User talk:OnBeyondZebrax/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, OnBeyondZebrax/Archive 1, 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! Skeezix1000 02:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Capital Commission[edit]

Hi. I noticed your edit to the Ottawa article. I don't know that a lot of detail re. the NCC is necessary on the intro paragraph, esp. since there is a fair amount of discussion about the NCC in the article itself. There has also been a detailed discussion on the article's talk page on how best to characterize the NCC's involvement in the city, and how best to word it, which you may want to check out. Hope that helps. Skeezix1000 02:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that the NCC does more than manage land and monuments. This has been discussed at some length, and I do encourage you to check out the talk page. Skeezix1000 02:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notice your various comments on the talk page. First, I hope you don't mind if I put them at the bottom of the page, along with a heading, so that other editors will have an easier time seeing that you've made a new post. Second, you should use a colon to indent, not spaces, because the latter creates a text box.

As for the substantive point you have made, ("I believe that since there is a statement that Ottawa does not have a federal district like the US/Australia, it would be helpful to clarify that there are nonetheless several ways that the federal government has tried to give the Ottawa a "capital district-like" aspect"), I agree completely. And you will notice that there are, in fact, references to the NCC throughout the article. The intro para, as you know, is supposed to provide the reader with key facts about the city, and is not intended to go into any great level of detail about the nature of the capital district -- that can come later in the article. Moreover, I think that in trying to shorten/simpify your description of the role of the NCC, you are misrepresenting the broader role that the NCC does play in the city. As I am sure you will agree, defining the NCC's role is not an easy (or short) task. And it has been the subject of debate on the talk page. I'd be very happy to chat with you about this some more, if you wanted to reply on my user talk page. Skeezix1000 02:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Again, I really urge you to use a colon to indent, rather than spacing, because your comments are really oddly formatted and hard to read. The tutorials on editing (noted above) are great, and I find them very useful. As for the reference on the NCC website, I have seen that before, and with all due respect to the PR firm that wrote that piece, it is not quite right. If you look at the NCC's governing statute, they have a much broader mandate. Further, the NCC wields significant influence on land use planning, transportation, infrastructure, etc. decisions made in the NCR. It has often been compared to another level of municipal government, not always in a charitable way, and that's not far from the truth in some ways. It's a bit of an understatement to refer to the NCC as simply a property manager.

But the more important issue here is whether this discussion belongs in the intro para. In my view, it does not, and is better dealt with in the body of the article. I also note that the NCC's jurisdiction extends beyond Ottawa's borders, encompassing more than a dozen other municipalities, and as such, if this discussion were to merit inclusion in an intro para., then it should be in the intro to the National Capital Region article. My view, though, is just that of one person -- you've made your comments on the talk page, and others will comment too. 03:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

One more thought - perhaps the compromise here is to simply refer to the NCC, without characterizing its functions. That keeps it appropriately brief for the intro para, and also avoids restarting the debate from about a month ago (on the talk page) about the role of the NCC. Skeezix1000 03:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments too. And I do agree with you on the importance of the NCC. Don't let my edits discourage you -- mine is only one view. Skeezix1000 04:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising on WP[edit]

Ive found the policy extract regarding this:

Policy quote:

Advertising. Articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs. See also WP:CORP for a proposal on corporate notability.

What this means in terms of mentioning Manf names in the text, Im not sure. However, I think it wise to put manfs at the end. Otherwise we will end up in a battle about who to include and who to exclude. Also this method does not give any one manf unfair advantage over others by being mentioned in the text. 8-|--Light current 02:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NatMor, I have already responded to the issue about the Yorkville document in the approprate place some time ago. The other link to [Introduction to PA Speakers, courtesy of Sweetwater this_site] was completely unacceptable, as it's an infomercial. ... Kenosis 14:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Secret articles...[edit]

Hi. You've done some great work on Secret passage and Concealing something in a book recently. Just wanted to say thanks for the work you've put into them. violet/riga (t) 19:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work! Can I ask where you are getting all this information about secret passages and rooms from? It would be great if we could get some references for the article. violet/riga (t) 14:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Trivia sections from articles.[edit]

Just curious but is there conseneous anywhere for removing this content? If there is, can I suggest you paste this content to the talk page of the article. Thanks. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 19:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, just to help you out with moving things to the talk page, I am going to provide a list of edits that you made w/o moving to the talk page.

17:59, 17 August 2006 (hist) (diff) Porl Thompson (edit POV stuff, cut XS and trivia)
19:18, 17 August 2006 (hist) (diff) [To Live and Die in L.A. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=To_Live_and_Die_in_L.A.&diff=prev&oldid=70280427] (→Synopsis - cut XS)

I think that is it. Thanks for contributing! —— Eagle (ask me for help) 19:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Electric organ and FARC[edit]

Electric organ is defined as an organ common to all electric fish used for the purposes of creating an electric field. An electronic organ is name given to the musical instrument even though some of the older ones are not made of "electronic" components.

FARC is short for Featured Article Removal Candidate. Joelito (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]