :) - BalthCat 06:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FF7 characters

Feel free to add them to the table of contents if you like. I think the method is pretty clear just by looking at it. Axem Titanium 22:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Firefly

The problem is if we list its comedy then we would also have to list everything else which would then that means an overly long list of genres, I my self would have no objections to listing it as a comedy-drama if it could be agreed we are not going to list lots of genres in the lead in. Regarding Jericho: I expected that its trivia would start growing.. and i expect it would get excedingly long (Talk:The O.C./temp is an example of one long trivia section) - I suggest we purge all unrelated information that has nothing to do with the episodes. I would of done this my self but I am trying to stay out of any conflicts. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 07:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

See, picking the primary genre for Firefly is ultimately subjective. I personally find that, comedy is as important, if not more, to the nature of the show. The setting may be western, but the show's best moments are definitely the comedy. (In my opinion.) IMDB, amusingly enough, doesn't list western OR comedy. Well, perhaps I'll bring it up on the article talk page. I think the article should have a strong intro which explains the core of the show, which to me is a comedic space-western. :) - BalthCat 07:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of awareness ribbons

Since you started List of awareness ribbons with the bulk of the content I'm asking that you provide your sources for the list. If you can't find a source they I'll have to pretty much blank the page. Please see the talk page. Cburnett 04:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Replied on Talk:List of awareness ribbons - BalthCat 05:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lansbridge University and Centre for Arts and Technology removed from Fredericton

Hello,

In your revision of the Fredericton article as of 03:57, 3 June 2006 you deleted two institutions from the list of universities located in Fredericton, namely Lansbridge University and Centre for Arts and Technology. These institutions are still missing from the current revision. Could you please explain why you deleted these institutions from the list? Itayb 07:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

That was quite some time ago, and I explained myself on Talk:Fredericton. Primarily I found both to be non-notable as far as educational institutions go. We don't need to bloat the Fredericton article up with every multi-city, mostly-online university that pops up. Lansbridge isn't even a university by the opening definition of the University article, and I suspect neither is the CFAAT, which isn't even notable enough to have its own article. Even if they could be argued to be universities, they are not notable enough to be included in the opening lines of the city's article. I mean, Lansbridge has no campus, so it isn't here... What kind of enrollment do they both have? (And from reading Lansbridge University, I am left dubious of its credibility.) - BalthCat 21:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Itayb 22:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)