User talk:CanadianCaesar/archive

Welcome!

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Longhair | Talk 00:12, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Excellent edit

That was an outstanding edit on civic virtue, especially the addition of the Oath of the Horatii on the page. Keep up the good work. I plan to major in history, by the way. Dbraceyrules 19:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, User:Ihcoyc is responsible for the absolutely brilliant expansion of civic virtue, including the Horatii. As much as I love ancient Roman history and mythology, my edits on that page were confined to a small, modest section on later times, regarding schools, prison and boy scouts; User:Ihcoyc also outdid me in that section by talking about specific textbooks. CanadianCaesar 20:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rami Nuri and Gopal Das

Thanks for tidying up this mess I created. I've now rather shamefacedly changed my vote on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Rami Nuri, please see my (pathetic) reasoning. In future I vow to be far more cautious in listing things for deletion. Flowerparty talk 01:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think it was a perfectly understandable mistake, especially because I've never even heard of this religion until today. Never heard of Xenu until I came to Wikipedia either, but I thought it was a good analogy. CanadianCaesar 01:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matrix Character Names addition on 7/29/05

Hi, CC. That was indeed, in my opinion, a good addition to add to the names pages legitimacy and appropriateness. It's been hard to find an outside reference that concerns itself with something that's "just a movie". Spencerian 04:31, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Vandalism warning

Not sure what is going on. Were you editing logged out as there is no such warning on this talk page? Evil Monkey∴Hello 04:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charter

Hey there, CC. I hope you have been able to enjoy the long weekend. I think your contributions have been great and I hope you keep them up. We definitely have our work cut out for us on the Charter articles as there is much more to cover. Admittedly, I'm not as well versed in sections 24 and 3 as I would like so I can't speak too much to whether there are any errors or omissions. I hope to look into those sometime in the next while and I'll see what more I can add. All the best! -- PullUpYourSocks 22:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

R. v. Morgentaler

Thanks. It's not my best writing but it's a really interesting case. I appreciate all the fix-ups and I hope to get a bit of time later to clean it up more myself. --PullUpYourSocks 23:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

R. v. Oakes

In theory, judgements likely fall under Crown Copyright. However, realistically, it seems improbable that they would or could ever be enforced. Neither the courts or parliament have really said much on the matter, so it's not very certain. For safe I'd treat them as copyrighted. Having written a large portion of the Oakes article I'm little embarassed to find that I may have copied from the judgement. I usually try my best to explain things in my own words. If I don't fix it before, I'd appreciate any changes you could do. Cheers! --PullUpYourSocks 13:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did a little research on the copyright of court decisions. As far as the Supreme Court decisions go, they are freely reproduceable. I've put details in the Crown copyright#In Canada article. Basically, anyone can reproduce it so long as due diligence to ensure accuracy is exercised, which, given the amount of peer review going on, should make it easy, and that it is not mistaken for official versions of the document, which by virtue of being on wikipedia makes that abundantly clear as well. --PullUpYourSocks 21:11, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promises, promises...

I always try to keep mine! Check out new Mike Inez. Peace! Hamster Sandwich 20:03, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reply...

...at my talk! Flowerparty talk 22:59, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...and another one

Stolen from above

Well that's incredible. And all in one edit as well! Must have been a confusing one for RC Patrol. Excellent work, Caesar! Flowerparty talk 01:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Historicpserson

You know, I think you're right. These are right up Maoririder's alley. Little teeny TV stubs...and the one that jumped out at me, Route 25. Maoririder did a very similar one called Route 95. Think I might keep an eye on this fellow.  :) Thanks for the tip! - Lucky 6.9 02:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Agriculture

Tony, I think I broke the WP:POINT rule when editing Agriculture's user page, with a snide edit summary. I feel really bad about it and, for what it's worth, have apologized. Can you block me for 24 hours? CanadianCaesar 01:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, because I'm confident that you'll do your best to avoid doing it again so there'd be no point blocking a potentially productive editor.
But you can call me "Daddy" for 24 hours if it will make you feel better! ;) --Tony SidawayTalk 01:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Nermal

I just realized something. You thought I directed the comment, Went ahead and did it for you. Edit the page for Nermal and you'll see what I did, at you, when in reality I meant the VfD nominator, who was a relative newbie. Sorry if you thought I was talking down to you, it was never my intent. Fernando Rizo T/C 03:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal

Reverting vandalism is not subject to 3RR. However, I've rollbacked and blocked the anon for the day. HTH. If this is persistent and the page needs to be protected, please let me know. Radiant_>|< 09:59, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the message you left on my talk page. I don't know who I've pissed off, but I'm glad that it wasn't me who got blocked/banned by mistake. When I saw the vandalism on MONGO's page and followed the link from the vandal to Hamster Sandwich. it just took me to what I thought was my user page. Then I became very confused. Just glad someone spotted it before too much damage was done. Nice to know we watch each others backs around here. Thanks again fellow Canuck! See you 'round! Hamster Sandwich 19:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Judiciary Act

Eh. We should probably have standardized VfD notices, since somebody stumbling on that page may not really register that it's nominated for VfD, but I'm not adamant about it one way or the other. Zoe 19:01, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar

Hi, CC. I've been away for a bit but it sure was a nice suprise to come back and notice the award. That's really kind of you. There is still so much to do on the articles, I only hope I can live up to it. Cheers! -- PullUpYourSocks 22:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re:ECK master

I see you've rearranged the ECK master article, and I was wondering, besides the order, what do you think of the article overall? What else is it needing? I've been looking at some books and was thinking about a section on how to become an ECK master; I was also thinking of a "Critique of the ECK master concept" section, since I've drawn some inspiration from the Xenu article. Anything else? CanadianCaesar 02:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought "wow, this is some wild stuff!". I'd like to see more content generally; eckankar, and esp eck master's are extremely interesting to a guy like me who researches obscure faiths for fun. If there is to be more criticism (and is it really needed? C'mon, one of em lives on Venus! XD it should be from someone a bit nore motable than Ford Johnson, andf a bit more substantive than "plagiarism". I mean, what Religion can't fairly be accused of plagiarism? Theres not many... Have you heard of the Yezidi, btw? 02:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello. Please read the appropriate copyright pages before marking a page as a copyright violation. I've reverted your changes on Michel Bastarache, Ian Binnie, Louis LeBel and Marie Deschamps. See the SCC copyright page [1] for more information. ♠ SG →Talk 17:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, well, PUYS and I reverted them back, he agrees it's a copyvio. Besides, why do you support copying and pasting? Do you enjoy hurting Wikipedia? CanadianCaesar 00:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How can it be a copyright violation when the SCC states that it isn't? Wikipedia is about quality, yes, but when there is no quality to fill an area, quantity must substitute. How can more information be hurting Wikipedia? Please review the copyright terms of the SCC carefully. ♠ SG →Talk 01:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC) — Also, you haven't provided any proof of copyvio, while I have actually given you a link to the SCC themselves which states it isn't in violation. ♠ SG →Talk 01:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete

An article about a non-noatable cat is not an unreasonable thing to have listed as {{db-bio}}. I relisted the article for speedy, but typed out {{db|non-notable story about somebody's cat}}. This takes more time, however, and just prolongs a process. The article will obviously end up being deleted, but on AfD it will require lots more effort that would be better spent elsewhere. Storys about cats are still somewhat like bios. Even you voted delete!—Gaff ταλκ 02:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Haig v. Canada

LOL What can I say, I was browsing my watchlist and I noticed a reference to Haig which is an interesting case I've been meaning to write something on for a while now. I kinda stopped half way but I should finish it soon. --PullUpYourSocks 03:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please read

[2] BrandonYusufToropov 14:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for your support!

I hesitated for awhile, wondering if is appropriate to write a thank you note to the editors that have shown support for my RfA. It must be, because it just feels so right to do so! I have nothing but good things to say about your own contributions and efforts here at Wikipedia. Although its a ways off from predicting the outcome, if it proceeds sucessfully, I promise to do what I can to improve and maintain the resource. Thanks again, and keep up the good work you do here! Hamster Sandwich 04:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One hand clapping (phrase)

Philosophy stub? Really?

It's a deal!

I'd most certainly be willing to team up on an article. Section 2 would be my pick. It's one of the most interesting sections, and is likely a popular one to the average reader. Section 11, though extremely important to the administration of justice, is largely procedural and can be kind of dry in parts, so it wouldn't be my first choice. But in all, I think focusing on Charter articles over case articles is prefered as they are more challenging and require more information from a broader variety of sources. If we are agreed to work on section 2, perhaps we can divide our efforts between the headings, I will leave it up to you to decide who does what, I'm entirely flexible. But one word warning, over the next few weeks I may get tied up with other obligations so my effort and contribution may be a bit spotty for the next short while. -PullUpYourSocks 14:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to do some work on it here and there over the next week or so, maybe nothing substantial until the latter half of the month, but if you want to start on the other parts I'll be more than happy to review it and give you some input where I can. PullUpYourSocks 20:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Difference of Gaussian Categorization

Wow, 2 minutes after I created the article, you had it categorized. My friend and I were discussing as to whether or not you used some kind of bot or update script to aid in this lightning-fast turnaround. At first I thought that Difference of Guassian was not really an algorithm but upon further thought, I believe that it is both a wavelet, and an algorithm utilizing convolution with that wavelet. Please tell us how you did this so fast! - 06:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't consider that you might not be familiar with the subject material. Great use of google! - JustinWick 23:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No Worries

Completely understandable. Best of luck. I hope things turn out well for you, and I look forward to see you around again soon! --PullUpYourSocks 00:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BD2412's RFA

Thank you, CanadianCaesar, for your support in my RfA - I'll do my best as an admin to make the reality of Wikipedia rise to the level of the dream. BD2412 T 01:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC) <--note new "admin gold" sig :-D[reply]

Moving articles on afd

When you move an article that's on afd, could you please create a redirect from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OldTitle to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NewTitle instead of moving the afd discussion? My bot can account for redirected afd discussions automatically, but it can't detect moved ones, and there isn't really an easy way to make it do so. —Cryptic (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh, sorry, I was hoping that wouldn't have been a problem. I tried creating the redirect first, but for some reason it kept showing up on my screen as a red link, as if it wouldn't save. So I tried something else. Guess I lost patience. CanadianCaesar 21:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Anthropoid

Ave Caesar! I was not correcting your grammar;) my grammar is terrible. I thought it that - it had no sence in introduction - because it could be mentioned in the next part of the article (context) or in "see also". I know it sounds strangely - but Czech resistance is more complicated to say, that Czech resistance killed Heydrich. For example when Czech resistance (living in Prague) realized, that Gabcik and Kubis are going to kill Heydrich, they made an effort to stop them. Your article about the Czech resistance is very interesting, but there should be some kind of classification - home resistance - "foreign" resistance. Because most of the Czechs who wanted to fight - moved to England or Russia, because it was clear that it will be almost not possible to fight Nazis in the country with so many Germans living in it.

exploding animal

Wondering what you think of exploding animal now? CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 20:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is a great job and I love the Barry stuff. The article now makes a really nice portal for our exploding animal series. Thanks -- JJay 20:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back

Yes, I noticed you lurking in the law articles. I must say, I'm impressed by the recent work on section 12. Well done. It looks like it may only be a matter of time before we have all the Charter basics and case law down. Both those cases you refer are really interesting and worth writing on. In fact, was told on good authority not long ago that the Burns case is considered by some to be one of the most well written Charter decisions of the last 5 years or so. Best wishes and enjoy the holiday! PullUpYourSocks 23:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


RE: Elizabeth Morgan

I've been watching fplay's edits on this article since I removed that paragraph, and I'm starting to think he's either a) crazy; b) illiterate; or c) a very strange vandal. I'd like to know your thoughts about how to approach this issue. Elizabeth Morgan isn't exactly my area of expertise, but I don't like to see any article on wikipedia suffering in this way. Alexforcefive 19:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Harper v. Canada (Attorney General)

Hi CanadianCaesar, thanks for fixing the articles - don't worry about removing the decision part / commenting on "quoting" too much. I need feedbacks on how to make the article "better". BTW, do we have any standardization on the decision box / how these Canadian law article should look like? I try to look at the project page and there's not much there... Thankx! --Hurricane111 22:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


My RfA

Thank you for supporting my successful RfA! Your trust means a great deal to me, and I promise to try my hardest to serve the community. —David Levy (formerly Lifeisunfair) 06:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Charter vs Act vs Bill

I disagree about removing the disambiguation re Charter. I know from personal experience that most people are notr aware of the difference between the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and have never heard of the Canadian Bill of Rights. When they read about the Charter, they think they are reading abouit the Act and vice versa, and that is one reason why Canadians don't understand their human rights.

  • Please sign your comments on my talk page (~~~~). But anyway, disambiguation is for articles that would otherwise have the same name. The Canadian Bill of Rights has never been known as the Canadian Charter of Rights, and if anyone has ever thought that there was only one bill of rights, they can read the article and the see also section and discover more. If they start out by reading about the Charter, that's the best place to start since that's the constitutional document anyway. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 21:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry about forgetting to sign. I still disagree. While I'll conceed the Bill may be ignored since few poeple have heard of it, many people think that "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" and "Canadian Human Rights Act" are synonyms, and that the Charter applies to the private sector and is enforced by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. If they were looking for their human rights in the workplace, they wouldn't know they were reading the wrong article until they got to the end, and recognize the link to the Canadian Human Rights Act.Wuzzy 22:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

Thank you for your message! Happy New Year to you too!! --Hurricane111 07:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Year

Ah yes, nothing like ringing in the New Year by cleaning up the (shitty) article on Operation Highjump! *grins* Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 08:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoop, my bad, it appears at midnight I was actually creating the article on Soviet pilot Anna Yegorova. Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 08:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question re Merge for Way of the Peaceful Warrior

Howdy! I noticed that you seem to be familiar with the history of Way of the Peaceful Warrior, which I had suggested be merged with the author's page Dan Millman. Is there a place where I can review the previous discussion on this? I suspect it follows the old "lumpers v splitters" issue so common to taxonomy generally, but would still like a peek, if it is still accessible anywhere. Thanks! Rorybowman 14:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks! I'll let the issue sit for a month or so, lest I get too bold and step on some toes.
Happy New Year! Rorybowman 22:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aww...

Come on, allow at least the "another planet" one for the humor? :)

Re: your message

I'm really not sure how to do that... I'll have to experiment for a while first. BD2412 T 03:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Many thanks for your 'furry-related support' on my request for adminiship, I'm sure you'll be glad to know the final result was 92/1/0. I am now an administrator and (as always) if I do anything you have issue with, please talk about it with me. --Alf melmac 08:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Preamble

Certainly. Afterall, we have bigger tasks to occupy ourselves with than that dispute, and perhaps time will sort the matter out for us. I will take a look at preamble material and let you know my thoughts. --PullUpYourSocks 02:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beauty and the Beast

Thank you

Francs2000's Bureaucratship

Thanks for your support on my request for bureaucratship.

The final outcome was (70/5/0), so I am now a bureaucrat. I seriously didn't expect so many good comments from everybody and I appreciated the constructive criticism from those that gave it. If you have any queries, suggestions or problems with any of my actions as a bureaucrat then please leave me a note. -- Francs2000 21:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jasper Rose

Sorry about the Sockpuppet - I should have checked first :-) But I really don't think this is a speedy even if the notability is a bit dubious. Dlyons493 Talk 03:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joséphine de Beauharnais

Error sorry, I hate reverting manually sometime -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 03:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re admin, count

I never removed your name all I did was withdraw myself, if I did it might have been by accident but I doubt it It was probaly a lag in the edit history. Thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 20:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC),[reply]

Yeah it was a mistake in my part, Sorry about that. Thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 20:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article move!

I was quite surprised to se that films that have been considered the greatest ever had been moved. If you had read through the archives you would have seen that the article had been moved in the opposite direction not too long ago after discussion. The article is moving towards more prose and away from being a pure list. I will be undoing all your changes. If you want, we can discuss the move on the talk page. -- Samuel Wantman 21:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I realized that it would be much easier for me to move it back since I am an admin. If after discussion, there is consensus to move it to "List of...", I'd be happy to move it back. -- Samuel Wantman 23:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uva religious movements website

I noticed that you used the UVa religious movements website as a reference for Harold Klemp. However individual entries of this large website were written by students and hence the website is of greatly varying quality. And in some cases, like Sai Baba completely wrong with regards to the facts. I hope you can find other better references. Andries 01:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, what I cited from that website in ECK master was substatiated from the book I read by Ford Johnson. As for Klemp, pretty much all I got from that website was the "Westernizing" thing, which I can't recall for sure but I think that might be true. If you have any reason to doubt, please let me know. But have you tried looking this stuff up? I could quote extensively from blogs or copy and paste from the main Eckankar websites like several others are doing, but citing university websites is pretty good and at least I'm trying to expand/rewrite these nanostubs and copyvios. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 21:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing serious research at this subject. What I meant to say is that the UVa website seems to be a reputable source when in fact it is doubtful because of above stated reasons. The student who wrote the article about Eckankar may have been very accurate or not. Some articles written by students at that website are lousy and factually incorrect. If you know the subject well, you may be able to assess the quality of the article. I cannot do that because I do not know the subject well enough. Andries 21:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DRV

Hi, just a formality to let you know that I removed you struck-out comment "and delete the troll as well."[3] on WP:DRV because I think it's the wrong place for personal attacks. No reflection on you, just a need to keep Wikipedia a reasonably comfortable environment for us all. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of music videos by year

Thanks for the heads up. It appears most of the year by year articles (part of the nomination) were never deleted at all. I've done so now, and probably pissed off a few people in doing so. Oh well. There was an overwhelming consensus to delete. -R. fiend 00:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GNAA merge

Hey,

This is to let you know I've removed your {{merge}} tag from the GNAA article, for reasons elucidated on the article talk page.

I've kept the {{merge}} merge tag currently and previously existent on the Last Measure article, which advocates for merger of Last Measure into GNAA.

Feel free to shoot me a note on my talk page if you have any strong feelings about this.

Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 04:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of videos played on MTV Jams

I created List of videos played on MTV Jams mainly to split it off from the MTV Jams article, because the list was so huge. Looking at it now, I'll vote for deletion. tregoweth 17:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting admin action (nicely)

Hello there, I see you're on-line; some time ago articles were created called Rami Nuri and Gopal Das. These were full of nonsense and hoaxes, but I merged what was valid into a new article and redirected them both. Problem: Anons either reverted the redirects to restore the nonsense or merged the nonsense into the new article. It was seriously compromising the integrity of the encyclopedia. So I asked Zscout nicely and he protected the redirects. Months have passed and all of that nonsense has ceased. I now believe the time has come for the redirects to be unprotected, both because nothing in the wiki world should be protected forever and because if someone moves the main article, they wouldn't be able to fix the double redirects. Thanks, CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 06:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've unprotected the redirects. :-) —David Levy 07:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]