User talk:WikiCats/Archive 1

sorry about giving you a hard time at first, i had been being called a bigot by cetusdai for the past few days and was rather touchy about the article because of that. Granted, i egged them on but still. Sorry :) WookMuff 11:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I have supported my removal of "cures are not expected in psychiatry" on the article's talkpage. Of course there is no cure for the conditions you mentioned, but to generalise this to the whole of psychiatry is an overstatement.

Even if it were factually correct that psychiatry has no cures, we would need a

I can think of another one, palliative care. But I think that this is not really the issue. --WikiCats 08:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

A

--Fasten 13:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your help over at Talk:Roman Catholic Church and Catholic Church. I need all the help I can get. People are being very aggressive; I'm getting very discouraged about all this. --Hyphen5 12:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

You showed support for the Catholic Collaboration Effort. Remember that voting to support an article implies a commitment to contribute to the article. This week Catholic social teaching was selected to be improved. We hope you can contribute!

From

As a second note, please do not remove RfC requests. Anyone can make them at anytime, there is no requirement that involved parties agree to have an RfC posted. Thanks. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 03:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. The debate had been resolved by vote.--WikiCats 04:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I invite you to weigh in. I am pro-life and reluctantly support the new opening, however without the word "nonviable" since that word is inaccurate (viable fetuses are sometimes aborted). Despite willingness to adopt the new language (suggested by abortion supporters), my failure to accept the word nonviable has some of them upset. I recorded the views of those who had already expressed their view to make it clear that I was not trying to skew the vote to reject the new opening due to my POV. The proposed opening is now posted in the poll section of the abortion talk page. I hope you will weigh in and invite others to do the same. ____G_o_o_d____ 11:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bogdan. Would you let the title change go through? My reasoning is to use a common name in line with the guidelines in simple English. There would be no problem talking about Bernadette's incorruptibility under this title. --WikiCats 08:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

It should not be a problem, as long as we add a redirect also. JBogdan 10:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello, WikiCats! On the Miracles at Lourdes page we are having a problem with Barbara Shack reverting the page, a possible violation of the

Also, would you be OK with changing the page name to "Our Lady of Lourdes"? The discussion is on the talk page. I do not know how to contact the admins, so could you do it as you did it last time and add the appropriate redirects? JBogdan 22:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I noticed you voted reject on a paragraph that already went through the hands of a large number of editors. I was wondering if you wouldn't join us on the talk subpage to work together with everyone to reach a finalized new version of the paragraph.--Andrew c 14:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You are invited to help remove POV phrasing from the article. Alienus is pushing. ____G_o_o_d____ 05:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please join Evil in an edit war. The more people who participate, the more people get banned. Alienus 05:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I see that you helped remove the NPOV tag on cat hoarding. A similar problem is on the page with animal hoarding. I'm rather new to this thing and hope that you can advise on how to get the NPOV tag removed.--Brianbeck 02:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome and Congratulations on joining the project! I'm sorry this welcome message took so long, but you joined during my Wikibreak, and I assumed that someone else would welcome you in the meantime. Still, that's no excuse, and I am most humbly sorry. Sergeant Snopake 21:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello WikiCats, Raichu has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Raichu 04:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

If you want to welcome a user, just use the {{welcome}} template, followed by your signature. For more information read the Wikipedia:Welcoming committee page, and feel free to add yourself to the Welcoming committee list here. Happy editing. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 14:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a reminder to go vote by June 7 for the Catholic Collaboration of the Week. Support or comment on the current nominations, or nominate an article for collaboration.

Hi, I was wondering if you could create an article on the Oasis Shopping Centre [1]: that seems to be your sort of thing and in your part of the world! I wanted to link to it from Merry Hill Shopping Centre (see this edit: some of the content would belong in an Oasis Shopping Centre article). Thanks, --RFBailey 16:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --RFBailey 13:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi WikiCats - I've attempted to tidy up the confusion at the St. Hilda's page by creating two disambiguation pages - one at St. Hilda's and the other at St. Hilda's College, with the second being essentially a subset of the first. This way people typing something can get a maximum amount of choice without having to see entries that definitely don't correspond to what they typed. Although they look like near copies of each other, the primary goal here is to make disambiguation as easy as possible. Let me know if you disagree with this change, anyway. &mdash SteveRwanda 17:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello, fellow

Thanks for your kindness! --Hyphen5 15:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi WikiCats. I wasn't thrilled either about 'psychological disorder' being added as an alternate title, primarily because it could lead to many many more titles being added, and I think that makes it a little confusing. If you want to pull it out I'm definitely happy with that. Sparkleyone 01:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

While you were completely correct in requesting citations (I was rushed this morning and negelected to put them in) it was perhaps a little strong to suggest that my article was original research? A simple search on Google Scholar throws up numerous mentions of the phenomenon, as do searches on conservation papers concerning introduced species. At any rate I have now provided references as requested. I have also cited the feralo cat article as requested. The exact line in Moors and Atkinson is Many (species) have become established outside their normal geographical ranges in places were seabirds have few behavioural defences. Hope that all helps. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• In the article, all the cited references are journal articles except for Quammen (which is a popular science book and where the term ecological naivete was coined) and Rodda et al, which is a paper presented ina conference. Moors and Atkinson, used in the Feral cat article, is a scientific review (of journal articles) paper again based on a conference. I am sorry that you are unable to read these articles (though you should be able to read the abstracts online), and I will endevour to try and find free fulltext PDFs to use in addition to what I have already cited. However Wikipedia cannot be limited in using only what is avaliable free online, I would never have been able to make albatross into a FA had I not been able to use and cite journal articles and famous books that are not free to view. To answer the question you left on the talk page I would have to say it varies from species to species, and that for example intinctive behaviour to avoid potential predators can be unlearned (as happens with habitutated primates), avoidanve behaviour can be learnt, but also that defensive adaptions can be costly and impossible to learn quickly. An example might be a tendency to nest on the ground in the open, which is fine if you live on a rat free island, but the instinct to nest where your species always has doesn't go away quickly once rats arrive (particularly if the burrowing niche and the tree niche are already occupied by other species). Or, to perhaps use an analogy based on your username, it's the difference between rasing a kitten of a domesticated cat, a feral cat and an African wildcat (the ancestor of our tabbies). If you try and rehome a feral cat, it's too wild, really, to do, but take a feral cat's kitten and like the domesticated cat it's doable; they are tame and can learn to be housepets. An African Wildcat, however, still has aggressive tendencies that are unlearnt but instinctual; these tendencies or instinctual hostility towards non conspecifics have been bred out of domsticated animals, which is why wild animals (wildcats, wolves, boar, polecats) are generally unsuitable as pets, even if their desendents,(like cats, dogs, pigs, ferrets) are.

I have to admit I am slightly curious why you are hostile to this idea. (please forgive delays in my responses, I am working in the middle of the Pacific and can only access the internet early in the morining and late at night.) Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikicats,

Thanks for the message. Westies is a well established term as indicated by the Macquarie Dictionary entry. Easties is a neologism. You might want to merge Westies in with bogan but it has Sydney specific meanings which are significant. It might be worth raising the issue on the Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board to get wider input.

Regards

Capitalistroadster 04:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Asa. Would you support the deletion of both Easties and Westies? Both articles are magnets for derogatory comments. --WikiCats 04:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. It is a tough one. Neither article seems well refenced so by rights, without references, both are questionable. However I have heard the term Westie used by the occasional Sydney person and in the 1981 film Puberty Blues, so personally I do know that it really is used (although I felt it merely refered to someone from the West and it didn't carry the same mullets and thongs connotations of bogan). Eastie on the other hand I have never heard used. The Eastie article itself is full of content that should not be there; editors have apparently had lots of fun listing whatever pretensious qualities they could think of. The Westie article is not so bad, giving a simple the definition without harping on with a list of purported qualities. I'll see if I can find any good references (for either article) later tonight before casting any votes... Asa01 05:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi WikiCats. I am sorry that you think my reasoning is due to some sort of loathing for the people of the West of Sydney. The article is about people called Westies. It is true that it is used to refer to these people. It is also true that it is a widespread term that is also used with certain negative connotations. To report this is good. To say that the people of Western Sydney have the characteristics associated with the term is not, and the article shoudl not do this. My criteria for whether the article should stay or not have nothing to do with whether the term is positive or negative, simply whether it is notable and documented. If the fact that an article attracted vitriol was reason for deletion, we would delete George W. Bush. The fact that "eastie" came after "westie" is also irrelevant in the long term. The relevant factor is that "eastie" has not yet reached the same status in terms of its usage. This is reflected in that fact that it is not well documented, i.e. verifiable. If in a few years time, "eastie" has reached that status, I would want to have an article on it. JPD (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi WikiCats, you recently contributed to the deletion review about the Sydney bus routes. We're requesting an undeletion

Hi again - all I'd appreciate is just a nomination to say that the deletion was not a consensus. I don't think there was a clear majority in voice or in votes to have this article deleted. We need three people's votes to get an undeletion by itself anyway, so it would be good to have a third person. (

JROBBO

13:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC))

Hello again - this article has still been deleted. There's a new deletion review under August 21. Can you please vote for it and make sure you add the words "Overturn" in bold (as a vote). (

Hey, someone seems to have gone ahead and deleted Easties anyway! Was this consensus? mattabat (talk) 00:31, 18 August 2006 (AEST)

That edit (by my bot, I presume) eliminated the transclusion of the welcome template. Check out

Congratulations on the photos you have added to the Marrickville article. Good work. God bless the photographers! --WikiCats 10:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks mate. I've been trying to take as many photos as I can when I go out in the local area for all the Sydney suburbs.J Bar 22:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi WikiCats, I didn't realise that. Just seemed a little odd to have an article like that. The article has also just been listen at AfD, as I'm sure you already know. I have no personal convictions on the article or the subject, but I understand it is hard to write something like that with NPOV in mind. I'll go and have a read over the talk page link you sent me. Regards, —

Hi WikiCats, I think your creation of the Parochialism in Sydney was premature and the current AfD discussion is a result of the negative reaction to a weak initial effort. A lot of Wikipedians are harsh on initial efforts and require relatively high standards.

I personally have been involved in saving two articles from deletion

Adaptation to global warming and Crime in Mexico

. The approach that I used was to work hard (and fast!) at addressing the points made by those voting to delete. Once I felt the points were addressed, I left a note on each person's Talk Page asking them to re-visit the page and re-consider their vote to delete. I am proud to say that, in both cases, I managed to get every "delete" vote changed to "keep". It takes a lot of hard work in a short period of time, though.

--Richard 20:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, WikiCats. I am glad that our disagreements about NPOV and the "name-calling war" have not got in the way, and hope to keep working with you constructively. JPD (talk) 15:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Now that my RfA has been successful, I'd like to thank you again for your support, and your congratulations. Although I wasn't happy with some of the things you said about me earlier, I wouldn't say you ever caused me stress, so don't worry about that. Hopefully we can keep trying to talk things through, and improve some articles! JPD (talk) 15:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's been deleted and I guess we could see it coming. I think the creation of the article was premature in that the quality of the original article was not up to snuff. I learned the hard way early in my Wikipedia career that creating a weak stub is a sure target for AfD. I would have preferred to wait until we had a better article but we now have to move forward with the current situation.

Option #1: Rewrite the article (I hope you kept a copy because I hadn't expected it to get deleted yet)

Option #2: Merge the content into another article such as Cultures in Sydney or Multiculturalism in Sydney as was suggested in the AfD debate.

Check out [2] for another comment along these lines.

Let me know how you want to proceed and I will support you as best as I can.

--Richard 17:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Just following up on a comment you made to me in the "Parochialism in Sydney" AfD: The fact that something exists doesn't necessarily guarantee it an entry. You and I both exist, for example, but unless we've done something noteworthy in our lives (I know I haven't yet), we don't get an entry. BigHaz 21:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Aero. When you closed Articles for deletion/Parochialism in Sydney you did not explain the reason for your decision. Why did you delete Parochialism in Sydney? --WikiCats 08:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The reasons are in the AfD page:

Wikipedia is not a soapbox

; the sources weren't particularly good:

1. "...I don't come across that incredible parochialism in Sydney, I don't" (Garth Porter)
2. "Easties versus westies... Very entertaining, but no substitute for informed debate." (Genia McCaffery)
3. "...you are not alone however, along with mountain dew in believing that many inhabitants of kings are bogan westies..." (Mr Bark, blog response)
4. "westie, also westy. Someone from Sydney's western suburbs, often used derogatorily to mean uneducated and/or uncultured. Also someone who acts like a westie." (About.com Australian slang dictionary)
5. "...a person from the western suburbs of Sydney, usually characterised as being unsophisticated..." (Marquarie Dictionary)

The first source actively denies the state that the article sought to demonstrate pertains in Sydney; the second source offers no enlightenment on any East-West debate; the third source is a blog response - Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as primary or secondary sources. The final two sources are slang definitions and also do not serve to illuminate the situation, if any exists at all. They might be best served as potential entries for Wiktionary, if that Wiki allows slang.

Finally, if you would like to request that the article be restored, please state your case for doing so at Wikipedia:Deletion review rather than this Talk page. Regards, (aeropagitica) 09:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the trouble that you went to in explaining your reasons. I will not be seeking to reinstate this article. Editors have being acting to correct an NPOV issue in Wikipedia after

Ok, that's great. Good luck with writing about your subject in an NPOV manner. I hope that the final result reflects the diversity of Sydney. I think that it is a great city and I'm looking forward to going back there one day! Regards, (aeropagitica) 10:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi WikiCats, I'm sorry to say that I don't have any references for the Upper and Lower North Shore question. My edit to LNS was to remove a self-contradition. The article previously stated that

Thanks for the heads up. I appreciate it. Vaquero100 07:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks about the capitalization--I will fix it if I do it first. JBogdan 13:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey WikiCats, just a minor issue: your vote on Talk:Roman Catholic Church spans several lines in the wikisource, and means that subsequent voters can't use the requested "# ~~~~" format, forcing them to manually number their entries. Would you mind modifying your vote entry so that it's all on one line? Not a really important thing, but I think it will make things a little easier for subsequent voters in the Option 1 category. Thanks, Kylef81 02:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you spamming random people? Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 05:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi WikiCats, at the risk of being pedantic, I would like to make some comments about your efforts to publicize this vote. I'm not sure if you chose to notify me because of our interaction on

Roman Catholic Church

. I assumed that it was the latter in which case it was reasonable to notify me although I was already aware of the vote. I haven't voted because I'm not that excited about the question in general and I am sick of the endless discussion about the question in particular. I'm not sure if I will vote on this question. At the moment, I am not planning to.

You may notice that I reverted your post publicizing the vote on the Esperanza talk page. I appreciate your enthusiasm to get people to vote but this sort of indiscriminate spamming is not likely to be appreciated. I would suggest that you restrict your publicity efforts to users who have made edits to Catholicism-related articles and to projects that are closely related (such as the Wikiproject on Christianity).

Please take my revert action and the above comments in a spirit of friendship and a desire to help you maintain a good image on Wikipedia. --Richard 05:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to vote to move the "Roman Catholic Church" article to just "Catholic Church", but I can't seem to find it properly. I might be too sleeply to find it. Is it numbered? Dr mindbender 07:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

"The points you make, replete with the claims of injustice and oppression (despite the fact that there are several Roman Catholic editors who support the current name or don't care about the issue one way or the other) have all been made before, as Archive 7 above will reveal in all its prolix glory. I invite you to read it if, for nothing else, the strange sense of deja vu it will likely inspire in you, as it does in me. Cheers."

This it the type of patronizing rhetoric I've received from what I consider at this point, outwardly Anti-Catholic editors in this site. I know there is a good faith policy, sure, but the repeated disrespect and blatantly forward condescending attitude is just too obvious to conclude anything less.

I am aware you have supported the change of the article for the proper name "Catholic Church" in the past. I am determined to have our voice heard again and have this issue reviewed and hopefully repealed. However, there is no way I can do this myself, I need you help and anyone else that may assist us. (by the way where the due process ?)

My most significant points for change are found in the one of my latest post as follows:

"1)Using a geographic description in addition to the title of a Church has to be one of the poorest excuses. What is not understood is that regardless of additional descriptive properties "Catholic" Church IS the common title of the Petrine Church in the equivalent manner as "Anglican" Church is the common title of the Church of England...regardless of any descriptive meanings of the words "Catholic or Anglican". If anything it proves how inappropriate it is to impose an extrinsic adjective upon an institution that is not titled in such a manner. If that is allowed then where does it end. Why not add to the Greek the Athenian Orthodox Church, or say London Anglican Church since the symbolic head of the Anglican communion resides there.

2)Since "Catholic Church" is NOT a description, but the title of the lone Church titled as such, by far, historically, in the present and by the world at large it deserves to be title as such. It is not ambiguous, Anglicans do not say they are going to the Catholic Church, do they? Thus, no point in pulling out the ambiguity alibi Also, the article describes one Church, it is not a comparative study of several churches, no confusion to be entertained.

3)The personal ignorance of a Catholic which refers to himself as Roman Catholic is not an excuse to go by such a term. Many of these same Catholics are the same ignorant Catholics that think Catholics of other rites are not real Catholics. Thus, ignorance is no reason, if any a reason for proper education.

4)The listing of a Parish as Roman Catholic is reference to the Rite not the Church at large(albeit slang, where "Roman" is interchanged for "Latin") just as Byzantine Catholic churches are frequently listed as Greek Catholic Church. Since this article is discussing the Church at large and not the Rite, the usage within the church by the "listing" excuse does not apply to this article.

5)The Church in the few instances where it does add the descriptive adjective "Roman" it is used in reference to its Petrine primacy and only when describing or comparing the Church with other schimatic churches. This fact, is perfectly exemplified in Pope Pius XII's encylical Humani Generis where he mearly mentions "Roman Catholic Church" as he speaks of churches not in full communion. Because, in that entire encyclical Puis referrs to the Church as simply "The Church" vs RCC 46 times to 1.

6)Since, this article is NOT from within the Church there is no way to confirm that it is not mentioned pejoratively, thus the additional push to disregard this disrespectful term. Face it, the only way to prove an article's description is not meant pejoratively is only if it comes from within the Church. (Wikipedia should not pretend that anti-Catholicism does not exist)

7)There is no neutral point of view where both sides are equally respected. Since, the Protestant/Anglican POV is represented in everycase (i.e.,

Catholicism

- both presented by their descriptive meaning); and the lone institution which presents itself to the world as simply the "Catholic Church", as a title, it should be respresented as such. The lone way to achieve some type NPOV is by consensus non-Catholic POV 2 articles to Catholic POV 1.

Lastly,Wikipedia is not a Protestant or Anglican outlet. I mean really how many Protestants, Anglicans, or Orthodox refer to themselves as "Catholic", yet that article is presented from the non-Catholic POV(as well as Catholicism). Yet, the Catholic is supposed to shut up and take it - fine, I'll take that for the terms "Catholic and Catholicism". However, we are not allowed the common title of our Church in the name of outlandish excuses, instead the Catholic is supposed to swallow a term imposed by others outside the church, Anti-Catholicism, as is the preferred connotation of those against the Petrine Church.[9] [10] Where are the concessions coming from the non-Catholics?

The injustice is truly preposterous! "

Additionally, and possibly the strongest point is historical. (What do you think about this?..) How did the initial author of the term "Catholic Church" describe that church as and does it still exist? Yes,, and there is documented proof that leaves no doubt that it is the present day Petrine Church and its 23 churches in full communion. (I am presently researching the material, it is facinating!) If anyone or any group has the right to be named by such a term it should be the actual institution which the original author and his companions were referring to.

Thank you very much for your support.Micael 12:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

...for the new userbox! ... and more importantly for all the work you are doing on the CC page. God Bless, Vaquero100 07:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I stand corrected. :)--Ramdrake 14:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you most kindly for your welcome, and also for directing my attention to the vote on the Catholic Church article. I am looking forward to working with you on this noble project we call Wikipedia! --TheTriumvir 13:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou for the invite...

I just wanted to request holding the vote open for longer now that we may more people flooding in from your requests. Announcing votes on relevent wikiprojects is one thing, but asking individuals to vote seemed a little strange to me. But seeing as how people you have contacted are voting for both options 1 and 2, my suspicions of bias may be unwarranted. So really, I just think we shouldn't close the vote tomorrow because it still seems active. As for closing the other poll, I cannot make that call because I am not impartial. I participated in the vote. Plus, I just read yesterday when working on closing some noncontroversial CfD that it is discouraged to close votes if a) you voted in it and b) if the results aren't clear cut and you aren't an admin. but maybe requested moves has different rules. like I said, the issue inititially wasn't about the RCC vs CC debate, but about breaking process. I have a bad taste over this move first, vote later business. But I have already spent too much energy arguing over one word and feel my efforts could be better spent, so I'll let the matter drop. I guess I was just venting, as I guess I am doing now. So I apologize, and I didn't mean to make things personal.--Andrew c 15:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm just going to add this one more thing. You point out that I invited Wikiproject Catholic users to the vote as justification for your personal invites. I also invited Wikiproject Christians, Anglicans, and Eastern Orthodox, however, if I was to personally invite every wikiproject Anglican to the vote, do you think Vaq or someone else might suspect foul play? Something to think about.--Andrew c 17:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikicats, our personal views on the subjects of feral cats in Australia are closer than you'd think. Reading around the subject has convinced me also that the case against cats is not as strong as I thought it was and that more research is needed. I have shown evidence of damage now does exist (the paper I cited yesterday, why do you still claim there is not one paper, btw?) to respond to your challenges, but I am not interested in debating here, I'm interested in cleaning up the article and writing factual NPOV content. If I were pushing a anti-cat POV I would not have included Abbot, I would not have included a cited statement on the benefical role suggested in controlling rabbits. And flat out dismissing the point of view that doesn't match yours is not neutral. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• I can send you an ecopy of Robley 2004 or you can download it yourself from here. I don't have an ecopy of Risbey but you can read the abstract online.

And, (and I'll be as twisty as you are being right now) I don't claim you claim anything. I am concerned that you are selectively posting quotes that do not tell the whole story. I am also concerned that you are using language to imply POV - particularly changing the neutral Many environmentalists and conservationists consider the feral cat to to It is alleged by numerous Australian environmentalists and conservationists that the feral cat. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The concequences? Would these be the same concequences you alluded to in the email only to never write back again? :P And however it started, it is alledged is nether the less not POV, and this is not a debate, this is a neutral article. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I hope so too. BTW the phraseology is much more neutral, thanks. I have a great paper for you, BTW. It's in a book so I can't send it to you but it paints, not exactly a better picture of feral cats on islands, but a more nuanced one. The gist is that cat-native prey interactions are inadequate to explain some extinctions, and that extinctions have be understood in the context of cat-rabbit-native prey interactions. Feral cats didn't on their own cause problems on this one island until rabbits were introduced, after which there was a prey base large enough to sustain a bigger cat population which in turn caused increased pressure on a parrot subspecies which went extinct. I have read similar papers on rabbits and rats and petrels. If you wish to eliminate the threats to island species you basically need to do both in. (Or not, in some cases.) I'll ammend the feral cats and island restoration section with this new information soon. Basically it kind of illustates the point I hoped you got from our emailing - taht things are never black and white in ecology. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for creating the Wildlife Warriors article. I plan to try and see if i can move around some of the info on the Irwin article so a wildlife warriors subsection can be created. it'll make everything look better, not to mention the infomational part of doing it. dposse 21:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[3] Londheart 21:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

New discussion has started at

Hello WikiCats I have a project on ending global warming and need some help. I am on the Gold Coast. Contact me at aj at yeomansplow dot com dot au You can see my book PRIORITY ONE at my site yeomansplow dot com dot au Yeomansplowchris1 12:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I seem to run into you on some articles, but I noticed many of your edits are either minor spelling mistakes, or spacing. When editing, use the show preview button beside the "Save Page" to see a preview of the changes you made before hitting the "Save Page" button.

If there are any minor spelling mistakes, or punctuation, click on the "This is a minor edit" box before hitting the Save Button page, so it notifys other eds that the last edit was only a minor change. Keep up the good work. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 07:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed in the past (including quite recently); the consensus is that voting with images encourages head-counting, thus contradicting afd being "not a vote". If you continue to use them you may annoy someone... so, um, be warned. :) Garrett^Talk 06:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Garrett. My opinion is that we should sort out issues according to the guidelines. But there seems to be an obsession with putting everything to the vote. We have guidelines that cover everything, so I don't know why people are calling for a vote so often. --WikiCats 07:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Labor has no hope of winning the next election, just as Steve Bracks had no chance of beating Jeff Kennett in 1999. Adam 13:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I got the information regarding thier merger from thier website, idon't know how to cite references real well on this site. If you could do it for me i'd be grateful. Briaboru

Hi Dwain. I note that you created Carl A. Anderson. Do you have any connection to the organisation? --WikiCats 14:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I know a couple of people who are members of the Knights of Columbus. I added Anderson out of my interest in the Catholic faith. Dwain 16:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. To be honest I have looked into it, I especially like their good works through charity. I have the book about their founder Parish Priest on order and look forward to receiving it! I am a Catholic and I try to attend Mass as many times during the week as I can. Good talking with you. Dwain 23:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you nathannoblet. I decline. --WikiCats 13:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Please stop trying to inject your blatant POV to an encyclopedia, specifically to

It is the teaching of our Church. --WikiCats 21:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

No it isn't. If you truly believe that it's not your own skewed point of view, then please cite an encyclical publication to source your statements, however I'm telling you with certainty that you won't be able to find a citation to support your view. In any case, edits like those are considered disruption, so please continue to edit Wikipedia, but be aware of the policies, as well hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 22:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi WikiCats. I think I know my way around the extra tools by now. Do you ask for any particular reason? The main uses are easily reverting obvious vandalism using rollback and deletion (cleaning up) as well as protecting pages and blocking for dealing with vandals. JPD (talk) 13:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi WikiCats. Do you know if

Thanks. I'll try to do it later today. Re visiting: I'll be in Brisbane at a conference next week, but won't get down to the Gold Coast. There won't be much free time. I've been to the Gold Coast Indy twice and enjoyed it both times. --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I created Category:Logan City, Queensland to match the style of Category:Gold Coast, Queensland and Category:Cairns, Queensland. --Scott Davis ^Talk 03:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Very good work. --WikiCats 20:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I see you have some help with a new

Hello. Please find here a copy of the first Cats WikiProject newsletter. Please feel free to make any comments, suggestions, etc., here or at the project page itself. Thank you. Badbilltucker 16:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading

).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 20:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Letter

Hi,

3 things-

Firstly, I have started moving your images to the Wikimedia Common's so that they could be used on other projects (EG Wikitravel(http://www.wikitravel.com Wikitravel Home)

I also would like, if you could, help me by chossing photos for the Gold Coast Wikireader. If possible, I plan to have 1 image a page.

3rd thing-You might like to see

Wikipedia:Wikiproject Gold Coast

. Its a sister of WP:AUS and is a 1.0 project. Its banner is {{WPGoldCoast}}.

Thanks

Nathannoblet 08:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Welcome back. I haven't been around much myself, since I've been quite busy. JPD (talk) 11:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, Just wondering if you could organize a image for the Wikiproject Gold Coast banner that shows more of the G.C (Like beaches).

Thanks

Nathannoblet 09:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Week

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you for your work to WP:WPGC. Punk Boi 8 09:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WikiCats/Archive_1&oldid=1138991682"