User talk:Mindmatrix/2007

Archive: 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023

Eddie Francis

MM, I need your help/advice over the article for Windsor's mayor Eddie Francis. I seem to be in a slow-moving revert war with an anonymous user who prefers an article that looks like a campaign pamphlet, in my humble opinion. What can and should be done to stop this? A partial-protect on the article comes to mind, although it seems like overkill. PKT 14:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I think reverting that user's edits when they occur is the best bet right now - they're not frequent, and are easy to spot. I'll add the article to my watchlist too. If the user becomes more persistent, I'll consider stronger action, but it's not at that stage yet. Mindmatrix 15:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

WGO exists

If you lived in the Ilam, Avonhead or Burnside areas in Christchurch, New Zealand you would know of the Westgrove OGs and their activities. Stop trying to delete the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.238.149.192 (talk) 03:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

Have a look at my deletion log and point to the deletion for which you've raised this objection - I can't seem to find it, so either you haven't given me the correct name, you've got the wrong user, or you're trolling. Mindmatrix 14:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration template

I see you have created the following template:

• Template:Collaboration

and am wondering about its intended use. -- Fyslee's (First law) 09:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It's used in the Canada collaboration, which is unfortunately inactive right now. Mindmatrix 15:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. -- Fyslee's (First law) 20:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

As your collaboration project is inactive, I would like to take over the collaboration template. I want to make it into a universal template, to place on articles that are actively being edited. It will point to a detailed discussion page, maybe categorise active collaborations. See Talk:Eastbourne and Talk:Eastbourne/collaboration for my idea in action. MortimerCat 14:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Ignore that, I used Collaborate instead MortimerCat 16:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

AFD 2006 Victorian election campaign

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Victorian election campaign. Grumpyyoungman01 04:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note - i would put them for speedy deletion, except I don't know how! Heliomance 15:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Graphic Design Links

Hi Mindmatrix

I thought I would say hello as we obviously have a different outlook on the usefulness of the links on the graphic design page.

I appreciate that this area can be abused, but I really think that both the about page (which you kept) and the Design Talkboard link are relevant resources and add value to the graphic design page. I added both these links some time ago.

The article I linked to has very specific articles on graphic design job descriptions, a subject which is not covered elsewhere in as informative a way. Perhaps we should add something like this to the Wiki (the graphic design page probably needs some serious work in many areas)? But until then I think this is a crucial resource and I occasionally like to add others. Perhaps can talk additions and deletions over before just going ahead?

All the best

Bonzobonce 02:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, well...

Given that your own "fact check" reverted back to my numbers, I'm not sure what's up... I'm aware new census data is going to change/augment these numbers. But we weren't citing the Canadian census; we were citing the provincial government—sources I added. My edit was correct. Marskell 20:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Bizarre note: this shows changes that I literally was not aware of making. I don't think I was looking at an old version, so I don't know how this is possible. I changed 5.9 to 5.8 and 8.9 to 7.8 and nothing else. At least, dead sober, that's what I remember doing. Your own changes have simply confirmed my own. Marskell 20:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

All I can deduce is that I did pull up an older version; if it's an argument between you and your browser, usually you made the mistake...

Note the current intro doesn't read properly: "...a provincial planning area that differs from the federal CMA, had a population of 5,555,912 at the 2006 Canadian Census." We introduce it as a provincial area and then source it to a federal doc; the point has become muddled. Marskell 18:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Census

I have no idea as to whether this "undercount" point is a valid one or not, but I thought you might be interested in the discussion at Talk:Ottawa#Population, given that it could have ramifications for other Canadian articles. Skeezix1000 12:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction on the article move

Regarding your fixes on Regular expression examples thanks for the correction, and also for cleaning up some of the improperly formatted links. dr.ef.tymac 20:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Question

What was that .u will die in seven days Bravo Sierra. on the talk page of request articles talk page? You know if you want to fool around pleace do it here

Your message was quite vague, and forced me to look at your edit history. It seems you're referring to your recent edit of Requested articles, and you incorrectly assumed that since I was the last one to edit the page, I must have vandalized the page. Not so - here's the change I made. I should have been more attentive and combed through the history to find all latent vandalism on the page, but I most certainly didn't fool around on the page. Mindmatrix 12:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Video blog

Hey,

There's a lot of editing going on in the Video blog article. I recall you contributed to it once before. You should check it out! Pdelongchamp 15:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I probably only edited out links or reverted vandalism; I don't really have an interest in this article. At any rate, thanks for informing of the changes. Mindmatrix 20:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Canadian University Endowments

Thanks for correcting me, I apologize for any inconvenience I may have caused. I'll be sure to verify information in the future before posting changes.

ok so you deleted Trond Because this is not a (nume) database as you said, Wikipedia is a fre online Lexicon that is suposed to contain all information, so why havent yo deleted say.. John? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_%28name%29

Bigwin Island

Hello again - I'd like to ask for your advice. A non-registered user has edited Bigwin Island because s/he thinks anything to do with the old Inn on the island shouldn't be in the article, but hasn't set up a separate article for the Inn. In the process, the references and category for the article were removed by their edit, and they have decided that Bigwin Inn was in financial straits for its entire existence when in fact it was quite successful for a decade or two.

I reverted the edit, and they have reverted back. I can revert again, and they will probably revert back again. What is the best thing for me to do at this point? PKT 20:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the article needs to be re-factored so that information about the island and its history comes first, and that about the Inn is in a separate section. (Some of the info about the Inn probably doesn't warrant inclusion.) The first thing you should do is start a discussion on the talk page, and leave a message on the anon IP to participate in that discussion. Both of you have removed information from the article introduced by the other, though the anon's deletions are broader and more evident. I am going to remove the external link to Bigwin Resort, because it seems spammy. The history page has some decent info, but is also an ad of sorts, especially at the end. (Maybe that can be added back once the article is re-factored.) Citations for other content would also be welcome, for example, "The development has been quite controversial due to its impact on neighboring communities" - why, to what extent etc. Mindmatrix 14:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough - thanks again! PKT 00:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Radio

In terms of inclusion criteria specifically for radio stations, there isn't really a specific policy spelled out as such. What we do have is a precedent statement (a summary of how AFD debates have actually tended to go in the absence of a more specific policy), listed at WP:AFDP. Generally, the criteria that a radio station has to meet are: (a) licensed by the appropriate regulatory body, (b) directly originates at least a portion of its programming schedule in its own studios. This one certainly straddles the line in terms of objective importance, but it passes the actual precedent criteria. Bearcat 15:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

DragonFly BSD

Thanks for catching my goof. I meant to change 'suspected' to 'perceived', but managed to grab the wrong word. Feezo (Talk) 16:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. You're not the first to make an editing mistake... Mindmatrix 16:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Professional Sport in Toronto

While I'm begrudgingly ok for the time being with those other hockey teams being categorized into "see also" vs. "main article" in the Professional sport in Toronto page (both provide links to their respective articles), I still have a bit of a problem with speculation of an NHL team in Hamilton (which likely won't come to fruition) taking up three paragraphs over pro-hockey teams in Toronto that have been in operation over the years having zero paragraphs. I saw the edit history of how the NFL speculation paragraph(s) was trimmed down considerably. Using that as a precedent, the NHL talk would likely follow the same criteria, would it not? Also, I think that there are some who would look to this page for historical value as well ... and with an article such as this, it would be only appropriate that it takes equal billing to the Leafs as it should be an examination of the pro-sports landscape of the city from the past, present & future. To say that the talk of a proposed team is more "relevant" than those other teams is subjective IMO. It's as though those other teams are being trivialized when I feel it shouldn't if we're talking about pro-hockey as a whole in Toronto. Amchow78 17:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I see no point in having the "speculation of an NHL team in Hamilton" in this article either, especially given that Balsillie doesn't even own the Predators yet. By all means, trim this down! As far as the links are concerned, it's not as if I've removed anything - I've simply grouped things that, in my opinion, seem to go together. In this case, NHL hockey versus all other pro hockey in the city. I realize this is subjective, but it also allows the reader to scan the list more quickly. I think it already has "equal billing" by being linked prominently right after the headline.(BTW: when I wrote my edit summary, I was specifically thinking of the Leafs article; the Second NHL team article was thrown in after it since it fit most closely with the topic of the Leafs, instead of the other group of articles. I wasn't trying to trivialise the other pro hockey teams.) Mindmatrix 19:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll continue the conversation at the appropriate thread on the article's talk page. Mindmatrix 19:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Dashes

This is a small point. I believe that the correct dash between words (e.g., King-Vaughan) is the hyphen. A good explanation of when to use each of the three main types of dashes can be found here. Sunray 14:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, according to the dash article, an en dash is used to separate terms with a close relationship, though the Chicago Manual of Style suggests a hyphen in such situations. There doesn't appear to be a consensus usage on WP. For instance, many (all?) Canadian electoral riding articles use the em dash (the source for the info uses double hyphens, which is equivalent to an em dash; example and Wikipedia article, but see history, noting page moves). These are the closest analogues to the list in the Ecology of the Oak Ridges Moraine, and I based my edits on this. The situation is worse for me, since my software and font settings result in en and em dashes that look exactly the same. Sigh. Perhaps we should try to establish a convention for Canadian articles. Mindmatrix 15:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the inconsistency. The dash article gives the examples of McCain–Feingold bill or Bose–Einstein statistics as the kind of relationship that takes an en dash. I don't think that King-Vaughan, etc. really applies, since they are just an arbitrary political grouping (actually King and Vaughan have more of a connection than most of these). I wouldn't argue if someone felt that there was a "close relationship." However, that would be an en dash, not an em dash, n'est-ce pas? But a hyphen is so much simpler! I do think that we should point out the problem with the Canadian electoral riding articles and get them changed. I don't know of any style guide that supports the em dash for this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunray (talk • contribs)

However, that would be an en dash, not an em dash - yes, that's what I was trying to say in my first sentence, but that I then ceded to the electoral riding "standard" instead. I'd personally prefer the en dash to the hyphen, but I'm also generally indifferent to such usage. Feel free to revert my changes (technically, you'd have to modify them, since some changes were to replace occurrences of — with a Unicode character). As for electoral ridings, there has been previous discussion about this on the relevant WikiProject. Mindmatrix 17:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, Hansard and Elections Canada can't be wrong on riding names, I suppose. Thanks for the reference. Sunray 07:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hardest Logic Puzzle Ever

PhysicistQuery 10:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC) Hi, You helped me earlier by pointing out that I was misinterpreting the method for amending the article section. Since then, I have discovered that lwr314 is Landon Rabern^{1, 2}, and that he is pushing the viewpoint of his apparently purely self-published article http://www.uweb.ucsb.edu/~rabern/SSHardPuzzle.pdf. The problem with his Exploding god-heads solution is that, although it is logically interesting, it does not conform to the demands of the puzzle - that it be solved "by asking three yes-no questions". The way this supposed solution works is that it relies on the possibility that the question cannot be answered truthfully with either yes or no. In the context of the original question, where you only understand answers that are yes or no, the requirement for a yes-no question is redundant unless it means the question always has valid answers that are yes or no. (In any case, a solution to this sort of puzzle should work with any reasonable interpretation of the question). What else do I need to do for this to be sorted out?

¹ based on the style of some of the anonymous contributions to the "discussion" page, I believe it to be more than possible that the anonymous change lwr314 is reinstating is in fact his own.

² P.S. I am now convinced that my interjections were in fact correct, albeit in the wrong place, and that the article should be completely re-written on the basis of the original Smullion/McCarthy puzzle (which is what Boolos says the puzzle is), with Boolos' adaptation to allow his answer as a second theme; other interesting adaptations (including an amended version of Exploding god-heads) should also find place.

Thanks again, Fyz

Kitigan

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Kitigan, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Kitigan fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

Nominate for deletion since both articles listed are deleted\non-excisting

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Kitigan, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 18:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

(disambiguation)

Hi Mindmatrix. Please see my explanation at Talk:List of generic forms in British place names#Kingston and readWP:DISAMBIG#Generic_topic to understand why you should not be editing to avoid redirects of the form [[name (disambiguation)]]. Thanks. --Scott Davis ^Talk 07:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I seem to have forgotten that bit of convention. I'll note it for future edits. By the way, I didn't even notice that I had edited that article twice - I've been disambiguating links to numerous placename articles in the past week or so. Mindmatrix 14:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No worries. I didn't want to get into an edit war over something so trivial. Thanks for the work on disambiguating places. Sorry if I sounded abrupt. --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Naming conventions for territories

I thoguht the Northwest Territories was correct, but then when I was adding Yellowknife I saw that it was in Category:Cities in Northwest Territories, so I assumed that was the correct naming convention, and switched it. Anyway I will flip them back to the new one (there were only two articles linked anyway), and change YK, it is the only one in that category I think anyway. Thanks--Kelapstick 20:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Mindmatrix, I saw your comment at Kelapstick. Do you have another link to the naming conventions other than the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements)#Canada? That's not much help as it doesn't cover using/not using "the" in either NWT or Yukon. There must be something somewhere but I couldnt find it. If you look at Category:Northwest Territories and Category:Yukon you can see that both are used. There is Category:Communications in Northwest Territories and Category:Communications in Yukon along with Category:Communities in the Northwest Territories and Category:Communities in the Yukon. I don't care which is correct but it should be consistant. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The only thing I've managed to find so far was an old discussion on the Canadian wikipedians' notice board discussion fora (see Archive 7. I can't find any explicit naming convention though, so perhaps we should codify that discussion into the naming conventions policy. Mindmatrix 13:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

taraka

The right link is Taraka. Thanks--Redtigerxyz 14:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Public services in Toronto

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Public services in Toronto, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. GreenJoe 02:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Help me (Vandals again)

Thanks for recently deleting the "big penis" text in the "Adobe" article. That text was submitted by 76.216.85.175 That user has created a page called Religion in Pennsylvania-Fuck this page

I was wondering, are you planning on identifying the Adobe hack as vandalism with a warning to that user (or maybe it is a junior high school IP address)? Will you please undo the added page vandalism and send another warning to that user? I was unable to click undo on the edit page because there have been no edits yet...? I'm confused on how to fix that but I'm ready to try the Vandal level 3 template next time this occurs. Thanks for training me on this. Do you ever get hoplessly frustrated trying to undo the damage they do? Thanks for all you do. Michael Flynn —Preceding unsigned comment added by Electricmic (talk • contribs) 04:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Riding merges

Hi, we decided a while ago to actually split riding articles in Ontario, so merges will be reverted. To help, you may want to actually split some more ridings into their own articles. A quick look through will note maybe 30-40% of ridings have their own provincial articles. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Web 3.0

Hello. I recently added a useful tool to the web 3.0 entry and you removed it. I would like to discuss the protocol for adding or editing an entry. Thank you for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrRJE (talk • contribs) 20:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikimania 2009

Toronto Candidate City for Wikimania 2009
Support TORONTO in its bid to become the host city of WIKIMANIA 2009 Visit m:Wikimania 2009/Toronto for TORONTO's MetaWiki page and help build a strong bid.

scopacards

Hi Mindmatrix. I was wondering why the link was disappearing. I reviewed the policies and respect the preference for having no links to gaming sites, but I should note that the intent of that rule seems to avoid links to sites that are not related to the subject, whereas scopacards has only one game--scopa. In the alternative, the site also has rules and suggestions on how to play, they're just not on the home page. Finally, if you're still unconvinced, what would it take for the site to be acceptable (fan club, discussion board, etc). I should note that there are links in other articles to sites that have, as part of their features, playable demonstrations. Do you just dislike Italians? (joking).

Sorry for the repeated reversions, I thought somebody was acting maliciously.

cjmartinez75 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjmartinez75 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Richmond Hill Page

Hi there,

Thanks for the advice. I'm new to Wikipedia, so it does help to get good advice. I will rework and repost.

Regards,

Trh canada 13:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Lake Superior NMCA

Kick ass work! --Padraic 15:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks... Mindmatrix 16:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Left Biocentrism

You deleted a page I created titled Left Biocentrism because you say the content is under copyright. The content was the Left Biocentrism Primer - a document written collectively by a small group of Canadian activists (including me). This primer is not owned by anyone - it was never intended to be owned and has always been in the public domain. The primer is reproduced widely by groups and individuals in many countries, including on numerous web sites, other than the random site wikipedia found.

Thw web site I referenced - The Green Web - is owned by David Orton, the initiator of the primer collaboration process. If you google "David Orton left biocentrism" you'll get more than 300 hits, including this:

http://www.ecospherics.net/pages/aboutauthors.html David Orton is coordinator of the Green Web environmental research group. He lives on an old hill farm in Nova Scotia, Canada, and engages in developing the left biocentric tendency in deep ecology. David's left biocentric philosophy can be found at http://home.ca.inter.net/~greenweb/ and he may be contacted at greenweb@ca.inter.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moderndogs (talk • contribs) 06:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On October 30, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lake Superior National Marine Conservation Area, 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.

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes

I think I've figured out why we probably shouldn't merge federal and provincial electoral district articles, but should instead split out the ones that are currently merged together: if we merge them, then ridings such as Oak Ridges—Markham that do double federal/provincial duty have to have two infoboxes on them. Bearcat 22:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking that we could have one template for Canadian electoral districts which could double by listing provincial data. I'll create a mockup when I have some time divert myself from other editing get around to it. Mindmatrix 01:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Golden Horseshoe

If you remember the discussion that we had a while back regarding the {{Outer Ring of Golden Horseshoe}} template, I think I've finally put my finger on what bothers me about it: it completely misrepresents the social and economic relationships that actually exist within the region. K-W/Guelph/Brantford isn't economically or socially linked to Simcoe County in any meaningful way — its primary linkages are southeast into Hamilton, not northeast into Simcoe. Peterborough/Kawartha/Northumberland's primary linkages are south into Durham, not west into Simcoe. And Simcoe's linkages are south into York and TO. Basically, the template's sitting on the edge of original research, because it takes three distinct regions which have no meaningful relationships with each other, but instead are allied almost entirely to adjacent parts of {{Inner Ring of Golden Horseshoe}}, and pretends that they constitute a unified region.

Looking at the Outer and Inner Ring templates, I've clarified what happened: a user (previously best known for the dubious AFD argument that a tertiary collector road through an industrial park in Markham deserves an article on the basis that it links one Regional Road to another one) took a Greater Toronto Area template, arbitrarily expanded its scope into "Inner Ring", and then created the "Outer Ring" template to go with it. There doesn't appear to have been any discussion of whether this was actually needed or not.

So there's really not much question that "Outer Ring" is unnecessary and should be deleted. I'd like your opinion on what should be done with "Inner Ring", however:

1. keep it as is?
2. revert it back to this older GTA-specific version?
3. kill it as just unnecessary?

Your opinion would be helpful. Bearcat 00:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW:I think the editor you mention may be a young'un with an avid interest in roads. I can't remember where I read it, but I believe (s)he was 12 years old during those first edits. It may simply be a lack of understanding about metropolitan areas, CMAs, regions etc. (heh, many adults don't understand it either).

I think the Outer Ring template should be excised too. I can see why the user created it (given the province's definition of such an "area"), but like you, I see no value in it. Regarding the inner ring, I'd just as soon revert it to the GTA template, but this raises the issue of what to do, if anything, for the Golden Horseshoe. (However, I would prefer an updated design on the reverted template.) Mindmatrix 01:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess that's my question...do we need a Golden Horseshoe template at all? Are there enough topics for which it's genuinely value-added and relevant encyclopedification (to coin a verb) to link them that way? Or would it just be an unnecessary template which existed just for the sake of having a template? Bearcat 04:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

If we have a Golden Horseshoe template, it should only mention the municipalities, instead of all towns. That is, include York, Durham, Peel etc, but exclude Aurora, Pickering, Mississauga. The template could contain "layers", so that each successive layer would expand on the previous, for Golden Horseshoe, Greater Golden Horseshoe, and Extended Golden Horseshoe. Of course, this template wouldn't be added to many articles, so it may not be worth it. Mindmatrix 23:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

And you're right about the design, too — if we do revert back to the older GTA template I'd probably do it by pasting the old content into the current layout. Bearcat 04:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Richmond Hill Page Addition

Hi there,

I have read over the Manual of Style and re-written the addition. It is now one paragraph which simply describes the project. All of the links have been removed, as well. Hopefully, this works.

Thanks again!

Trh canada 15:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

In Remembrance...

--nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 00:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Template

It's just about perfect. The only question I have is whether there's a field to denote when a defunct district was taken out of service. Ideally we should be able to apply an infobox to every electoral district, active or defunct — so, if possible, there should be an optional "riding dissolved" field, visible only if the status line is flagged as defunct, which would list the year when the riding got gerrymandered out of existence. (And if the status is flagged that way, the MP/MPP/MLA field should be hidden as well.)

I'd also like to know how it handles cases where the district only exists at one level of government or the other — is the intention that we continue to use the separate provincial/federal boxes for one-level ridings, and only use yours for dual-duty ones, or is it possible to entirely hide the federal section on, say, a provincial district like Tignish-Palmer Road?

Other than that, I like it a lot. Bearcat 23:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Battersea Ontario

Before I put them back in, why did you remove the businesses in Battersea portion of the entry?

Every other town or city entry I look at has links to local lodging and attractions, yes Battersea is a small town so it doesnt have very much, but if someone is going to come and visit, they are going to want to know where to stay. I think they should be referenced, so I'll be putting them back in, but thought I'd ask you if there was a reason. --Clausewitz01 03:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I remove such links from Wikipedia because articles should not act as a web directory, yellow pages, or business listing. We do list businesses of historical importance, and those of significance, but not those that are generic or common to any village or town. Most certainly, we do not add external links within the text of the article. It seems that one notable historical building/business (now known as Holiday Manor Resort) is already included in the history section.

BTW: if such listings exist in other articles, they should be removed. Wikipedia is not an advertising medium. The best solution to providing web links to these businesses is to get them added to dmoz.org, and provide a link to the appropriate dmoz page for Battersea in an "External links" section. (That is, link to a web directory, don't create one in the article.) Mindmatrix 15:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Though you appear to have a purity of purpose, from an examination of a broader range of entries, perhaps you are operating at odds with the rest of Wikipedia. I will start with a few links for you that you can attempt to follow your own advice and begin to clean up:

Toronto

Attractions in Toronto

Conversely, if I follow the example of Manhattan the economy section provides the same sort of information (links to outside businesses) in a narrative form rather then a list. [1]

But then, the nearby Kingston, Ontario provides the same information in the form of a list called "Community Information"

I fish near Battersea on occasion, so I am working to make the entry as effective at expressing how nice a town it is, as I can. Perhaps in order to satisfy you, and follow the general evidence of other wikipedia pages, I will go with a more narrative approach, describing the town with links to the landmarks through the village. There are two very pretty churches, which I could take pictures of as well to spruce up the entry. Let me know what you think of that approach. --Clausewitz01 (talk) 02:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help on my discussion page, I've posted some more there. talk --Clausewitz01 (talk) 01:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Kugluktuk (electoral district) & Kugluktuk, Nunavut

I changed the link from Kitikmeot Region, Nunavut to Kitikmeot Region. The second is a larger article with more information and is (in my opinion) more likely to be what people are looking for rather than the census devision. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it, though I think the former article is a more appropriate link for the electoral district page. Mindmatrix 13:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

OpenLDAP Page and Blog links

[2] The two blog links you removed are blogs by OpenLDAP project members, so they are authoritive.

User:Firstwind

Hi there, welcome to a little problem I currently have :) I don't know if you took a look to User:Firstwind history when you left him a warning but he seems to get away too easy with that kind of behaviour. When User:Schcambo first caught him for vandalism on Nantes, he engaged in an edit war using IP sockpuppets easily traceable back to him using whois. User:Schcambo then asked for admin User:Ground Zero help. User:Firstwind then accused them both of being sockpuppets and when I joined them to try and reason with him he also accused me to be their sockpuppet. His constant bullying seems to get him to evade blocks. For the past several months, he edited 2 articles, Nantes and Broken Sword almost always vandalizing them. I posted logs of his 8 warnings on his talk page. I have two questions:

• Is a WP:SOCKPUPPET case against him possible since he only has 1 registered account and uses anonymous users as sockpuppets ?
• Can you do something about this guy?

I’m quite new to WP and only do limited RC patrol but this kind of behaviour going unpunished is very frustrating. Thanks! Mthibault (talk) 23:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd be very grateful for any help you could provide; the user has blanked his page again so I've copied it out here for reference, including a further edit of mine which was an edit conflict. Schcambo (talk) 14:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't paste another user's talk page into mine; I'm quite capable of reviewing page histories, and you can simply link to the specific revision, instead of pasting the whole thing. Mindmatrix 14:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Those aren't sockpuppets; they are anonymous editors coming through open proxies. I won't investigate this, but if this user continues being disruptive, (s)he may be blocked, which is more than sufficient. Mindmatrix 14:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

To be precise, those are not open proxies but youth free internet access kiosks provided by the city of Nantes, France. User:Firstwind pretends he has annon users supporting his edits where in fact he is the only one making them. Do you think a sockpuppet case is receivable in this case ? Mthibault (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware that the IP edits were most likely done by Firstwind (now confirmed; thank you!), especially given an edit to my talk page just after Firstwind logged out, supporting Firstwind's actions. (see my reply). If he continues to do this, he will be blocked indefinitely. Mindmatrix 22:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Article protected

Hey, I just protected Broken Sword because of the constant reverting there by both sides. Would you please take a look and decide if blocks need to be issued at this point? You look like you understand the situation better than I do right now. Metros (talk) 14:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I've opened a discussion on the article's talk page. Mindmatrix 15:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, have you reached a decision regarding this article? Mthibault 20:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

There have only been a few people that have commented on the links, and I was one of them, so it's tough for me to take admin action on something for which I'm also involved in the debate. I'll try to find a few other admins willing to take a look at it. Mindmatrix 22:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Mthibault 07:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Answered to you at Talk:Broken_Sword Mthibault 19:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Kind of need you again at : Talk:Broken Sword Mthibault (talk) 14:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi again ! I think the article could be unprotected now, don't you? Mthibault (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies

There has been not "spam links" (and not linkspam) inserted on the BS article. All of them have been verified and are trustworthy. Plus, the automated spambot warnings sent this because of the word "free" in one of the links which can present a spam link. After consideration and verification, this website is a serious fansite about the serie, nothing wrong here, and all links respect Wikipedia policies. Just make a copy/paste of the section that indicates that something does not tolerate those links, or give more explanation about all this. Otherwise, your silence will be considered as non-respect of policies, and that you make the article the way you want, which is NOT tolerated on Wikipedia. Firstwind (talk) 14:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I've already answered on your talk page, but since you keep blanking it, for the record:

Regarding the comment "Otherwise, your silence will be considered as non-respect of policies" that you left on my talk page: no, it doesn't. That you can't be bothered to read the relevant policies is your failing, not mine. The onus to prove that information added to an article belongs on that article falls on the user who adds that information; it is not the responsibility of other editors to prove that material does not belong. Mindmatrix 14:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that the protection should be maintained, as it can prevent the article from deletetion of link (which are no spam at all)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.51.96.182 (talk • contribs)

Yes, they are, and they should be deleted, but I've opened a discussion about it anyway. See Talk:Broken Sword#External links. By the way, you're not fooling anyone with that anon IP edit. Mindmatrix 15:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

GO Transit

The new GO Transit rail Infobox makes routes very easy to browse. You can cruise up and down the line, easily using this "sidebar" type of template to move between stations. Much better than the common horizontal style of template. Thank you. - Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It was really just bringing old templates I created in 2005 together, replacing eight of them with this one. It makes it easier to manage, and centralizes all the relevant information. (Yes, the green row separators in the previous templates really annoyed me.) I'm glad you like the layout. Mindmatrix 01:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Infobox can be for Terminals too

I looked at your Infobox in a little more depth and it seems to me that it could also accommodate GO bus terminals. You know your programming better than I do.
Suggestions: Enter bus terminals as "line=Bus" and, based on this, Heading 2 could switch, like you have done with Union Station, to say +"Bus Terminals" and similarly Heading 1 would switch to +"Bus Terminal". Any conflict of names will be taken care of by the "line" field and would allow stations or terminals with the same name to exist for different types of facility. Union Station for Union Station GO Bus Terminal will have "line=Bus" and Union Station for Union Station (Toronto) will have "line=Train" (currently blank). Newmarket may be another example of a train station and a bus terminal with the same name. Other than that the facility information would be the same.

Bus Terminals

Names below are what GO Transit uses on their website and includes facilities that are owned and maintained by the local municipality or transit system. Titles of the Wikipedia articles shows that the naming convention is a little bit out of sync. York Region Transit agrees on the "Finch GO Bus Terminal" name but uses "Newmarket Terminal" which, if it is now under their contol, would match the Wikipedia naming for YRT facilities, but if it is still a GO facility it would not. I don't know.

Terminals found in Wikipedia

• Finch GO Bus Terminal - GO Finch Bus Terminal
• Newmarket GO Bus Terminal - Newmarket Terminal (YRT)
• Scarborough Centre Bus Terminal - Scarborough Centre (TTC)
• Union Station GO Bus Terminal - GO Union Station / Bus Terminal
• Yorkdale Bus Terminal - GO Yorkdale Bus Terminal

Terminals not yet located in Wikipedia

• Ajax Bus Terminal
• Barrie Bus Terminal
• Bramalea City Centre Terminal
• Brampton Bus Terminal
• Guelph Bus Terminal
• McMaster University GO Bus Terminal
• Oshawa Bus Terminal
• Square One GO Bus Terminal
• York Mills Bus Terminal

Style

{{{station}}} (GO station)
{{{location}}}
{{{line}}} line

Perhaps you could change Heading 1 to GO Transit colours (from the logo), as indicated in my reinterpretation of your code. If the addional text for the station was "(GO station)" the infobox would then read the same as most article titles. Hope you don't think I am being too cheeky, but I just saw the pontential of your infobox to fill a need.

My contribution

I moved the schematic of the GO Train system, previously within the article GO Transit, to Template:GO Transit rail system. Information has been updated, including the addition of the Barrie South (GO Station). The main article still looks a little messy and this should make editing easier. You have been doing a lot of reediting. If you decide to go ahead with the terminals in the Infobox, I will see if they are mentioned in Wikipedia and edit and link if possible. - Secondarywaltz 15:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the template - very nice.

As far as bus terminals are concerned, I would wait to update the GO transit rail infobox until we have articles on each of the bus terminals. Some of your proposal would require quite a few changes to the conditional branches in the template, so I'd play with it in my userspace first (right here; you're more than welcome to edit it). My primary concern with this is that most of the Bus Terminals are actually part of the same station (eg - Newmarket GO Bus Terminal is part of the Newmarket (GO Station) complex). Does it merit its own article? I can understand the need for bus terminal article for Yorkdale, or even Union. We should probably discuss this at Talk:GO Transit. Then again, if the terminals are hubs for more than one transit system, then it should be named appropriately; we can always include them in the template irrespective their name (if they are used by GO, of course). Aside: I don't like the current titles for the bus terminal articles; at the very least, "GO" should not appear first.

I like the idea of the colour change - I've been looking for colours that are close to what GO uses, and are also easy to read, which is why the template currently uses that faded green.

Regarding titles to use on the infobox, let me give it some thought. I prefer GO Transit to appear, so it's absolutely clear what the article represents, but there are plenty of other options. I don't want the title to use parentheses as do all article titles for each of the stations, though.

Let me mull these ideas over for awhile. Mindmatrix 17:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: if we did use Newmarket (GO station) etc. as the tile for the infobox, we could use the PAGENAME Mediawiki variable instead of a template variable like station. The latter would still be needed for the switch statements though. Another question is: for any given line, do we list the bus terminal link alongside the station link? Mindmatrix 17:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed Image:Gotransit logo.gif
{{{station}}} (GO station)
{{{location}}}
{{{line}}} line

It was just a thought about adding and linking to bus terminals currently entered and your template is flexible enough to add a list of terminals as a "line". My programming knowledge is primitive, but I seem to think logically enough to allow me to follow along and mimic (perhaps more primate-ive). In Newmarket the Bus Terminal is at Davis Drive and Eagle Street, which is where all bus services originate, whereas the more recent GO Train station is downtown, with perhaps only the 69 Sutton route stopping on its way past. None of these bus terminals are at GO stations so would not appear on a rail line. Totally agree with the idea of "GO Transit" appearing somewhere. Infoboxes for VIVA stations (as at Newmarket above) currently do not say what they represent. How about a smaller version of the logo Gotransit logo.gif displayed above everything in the Infobox and still keep with the paler green for secondary headings? - Secondarywaltz 19:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind adding the bus terminals, but I won't be doing it "soon" since I have to think about the layout of each of these things, and find the time to do it; since you mention that the terminals and stations are not co-located, that makes things easier, since I won't have to add extra links with the stations). When I get around to doing this, I'll let you know.

Regarding the logo - it can't be used in templates. Unfortunately, "fair use" disqualifies logo use from any page other than the subject itself (ie - GO Transit). There are all sorts of discussions about this on WP, but I don't have the links handy right now. Mindmatrix 19:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

GO Transit
{{{station}}} (GO station)
{{{location}}}
{{{line}}} line

Thanks for the info about the logo. I did not know that use was restricted to only the main article and not allowed in other articles directly relating to the subject, like these GO Transit facilities. Does that mean all the logos for VIA, TTC and VIVA that I added to the GO Train template should be removed?
One final thought and then we will get on with other things. You could use large bolder green text to represent a GO logo. - Secondarywaltz 20:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I just searched for the relevant docs: Fair use and Fair use exemptions. So, it's not as restrictive as I've made it appear, but I was correct about logog use in templates. I'll take all your ideas and try to work with 'em when I get a chance. Mindmatrix 20:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Two things:

1. On Oak Ridges—Markham, {{Infobox Canada electoral district}} is currently displaying excess blank space enclosed by a dashed box in the provincial "first contested" field.
2. There's a bit of a dispute brewing on 40th Canadian federal election and Ontario general election, 2007, where User:Nat seems to have arbitrarily decided that {{Infobox Election}} isn't acceptable (because (a) it's "too big" and "too ugly", and (b) it duplicates information that's already in the article...which is kind of what the point of an infobox is), and has replaced it with a self-created alternate elections template. Do you have any input on this? Bearcat (talk) 04:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the first point, it seems to occur only on pages for which the first (and only) election in which the seat was contested was the most recent election (specifically, those that don't have a value for the prov-election-last parameter.) I suspect the same thing happens for federal district display; I'll look into it.

As to the second point, I've been following the discussion, but haven't interjected any comments yet. I'll try to add something insightful soon-ish.

While you're here, would you mind checking out my current incarnation of the parliament infobox? I left a message on the CWNB, but nobody has responded so far. (Note: I haven't worked on the opposition section yet.) Thanks. Mindmatrix 15:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this response...the box looks good to me so far. Bearcat (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Historical religious sanctuaries

Hi mindmatrix. As you may have noticed, I am the spotter of and objector to your new Category:Historical religious sanctuaries. I'd just like to let you know that I am not acting from any aggression or anything of the sort. For example, I do agree that the Minoan peak sanctuaries (a sadly neglected category that does not contain a single good article) should be somehow classed as religious sites, but I am wary of adding such categories lightly. Greetings. athinaios 01:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I'm not offended. After all, you're taking exception to the category, not me. Mindmatrix 01:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Open Handset Alliance

Hi Mindmatrix, you recently made a well-reasoned edit to the Open Handset Alliance article. I have started a discussion on article organization on the talk page that could use some outside input on the topic of effective and encyclopedic organization. Feel free to weigh in. N2e 16:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Our Lady of the Lake Catholic College School

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Our Lady of the Lake Catholic College School, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Our Lady of the Lake Catholic College School. Cheers, CP 02:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Award

The Red Maple Leaf Award For your many many many contribution to Canada related topics, it is my pleasure to offer you this red maple leaf. --Qyd (talk) 18:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Canadian Parliament Infobox....

I kinda stole your idea and expanded on it: Template:Infobox Canadian Parliament (an example of it in use is here.) nat.utoronto 12:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)