User talk:Mindmatrix

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive: 2005 | 2006 | 2007

Contents

[edit] Template:Infobox Canada electoral district

I noticed you created this template...it is at all possible to fix the large box that appears below 'First contested' in the 'Provincial electoral district' section? Morgan695 (talk) 02:23, 2 January 2008 (U

I've been meaning to work on it. I'll try to fix it in the next few days, and add a few other changes as well. matrix 02:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Fixed. This also affected the federal section and a few others in very particular circumstances. I also updated the colour scheme to something more legible (in my opinion). Mindmatrix 01:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Since we're on the subject of the template, there seems to be this weird thing going on whereby you can't put in "New Democratic Party", but only "NDP", which is automatically linked to NDP, which is a disambiguation page. Is there a way of fixing this so that the correct article name (New Democratic Party) is linked so that the reader isn't taken to the wrong place? Ground Zero | t 04:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the template provides a function for this; for example, in Vancouver Kingsway the display shows NDP, but the link is piped to New Democratic Party. View the source in that page to see the two parameters that need to be set (fed-rep-party and fed-rep-party-link). This also works for the provincial settings too. I'll update the documentation to make this clearer. Note that some people prefer to display "New Democrat" instead of NDP, but this is currently not possible. Mindmatrix 16:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The plot, she thickens...

Have I got a fun game for you... Given the following facts:

  1. The creator on Pemberton Avenue (Toronto) was User:The Canadian Roadgeek (a/k/a User:Smcafirst).
  2. The earlier Pemberton Avenue, which was deleted in 2005, was our old buddy User:Fat pig73.
  3. The text of both articles was identical.

So here's the game: formulate a theory as to whether this is a coincidence or a fascinating revelation. -Bearcat (talk) 03:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It's, uh...something. I'll give the benefit of the doubt to the two users, but it does seem to be a fantastic coincedence. Perhaps it's as trivial as The Canadian Roadgeek having obtained a copy of the file from one of those Wikipedia deletion watch sites. I've deleted Henderson Avenue based on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodbine Avenue (it was a nearly identical re-creation of the article deleted, and contained gems like Several stop signs are found along the road).
There is way too much roadcruft on here, especially for the Golden Horseshoe (for example, for Markham, with a list of road articles in the works). While we're on the subject, have you seen Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada Roads/Golden Horseshoe? Apparently, a few editors in WikiProject Canada Roads felt this Golden Horseshoe sub-project was adding too many low-quality stubs and roadcruft, and some have quit WikiProject Canada Roads as a result. I'm not sure about the extent of this, but there was a divergence of opinion. Mindmatrix 03:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that...the whole York Region/Golden Horseshoe thing is definitely a problem, but I'm not sure I'm prepared to be the heavy with regards to either force-merging it into Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada Roads or knocking some sense into their heads. The problem with too many of the Canadian WikiProjects, I find, is that most discussion posted there for input or feedback never really gets addressed or followed up on at all, on the rare occasion that anybody even responds to it in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:4TorontoFire.jpg

Correction of format as well as cutback, digital reconstruction of corner of photo. Image:4TorontoFire,jpg Gimp Alinas PL.png ( Controversial Correction? ) --89.230.214.241 (talk) 23:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK!

Updated DYK query On 4 February 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Creston Valley, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congrats! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK!

Updated DYK query On 4 February 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hudson Plains, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congrats! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK!

Updated DYK query On 6 February 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Taiga Shield, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Triple congratulations! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Need an uninvolved admin to close Talk:Tax protester/Request for comment

Greetings, Mindmatrix. I'm looking for an uninvolved admin (i.e. someone other than me) to close the discussion at Talk:Tax protester/Request for comment. I wish to avoid any tax protesters coming around and saying that the RfC is illegitimate based on any perceived bias on the part of the closer. Will you pick this task up? Cheers! bd2412 T 20:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the RfC and some of the relevant articles. I assume you simply want closure based on the consensus in the RfC. (In my brief review, I don't see any comments from those supporting the tax protester movement - have I missed them?) I do notice the article Tax protester arguments covers the arguments presented, though I have no intention of evaluating whether all arguments raised by the protesters have received adequate inclusion where warranted. I'll assume those issues have been covered by the comments in the RfC. Mindmatrix 00:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
You haven't missed anything. I advertised the RfC quite broadly, posting notices on all of the affected talk pages both at the beginning and a few days before the proposed end. I am surprised that no actual tax protesters commented in the RfC, as there were frivolous edits to a few of the articles themselves during the RfC process. The referenced articles have, of course, been discussed to death, with lots of frivolous misinterpretations of statutes and case law being presented and thoroughly debunked. Although many participants in the RfC are the same people who maintain the sanity of those articles, everyone has had substantial opportunity to comment, and I think the silence of opposing views speaks volumes. Cheers, and thanks! bd2412 T 02:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Alright. I've closed the RFC, with the stipulation that the few remaining points be addressed on the appropriate article talk pages for resolution. Mindmatrix 21:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Northern Arctic

Is there any way that the sentences, "The largest settlement is Iqaluit. The cold winters are very dark, typically having no daylight for weeks or even months." could be rearranged a bit. Iqaluit is below the Arctic Circle and doesn't get the polar night. Those guys are lucky, they have such a mild climate compared to us. Must be some sort of "Eastern Arctic Government Plot". CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 21:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've added a qualifier to the end of the last sentence ("north of the Arctic Circle"), though you're right that it needs rearrangement. I'll inspect it more closely soon-ish. Mindmatrix 00:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 00:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Naming conventions

I noticed you just changed the name of Vaughan Mills Terminal and cited Wikipedia:Disambiguation, and I have contacted you directly because some other users might not very responsive. I also had trouble with the inconsistent naming of YRT Terminals, but they all did contain the suffix (YRT). This is not a matter of disambiguation but, excluding Finch and Newmarket which are GO Transit facilities, the titles should be consistent. My doubts were whether the title should include the word "Terminal", or not. Names are currently: Bernard (YRT), Cornell (YRT), Promenade Terminal (YRT), Richmond Hill Centre (YRT), Vaughan Mills Terminal and York University (YRT). Only 2 are called terminal and now 1 does not say (YRT). Local precedents are the compulsory use of (TTC), (VIVA) and (GO Station), whether the names are unique or not. On the face of the YRT Map [1] only the name is shown (without Terminal) and therefore the consistent naming convention would be "Vaughan Mills (YRT)" to match other locations and distinguish from Vaughan Mills, the shopping mall. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

With respect to the GO stations, they were so named because they all needed disambiguation. OK, almost all of them, since I didn't check for every single occurrence when I did this back in 2005. The only one that may warrant not using the qualifier is Barrie South. I'll inspect it later, after I've resolved some of the other disambiguation issues with these articles (some don't appear in their dab pages). See Talk:GO Transit#Naming Issues for my reasoning back then - in a nutshell, it was to untangle a mish-mash of naming techniques. It wasn't intended to set a precedent.
For the YRT cases, most of them probably need disambiguation too, since common names like Bernard will already be dab pages (or an article). For the case of Vaughan Mills, if it is a terminal, then the title to which I moved it is likely the best choice. If it is not a terminal, then it would be named Vaughan Mills (YRT) as you suggest, to disambiguate from Vaughan Mills. Promenade Terminal (YRT), Richmond Hill Centre (YRT) should be moved, in my opinion.
To be honest, I'm not sure we've had a convention regarding station articles on particular networks. Typically, they're named for a community, so always need disambiguation, and this is usually the system of which it is a part. In those cases that don't require it, we're likely best off to follow the broader convention of not adding the qualifier YRT, VIVA etc. Mindmatrix 21:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I see you are having a linking, naming, disambigiation avalanche today. My point here was simply that you changed the name of only one terminal of the YRT system and left the remainder inconsistent. I agree. If I wanted to search for Vaughan Mills Terminal, that is what I would enter and, more importantly, that is what it's called. Similarly if I wanted to search for Burlington GO Station, that is what I would enter; not Burlington (GO Station). Currently wikilinks to GO Station articles require piping, where the names as used by GO Transit would not, but I am not about to mess up a system that you do an excellent job of maintaining. I'll contribute some infobox pictures as soon as we get sunshine. Keep warm. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, my apologies for mis-understanding your intent. I see your point about the GO stations, so I'll give it some thought and provide a solution. I'll present it on the GO Transit talk page. Regarding my actions of only moving one of the YRT pages, well that's because it was the only one on my watchlist, and I didn't think to check the others. I'll move them based on this discussion. Mindmatrix 15:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I've now renamed the two articles Richmond Hill Centre and Promenade Terminal, and fixed all incoming links. Mindmatrix 15:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Another rename for Richmond Hill Centre Terminal. The web site at http://www.richmondhillcentre.com/ is the Richmond Hill Centre for the Performing Arts.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Secondarywaltz (talk • contribs)
Is that necessary though? The latter exists at Richmond Hill Centre for the Performing Arts, so a hatnote to the former is more than sufficient to direct readers appropriately. Of course, if the correct name is Richmond Hill Centre Terminal, then I have no problem with it. I tried searching for the name on the yorktransit website, which has a horrible implementation of what it deems fit to call "search", but could not find either Richmond Hill Centre Terminal or Richmond Hill Centre listed. However, I did find a reference to "Richmond Hill Centre Bus Terminal" at another website (see this). Sigh... Mindmatrix 17:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
York Region Transit route map [2], in a detail called Transit Terminals, officially names them all, including Bernard, as "Terminal". An internet search does not show many references to the transit terminal either. Finch and Newmarket are GO Transit facilities and, according to their owner, are titled "Bus Terminal". -Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, let's go with that until we find something more definitive. Mindmatrix 17:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chuckle Chuckle

I think that I am going to sue you for being mean to me. I'll get my llawer, and you can get yours! lets see who wins in that fight. Ha!

Love Ya - xxxx

Smell the Fish (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Leaving the same vacuous message to numerous editors with whom you've never had any interaction (since your only edits are to leave these messages) doesn't support your position. Speaking of which, you can't sue someone for "being mean" unless you can demonstrate personal or financial damage - no lawyer would take up your cause. Sheesh. Mindmatrix 21:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kames

May I ask why you chose to create Category:Kames? There aren't very many articles about the topic, so it's not clear that a category was needed. If a category were needed for kames I would think it should be given a more technically accurate name such as "Fluvioglacial landforms" (which would include kame, kame delta, kame terrace, outwash fan, and esker). I suspect that I'm missing something obvious that led you to make this category... --Orlady (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I created it primarily because I intend on populating it with quite a few entries, mostly for provincially-significant kames in Ontario, Canada. For example, I just created Glenville Hills Kames. I'd rather have the category available now than having to create articles, then re-categorizing them. I recently did the same thing with Category:Ecozones of Canada and all its related articles. By the way, I think that "Fluvioglacial landforms" might make a nice parent category for this. Mindmatrix 01:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. It's interesting to know that there are provincially significant kames in Ontario. --Orlady (talk) 03:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
If it interests you, I just created two more articles, Minnitaki Kames Provincial Park and Bonheur River Kame Provincial Park, both of which are about IUCN category Ia nature reserves designated to protect provincially-significant kame deposits. Mindmatrix 03:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Wild Strawberries - bet you think I'm lonely - album cover.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Wild Strawberries - bet you think I'm lonely - album cover.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 03:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Wild Strawberries - bet you think I'm lonely - album cover.png)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Wild Strawberries - bet you think I'm lonely - album cover.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. - AWeenieMan (talk) 05:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Commons

Thank you for your extremely polite note. No, it's not a trivial point, and thanks for mentioning it. I will do so in the future. Lately, I have also been using the {{ncd}} tag, which also helps avoid duplication of the work. Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Atlantic Marine (ecozone)

Updated DYK query On 14 February 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Atlantic Marine (ecozone), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Elkman (Elkspeak) 02:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Toronto

Hi Mindmartix. I just change Toronto to 7.2 million because I used the pop estimates for 2008(this year). The article previously used the 2005 estmiates which did not include Guelph Hamilton or Niagara Thanks, Dennis7410 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennis7410 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Those regions are part of the Greater Golden Horseshoe, or the extended version of it. They are not part of the urban or metro areas (GTA or CMA), so the population figures you cited are incorrect. Further, don't use estimates for the infobox, only census data. I can appreciate that you'd like to include this data; please note that it is covered elsewhere in Wikipedia. Mindmatrix 16:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Square One Bus Terminal

FYI - more to come. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I was editing it as you were leaving me this message... Mindmatrix 00:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Broken Sword issue again

Was consensus ever reached for the inclusion of the links at Broken Sword? Firstwind thinks there was. I didn't pay attention to the debate for awhile and I don't really see a conclusion anywhere, it looks like it just dissolved into attacks. Metros (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No consensus was ever reached. Firstwind has clearly misinterpreted the discussion. Mindmatrix 18:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Broken Sword Edits

I see no violation here. Try to block me then your actions will considered as article ownership, which you're not entitled to, then i'll report you to administrator. Firstwind

First, I am an administrator. Second, you have clearly violated the Three-revert rule on Broken Sword by reverting a page four times in a few hours, despite three different editors having undone your changes. I have edited the article according to community consensus, specifically regarding WP:NOT and WP:EL. You have chosen to ignore that consensus. You are the one acting as if you own the article - and for the record, I don't care about Broken Sword one whit - it is irrelevant to me.
As far as reporting this to administrators - no worries - I've already done it for you. Please see this. Mindmatrix 20:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment. "I *am* an administrator"—I am unsure why you said this... Being an administrator gives one absolutely no extra status or power over other editors. I hope that was not your intention, in making this comment? AGK (contact) 20:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
No, I was originally brought into the discussion about Broken Sword as a dis-interested administrator. My comment was simply in reply to the statement from Firstwind "report you to administrator". It was really just a clarification. You'll note that I haven't even used any of my admin tools in this dispute (except for using "rollback" once, but most editors have that feature in some way). I never use admin tools against editors with whom I am involved in a dispute. Mindmatrix 20:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Halloween in Pastafarian Religion

Wiki Nazi Police,

Halloween indeed is a very important holiday in our religion and we celebrate it passionately. If you ever happened to be in Montreal during halloween, I would be very glad to meet you in one of our pastafarian parties. This is a known and established fact that pastafarians celebrate halloween seriously and for this reason, we think that this fact should be mention somewhere in the "Halloween Entry".~ Bossudenotredame

P.S. It is not kind to insult people's religion.

Oh, I'm not knocking Pastafarianism. And I wasn't insulting your religion - when I reverted your edit, my summary was "that doesn't belong here" - fairly generic and harmless if you ask me. (Moreover, shouldn't the main article reflect this point before it's added to tangentially-related articles?) Have a noodly day! Yours, the Wiki Nazi Police... Mindmatrix 15:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neighbourhoods

Since I believe that you've commented on WP:CANSTYLE before, I was wondering if you have any thoughts on Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Style guide#Neighbourhoods? Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for seeing that. I finished it now. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 21:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandals?

Hi again MM. Somehow I found myself fixing a page that got partially blanked even though I have no interest in, nor any expertise about the hit song list. A couple of days later, a different anonymous contributor, 201.79.240.208, reblanked the hit song page in a very similar way. Can you tell what is going on? Is this likely the same contributor that has returned to redo his edit? I think I'll just focus on the pages that hold my interest. Electricmic (talk) 05:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] North American ice storm of 1998 GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I have reviewed North American ice storm of 1998 and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues concerning sourcing that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left this message on your talk page since you have significantly edited the article (based on using this article history tool). Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix with the assistance of multiple editors. I have also left messages on the talk pages for other editors and related WikiProject to spread the workload around some. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I've made many edits to the article, but they've all been insignificant - undoing vandalism, removing useless links, and other general cleanup. I'll take a look, but it's not a topic of interest to me. Mindmatrix 14:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Parks - Geophysical or geopolitical?

I didn't think that the issue you raised should get lost in the shuffle. Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image cleanup

Just out of curiosity - what about this image did you want cleaned up? tiZom(2¢) 18:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall - perhaps it was to remove the small portions of tree on the left side, but that's likely not worth the effort involved. Mindmatrix 16:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2 questions

Why here and not Queen Charlotte Sound (British Columbia)? Also what happens when a feature does, Victoria Island (Canada), straddle a boarder? There are several Victoria Islands in Canada but that's the only one with an article right now. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 02:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the first question - I simply moved from comma to parens. I didn't put much thought into it other than a minor cleanup of the name. For multiple features with the same name, we'll do as per settlements, which receive additional disambiguation. So, we'd have Victoria Island (Kitikmeot Region, Nunavut), Victoria Island (Qikiqtaaluk Region, Nunavut) etc. There's no clear consensus about those that straddle borders. For those that straddle borders within one nation, it should just use the nation's name to disambiguate (so Victoria Island (Canada)). For multiple places like this, use the sub-national entities to dab, for example Victoria Island (Nunavut-Northwest Territories) and Victoria Island (Saskatchewan-Northwest Territories). For those that span multiple nations, use the latter format, though some use only one disambiguator if it is overwhelmingly associated with that term.
I'll raise this issue on WP:CANSTYLE. Mindmatrix 16:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 02:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nemaia Valley, British Columbia vs Nemaia Valley

There's a reason that was scripted that way; in the comma-formation it refers to the community and postal address, the place in terms of human space, as with towns and cities and other settlements and populated localities; without the comma is meant to be for the physical valley itself, as a piece of geophysiology or whatever terrain science and geology et al. is about; another valley in the area for instance, which will not have a comma-formation, is the Tchaikazan Valley, another the Yohetta Valley (someone lives in Yohetta Valley, but their postal address is Nemaia). Obscure and only geographical/geological etc as content, but that's the reason Nemaia Valley was not simply bracketed that way in the first place; there is a method to the madness. We have similar problems in BC with "lake" placenames and "river" placenames, e.g. Powell River, Campbell River, Christina Lake, Williams Lake (although in the case of Billy's Puddle I'm not sure the pond in question needs its own article; that's for a Billypudlian to answer I guess); where there's a lake/river-object and a town of the same name, two very different kinds of articles. You get the idea I hope; there's no separate geographic article yet, but it's studied-enough area for there to be one; the valley itself has its own history, as it were, as well as that of the community, which of course is the Xeni Gwet'in and a few non-natives who live in the district here and there. The comma-formation is meant to be about that community, without the comma-formation is meant to be about the valley per se. Which is why the community article will not (and should not) wind up in Category:Valleys of British Columbia as well as Category:Unincorporated settlements in British Columbia and Category:First Nations reserves in British Columbia. Do you see the problem? I'll leave it to you to see the problem and consider the necessary split; I don't have time to do it, or access to sufficient BC geodata/geohistory resources to write it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Skookum1 (talk • contribs)

Honestly, I just missed the fact that this was referring to a community as well. I'll move it back for now - I made this mistake several times yesterday. Note, however, that an article should be placed in all categories which are relevant to the subject given the current article's coverage. If the article contains info about the valley, the community, and the reserve, then all three categories should appear in the article until it is split. Mindmatrix 16:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Note also that the undisambiguated name may also be applied to settlements. We haven't done so for such small settlements yet, but the naming conventions we've adopted at WP:CANSTYLE do provide for that (see criterion 2 for places)Mindmatrix 16:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WTF?

Did you see this item on Michaelm's talk page?

Michael, I'm glad I found you here. I have been wanting to tell you that I'm no longer angry at you for call me so late at night. You didn't expect to actually get me on the phone, you thought you would get an answering machine. So do you forgive me for saying those bad things to you? BStronach 20:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The hell? Bearcat (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Bizarre. I suspect that the lack of eloquence in that message suggests it was not written by that BStronach, and it's quite possible that some form of impersonation may explain this. (I assume that was your interpretation too.) Unless, uh, nah... Mindmatrix 00:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea what to think...and I'm not entirely sure I want to know what to think, either :-) Bearcat (talk) 00:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Election candidate lists

I've been mulling an idea I'd like to run by you, which could potentially provide a workable solution to the current set of flaws in creating merged candidate lists for Canadian elections — specifically, the problem created when people have stood as candidates in multiple elections.

Basically, what I'm thinking about is that instead of creating lists organized by election, perhaps we could organize lists by letter instead. So instead of having to copy-and-paste Gerry McIntaggart, frex, into multiple election articles, instead he'd be in just one list, perhaps named something like "List of New Democratic Party politicians - M" or something to that effect. That way there'd be just one target article, and all the relevant articles would thus link to the same place. This would also have the benefit of eliminating the by-election problem — Rebecca Coad, for example, would go on a C list instead of a by-year list that's technically the wrong place for her.

Do you think this might be a potential solution, or does it just create other problems? Bearcat (talk) 00:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea, but we'll still have a few minor issues. First, how to deal with candidates that unsuccessfully ran for office in multiple elections, with different political affiliations. It's not a problem if this is the result of party mergers etc. (eg Canadian Alliance and PCs), so that articles for these unsuccessful members would redirect to the latest incarnation/descendant of that party. However, there are a few that may involve completely different parties, or independent candidates (a la Chuck Cadman). Moreover, how do you handle candidates that ran federally and provincially? (I would probably redirect to the most relevant one, and point to the other from there.) I'm sure there are other niggling details, but I can't think of them right now. Mindmatrix 15:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Favour

Some day when you have time and the inclination to do so, could I impose on you one more time to move the following articles? These ones require an admin. The first you will recall from the recent Ottawa neighbourhoods discussion, and the other moves have generated no opposition on the respective talk pages.

Thanks. Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I've moved three of them. LaSalle, Quebec and LaSalle (borough) both have a fair amount of editing history, which will require closer inspection to ensure GFDL is satisified. Verdun (borough) has had no discussion beyond your initial move request. Mindmatrix 14:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Punctuation Within Quotation Marks

Quick question regarding your comma revert in "Begging the Question." First off thanks for bringing Wiki's Manual of Style to my attention. My question however: does it matter that the words are not, in themselves, a cited quotation? They are just to identify a phrase of words and aren't atributed to a particular source. I realize the phrase of words doesn't contain that punctuation, but the idea of putting the punctuation outside the quotation is new to me. Thanks for your help.

Also, any advice on the article "Begging the Question," in general? I'm trying to illicit a dialog but I'm getting nowhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.66.120 (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the punctuation, that style is used throughout Wikipedia (and I thought it was standard usage for a few other publishers, though I can't name any right now). The rule of thumb on Wikipedia is that punctuation should be included within the quotation marks only if it is part of the quotation, for example: ...and so the unanswered query remains, "What is life?" The same rule applies if the marks are used to surround something that is not a quotation. It's really just a matter of editorial consistency.
I'll see if I can interject some comments into the discussion for the article; I assume you are editing as both 204.65.66.120 and 67.9.151.156. Mindmatrix 20:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Free iPod

A tag has been placed on Free iPod, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read our the guidelines on spam as well as the Wikipedia:Business' FAQ for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. asenine t/c 16:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You'll note I only created that page as a redirect based on the result of an AfD. I don't care what ultimately happens to it. (It appears you left this note after finding a vandalised version of the redirect - is it your intention to restore the speedy delete tag?) Mindmatrix 17:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question about links

The link to other related Wiki articles "See also" on "Three Stooges" was just removed. If the link is indeed useful, should such a link be placed somewhere else? Is the "See also" section reserved somehow? If so, is that actually documented in the official guidelines? Thank you for your guidance on this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.44.10.21 (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed a promotional link to a website. Further, the link led to a site which failed to load (it displayed the source HTML of the page, instead of having it rendered - likely due to a misconfiguration of the HTTP server). Anyway, if there are other relevant wiki articles, they should be included directly, instead of supplying a link to a website which contains such links. However, most links are likely more appropriate for a web directory instead of the Wikipedia article. Mindmatrix 14:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thank you very much for restoring my userpage. Crowsnest (talk) 10:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Mindmatrix 14:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How do I deal with this?

I am trying to improve Pacific Western Transportation and have found that Special:Contributions/K_man21 has uploaded images which are all obvious copyright infringements. I have removed any that were used in the article. How do I deal with this? -Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at Wikipedia:Copyright problems (see the instructions section) and Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Do you know the source(s), or are you basing your comments on the notice added by the uploader to each image page? (I did a site search for images in the Pacific Western website, but these did not show up.) They are likely copyright violations, but I don't know where they come from. Mindmatrix 19:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I cannot find a proper source for all of the photography, but they are obviously professional work. Some of the images are from http://www.pacificwesterntoronto.com/, and others may have been formerly available there. I thought that this was the kind of copyright violation that Wikipedia should have real concerns about but I never know the proper proceedure. Repeatedly I see naïve uploaders of images being stomped on by ruthless admins simply because they don't know what tags to use, when it seems that if they had simply said it was their own work there would have been no problem. To be fair to admins, some have corrected my tags. I will browse through the links you gave me above and try to learn a little more. Thanks again. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
BTW, in case you don't know, you can save some time by doing a site-restricted search on most search engines. For example, try this. Mindmatrix 21:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey! I see you've been doing some image deletions. Please leave these ones for me to learn from. If I can't figure it out from the information you gave me above and following your lead, I'll be back. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, I left those images for you. The process can be somewhat convoluted for certain classes of images, so I'd be glad to help out. Mindmatrix 21:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] warning vandals

Hey, I noticed you didn't warn the vandal at Hacker (computing). Was there a specific reason? Thanks, Enigma message 12:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope, no reason. Mindmatrix 14:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 05:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Optica Software

MindMatrix,

It has come to my attention that my created article “Optica Software” was tagged for “speedy deletion” based on the G11 criterion; and as such, was deleted. Reviewing the article, I can very much understand how it appeared to be construed as “blatant advertising”, and as “vanity” for an organization. Delving deeper into the Wikipedia guidelines, I have discovered that in order for an article to be categorized as a proper Wikipedia entry, there must be sufficient notability, id est evidence from non-related organization entities to substantiate all claims made in said article. Gauging from both the Microsoft and Mathematica pages, there is a sufficient quantity of secondary sources that qualify the aforementioned Wikipedia articles; even though the articles feature a software company as well as a software package.

In order to remedy the Optica Software source discrepancy, below is a list of links that should be able to verify the validity of the article. One of the links requires membership access to the SPIE website. I have the content, and it is available in pdf format. As such I inquire as to how I might forward the information to you.

List of Links (In order from most important to least important)

-Very detailed article regarding Optica -Need Membership Login

-Mention of Optica Software

"Rayica"

-Demonstrations

-Practical Application of Optica

Navigation Steps:

  • (a) Motion-free Tracking Solar Concentrator
  • (b) Prototype
  • (c) Prototype Page 4


I very much look forward to your response; however there is one pressing question that comes to mind. When the first Optica Software article was written, it was somewhat modeled after the Code V article, as both software tools are used for optical system design. However, after looking at the Code V page, there are no citations at all. Should that article too be marked for deletion?

Regards, Bob Ferguson III —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob Ferguson III (talk • contribs) 19:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The laserfocusworld.com and wolfram.com articles only tangentially mention Optica Software - it is not the primary subject of either article, so neither is appropriate as a reliable reference in this case. I can't seem to get to the prototype pages on goldstreamsolar's website. The demonstrations only show the result of using the software, and is not sufficient as a reference. That leaves the SPIE article, which I cannot access.
You may contact me in private by sending me an email, and I will review other information you may have. If the sources you provide are considered reliable, then the article may be restored. Note that a minimum of two such independent sources is required. Also note that a copy of the deleted article exists in the WP database, so there's no need to upload another copy - it'll simply be restored if warranted.
Regarding Code V, it seems that company's stature is more significant (for example, here is the result of an internet search which excludes Wikipedia and all its mirrors (ie - sites that copy WP content) - approximately 23,000 hits, including some potentially valid references; in comparison, for Optica Software, there are about 500 hits). Note that this doesn't imply that either Code V belongs or Optica doesn't belong on WP, but it does suggest it. Mindmatrix 21:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 5 June 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Grand Codroy Estuary, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 07:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hay-Zama Lakes

Updated DYK query On 8 June 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hay-Zama Lakes, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 06:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mary's Point

Updated DYK query On 9 June 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mary's Point, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 07:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)