User talk:CanadianCaesar/VII

Welcome to my talk page. Feel free to leave a new message
Please sign comments (~~~~)

Your message

Hello :-) Yes, enjoying the unusual quiet. --FloNight talk 09:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Striptease

Other than the below listed comments, I see nothing wrong with the article that could prevent it from becoming a GA. It's not very long, but that's not a problem, IMO.

  • Where is the film set? Washington, D.C.?
  • I wasn't sure what this phrase from the plot was talking about: "while she's wearing off a man lookalike tailleur".
  • Perhaps maybe a tasteful screenshot.
  • a couple of very short paragraphs.

I've never seen this movie, so I didn't really feel lost while reading it. That's a good thing. Dmoon1 21:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request your attention to the GoldToeMarionette case

GoldToeMarionette (talk · contribs) had a WP:RFCU inappropriately completed on their account by Jayjg (talk · contribs) and Hall Monitor (talk · contribs) blocked the account after it was identified as a multiple account despite their being no violation of Wikipedia policy by GoldToeMarionette. These users did not respond to requests to undo the action.

Other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Comments on RFCU itself [1]
Other Admins contacted [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
Hall Monitor was emailed with no reply
GoldToeMarionette posted on the account's User and Talk Pages seeking assistance when the talk page was protected without the issue being discussed. User:GoldToeMarionette User_talk:GoldToeMarionette

GoldToeMarionette notified article contributors that illustrative examples were subject to an AfD. The account strictly followed the WP:SPAM#Internal_spamming guideline. The AfD was without controversy. GoldToeMarionette did not participate in the vote. HereToCleanup removed the posts following the AfD in accord with the widely accepted Wikipedia Guideline Wikipedia:Spam#Internal_spamming that states "Clean up your mess. For example, after engaging in cross-posting to promote some election, be sure to remove those cross-posts after the election is complete." [7]

Since GoldToeMarionette was strictly following Wikipedia Policy, there should not have been a Check User completed by Jayjg. Hall Monitor only blocked the account because it was labeled as a sockpuppet by Jayjg's completed Check User. Absent policy violation it should not have been processed in RFCU or been blocked. I am asking for your help to confirm that policy was not violated, administrative action should not have been taken, and request that the administrative action be reversed by unblocking GoldToeMarionette and unprotecting the talk page. Thank you for your time with this request. FolkWriterUp 00:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you deny this is a sockpuppet of a banned user? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I should not have been banned, and should not have had to create this account. The issue above should have been addressed according to Wikipedia policy. I have no intention of violating Wikipedia policy, therefore, I don't believe this account is a sockpuppet. This is a multiple account. However, I would like someone to actually focus on the issue above, rather than what has been done to me. FolkWriterUp 02:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that didn't end up being helpful at all. See posting to ANI just gets the attention of a couple Admins who choose not to think about anything. I posted to you hoping you would take a look at the above issue. Please reconsider because people not thinking is what caused my circumstance in the first place. I appreciate your time if you do reconsider. If not, another note to ANI will take care of this account, and I will move on to finding someone who will listen. Thanks. SingASong 03:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template question

You seem to know a lot about templates. I'm considering creating one, about a legal issue. But there's not a master article, nor a category, nor am I interested in creating those. Can templates about a subject exist in absence of a parallel article or category? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That depends upon the sort of template you wish to create and its intended use. What do you have in mind? What is the legal issue (and to what extent is it covered in non-dedicated Wikipedia articles)? —David Levy 01:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of the template would be to link several articles about court cases dealing with an issue, along with the couple of laws at the centre. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing inherently inappropriate about that. Whether such a template is desirable would be a matter for the community to decide. —David Levy 04:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

McGuinty with kitten photo

I modified the image description to specify the which one I copied it from. ONUnicorn 19:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unpaid and largely unsung, I'd wager

I was going to respond to your comment on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Throat Gaggers page, but it got closed and archived before I got around to it. Since I have recently been reprimanded for being what someone thought was uncivil, I wanted to be sure you understood that I wasn't complaining with my comment about it being more than 5 days. I know admins don't get paid, and with a very few exceptions, I think you folks do a great job around here. (That was meant to be complimentary of the vast majority of admins, by the way.) I was in no hurry to have the discussion closed as more recommendations were being added based on the edits to the article; the admins being too busy turned out to be a good thing. Thank you for all your work here; have good days.—Chidom talk  09:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, no, no, no, I wasn't implying you were being uncivil; it was just a general comment about the nature of AfD. When I was a newbie, I was often thinking, man, when are they going to close this? It's a common complaint- note the AfD- or VfD, as it was then- on Autocunnilingus, where people were really getting annoyed. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 09:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Popularity

Your question is rather strange and makes me wonder if you are under some wiki-stress! If there's some conflict you need advice with let me know and I'll offer my two cents. Anyhow, you seem a fine editor to me and I haven't heard otherwise from anyone else :). I wouldn't know how to go about measuring someone's popularity on the Wiki, really. But don't let thoughts in that direction lead you astray of good work. Marskell 10:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sort of wondering. Any comment on your question to me? Marskell 22:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BlockedUsername

Hello, I just wanted to check that the MarkyPee username was blocked because of the Pee part, and that this one would be OK instead? MarkyParky 00:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

Looks like a good guideline. The poll closed an hour before I saw your message, though. I support it in spirit, however. (I think Padme's been through enough already, don't you think? ;) )Dmoon1 13:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

thank you Mdawg728 01:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clyde Wey

There seems to be little consensus to block this user and the user seems sincere. I have therefore ublocked the user. If you disagree strongly with this, feel free to reblock him. JoshuaZ 15:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with JoshuaZ's unblock. — ERcheck (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That didn't take long. Reblocked by someone else as an impersonator. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 18:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

empty

--AlmightyCC 21:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC) Please remove the Real Madrid and Celtic contents from Fenerbahçe SK They aren't Fenerbahçe's content, so I remove them, OK?[reply]

Hirooka Hajime

Why did you delete the Hirooka Hajime article? I was even in the middle of editing it... Suryadas 21:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted because IMO it didn't demonstrate notability. Is there any independent source on this man? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did send him a message, since he was so quick on the draw to delete -- literally right in the middle of my editing / filling out the article. I got one sentence in for less than a few minutes before it was deleted. So develop an AfD if you're going to argue the tenuous "not notable" assertion (which, as an Inclusionist, I personally find quite silly). However, if you're looking for independent verification:
Suryadas 01:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your sig

Since you're CanadianCaesar, shouldn't the talk page link be "Eh tu, Brute?" :-p --chris.lawson 02:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

R. v. Jim

Yeah, I realized some time ago that there may be a problem when a decision is appealed to a superior court. The same problem exists for Federal Court of Canada decisions since they are often appeals from tribunals. Since the goal of the list is to capture legally notable decisions of the federal and superior courts rather than just "trials" perhaps it could be called List of Canadian federal and superior court cases (no caps as they aren't proper nouns in this context). It's the best solution I can think of. If you are ok with that, we should go with it. --PullUpYourSocks 01:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess they could go on a separate list, maybe along with tribunal decisions (somehting like List of Canadian inferior court and tribunal cases). It's a tough call because there are so few of them. Would List of Canadian inferior, superior and federal cases be better? I think I prefer the former. -PullUpYourSocks 02:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But the Federal Court is not a superior or inferior court. --PullUpYourSocks 02:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True, true. :) As inelegant as it is, I'm fine with List of Canadian lower court cases. --PullUpYourSocks 02:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gremlins grammar

Hello. You reverted an edit I made because of questionable gramamr. I'm pretty sure that the grammar of this sentence is correct: "She manages to defeat them one-by-one, killing the first in a blender, the second with a kitchen knife, and trapping the third in the microwave oven." I'm not trying to start an argument; I'm simply wondering where you're finding grammatical fault with this. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 00:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Because of the carrying on of the "killing" to the second gremlin, I'd think, you'd carry it on to the third; therefore it would be "killing trapping" a gremlin. I could be wrong, but that's how I'd read it. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't read it that way, although I understand what you're saying. I read it so that each subsequent verb replaces the word "defeating" in that phrase, with "killing" simply serving double duty.
But, what about this instead? "She manages to defeat them one-by-one, killing the first in a blender, the second with a kitchen knife, and the third in the microwave oven." - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 16:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what your difficulty is with the sentence about An American Werewolf in London; I've included a reference link, and the film was important in the trend. I've also commented at my talk page. MisfitToys 02:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gremlins, Kamillions, Beasties

I don't understand why you feel the need to remove these two lesser-known films. The copy on the boxes for both films invokes Gremlins. Kamillions happens to be very good; Beasties poorly executed but filled with ideas. --Scottandrewhutchins 14:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is not accurately characterized as a "message board". Stop vandalizing the page. --Scottandrewhutchins 22:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gremlins

Hi, I've blocked the user in question for 3RR breach. There is no question that he's guilty of edit waring with you, and assuming bad faith. However, as ill-advised as his contributions may be, they don't really look like simple vandalism to me. He may have a point in claiming that you were vandal reverting him, just as he was calling your edits vandalism. I've instructed him to discuss the content on the talk page - a few more voices may convince him as to whether his edits are valid or not. Thanks. --Doc 23:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's also edit-warring on Charun and I officially give up, at least for now :| Gremlins isn't an isolated incident. As I've mentioned to Doc, his interest in an Etruscan deity Charun is superficial, being traceable to his obsession with children's toys of the same name under the Monster in My Pocket product line.

Scott has no sincere interest in Etruscan studies and insists on imposing his POV, unscholarly wording and misunderstanding of his own sources on the article to have an ego-boost through the tactics of edit-warring and page protection. I can't stand it anymore since it's lasted too long and I've been called "incompetent" by this madman way too many times. I'm not interested in contributing to the article until Scott can be replaced with others who actually care about Etruscanology and can cite references without mistaking opinion for inarguable fact. It's too difficult to maintain obscure subjects like these on Wikipedia. Wikipedia's weakness lies in its dependence on "topic popularity" to fix everything. --Glengordon01 01:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cancelled and unfinished films?

Where is the category? I'd like to take a look. --Erik 03:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's one right in the article- Category:Cancelled films. There's also Category:Unfinished films. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...

I thought for quite a bit about the lengthening of your block on Massiveego. As much as I think Massiveego's commentary can be quite inflammatory, I've decided to unblock the account. Some rationale is here. As I told Blunguyen, if you have reason to block again, please feel free to do so. --HappyCamper 07:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Please do your homework before telling someone something didn't happen and trotting out the wikipedia isn't censored thing. The way you blew off the anon posting about that penis image looks really rude. pschemp | talk 20:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage Deleted

I noticed you deleted your userpage. Are you leaving? -- tariqabjotu 21:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My friend!

BeaverTail? They're oh-so-good. -- Samir धर्म 05:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was all set to respond to your theory about hypothetical Plutonians and noticed you were gone completely! What's up? Send me an e-mail if there's stress. We need Canadians and we need Caesers—you were both at once! Hope all is well. Marskell 22:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider. You are a great administrator and we need you back. I have been targetted by a banned sock for RfC, so don't stress. Things will be fine. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 04:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take some time off but come back soon! -- Samir धर्म 05:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a vacation if you need one, but you're too valuable for Wikipedia to lose you! :( Xoloz 22:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

I hope you don't plan on staying gone too long. Someone has got to address the current crisis we are facing, i.e., Raul's blatant promotion of FACs without trivia sections. :) Dmoon1 04:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Morgan Freeman Narrates My Life

Hi, not too long ago I created the screenname Morgan Freeman Narrates My Life, but I recently found it to be banned, despite a total lack of edits done with it (I've been busy lately and haven't gotten around to much of anything). A friend of mine was nice enough to let me use his handle for this, because I'd like to request unblocking. I find nothing wrong or inappropriate about the screen name, and it's merely a reference to a joke on Family Guy about how Morgan Freeman seems to narrate every movie. Please show some faith and consider unblocking the name, because I would like to work on the Wiki, and I find it funny besides. WeinsteinWarWolf 05:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, CC. Having read the above, I am now concerned: My username also contains the name of a living person. Should it be changed? (Just trying to keep my nose clean). Carolynparrishfan 02:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A needed break?

Hey CC. It would appear that you've decided to take leave for a bit. I hope that the break will treat you well and that you'll come back someday soon. Your work is well appreciated and the canadian law articles will be lonely without you. --PullUpYourSocks 18:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Provincial Judges Reference

Hello, CanadianCaesar. Please see my review comments on this article at [8]. EdJohnston 17:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

This is a Message asking you to read part of my User Talk because the previous message I left you was deleted and called Vandalism......I wont repost it again, you may even look in the history to see what was posted

I dont know what part of my Previous Message was Vandalisim....especially since it was posted in a User Talk and Not a Article

Segasonicdude Sega Forever! 05:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back!

Hope your latest edit means that you have returned :) semper fi — Moe 04:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Caesar of the North

While i am honered by all of the kind things that people said about me during my RfA, I am especially humbled that it brought you out of semi-retirement to geive me the nod. If there are any pages that you would like me to watch until you can hang around here more, just let me know and I'd be happy to oblige. Cheeers. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 13:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use amendement

I'm a bit confused over the consensus thing, so I'm asking if Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use/Amendment/Fair_use_images_in_portals represents consensus? In addition, if so, is there any definite "way" to change the working on Wikipedia: Fair use? Thanks, Ddcc 17:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]