User talk:Alan.ca/Archive 1

Hughes Electronics

Hi. I agree that Hughes Electronics needs sources. Now that it's been brought to my attention I will work on it. However I've removed the deletion template because there is nothing controversial in the article and frankly I think the template should never have been added in the first place, the sources tag is enough. Mark83 19:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Mark, the tag was added because there were no sources. The whole idea of proposed deletion is to see if anyone objects to the deletion. You are well within your rights to remove the tag template, but make no mistake, I am justified in including it. It would seem that people should check their facts before writing an article. Without facts, everything in the article is supposition.Alan.ca 19:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. It's just my opinion and I know you aren't violating policy, however you're approach does have a heavy handed feel, if you'll forgive me being blunt. The article is sound. It's unreferenced which is less than adequate, but the facts are sound. As such I think a clear warning that is unreference is enough to warn readers and it gives interested parties time to work on the article. Deleting a sound article on a notable subject doesn't seem like an ideal way of resolving such a problem. Thanks again for responding. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mark83 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Mark, please appreciate thatVerifiability supercedes notability and controversial. If an article is not verifiable, it does not belong in the encyclopedia.Alan.ca 23:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Fair points above. You may have noticed both today and yesterday I added a lot of references. Regarding the merger - I have merged Hughes Electronics into Hughes Aircraft. By the time of the sale of Hughes Electronics it was (although still a major company) a shell of what it was when GM bought Hughes Aircraft in 1985. This way the full details of all the divestitures can be dealt with in full in one article instead of fragmented between three or two articles. Hughes Aircraft still needs a lot of reference work, I'll work on it. Mark83 15:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Citing sources

I have created a number of articles recently, most of which have 2 or 3 sources. To which articles are you specificially referring? Most of them I have used from my own sources, but several were created from existing aritcles that did not have sources. I am trying to rectify that, but it takes time. As for the co-axial helicopters, thanks. - BillCJ 07:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If your referring to the Sikorsky S-69 page, you should have noticed from looking at the History that I added the {unreferenced} tag when I created the article, and that it does have one source. I created the article using text from another article (I don't recall which one at the moment) that was unsourced, but I have read of the projects in other places. I had hopes the tag would attract other readers who might have or know of sources they could add or direct me to. Given you interest in co-axial helicopters, if you know of a good source on the topic (esp. online, as I am currently an invalid, and can't get out), that would be helpful.

If you do add {cn} tags, please give some time (at least one week is a reasonable time, which I go by). Thanks for you suggestions. - BillCJ 08:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am referring to that page. Let's just leave the uncited information out until we can find citable sources. I did some searching on the Internet, but even the aircraft history sites didn't have any citable specs. You will note that the template you're using even has a mandatory field for a cited source. Please remember that specs should be cited from an independent source. Often, if you contact the manufacturer they will advise of the independent testing facility that verified their numbers. Alan.ca 08:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The big issue I have with uncited information is that someone looks up the article and assumes the data on the page to be accurate. At some point in the future, we realize it's not correct, so we update the article. That visitor has already used the incorrect information and possibly propagates it further. Our change does not percolate down the same path and the invalid info comes back later to conflict with the accurate version. When I'm deciding whether or not to leave an uncited piece of information and tag it with 'cn' or 'fact', I ask myself if I have any reason to believe the info is valid. If I am not reasonably certain, I remove it. Alan.ca 08:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's not get into a revert war over this. If you'll leave the pages as I had them, I will make it a priority to adress the problems within one week. I thought I had a source for the specs on the S-69 listed, but I didn't put them in. In fact, I left out the Refernces-footnotes section! You deletions brought that to my attention, but it would have been simpler to just add a {cn/fact} tag, and possibly post a note on the talk page about your concerns. I would not have added anything to the articles if I doubted their credibility. I knew it was unsourced, and took the proper steps to address that. I got caught up in antoehr project,and neglected to return to the articel; my bad. Now that I have been remined, I will do my best to address the issues, and will remove the items myslef in one week if I have not sourced them to Wiki standards. Is that good enough for you?

Oh, if you really want to have some fun (seriously), check out the JF-17 Thunder article. No sources whatsoever! (yes, I tagged it {unsourced}) Check the history, and read the info POV info I took out today. Hilarious! Now there's an article with problems! - BillCJ 08:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'm not going to hassle an editor that actually intends to include cited sources. I hope you understand my point though about leaving unsourced information out until atleast one source has been found. I'm going to just trust that you're reasonably certain the info is correct, but if it's not cited in a couple of weeks I will most likely return to clip out the same sections. I will take a look at that other article, happy editing!Alan.ca 08:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. If you see anything else on pages I'm editing that needs attention, just post on that article's talk page; I watch my Watchlist every day. And on the S-69, had one source; I just didn't get it put in :( That one I'll try to get to Thursday or Friday. Oh, and someone else has already added a source to the Hughes Helicopters article. So hopefully we'll see some progress on that one too. - BillCJ 08:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This is annoying. Where do you get off slapping a "notability" tag on Hughes Helicopters? Do you live in a cave? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 12:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You must know that "Let's just leave the uncited information out until we can find citable sources." is incorrect. If you have a problem with a particular fact add a fact/citation needed tag. That is perfectly acceptable. Only potentially damaging or controversial statements must be removed pending a cite. Mark83 14:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually Mark, an editor can remove any statement that is not sourced. By definition any disputed fact is controversial. You should also notice that when I remove a statement, I often use html comment tags to make it disappear from the article, but leave it intact in the wikitext in case someone chooses to verify the fact and reinclude it. Please do not assert I am disrespectful when I am clearly acting in a non-destructive fashion. Alan.ca 00:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I have added 3 sources to the Sikorsky S-69 article. In addition, Looper spent some time last night adding sources to the Hughes Helicopters article while we were in discussion here. - BillCJ 19:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Bill, it's nice to see that someone understands the value of citing sources. Your verified contributions are of great value to the project.Alan.ca 00:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Alan, I'm a bit concerned that you have apparantley ignored the concerns raised above by me and by others. [i.e. editing for several hours after comments have been posted here]. If you are not willing to engage in discussion may I suggest you do not make futher controversial edits. Regards, -- Mark83 00:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by ignoring concerns. I have been discussing the matter on this talk page as you see above. The section title is appropriate, I am only asking people to cite sources. Verifiability is one of the 3 pillars of wikipedia. Not everyone seems to get this point. Although, most often, at once it's pointed out, most editors correct the problem. If you have a specific concern, please specifically state it here. Alan.ca 00:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

By igonring concerns I mean that the comment before me was left at 19:51, 7 December 2006 and you had edits at 23:30, 7 December 2006 23:18, 7 December 2006 23:09, 7 December 2006 22:54, 7 December 2006 22:54, 7 December 2006 22:46, 7 December 2006 22:41, 7 December 2006 22:33, 7 December 2006 22:32, 7 December 2006 22:25, 7 December 2006 22:16, 7 December 2006 22:15, 7 December 2006 22:12, 7 December 2006 22:11, 7 December 2006 22:09, 7 December 2006 22:07, 7 December 2006 22:06, 7 December 2006 22:05, 7 December 2006 22:03, 7 December 2006 22:00, 7 December 2006 21:59, 7 December 2006 21:28, 7 December 2006. I'm glad you have responded now, but surely two hours is a long time to go between logging in and responding to genuine concerns? Mark83 00:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Mark, I try not to take these arguments personally, but when I log in, what I do while I'm logged in and how I choose to spend my time is none of your business. If you want to discuss a wikipedia issue, please state it. Otherwise, your remarks about my personal time are not welcomed.Alan.ca 01:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Totally - I don't take them personally either. However on talk pages I'm welcome to my opinion, as are you. And it is my opinion that if you wish to challenge other editor's edits, you should respond to their comments as soon as possible. And by the way, I mean other editors comments, not mine. We had resolved our Hughes Aircraft/Hughes Electronics discussion. Mark83 01:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hamilton WikiProject

I noticed that you added a link to a WikiProject on Hamilton which has yet to be created on the Project Guide. I was wondering whether you might want to consider contacting Wikipedia:WikiProject Ontario to discuss with them the possibility of establishing such a group as a subproject of the Ontario project. Speaking as one of the primary constructors of the existing project directory, I know that it currently has over 1100 separate projects and that one of the biggest obstacles several of them have is recruiting members. If you were to establish such a group as a subproject of the Ontario project, you would benefit from having the members of that project know about your project, and likely get some contributions from them that you may not have gotten otherwise. As no project officially exists right now, I am removing the red-link from the project directory. If such a group becomes a subproject of the Ontario project, I am sure that they will reinsert it. If after discussion, you still feel that the best or only way to proceed is as a separate project, please read the Project Guide for some ideas on how other successful projects have developed, and perhaps contact me at my talk page if you want any help setting the project page up. Good luck. Badbilltucker 14:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Sounds like a good idea...count me in. Nhl4hamilton 10:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

New verifiability discussion

Hi. I have chosen to remove the discussion last edited on 00:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC) here to avoid it getting lost. Your edit was "Actually Mark, an editor can remove any statement that is not sourced. By definition any disputed fact is controversial. You should also notice that when I remove a statement, I often use html comment tags to make it disappear from the article, but leave it intact in the wikitext in case someone chooses to verify the fact and reinclude it. Please do not assert I am disrespectful when I am clearly acting in a non-destructive fashion."

My point was based on Wikipedia:Citing sources: :To summarize the use of in line tags for unsourced or poorly sourced material:

1. If it is doubtful but not harmful to the whole article, use the tag to ask for source verification, but remember to go back and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time.
2. If it is doubtful and harmful, you should remove it from the article; you may want to move it to the talk page and ask for a source, unless you regard it is as very harmful or absurd, in which case it shouldn't be posted to a talk page either. Use your common sense.

This is not relevant as wp:cite is a style guide, not an official policy document. I have therefore stuck out this point.Alan.ca 01:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I suspect your point about disruption refers to this edit of mine. I'm sorry to not assume good faith but putting aside the fact that it is very obviously a major company there were very many ways for you to check if the article was notable, i.e. discussing it on the talk page or contacting main contributors. Mark83 01:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• The first point to make here is that Verifiability is an official policy of Wikipedia where as Citing sources is considered a guideline for Wikipedia. Understand that Verifiability is one of the three pillars of this project and the citing sources article is a guide to helping editors comply with policy.Alan.ca 01:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• A large company is not always a notable company. It is the responsibility of the contributing editor to prove the notability of a subject by using cited facts. Please realize there is a difference between the notability of a subject in your mind and the proven notability of it in an encyclopedic article.Alan.ca 01:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• As an aside, please know, I do appreciate the work you did on the Hughes Electronics article. I am having this debate with not to just hammer a point, but to debate it. It's possible you might change my mind, but obviously I think I'm in the right here. Alan.ca 06:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

'Barbara Biggs' AfD

Hi Alan. I've fixed up the AfD tag you put on this article, since you'd written what was basically a Prod rationale into it - thus preventing a link to the discussion itself. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Bighatz, I must be getting tired.  :) Alan.ca 06:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

unsourced tagging

Alan, as you're noticing from the above you're quickly becoming a pest with the speedy tagging. You better turn of your bot before people get too aggravated. In my case the bio, finished less than a minute before your tag, was sourced by stating that it was a translation from the Dutch wikipedia article. On top of that, I was about to add some more info (like a link to a Dutch website) which perhaps would have stopped you from adding the tag in the first place. You seem to feel strongly that your tags are important, but please give people at least some time to finalize their article.Afasmit 08:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• It wasn't a bot, I was flying through manually. I admit I went to far with a few of them. I apologize if your article was one of them. It was my first run of new page patrol and I already admitted some of it went too far. Please also note, the original author is not permitted to remove a speedy tag.Alan.ca 08:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Actually Afasmit, I didn't tag your page for speedy deletion. I put an unsourced tag because your article did not have any sources. There is no reason to remove the tag, it is cleanup tag to notify other editors that this article needs sources. Please return the tag. Alan.ca 08:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, Alan, I never said you tagged this innocent little article on the athletic achievements of a non-living person that I simply translated from the Dutch wikipedia for deletion. I was trying to warn you that your current overly fast and thus poorly-thought-out tagging and probably other editing (like your answers to my complaint) will lead to a lot of flaming from less benign editors, as witnessed by all the text that you've already cleared from this page. Perhaps you can live with that, or even enjoy it, but it does not encourage people from adding information to wikipedia, which hopefully still is at the heart of this project and at least equally important as your beloved 3 pillars. It would make more sense if the new-page patrol (a thankless job, I'm sure) focuses on articles that contain some level of potentially controversial or dubious data. I'm sure there are plenty of those. In the case of Chris Berger, his sprint records of the 1930s can often be confirmed in the wikipedia articles to which I'd internally linked. With respect to the tag, I removed it because I'd added the source that I was about to add when you out-tagged me. Adding a source seems a good reason for removing a no-source tag, but apparently I didn't follow the rules exactly. Is it because I called it an external link rather than an external source or reference? In that case you would've corrected the header instead, so that won't be it. Or is it that the source is in Dutch? It'll be hard to find such a good source for information on this person in English. With such rigorous requirements, you will have a lot of work tagging unsourced articles. There will be over a million of those. Afasmit 10:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Anyone who challenges a great deal of edits is going to have some backlash. An unsourced tag is no reason for backlash, but apparently some people misunderstand its purpose. If an article is unsourced for any period of time, the unsourced tag is an acceptabl placement. The fact that there is so much discussion on my talk page is a testament to the fact that I explain my choices to those who challenge it and try to work to find the best solution for wikipedia. In your case, I think it's a simple over reaction to a simple maintenance tag. IF you want my constructive criticism, here it goes:

1) When citing sources please try to include the reference in the text of the article where the statement you are citing lies. I generally use footnotes which can be learned about at wp:foot. Have you seen the citation templates available?

2) Consider when initially creating an article to write something brief that contains well sources facts. This gives other editors time to contribute to your work while limiting the need for someone like myself to come along and challenge the unsourced nature of your article. Either way, thanks for the feedback and I hope you continue to invest the time to translate articles. Alan.ca 19:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Please advise - wikify Kurgan obelisks

Kurgan Obelisks

Alan,I will gldly wikify, but I need help: what to do and how to do it. Will you please advise me about your specific requirements. Barefact 06:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like you to know, that in tagging the article I'm not implying it should be deleted in anyway. You obviously put a lot of work into that article, the purpose of the tag is to get others to help you improve it. Have you tried reading the Wikipedia:Guide to layout article? Alan.ca 08:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Editor review comments

Thank you for providing a comment on my editor review, and your kind words are appreciated! Seraphimblade 10:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome my friend, your assistance in helping me work towards staying neutral has benefited me personally and wikipedia as well. It is through your mentorship activities that your wisdom is multiplied. Alan.ca 10:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Cites to self-published sources

I noticed your comments to the Amy Loftus AFD and find you seem to (IMO) be misrepresenting accurate sourcing. It has always been acceptable to source non-controversial detail to statements made by an individual about themselves. Self-published sources cannot establish notability, of course, but they are valid sources for information. Even if a newspaper article does not actually quote a subject directly when making statements about them, it is most likely that they simply got those details from the subject in any event; thus no real extra reliability is gained thereby.

You should also be very careful about ever removing a stated source from an article - in other words, don't do it unless you have a very good reason, which should normally be that you have found a better source for that information (although it never hurts to keep multiple references). Sources are cited to document where the information came from. If you delete a source, you are in effect losing that origin information. A poor source is not ideal, but it is better than no source being stated at all.

We take self-published statements as sources all the time. We source a company's own press releases in writing an article about it. We source Microsoft's web site when writing an article about Microsoft Word. We source peoples' personal websites to gain biographical detail. This is normal, natural and correct. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback Morven, citing sources is a point of interest for me. I may have been too agressive with that Amy Loftus article, I often comment out or move such things to the talk page. However, on the issue of unreliable sources, do you not agree that referenced citations in an article tend to give crediblity to that article if they are accurate or not? As strange as it may sound, from my POV, when I see that footnote, I don't always click it, I somehow assume that if someone included it, it must be useful. In the case of a reference to the subject's web site or a blog page, I feel as though the integrity of all citations are being brought into question.

That's not to say that I do not check citations when the subject is important, but that I know many people do not. In the case that I do check a citation, I try to make certain it meets the standard of verifiability and NPOV, so when someone like myself reads the article, in the case when they do not check, I am improving the accuracy of what is being read or indicating the fact has not been checked properly. I guess where we differ in opinion, is that, I see a poor reference as no reference at all. As in, I never ask a friendly fisherman to show me with his hands how big was the fish he caught when I was not around. To me, this blatant conflict of interest can only lead to trouble and therefore I discount the evidence. I'm not arguing that independent sources cannot be wrong, but I guess that's where I draw the line. Further on this subject, what is your point of view on citing a subject's statements from a public interview?Alan.ca 11:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, it all depends on what a subject's own statement is being used to support. If it is a non-controversial detail, then I'm definitely fine with it. We (and journalists, for that matter) tend to use a subject's own statements for things like that when there is no suggestion of controversy.

If the subject's statements are being used to support something stronger than minor detail, I want the article text to explicitly state that this is the subject's own claims, rather than leave it appearing to be a neutral statement. E.g. "In an interview, Subject claimed that she was sexually abused between the ages of ten to fourteen".

As to references, I think a poor source is better than leaving the content in the article unsourced. Depending on what is claimed, sometimes the right thing to do with a poor source is to remove the statement from the article (placing it in the talk page so that others can find references). IMO, one should never leave the statement in the article but remove the source; that just loses useful information.

I don't agree that references in an article add undeserved credibility to it. Since sourcing is mandatory, every statement in Wikipedia should (in general) be sourced. There is some argument to the idea of 'invisible' references, reducing the clutter to the general reader. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I have been quite challenged by the Barbara Biggs page, if you read the associated AfD you will see how I tried to resolve it. I have been seeking advice from another wiki editor as a second opinion on many things as I have just recently started removing articles and content on wikipedia. Would you be willing to offer me future guidance in this regard? I would like to get your opinion on the Barbara Biggs article if you're interested. Alan.ca 11:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

When one living person accuses another living person, Wikipedia should be especially careful about sourcing. While poor or marginal sources are acceptable for many purposes, they are never acceptable for a derogatory claim about a living person. Also, where it is not clear whether a person is living or dead, we must presume them living. I have no clue whether the person that Barbara Biggs accuses is still living, but until I see a reliable source concerning his death, I must presume him alive. Robert A.West (Talk) 13:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hamilton Project

If you were to set up a project, you would probably want the project to cover more than just the individual article. You would probably want it to exist as a project covering all things related to Hamilton; the history, people, and so on, pretty much everything in the Category:Hamilton, Ontario. To address the matter of the specific existing faults of the Hamilton, Ontario page, you might want to contact the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ontario and see if one of them would be willing to review the article, specifically with an eye to addressing the existing deficiencies. Also, you might mention at the same time that you might want to consider setting up a task force to deal specifically with articles relating to Hamilton, its people, geography and culture, and ask them if they would be willing to perhaps create a subproject to deal with it. Subprojects tend to have advantages over full-fledged projects, particularly in having much less administrative tasks to deal with, as the mother project generally performs them. Anyway, best of luck with your endeavors. Badbilltucker 16:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Categories

{{helpme}} I would like to know, how do I display a list to a categorical list without adding the article to that category? See List of politicians in Hamilton, OntarioAlan.ca 22:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, to add a cat like that put [[''':'''cat name]]" the colon will allow the cat to be a link. Brian | (Talk) 22:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Where is that information published, I tried to find it in the manual, but was not successful.Alan.ca 22:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The help page for cats is located here if you would like to have a quick read Brian | (Talk) 22:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Help with Liberal Party of Canada and Template:Infobox Canada Political Party

Please help me fix the info box in Liberal Party of Canada and Template:Infobox Canada Political Party Alan.ca 05:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it is good now? There was a | missing somewhere on the LPC page :) If you need anything else, don't hesitate to put the helpme template back. Happy Editing! -- lucasbfr ^talk 06:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

putting the helpme template back, there might be an issue with the template in fact... The rendering seems good on the Article pages though... So I let someone else take a broader look at it. PS: Go Warriors! -- lucasbfr ^talk 06:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks okay to me - removing help-men tag - however, the information on the number of seats for a party is not used. --sony-youth 08:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Aziza Abdel-Halim

Aziza Abdel-Halim - I don't know how to cite or source... maybe you can help? See http://www.mwnna.org.au/aboutus.htm for a reference...

--PeterMarkSmith 07:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I just edited the page and demonstrated the use of a web citation. However, you will need to add more content and sources to meet the criteria of Notability for a biography.Alan.ca 08:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

People Power Party

I noticed you made a number of edits to this article - it's nice to know people notice articles you've worked on! As a semi-regular contributor to Wikipedia (I have occassional bursts of enthusiasm) I freely admit I don't totally appreciate the minutiae of the editorial rules so could you please briefly explain your edits to this article? As the editor who originally organised and added to this stub I'm somewhat confused by your succession of edits - i.e. the speedy delete tag (which I realise you did end up removing), your comments about citations from the party website (which I linked to originally as they give the best indication of the substance of a party's election policies - as well as what mainstream media there was relating to them) as well as the removal of a number of secondary source article citations (even if they were broken links then should they rather be converted into footnotes?) I really don't mean to sound narky just interested in learning a few of these rules for future reference - thanks for your help! Cheers. -- CumberlandsAshes81, 13 December 2006

No problem, I appreciate your good faith assumption represented in your posting. I can't recall the specific edits to that article, but in looking at the edit history it appears as though my concern was around the matter of verifiability and the citing of independent sources. Have you had an opportunity to read wp:v and wp:cite? Alan.ca 23:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Dealing with conflict of interest

What is the best way to address an editor who is writing their own biography on wikipedia? Barbara Biggs Alan.ca 00:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk to them on their talk page and then do an AfD. (one has already been started) Cbrown1023 00:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I have done both of these things, the community wants to permit the article because of the subject's notability and I don't have much of a problem with it. The problem arises from the fact that the subject continues to edit their own biography and include their non wp:npov and wp:or.Alan.ca 00:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you left a note at their talk page about WP:COI, and WP:AUTO? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I have had extensive conversation with the user and I have pointed to those guidelines many times. In fact, other users have also pointed this out to her, yet her merciless editing of her own biography continues. You should see her talk page User talk:Barbbiggs.Alan.ca 00:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If at least two users have tried to advice the problem user on their talk page, a request for comment may be filed for user conduct. Just ask one more time for the user to obey policies and guidelines, but don't threaten them with a RfC. If they refuse, ask two other users who have tried to calm the situation to help you file one. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I have posted some advice on both her talk page and the article talk page. I tried to strike a tone between admonitory and advisory. BTW, are you satisfied that the barrister is no longer living? If so, {{blp2}} was unjustified and should be removed from her talk page, IMO. Even if you are not satisfied, I suggest that {{blp1}} might have been more appropriate because the case is not clearcut. In any event, I suggest you use the parameter to clarify and move the warning to an appropriate section with a timestamp to help out any admins who may need to take action later. Robert A.West (Talk) 11:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Barbara Biggs AfD

I might be coming accross as combative and I don't mean to. Sorry if it appears that way. You seem to be making a concerted effort to make that a good article and that deserves praise. At this point, I don't think it's a question of notability under WP:BIO guildlines, but I always agree that articles should be written in NPOV language. --Oakshade 08:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The way I see this debate is to first establish what sources are valid in the article. Do you agree that if Barb makes a statement in an interview, if it is published, televised or whatever else, it is still coming from Barb? The whole idea of independent sourcing is to get an outsider's point of view, that is independent on the subject of the article. Therefore, we cannot cite Barb's statements in an interview, no matter where it has been published. Agreed? Alan.ca 08:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Putting aside the question of notability, as per POV and article content, as always I agree. In the BBC interview, even in just the openning statements by the inteviewer (and on the written summary page for that matter), there is a 3rd party journalistic verification about what that inteviewer is saying about the suject and that in itself can be considered a reliable source. Of course what the subject says as the inteveiw commences is not 3rd party. --Oakshade 09:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, we agree on that point. *phew* Can you provide the link here and the text that you believe attests to her notability? Alan.ca 09:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

*phew* I'm glad too. For notability, this is where we might have detailed dissagreement. I do believe that her being the primary subject of the two The Age articles and the BBC inteview (however much of the latter is should not be used as content verification) satisifies WP:BIO quite handily. Just that the news directors and producers of those entities chose to cover the subject the way that they did follows both the letter and "spirit" of the guildline. (If you do respond to this, I'm sorry I won't respond quickly as I'm very tired and going to sleep now). --Oakshade 09:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

(outdent) I am a deletionist, if there is such an animal, and I am satisfied as to notability: multiple published works, non-trivial coverage. I am bothered by the WP:AUTO but that is not a deletion criterion if the article is otherwise sound. If you are also convinced, we can WP:SNOW this one. Robert A.West (Talk) 14:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, let's drop it Robert. I will try and work with Barb to keep her fingers out of it and restain herself to providing sources or points of interest on the talk page. It looks like she may turn out to be an excellent contributor to articles within her area of expertise on wikipedia.Alan.ca 15:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If Oakshade is arguing for notable on the basis of the BBC interview and the Age article, you will all see now many more citations to many more articles which were not there before. I have been the subject of a great many high profile journalistic interviews which I have now mentioned in the article. (But if this is seen as biased, remove the sentence by all means. But if you want notability, these references provide more.) The list of articles cited now in the entry is by no means complete - many important ones can't be found now on google since they several years old. But in any case, there are so many it would be silly to include them all even if they were to hand. As for the verifiability of my story, with the enormous amount of media coverage it has received, nobody has yet questioned any single fact I have claimed happened to me. How would one, under your criteria, say, for example, prove that what happened th Frank McCourt when he was a boy, really happened? Presumably he is the only one who could verify many of these events. Anyone in the media who then talks about these events, would only be doing so based on what he had said since nobody else would ever have published anything else, independantly, about his life. On this basis, you could never verify any memoir of a non-famous person. Also, I have suggested to Oakshade on his own article, since he gave the entry a strong keep recommendation, that he may have an interest in rewriting or rejigging the article. Or asked where I could post a notice requesting that some interested party might do this. In any case, where does this leave the entry now? Barbbiggs 15:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Barb, we're going to withdraw the deletion process, but please stop writing your own biography! It violates many fundamental principals of wikipedia. The article has a talk page where you can provide sourced information for consideration, but it is better for everyone if you let a neutral editor include it in the article.Alan.ca 15:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If you change your unvote to "Keep" then you (or someone else) can speedy close it. Robert A.West (Talk) 12:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

My WP username seems to have been deleted. Are you able to explain how or why this may have happened? My laptop is in for repair, so I'm in an internet cafe logging on, but that shouldn't change anything should it? If I create a new user name, it means I can't access any messages in discussion or talk pages under my old username. What does withdrawing the delete process mean? It's still marked for deletion when I request the page as a non-user. I have stopped writing my own biography. I have merely sourced what was there to satisfy the complaints that were identified as problems. I have lived my life not relying on others to fix problems for me. If I'd waited for that I'd still be back at the amoeba phase! In any case, I'm pleased to see that someone has put back the political candidacy reference, added quotes from Peter Hollingworth etc. As for sources, the ones I found, I did so because I knew where to look. Surely you're not going to tell me that sourcing comments yourself violates fundamental Wikipedia policy. I read an article in the Washington Post that someone sent me about Wikipedia's treatment of its delete policy. It was not a positive article for the Wikipedia profile. 203.36.217.79 04:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Barb, the deletion process is a debate. Robert and I, as the main opposition of keeping your article have agreed to keep your article with the understanding that you will be supervised not to edit the main page article. That includes adding sources. I cannot comment on the review you speak of, but in this case we simply do not want someone writing their own biography as it does not respect the wikipedia principle of neutral point of view. Please understand that things move slowly on wikipedia and that failure to include everything that should be in the article instantly is not a failing of this process. Are you aware that having your biography on wikipedia may lead to it including information that you may not be comfortable with being shared on the Internet? Please remember you are not the authority on what goes in and does not go in to your biography on wikipedia. If you can respect this principle, your article will grow in time and people will volunteer to improve it. If you choose to violate this principle you will find that your article will be content locked from being changed and that your user account will become banned. I hope this is not what has to happen as I believe you will continue to make great contributions to wikipedia in the form of editing other articles. Alan.ca 04:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Storm Saxon

I noticed you reversed my changes. What are you looking for and what are you trying to do? I encourage you to spell it out in simple language so we can both accomplish our goals quicker. Cheers.--P-Chan 13:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Main point would be, cite sources for any controversial statements. If you require assistance in integrating a source you have found I may be able to assist.Alan.ca 02:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

An admin who is engaging in revert wars with more than one user.

How do I deal with a wikipedia admin who is presently engaged in a revert war with me for the second time, on an entirely separate article. I have filed a cabal case and complained on the 3r admin noticeboard. I investigated this user's edits and have found that on atleast one other occassion, this month he has engaged in another revert war. This other article is the Paul Christie article. Alan.ca 23:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking at your 3RR complaint, I have to agree that it is not valid. Aside from problems of form (you need diffs, not versions), you need to prove four reverts within 24 hours. The four you cited covered nearly sixty hours. That's not even close. Do you have any evidence that the Admin is using his powers to intimidate you or gain an advantage? If you feel that he has, then you can report the problem on WP:AN/I, but I see no clear evidence of an actionable problem. Feel free to leave a message either here (I will watch) or on my talk page and I will try to help you sort it out. Robert A.West (Talk) 23:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Please note that I am the wikipedia admin Alan.ca is referring to. The "revert war" he's alleging is on the Judy Marsales article, wherein I've removed inconsequential information than appears to be thinly-disguised POV-pushing. Calling this a "war" of any sort would be an overstatement, though if Alan.ca wishes to flag a content dispute, he may want to make a Request for Comment.

The other situation involves my dispute with User:GoldDragon. GoldDragon's general "modus operandi" on Wikipedia is to repost the same edits over and over and over, even in situations where everyone else disagrees with him. I've dealt with him over a period of several months, and consider him to be a nuisance editor most of the time (although not a vandal). I'm certain that I'm not alone in this view. I've tried introducing compromise language several times, but, unfortunately, I've learned that one frequently has to descend to his level of multiple reverts to counter his dubious edits. It isn't pleasant, but the alternative is generally worse.

None of this has anything to do with admin powers. CJCurrie 23:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not asserting abuse of admin powers, but I do believe that someone who holds these powers should be more consistent with the criteria to be nominated as an admin, namely, acting consistent with wikipedia policies. Reverting an edit, refusing to discuss it and subsequently returning uncited information while removing a well source statement, doesn't seem consistent with the ideals of this project. Alan.ca 23:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I've explained my actions more than once. The accuracy of your situation was never at issue; the relevance of the information is. CJCurrie 23:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I have looked at your contributions, you seem to think you are the authority on article content. You may want to consider, that you do not hold the stick of final decision. This is not the first time that you have reincluded unsourced information and removed someone elses cited work. I do, however, find it interesting that most of your reverts are when the included information suggests a right winged political view, where you seem to have no problem including uncited statements when it supports a left wing view. So let us continue to skirt the 3r rule as we continue to revert war on the article.Alan.ca 23:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You might be interested to discover that I've been adding detailed citations to several political articles over the last year. Now, per your request ...

You removed a cited contribution I had made to the Judy Marsales Article. We can discuss the wording if you like, but the fact that she voted against the public opinion of her constituents is releveant to her biography. It could be argued that this citation demonstrates a style of politics.

"The fact that she voted against the public opinion of her constituents" is a POV extrapolation of the information in question. One might indeed argue that "this citation demonstrates a style of politics", but one should find a different forum if one wants to make this argument. In any event, a government backbencher's decision to vote against an opposition member's private bill is hardly a matter of consequence. CJCurrie 00:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The biography is about Judy Marsales, if she is notable, then her actions that define her role that made her notable are relevant to her biography. The opinion expressed was not my personal opinion, but the finding of a reporter who wrote the article. You are free to include a cited statement that contradicts this assertion, but I don't see how it is neccessary to remove it simply because you don't agree with it. Are you saying that you do not object to the publishing of the vote, but to the opinion that it was against the opinion of her constituents? Alan.ca 00:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I was objecting to your rationale for inclusion. I've already stated that I do not consider the matter of sufficient importance, no matter how it is presented. CJCurrie 00:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

For the sake of the greater good, are you willing to consent that both of our statements will be left out while we pursue dispute resolution of which you will cooperate? Alan.ca 00:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Which of my statements are you referring to? CJCurrie 00:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The unsourced list of awards that were attributed to Judy Marsales which I had moved to the talk page. I would also move the section I had added to the talk page under a dispute heading. Alan.ca 00:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me. CJCurrie 00:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Serial Box

Sort of. I'll explain on that mediation page, but in short, the whole request is absurd. The claimant has edited the page twice, in spite of a few discussions on Talk:Serial Box explaining why the link can't go into the article (violates one and possibly two policies). I'm not sure how someone who's edited the page twice jumps right to mediation. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to know why this case was even accepted, as there was no ongoing conflict with User:Bshrode, nor did he make any attempts to discuss his issues on the article's talk page. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The case was accepted because the user had filed a complaint for mediation. You appear to be interested in discussing the matter for resolution. Are you now withdrawing your interest to resolve the dispute through my mediation?Alan.ca 03:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Mediation -- Christian Democracy

Do you agree to accept me as your mediator in Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-08 Christian Democracy? Alan.ca 02:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I would, but I believe it is now a non-issue - the edit-warring has stopped and some form of consensus has been reached, as Itake left. He also stated to me via e-mail that he would no longer interfere with my editing, or, in his words, he would "stop ******* around with the Wikipedia articles". You should regard the case as closed. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 02:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I closed the case, good luck with your future edits.Alan.ca 03:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Priscilla de Villiers

Thanks for the note: I'm not sure I can find much info to add without better access to sources. However, I was wondering: why were CAVEAT and de Villiers merged? While CAVEAT is now defunct, I think it was sufficiently important during its years of operation that it merits its own article even now. That de Villiers does is beyond question. --Saforrest 07:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was faced with the fact that both articles were lacking sources and not very well maintained. I figured instead of risking losing both, I would merge them in hopes of saving one. I chose de Villiers because she was really the force behind CAVEAT and continues to progress beyond the closure of the organization. Alan.ca 07:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Mediation: Swedish Anarcho-syndicalist Youth Federation

Hello, I haven't been that involved in the articles releated to Swedish Anarcho-syndicalist Youth Federation. I mostly reverted POV-pushing by User:Itake, especially in the first sentence of Militant anti-fascism. I'm willing to express my assessment of the situation though. Just let me know what I should do. Spylab 10:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I have contacted the applicant, but have not received a response for his intention to proceed. I will let you know if and when the matter moves forward. Thanks for the prompt reply. Alan.ca 10:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The case was closed at the applicant's request. Thank you for your cooperation. Alan.ca 14:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Archive file name and Werdnabot problem

Your archive file name lacked the "User " before "talk" which made it an inappropriate file name. So I moved the file to the correct name and then changed your Werdnabot invokation to reflect that. Hopefully, Werdnabot will now process your talk page. JRSpriggs 04:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the assistance! Alan.ca 04:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

AfD issues

The Barbara Biggs one I'm not sure on, but the fraternity sure doesn't look too notable to me (and long lists of "notable alumni" aside, notability by association isn't). Just be aware that trying to delete anything but the most obvious and unimprovable pile of crap will run you into opposition. Seraphimblade 06:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. Alan.ca 21:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Image Copyright

I am concerned that the Picture of Stephen Harper may not be licensed properly. The photograph that we're using, is clearly copywritten by Mr. Chung as seen at this url.Alan.ca 12:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It would seem that it is copyrighted, and thus should be removed from any articles, and deleted from Wikipedia. Bjelleklang - talk 12:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I nominated it for deletion, but I'm getting a lot of oppositiong. You may want to join the discussion if you have a viewpoint. Alan.ca 22:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Mediation -- Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-05 Censure for not changing Existing Content

Are you a respondent in this case? Alan.ca 04:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you check the WP:MEDCAB page, you'll notice I'm the Mediation Cabal Coordinator. I go through all the new cases and rename them when needed, fill out the templates if they're not done by the requestor (who didn't do this in your case), delete invalid cases (if they're complete nonsense, for instance), and deal with mediator requests for administrative functions. If, for instance, you needed an article semiprotected due to vandalism which is part of a case, you'd leave a note for myself or Cowman109.

Anywho, nice to have you mediating cases for us, it's a lot of hard work for everyone involved, but I think the end result is worth it! :D ~Kylu (u|t) 04:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Kyle, I appreciate the direction. Alan.ca 22:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Closed?!

Is it enough if i fill in the list of participants? [1] --Striver 11:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

What case? Please provide the wikilink. Alan.ca 21:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

re: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-11 BooyakaDell,

This has progressed to RfC see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BooyakaDell, and help there would be appreciated. I have close this Mediation Cabal and put a link to the RfC. I think I have done it correctly - please check. Thanks Lethaniol 11:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, if you are seeking advocacy you may want to check out Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates.Alan.ca 21:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Mediation -- Swedish Anarcho-syndicalist Youth Federation

I have opened the case, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-08 Swedish Anarcho-syndicalist Youth Federation on the mediation cabal. Do you wish to proceed with the mediation with me as your mediator? Alan.ca 08:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

That too is now a non-issue. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 13:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I have closed this case as well. Alan.ca 21:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Confirmation

Sorry to ask this, but how do I confirm that I'm a respondent in the Aly & AJ Gernre Classification Case? I thought I was part of the case anyway. Do I confirm it here or somewhere else? Acalamari 15:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You click this link Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-12 Aly & AJ Genre Classification and you will see your account listed as other parties. Alan.ca 16:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I already clicked on it, now what do I do? Acalamari 16:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Mediation is voluntary, the requestor put your name on the page to indicate that you should be contacted as a party to the mediation. The idea of mediation is to have the parties discuss an issue with an impartial mediator. If you do not want to participate, state so and I will remove your name. Alan.ca 16:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll be a party in the mediation; definitely. I just wasn't sure how to confirm that I was in it. You're the mediator, and yes, I will be a party in the discussion (I got blocked due to the edit war, so I WILL be in the mediation). My only concern is that the User King Bee and I were having the edit war with, Switchfo0t813, will not participate in the mediation. Acalamari 16:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

We only require two parties with a conflict to proceed with mediation. Alan.ca 17:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

So all I do is edit the discussion section and sign with the four tildes? Simple as that? Acalamari 17:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Never mind; I have signed. Acalamari 17:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, now we can continue this discussion on the mediation page. Alan.ca 22:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Prod'ing articles

[2]. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello Alan.ca. I have reviewed your previous edits and it seems that you have not used the {{prod}} template properly. Kindly cease this immediately and put your contributions for review on the admin noticeboard. G'day. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Nick, I responded on the noticeboard. What policy are you asserting that I have violated? Alan.ca 14:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

(I put this on the admin noticeboard as well)The problem I see here though is that much of what you've PROD'd doesn't fail WP:V, it's just unverified not unverifiable. WP:V is a reason to delete if an article absolutely can't be verified, not just because the editors who contributed lack knowledge about the policies here (or in some cases are just too lazy to follow them). A better tactic would be to see if sources are out there and just tag the article as unsourced if sources exist.--Isotope23 14:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC) Your use of PROD doesn't constitute a policy violation, but it isn't valid usage on some of the articles I looked at either.--Isotope23 14:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, this is getting confusing, to anyone else for this debate, please refer to the admin noticeboard as to avoid duplicate discussion and missing pieces. Alan.ca 15:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• I stand by the basis for most of my prods, wp:v#Burden of evidence. Please don't post here unless you have read it before posting. Alan.ca 15:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I would support the use of prod on the Murchison Region of Western Australia as a valid prod - for a start SatuSuro 15:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually that is one of the invalid prods from what I see... it was pretty easy to source and cleanup.--Isotope23 15:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

On what basis Isotope? Did you read the wp:v#Burden of evidence section? Alan.ca 15:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm familiar with it and I don't think it gives any rationale at all for article deletion, only removal of unsourced material from an article.--Isotope23 15:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

First paragraph, If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.. I don't want to repost the entire section. Alan.ca 15:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, I think this simply refers to "unverifiable" not "unverified"; i.e. if no reliable, third-party sources exist for an article, this article should be deleted. If the sources exist and are not in the article, the article should be tagged or sourced. Unless an article has sat tagged for sourcing for an inordinate amount of time or is an obvious WP:BLP violation, I don't think that statement justifies a PROD.--Isotope23 15:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your point of view Isotope23, I appreciate the feedback, but I feel strongly about citing sources in an encyclopedia article and I think a debate should take place on making atleast one cited source a minimum requirement for a new article. I argue that wp:v as one of the 3 pillars already makes this assertion. Alan.ca 15:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Then AFD them. Prodding them with the attitude of "if no one removes the prod it means no one cares ergo it's non-notable" is quite disruptive. – Chacor 15:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

AfD is a waste of time, if no one objects to the PROD. The whole point of PROD is to reduce admin load. I would appreciate it if you would not insult me by alleging that I am being disruptive. I am clearly in compliance with wp:prod and wp:v. Alan.ca 15:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I object to the use of the murchison article as an example - as what has been done subsequently to it is against its intent - I have had to battle edit conflict after conflict - I hope I get in this time SatuSuro 15:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• I don't want to run in circles discussing this topic. I used the PROD tag on articles that did not cite sources. My interpretation of wp:v#Burden of evidence tells me that an article that doesn't have sources can be deleted. A prod, is the least obtrusive application for deletion as it can be halted by any user removing the tag. Unless someone is going to cite an arbcom decision, this finalizes my thoughts on the subject. If you wish to continue this debate, take it to your talk page. Alan.ca 15:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The only other thing I will say is that if you want to go through a daily PROD of articles that will be subsequently deprodded that is your business, but it sort of defeats the purpose of your rationale against AFD as this will just eat up more of your own time as well as the time of other editors.--Isotope23 15:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

If you truly believe an article should be deleted due to lack of sourcing, when someone deprods an article you should AFD it. But if you're just going to ignore the article after prodding it I'm quite certain that's disruption to make a point. The best way forward to be to actually finalise something, and not toss it aside because you think everyone else is wrong. – Chacor 15:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• As a previously outside observer to this discussion, I'd like to point out that I think you are misreading the Burden of Evidence section of WP:V. The section you quoted: "If an article topic has no..." is where I believe you may be missing the italicized word "topic". It is the topic that needs to be unverifiable and not the article itself that may exist without sources as unverified. For example, if I write the first article about the Eiffel Tower and do not cite any sources, that does not mean that the article needs to be deleted. The Eiffel Tower is a verifiable topic, but the article is not verified. The article will need a {{sources}} tag for sure, but prodding it is not appropriate. If an article topic is verifiable and yet, as you claim, it were appropriate to prod-tag the article for removal, then there would be no point to having the source-request tags. This is in comparison to an article I could write on my Aunt Milny the Hermit. Not having been out of her house for 40 years, there's no verifiability in secondary sources for this topic and therefore the article could be prodded quite easily (in this case, I've chosen an extreme example that would probably also be speedied as well). I encourage you to see some of the valid uses of and information about the prod-tag at WP:PRODSUM and WP:WPPDP if you have not already. Please understand that I'm commenting to help you better choose your course of action on unsourced articles that will benefit the Wikipedia in the long run by requesting sources for verifiable article topics rather than removing the entire article. Remember, WP:V stands for Verifiability, not Verified-or-not-ity. Hope that helps. ju66l3r 19:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• I understand the perspective of the opponents in this argument, I just don't agree with it. To me, we only review articles on wikipedia, not topics. It is the responsibility of the inclusionist editor to prove that an article meets policy. I don't push the AfD because in most cases if someone removes the PROD they feel obligated to find a source. In due course, if the article is not sourced another editor may choose to initiate the AfD at a later date. If the editor fails to cite sources for their content, any editor has a right to remove that content, this is written into wp:v as well. If we want to have a reliable encyclopedia here, I believe we should not create articles if we cannot cite atleast one source, as if we do, the policy essentially states the entire article content may be removed. Maybe this debate should be had on the talk page for wp:v. Thank you all for participating, the last comment about the word topic did actually make me reconsider for a moment. Alan.ca 21:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You cheeky monkey

As the High Pontiff of Rabid Deletionists (depending on whom you ask) let me preface this by saying that I'll not only happily {{prod}} anything without sources, I've also been known to {{db}} them as well. I have even made use of my adminstrative powers to delete something *gasp* unilaterally that was blissfully free from tags of any kind.

Whenever someone gets their back up over something I've done, I do try to soften my stance a little, if for no other reason than that it stops me from ending up on someone's naughty list and they undo all my tagging anyway.

All that said, I'd consider anything less than circa fifty prod tags a day to be undisruptive, and in particular if you (somehow) keep a list and follow up the articles later there is clearly no problem. But you've got to be nice. Some of the last few comments/edit summaries have pushed the edge a little bit, eh? I know, we're approaching the point where it's "Stop hasseling me!" "Why do you say I'm hasseling you?" "Just leave me alone!" "Why do you want me to leave you alone?" territory.

So remove this messge if you want of course, but I please just ignore whomever it is that has gotten up your nose right now, ok?

brenneman 02:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I really appreciate your advice. I asked them to stop posting on my talk page and they don't get the message. I have even started a discussion Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Verifiability_as_a_basis_for_deletion_Burden_of_Evidence on the relevant policy talk page. I warned Chacor and company that I wasn't going to continue a circular argument on the topic and that if they wanted to continue the discussion to do it elsewhere. Are you suggesting that I simply ignore them and allow them to use my talk page as their forum? Alan.ca 02:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, looking at the page history in these last five minutes, has doing anything else helped?

• Ownership of a talk page is one of the areas where we (collectively) haven't decided how to handle it, and there are valid arguments on both sides.
• The outcomes are unpredictable (some admins might block you for the fourth revert of your own talk page, some might block the other person for disruption, some might block you both... I'm going to go with D) hand out lollies.

The short answer is "YES." Just ignore it, don't respond, don't even look at the other person. Pretend you've hit the /plonk key. Really.

brenneman 03:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Harper Copyvio

As the image is not a copyright violation, I took down the tag so that it would not get deleted after seven days. There was already licensing info on the page, it was listed for deletion in bad faith and was eligible for speedy keep. --Arctic Gnome 04:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I did not list it in bad faith. The url where the image is taken from contains a copyright notice for a Mr. Chung. Unless you have a release from Mr. Chung, you have no release at all. Therefore, you are vandalizing the page by removing the tag. If you won't follow procedure I will report you as a vandal.Alan.ca 04:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It also says © House of Commons on the main page of Harper's page, which we have permission from the house and the PMO, which Herman Chung is part of as Harper's offical photographer. SFrank85 13:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you read the copyright statement attached to the notice you reference, it clearly states that users are required to verifiy third party copyright on their own. Further, there has been nothing stated anywhere about Mr. Chung's property being owned by any government office. Alan.ca 22:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add nonsense to my talk page. For one thing, I am not new to Wikipedia, according to your user contributions, I have been here longer than you. And secondly, you are the one perpetuating a revert war. You keep reverting by saying that you have proof that the image is copyright Mr. Chung, yet the owner of the web site that you are citing has said that the information there is incorrect. You have no source for your claim, so do not try and say that you are continuing this debate for copyright reasons. I don't know if you have something against Mr. Harper or whether you just like fighting, but please stop, this is getting very tiresome. --Arctic Gnome 23:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Alan.ca, it seems me that the image you're linking to is probably an outdated page. However the image has been updated to be "© House of Commons" at Harper's proper biography page at the Parliamentary website. Which is it Alan.ca? So who owns the copyright now? Herman Chung or the House of Commons? [3]. I can't figure out how to get to that one page you're linking from their main page. So I have to go by the assumption you googled this image to find the appropriate page to make your argument here. I've removed the copyright violation tag as the [4] gives me the exact link [5]instead of the link given by Alan.ca.

1. Go to http://www.parl.gc.ca/

2. Click your appropriate language

3. Click "Members of Parliament (Current)"

4. Click "Harper, Stephen (Right Hon.)"

OR

1. Go to http://www.parl.gc.ca/

2. Click your appropriate language

3. Click "The Canadian Ministry (Current)"

4. Click "Harper, Stephen (Right Hon.)"

That's basically it. Do you want to provide directions for me to show me how you got to that page using 4 steps? ViriiK 00:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• I have read your submission. My submission is not unsourced, I included the URL on the parliament web site in the deletion template. Until an admin is able to review our dispute, the tag should be left intact on the image:OfficialPhoto.jpg page. If you read the template, instructions for disputing the claim are included. Imagine how you would feel if I was deleting your response to my submission. As for your talk page, you have a welcome to wikipedia template at the top of the page. This template is usually placed on the talk pages of new users. If you find my assumption insulting, you may want to consider removing the welcome maessage as it gives the impression that you're a new user. Alan.ca 00:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You have read nothing. You included the URL of an outdated page. You're avoiding the issue by not telling me how to get there. Tell me how you got to that website. ViriiK 00:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not avoiding anything. I don't remember how I came to that page. I probably just put OfficialImage.jpg into google. How the page was found is moote anyway, the point is we have a web page that disputes the copyright. You have an alleged letter from the PMO, but nothing from The House of Commons. Saying the PMO owns the property of the Crown is like saying that Dalton Mcguinty's office owns all of the parks in Ontario. Alan.ca 00:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

So you can't find your way through the Parliamentary website to that exact page in less than 5 steps? Also your argument is useless against me because I am the personal owner of Military Power Gallery. Are you going to accuse me of violating the copyright of 2047 images taken by Combat Photographers who are not me? No, why? Because, like the Canadian Government, the United States Department of Defense is a property of the people and I have the right to distribute these images by my decision. ViriiK 00:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I took at look at your web site, it's a nice collection of photographs. I really don't know much about how the copyright would apply to the images on your site. The point I am making here is that we have two pages, on the same web site, that claim two different copyrights. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying wikipedia admin staff should review this image as I believe the policy of wp implies this image doesn't belong. I'm also saying that the release needs to come from the House of Commons and the matter of Herman Chung needs to be resolved. If they believe they own the rights, they should update the page I have referenced. At a minimum this creates ambiguity that needs to be resolved. My recommendation would be to take a photo of Harper at a public event and include it in place of the one we are disputing. Alan.ca

I don't care if it's a nice collection of photos. My point stands. You're the one reverting the proper website to the one you want because you found it on a simple google search. You will not accuse me of vandalism because you're the one perpretrating this edit war, not me, not User:Arctic.gnome. Your silly vandalism insertion was removed from my talks page as it's blatant distortion. ViriiK 00:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey. I wouldn't lose your cool over the dispute over the Stephen Harper image. I didn't think your warning against ViriiK (talk · contribs) was warranted, and I personally would just advise that you discontinue from further edits and let a third party decide what should be done. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 00:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I nominated the image for copyvio because there was some discussion leading in this direction. The two users, ViriiK and Arctic Gnome have been modifying the posting and removing the template. The policy clearly states they are not supposed to do this. I warned them because instead of allowing the process to continue, they are trying to disrupt it. I have made several attempts to get the attention of admins to try and resolve this dispute. No one responds. Everything I have read on wp implies that copyright violations are serious. This is an article about my Prime Minister, the last thing I want is a copyright violation. I don't find that I'm violating any policy and I wish someone with authority would resolve the conflict. Alan.ca 00:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Let a third party decide. Just walk away from the page and let an administrator decide on what should be done. I personally have walked away from the page and will participate in the other discussions because edit wars are really, really stupid. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 00:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, others have walked away from this team. I came to this dispute as a neutral third party. I added the correct template for disputing a copyright. These two users have removed it, modified my source link and so on to disrupt the process. I want to leave it alone, I'm tired of having to go back and revert their vandalism. The fact is, they are not supposed to modify or remove the template. If they leave the template alone, I will not have anything to revert. Copyright violation is very serious here on wikipedia. Alan.ca 00:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I am well aware of the seriousness of copyright violations as this is something I deal with day in and day out in my job. However, what you're stating may not be as cut and dry as you're putting it. Let your entry on the incidents page grow and stay out of the edit war. I am taking my own advice and I will only edit the page if there is serious vandalism. I would request that you do the same--this goes for all other parties. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 00:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I just stated, I will state it again. I am not looking for any kind of edit war here. If the other parties allow the deletion debate and process to continue without removing or adulterating the submission, I will have no need to make any edit revisions. I can not sit back and allow them to circumvent the process by modifying the submission or removing it all together. Alan.ca 00:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Will you at least acknowledge that this is best to be handled by a neutral third party? I am assuming we're all voters here, and because of that, I'd like an outside party to weigh in and decide on this. Can you please at least accept this? :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 00:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly what I have been trying to do here! I didn't take any rash action, flagging an image for copyright violation is a request for a third party admin to review it! By removing the template, they are trying to circumvent this process!Alan.ca 00:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Another link with Herman Chung listed as the copyright holder. [Stephen Harper]. This one I acquired by: http://parl.gc.ca, site map, Members of the House of Commons - 39th Parliament, HARPER, Stephen. Alan.ca 01:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It was already on the commons.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Because the issue is in the process of being resolved, and commons:Template:Copyvio is a speedy delete tag. Surely you can wait 6 hours or so for the Canadian Parliament should wake up and answer our queries. It is 4:45 am in Ottawa (if it's the same time zone as New York).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, even though I wrote them an e-mail on Dec 14/06 trying to clear this up, I am not adverse to waiting until 17:00 EST on Dec 19/06. Is someone intending to call them about it? Alan.ca 08:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Virrik's Issues

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. ViriiK 03:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks ViriiK for the reminder, but my reverts are exempt under policy WP:3R#Reverting_copyright_violations as copyright violations are not subject to 3r. Alan.ca 05:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Yet you keep going ahead lying about the fact that the Office of the Prime Minister declared "Yes, it is the freely-licensed official image. Please use that one." and the Library and Archives Canada corroborates the Office as the copyright holder.

Ok, I have no idea what's going on here. I haven't lied to anyone. I tagged an image because of a copyright dispute I observed. This is not an unreasonable thing for me to do. I'm not saying that you're wrong. I am just saying there is more than one claimant for the copyright. I approached this image from a neutral point of view. The first URL I found from google stated it was copyright of Herman Chung. If you would just be patient and stop fighting with me, the issue will resolve itself in due course. Alan.ca 07:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Is that an admission that you never bothered to read the link I have given recently? ViriiK 07:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

For some reason you seem to think this is some kind of civil court case between you and I. Why are you so opposed to letting the deletion process take its course? You make a great case for keeping the image and I have no idea what they're going to do with it. I usually take my own pictures and upload them to avoid these kinds of disputes. It seems that someone has already replaced this image with an alternative in the Harper article, so what's the big concern? Alan.ca 08:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you refuse to accept other parties as the copyright holder and you're stuck on Herman Chung because of an outdated page you found on Google. The Library and Archives Canada shows that the Office of the Prime Minister is the copyright holder and the email corroborates the free-use of the image on wikipedia. ViriiK 08:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

In response to your concern about an outdated page, as I could not remember how I found the page, I went back to the parliament web site and found the offical page for Harper, as a parliamentarian, had the Herman Chung copyright as well. Understand that I have attempted to resolve this discrepency myself by writing the webmaster of the site. Alan.ca 08:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• This has to be one of the lamest edit wars I can recall. Commons has a whole category of pictures of the guy - just choose another one! Guy (Help!) 20:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That's really my point Guy, if there's any doubt of copyright, why keep an easily replaced image. I suspect the debate has become personal and now it is more about who's right vs what should be done. Alan.ca 20:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Frankly I don't actually care who's right. I have deleted the disputed image, just choose another one, there are plenty of good ones which are unambiguously free. Guy (Help!) 20:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, thank you for deleting the image, the task had been outstanding since Dec 12/06. Alan.ca 23:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:V

Before labeling edits vandalism, please check what the URL provided in the edit is. It is an edit from the Wikien-L mailing list, which as listed on User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles, is one of the places where policy is discussed. Also, WAS 4.250 is not a vandal by any means, but an editor in good standing with thousands of edits. Titoxd^(?!?) 08:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I did examine the link, it didn't seem to be a policy statement, but a conversation between two parties. Are you telling me that this somehow constitutes a change to a policy? If so, please refer me to the documentation that supports your claim. My understanding has been that changes to policy are to be discussed on the policy talk page. Alan.ca 08:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

What it definitely does not constitute is vandalism. Your characterization of it was quite unwarranted. While the text seems jocular at glance, you'll see that it actually is in accord with the rest of the verifiability policy. Titoxd^(?!?) 08:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, you didn't answer my question, so I'm going to have to assume that you're talking out of your apple here. There was no talk page discussion, but hey, if you want to support his edit, I'll leave it up to someone else to revert it. I have spilled enough blood today. Alan.ca 08:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I did: you'll see that it actually is in accord with the rest of the verifiability policy. Titoxd^(?!?) 08:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

(editconflict) Alan. You are clearly trying to make a WP:POINT. I am requesting you to cease this disruption and start listening to people. We are here to work on an encyclopedia, so please co-operate and assume good faith. Edits like this – [6] are not helpful at all. — Nearly Headless Nick 08:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Please explain how making a revert, that I thought was vandalism is trying to make a point? My understanding was that changes to the policy were to be discussed on the talk page. How can you imply this revert was in bad faith? How can you imply I'm trying to make a point, when I just told titoxd that I am not going to touch the edit. If anyone is trying to make a point here, it seems to be the two of you. Alan.ca 08:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Lovely assumption of good faith in there. It is not necessary to discuss a change on the talk page per se; a change can be discussed on a mailing list, the Village Pump, the Admins' noticeboard or another place where the discussion is visible. If you don't believe me, you can check out Wikipedia:How to create policy for yourself. Titoxd^(?!?) 08:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Titoxd, thank you for providing that link. That is the link I asked you to provide when we started this discussion. Thank you. Alan.ca 08:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, since you want to have this discussion and I have read the information you provided, let's talk about it. If you review the url provided link for edit]. You will notice the editor is citing a persons response in a discussion thread. They are not citing the consensus of a group, but a mere remark of one of the mail list contributors. How do you suggest this represents consensus to change the wp:v policy? Alan.ca 09:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

As not a change, but a slight clarification. Before that edit, the policy read: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Ergo, we report what other primary and secondary sources report, and attribute their ideas, whether they're erroneous or not. The thread and the comment are a slightly humorous way of summarizing the standard that is currently being applied, so it isn't a change that affects the spirit of the policy. The consensus for the change was already there, as the idea was already there. Titoxd^(?!?) 09:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I see your point of view. I would have discussed any change on the talk page first, but maybe I'm too cautious. I will spectate in this case and see how this edit turns out. Alan.ca 09:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Even a reversion and asking WAS 4.250 on his talk page would have been all right, but what really offended me, to be honest, was the reversion as vandalism. Wikipedia operates based on the assumption of good faith in other editors, and most of the time, editors make modifications to pages in an effort to improve the pages, not to harm them. Let's say that you had been the one who posted the link, and added the sentence to WP:V, and someone else had accused you of vandalism.

How would you have reacted? It probably would have caused a conflict. That's what I asked you from the beginning: to not accuse editors like that. Work on that, and you'll see that you won't run into many problems around here. Happy editing, Titoxd^(?!?) 09:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

At first glance it appeared to be vandalism. As it is an important policy I acted quickly. What I don't understand is why you took to arguing with me about it here when the user I reverted made no comment. Alan.ca 09:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem wasn't the edit per se, it was an issue of reverting an user as vandalism who has worked significantly in creating our content policies and guidelines, such as WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and yes, WP:V itself. Titoxd^(?!?) 09:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know the guy. I see pgk made a revert as well, I probably should have used an edit summary similiar to his choice. I will drop user:WAS 4.250 an apology. Alan.ca 09:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

SAM

Alan, please see the disussion page at the Sigma Alpha Mu article. Thanks - hps05

Thanks for the compromise! I'm sure the article will be greatly improved by your contributions. Alan.ca 08:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Ammends?

I have no grudge with you. There is nothing wrong with making sure copyright checks out. I just think that in the case of the PM picture you are being way too cautious because of one inconsistent webpage. You should accept the word of governments and other big organizations as reliable sources. In the very unlikely case that they are lying, we will have had just cause to think that copyright checks out, so no fault on us. Let no one say that you aren't willing to see a project through to the end; I'd be glad to have you on WP:Canada. --Arctic Gnome 08:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I'm pleased that we can move forward. Is there any article in particular that you think needs attention? Alan.ca 08:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Newbie tests: NPOV?

You flagged the Wikipedia:Newbie tests page as NPOV, but provided no comment on the talk page. Care to elaborate over there? Cipherswarm 04:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall doing so, but that was back in September according to the edit history. I have no idea. I can say that you bringing up this point will cause me to make more thorough edit remarks. Alan.ca 08:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Barry Goldwater High School - Vandalism‎

I cleaned up the whole article a few days ago if you check the history, next time you see it like that just revert it. Thanks. BJ^Talk 09:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I just happened to stumble on to the problem. Did you put something on the talk page about it? Alan.ca 09:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point I should, the article seems to have been writen by BGHS students (no shock) and they seem not to like me removing all of their OR from the article and keep reverting it. BJ^Talk 09:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you considered applying for Page protection? Alan.ca 09:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Nah, It only happens every few days, I can handle it. I will but a blurb on the talk page for other editors. BJ^Talk 09:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, good luck, just keep in mind that when vandals hit that article they waste the time of other editors as well. Alan.ca 10:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Math mediation

Hello Alan, thank you for taking on the difficult task of mediation and for contacting me. I’m sorry that I’m only replying now; we had a blackout for 6 days. I replied on my talk page. — Sebastian 18:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Alan, as you can see Sebastian has returned. Can we resume the discussion vis Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-12-03_Equiv_versus_Equal-Def? --Pmetzger 19:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, both of you state that you accept Alan.ca as your meditator, that you're ready to proceed and sign your name in the discussion section. Alan.ca 21:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure where I am supposed to do that. --Pmetzger 15:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC) Click Here Alan.ca 15:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Polish Genealogy

Of course I am willing to assist you. Only please describe more precisely what you would like me to do. Kkrystian^talk 14:20 (UTC+1) 22 Dec 2006 I responded on your talk page, but basically it relates to finding sources of information in Poland, near Kracow (sp?) Alan.ca 02:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I live in Gdańsk but as soon as I create myself a well functioning e-mail account I will try to help You. Kkrystian^talk 12:51 (UTC+1) 23 Dec 2006

Excellent, that would be much appreciated. Have you tried gmail or hotmail? Alan.ca 11:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

So could tell me your e-mail adress? Kkrystian^talk 14:25 (UTC+1) 23 Dec 2006

Just click on email next to my username here: Alan.ca (talk • contribs • non-automated contribs • wikichecker • count • total • logs • page moves • block log • email)

Sorry it didn't work. Please just write your e-mail adress on my talk page. Kkrystian^talk 19:21 (UTC+1) 23 Dec 2006

Seraphimblade RfA

Hi Alan, thanks for your note; I read your comments on the RfA, which were quite classy. Agree that it would unfortunate to have this RfA influenced by other unrelated events. I'll strike the relevant part of my comment on the RfA. Take care -- Samir धर्म 12:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your reconsideration. Alan.ca 12:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Hamilton

Hi! If you could open a peer review request on Hamilton, I'll list all things wrong with the article. I prefer this method of critique so others can pitch in too. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing! Since the article is in such bad shape I figured they'd refuse to accept it for peer review. Alan.ca 14:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

CJCurrie and Judy Marsales Discussion

Ongoing discussion User talk:Alan.ca/CJCurrie Alan.ca 05:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC) Hiya Alan, I have opened up this to mediation, and im having a go at it myself. Please see the mediation page. Squad'nLeedah 04:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Geography of Hamilton, Ontario

I'm trying to find a citable source for the geography of a City, Hamilton, Ontario. I don't typically do this kind of research and I am stuck. I have looked at other city articles around the world, but they all seem to be poorly sourced. Assistance would be appreciated. Alan.ca 12:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

You could look at Tourism Hamilton, as it has some information (eg the top 10 employers). In general though, I'm not sure. I'll leave the helpme up for now, since that isn't a great answer. -- Sir Escher ^talk 12:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a tough one, it seems nobody is able to help. I have contacted the GIS people for the City and even they have not produced any citable sources. Alan.ca 12:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I would think that the Geological Survey of Canada would have usable information? —Centrx→talk • 23:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Unavailable For Two Days

Just to let you know; I will be unavailable on December 25th and 26th. I will return to the Mediation after then. I have already informed King Bee about this, and I thought it was wise to let you both know this. Acalamari 18:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing, have a happy holiday! Alan.ca 04:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Judy Marsales Mediation

Hiya Alan,

Ive picked up your case for mediation and im having a go at it. Please bear in mind it is my first attempt at this, and i hope i can help resolve it. Squad'nLeedah 04:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate it, moving the cases along I think helps everyone. I modified my request a bit from the original one in hopes of making it easier to solve. It's a basic dispute of the inclusion of content. The talk page for the article Judy Marsales seems to have the most fruitful and current discussion. I will be moving this response to the page User_talk:Alan.ca/CJCurrie. In future, if you want to make a note regarding the case, please place it there. Thanks. Alan.ca 05:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

ISSN on cite news

Check out Template_talk:Cite_news#International_Standard_Serial_Number — coelacan talk — 04:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that's helpful. Now we can including the catalogue number for news sources. However, I wonder if there is a database somewhere to verify an ISSN. Alan.ca 18:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Holiday Wishes

Tractorkingsfan would like to wish all of his Wikipedian friends, of which you are one, safe and happy holidays. Cheers, --Tractorkingsfan 06:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, happy holidays to you as well! Alan.ca 21:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Review

Review done. Please also make sure that the raw page size (w/o references, templates and infoboxes) are less than 30 kb! =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Nichalp, the feedback you provided was helpful. You commented that images should not have specified pixel sizes, but just thumbnailed. Why is that? Alan.ca 21:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Crossposted (AMA case)

I appologize for not repling sooner, I was with family during the christmas holiday and was away from a comupter. Alan, CJCurrie possions is that you are Edittin gin a tenous manner. If you could provide me diffs of your edits I will give you my opinon of it. (Cross Posted to all user pages) Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 01:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, this would be the edit 2006-12-10T15:45:54 by Alan.ca. Subsequently another user made this edit, which I would accept as an alternative. 2006-12-15T12:41:51 by GoldDragon Alan.ca 15:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Aly & AJ mediation case

We've waited a week, and it's clear to me that Switchfo0t813 will not participate. He has switched the genre back to "Inspirational pop," and made various other edits on Wikipedia in the past few days; he just hasn't rejoined the discussion. (You can see his contribs here.) Please advise. --King Bee 14:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't really help out right now as I became involved in my own dispute. I was subsequently blocked and therefore cannot mediate. I should be able to get back to it in a day or so. Alan.ca 14:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Understood. --King Bee 15:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, I'm back! I will post something on switchfoot's talk page to see if I can find out what's up with him. Alan.ca 21:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm also back. I've been asking Switchfo0t813 what's going on as well. Acalamari 22:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You should see this message. Acalamari 19:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Are we able to wrap up our Mediation now? Have you seen Switchfo0t813's message yet? Acalamari 02:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Excellent, yes, I will close the case. I appreciate the cooperation of all parties. Alan.ca 03:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Alan.ca! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy

There's no test, or vandalism.

• Please read the discussion page. Thanks. --Ludvikus 13:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It sure seemed like vandalism to me. The text added was a lot of ramble about the dictionary definition. Alan.ca 18:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

== Mediation -- Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-03 Equiv versus Equal-Def ==

Hi Alan,

I'm sorry, but I've lost faith in your ability to perform useful mediation in the above dispute. In particular, I've been waiting weeks now for something -- anything -- to happen. Several times you seem to have found reasons not to proceed, in each case these issues vanished and yet nothing further happened. At this point I'm no longer happy. Perhaps this is just because of my own misunderstandings about the process, but whether it is my fault or yours, I no longer have confidence in you.

I'd like it if someone else could be found to handle this dispute, and, if at all possible given how long it has been waiting, if someone could be found quickly.

Please note that I can be reached by email, and that I prefer that for dealing with matters that require rapid attention. --Pmetzger 19:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Pmetzger, Alan.ca was blocked recently, and wasn't able to be in any Mediation, including one that I'm in. I suggest you allow him to return to your Mediation. Acalamari 20:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that in any way increases my confidence that the matter would be settled quickly and fairly if Alan were to remain as the mediator. --Pmetzger 20:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

He has been unblocked now. I think that he has handled our Mediation fairly, and I say that he would handle your fairly as well. Acalamari 21:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, I recused myself from the case Pmetzer, the status is now set back to new, hopefully another mediator will pick up the case. Good luck. Alan.ca 02:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank You For Mediating

I wish to thank you for being our Mediator in the Aly & AJ Genre Classification Mediation. You did a very good job, and all Users involved didn't get into any major disagreements. One question though; the discussion will remain on the Aly & AJ Talk Page won't it? Acalamari 04:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I thank you as well. The outcome turned out good for all involved. (To Acalamari: yes, it will remain on the page.) –King Bee ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome guys, it was a pleasure working with you. I would be more than happy to mediate any future disputes any of you may encounter. Alan.ca 18:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Assossiation of Member's Advocates

Good afternoon (GMT time); I have volunteered to accept your AMA case. The first question I wish to ask you is if you would prefer to undertake advocacy via email or talk.

If I can provide you with any further information, please don't hesitate to give me a shout at my talk page.

Cheers and regards,
Anthonycfc (talk • email • tools) 13:35, Friday December 29 2006 (UTC)

I thought Aeon was handling the advocacy. Anywho, I don't mind having the discussion in public. Did you read the MEDCAB case? Alan.ca 00:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Aeon declined the case due to a conflict of interest. With regards to the MEDCABAL case, I did not read the case page - would you mind linking me, unless I come across it (I am also a Med Cabal member, dealing with a case there). --Anthonycfc 13:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I am now handing you over to User:Aeon. It has been a pleasure advocating you - in the short space I had the oppurtunity to do so. Best Wises, cheers and regards -- Anthonycfc 21:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you Anthony, I appreciate the effort. Alan.ca 01:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-05 Censure for not changing Existing Content

I came across this by the purest of chances (I was checking up on another case.) Is there still a problem? I thought I had fixed my mistakes, but if something is still unresolved I am willing to fix it. -WarthogDemon 20:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, the user mispelled my name. It's Demon not Daimon (which is probably why you never got a response.) -WarthogDemon 20:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The incorrect talk page has been deleted but I have moved your comment to my archives (since most of December I've already archived) and replied for convience: [7]. I don't want to correct the cabal case as it has been closed, but I hope I've been able to fix things where I can. Please let me know if the case reopens. :) -WarthogDemon 20:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• I have closed the case, possibly another person may be involved. As always, you will be contacted if someone opens a case mentioning your name. Alan.ca 19:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

HVAC

Do you know where I can find further information on displacement forced air duct design? Alan.ca 07:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes -- ASHRAE has books (aka 'design guides') available on conventional overhead, displacement, and underfloor air distribution. See the bookstore at www.ashrae.org. FactsAndFigures 14:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I contacted ASHRAE, a fellow there advised me that the ACCA Manuals are more appropriate. Alan.ca 15:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Religious Democracy

Thank you for your offer. Please see [[8]] Farhoudk 10:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I am confused by your response. If you accept me as your MedCab mediator, please edit the discussion section of the case page, state that you accept Alan.ca as your mediator and sign your name. Alan.ca 14:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I have been asked to sit second chair on this medcab case, do you have any objection to this? I also invite you to sit second chair on Islamic democracy if you would like. Somitho 22:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I read the section on your talk page. I was a bit confused by the applicant. I'm not sure that I have consent to proceed. Do you think we should merge the case I'm covering into your case? Alan.ca 05:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

CR Paganism Mediation

I've added a statement to the CR Paganism Mediation page. I sincerely appreciate your efforts to organize it but, sadly, for reasons I outlined there, I'm disinclined to participate. Thank you for your efforts toward mediation, though. --Pigman^{talk • contribs} 02:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to thank you for taking the time to contact us. As I've indicated in my statement on the request page, I feel the request for mediation is a frivolous one, filed as part of an ongoing pattern of harassment and intimidation. I'm sorry you got pulled into it. Per the statements on the mediaton request page, I am also quite disinclined to participate. But thank you for your work on MedComm :-) ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Alan, I just read your post on the proposed mediation page. I have to ask, did you look at the evidence provided? The links to the arbitration, the RfC, the discussion on the talk page of the CR article, the users edit history, and the fact that the citations he was protesting are no longer even in the article? Sincerely, ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I look at it from this perspective: a user requested the assistance of MedCab to try and work out a dispute he is having with many users. This is the first MedCab case I have mediated where the respondents chose not to participate, but respond by criticizing the requester. If all of you had responded by saying you were not interested, case closed. I think there is an obvious dispute going on here and possibly talking out the concerns in a mediation may help cool the fire. The first step is to see if anyone is interested in discussing the matter. Alan.ca 04:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Alan, I think what's troubling me is that it seems to me that you are assuming that our frustration with Jefferson Anderson is unwarranted. It also seems to me that you are assuming that continued dialogue with him will make us less frustrated with his behaviour. AFAIK, None of us named in his request believe he has ever made any sort of attempt to resolve any sort of dispute with us. He promptly filed the mediation when he didn't like the results of the RfC, posting on my talk page that he would "happily take this to official mediation and arbitration if necessary."(diff) His statement, summation and request completely misrepresented the situation and contained insults. While perhaps a polite, "no thanks" would have been more appropriate, and I do somewhat regret not keeping it that simple, I think it is human that we responded with a certain degree of frustration and irritability. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 06:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

PS - In case it's not clear, Jefferson's treatment of other Wikipedians is currently one of the subjects in the Starwood arbitration. It's already progressed beyond Mediation. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 06:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It may be short sighted to label the informal mediation as ineffective before it has begun. I wonder if this very kind of thinking has resulted in previous failed attempts to resolve this dispute. It's your choice not to participate, but you're not going to convince me that asking for informal mediation at MedCab is bad faith or some form of harassment on his part. I'm not taking his side of the argument, but I see no fault in his effort to resolve the dispute at informal mediation. The responses received on the MedCab page undermine that attempt. Alan.ca 06:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I am very sorry that you do not seem able to AGF on the part of the people posting above who so earnestly attempted to communicate their reasons to you. That deeply saddens me. Sincerely, --Mattisse 22:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I see a lot has happened while I have been away. First, it saddens me to see Mattisse not assume good faith. I only edit from work, and your message to me came after I'd left for the day on Friday. The last two days I've been out with back problems. I have nothing whatsoever to do with Starwood and am beginning to get angry with those users badmouthing me as if I did. Is there some process by which a user can get an advocate around here? Jefferson Anderson 20:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• The WP:AMA provides advocacy. Alan.ca 04:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've opened an advocacy request there. Also, thank you for trying your best to mediate. I see no fault in any of your actions. Thank you for blanking the accusations against me when closing the case. Jefferson Anderson 18:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Renowned Hamiltons

I'm removing your . Please do a google on the House of Hamilton, (not Ontario!). From the sixteenth century to the eighteenth the chief of Hamilton was the heir to the throne of Scotland, failing the Stuarts. The Hamiltons have produced two Regents of Scotland, the first of which was granted a previously Royal title in France. From the first Duke during the Wars of the Three Kingdoms to WWII, there have been Hamiltons fighting throughout the majority of conflicts in the service of Sweden, Russia, France, the British Empire as well as Scotland. Patrick Hamilton was one of the first protestant Martyrs in Scotland and Alexander Hamilton was one of the pioneering politicians of the nascent USA. Renowned? Daur ye doobt.Brendandh 06:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, in wikipedia we cite the sources of our facts. Please see WP:V and WP:CITE. The tag for citation was inserted because the statement was rather grand in scope and I believe it should be backed up by a citation from a reliable source. I will be returning to the article to add the tag. Please understand this is not intended to impune the article, but to encourage the submitter of the statement to provide their source. If you need assistance with inserting the source I am willing to provide assistance in this regard. Alan.ca 04:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of newspaper stories

Yes Sorry the Holiday interfeared with everything I do. Now that it is all on track again I will be able to help you more readily. Have there been any new things that have happened with you? Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 03:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone else came to the article and included a bunch of well sourced facts. This new person and CJCurrie are still opposed to the inclusion of the fact I found about the vote. Alan.ca 04:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you give me the User name of that member? Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 19:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It was user:Bucketsofg who was the editor who included all of the sourced facts. Alan.ca 19:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I have talked with Bucketsofg and his reply was that it was a very minor fact that you were trying to include.

Here is what he posted on my talk page

Hi Aeon, thank-you for your message on my page. For future reference, you might encourage someone who finds something I do problematic or obscure to get in touch with me, since I don't think there is any need for advocacy here. I did, I admit, do a "drive-by" sourcing for Judy Marsales, a Member of the Provincial Parliament (MPP) for Hamilton, Ontario. This sourcing can be seen more or less in this diff. I also left my opinion on the talk page about whether or not the article should include a reference to Marsales vote against a private member's bill about property taxes on the basis of on article. (You can see the description of the proposal in the last line of Tim Hudak.) In our system, private members' bills have no chance of passing, especially on matters of taxation. Voting for or against it is hardly news-worthy, much less wikipedia-worthy, and as far as I can see the bill only merits a single-line in its proposer's biography and reaction to it is found in no other MPP's article. It's clearly doesn't belong, and you should ask Alan to go find some other similar reference to a private member's votes in any other Canadian politicians' biographies. I think if he finds one in another such article, he'll see how out-of-place they seem. But most of all, I think you should encourage Alan not to resort to your advocacy until he's attempted a good one-on-one exchange with another editor. Bucketsofg 16:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

If this is a minor fact then I would have to agree that it really doesn't need to be in the article and that you should try a one on one exchange (if you have not done so allready). Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 20:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• I have attempted a one on one exchange. They believe the fact that she voted against a bill to cap property taxes is irrelevant. I believe otherwise. As I have stated to both of them, I am open to discussion on the wording of the inclusion, but I think the fact is relevant and it was covered by a well respected news source. Alan.ca 05:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Did it effect just one small area (and conversly covered by one local paper or news station) or was it a national issues that got covered alot? Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 07:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The Bill would have affected the province of Ontario. This news article was about the reaction from some of Judy's constituents on her vote on the bill. I think it is especially relevant because Judy is a former real estate agent and a vote on property taxes would seem to be close to her prior career. Alan.ca 09:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Did it get National coverage and multible media sources? Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 21:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe Judy Marsales has received national coverage on anything she has done. She is a provincial, back bencher, MPP. If you read what is in her article, they are single source items. In fact, 13/15 cited sources in the article are from the Hamilton Spectator, the source of my fact. Alan.ca 15:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, forgive me for saying this, but it really doesn't seem that well, relevant to anything other then her location and area she is responsible for. If I (not being from that area or country) looked her up for some reason I would really not be interested in an individual vote (and nor would most people doing that kind of reasearch). While it is great that you want to make the article the most precise it could be, a admittedly very minor fact would not really add to the article in question. I would have to agree that it really doesn't warrant inclusion into the article (Speaking again as a neutral party). I’m sorry but that is mine and I would have to say that would be the opinion of most of the community if they were to comment on. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 20:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not offended in anyway by your comments. However, I think the same could be said of the entire article lacking International interest, yet somehow it warrants inclusion. I guess I feel that this fact seems to be fitting into a hole between inclusion and deletion. A grey area that purports a lesser criteria for the subject of the article than the facts written about them. Your thoughts? Alan.ca 04:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

In someways I'm surprised that this article exists but even the fact that even more minor stuff exists on the Wiki this really should not surprise me. I would say if you are unsure if it should be included leave it out. Again that is my opinion Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 05:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on the inclusion policy. However, if we allow an article to exist that probably should not, we must apply the same criteria to including facts as we did for including the article. In this case, I have a news article reporting a vote affecting a law for the province of Ontario that was poorly received by her constituents. If we are to consistently apply the inclusion policy, either what I am proposing should be included or all of the other cited facts will need to be removed leaving no article at all. Your thoughts? Alan.ca 20:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a can of worms in a way. I would therefore recomend a Poll. Get a consensus on said inclusion and follow its decission (Sorry if my spelling is off) Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 08:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

So far it has been a 50/50 split, I have had two supporters for inclusion and CJCurrie has had two supporters for exclusion. I will trust your judgment, if you think I should just leave it out, I will move on. The reason I have held on to this issue so tightly is that I don't think this encyclopedia is going to make much progress if we don't follow some kind of guidelines. These guidelines must be applied consistently. I feel that if I let go of this one fact for inclusion, I am supporting that any editor can remove any fact they don't like without citing any guidelines that apply. I have been on the other side of this argument many times supporting deletion of content and almost every time we err on the side of inclusion if the fact is supported by reliable sources. My understanding is the correct way to resolve this for an opponent to this verifiable fact is to include another contrary finding to balance the article. The vote itself is verifiable as it is recorded in the public record of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Further, the newspaper article verifies this vote as well. The opinion portion of it, I can understand the opposition somewhat, but I cannot see a good argument as to why the vote itself cannot be included. If you can show me what guideline inclusion of this vote violates, I would be willing to let this go. Alan.ca 20:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmmm......I think I see a way to resoulve this issue. With your permisson I would like to have Alphachimp (A sysop) have a look at the article and at the content you wish to add. Basicly this is a thrid opinion WP:3O. Alpha is neutral and would give an unbiased view. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 23:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion, I agree. Alan.ca 05:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

we should have a thrid opinion soon. ALphachimp is busy. If we don't get a response back soon I will list this an WP:PO Æon ^{Insanity Now!} 01:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Firefox

Thanks for the tip on Firefox and spelling: I will upgrade at home. --BozMo talk 22:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I just installed it myself and it has improved my ability to correct spelling. If you're looking to increase your main space contributions you might want to help out with WP:BACK. There is a HUGE backlog in pages to be merged. Alan.ca 12:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI on density conversion factors

Hi Alan,
I seen your edits to the infobox for Montreal (it's on my watchlist) and you used the wrong conversion factor for the density.

If you have Persons/km and want persons/sq mi, then persons/km² *2.589988=density/sq mi.

If you have persons/sq mi and want density/km², then persons/sq mi * 0.3861 = density/km²

The US census Bureau reports in persons/sq mi and they explain how to convert between them here.

The reference work looks great, by the way.—MJCdetroit 02:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• I apologize, I made a mistake in my line calculation. Thanks for catching the mistake. Ultimately I would like to find a way to write the conversion into Infobox City. It would be best to write a conversion template for mi^2 to km^2 and vice versa. That template could then be included in the infobox city template with an if statement to determine if km or mi were provided. It would be even better if we could have a conversion like that of WP:DATE formatting. Do you know who I contact about such an idea or how it would be done? Alan.ca 11:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, sorry to butt in (heh). Template:Infobox Hurricane uses some conversion magic, it should be possible to hard-code conversions into templates. BTW, do you still need help with the Wikiproject banner from yesterday? – Chacor 11:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The {{WPCities}} banner problem from yesterday, I fixed. It turned out that the template I had based it on was referring to a main space article, they simple but in a redirect to the category. I correct both templates. Another editor came along and added a bunch of features, however, I am looking for outside involvement to improve it. Would you mind reviewing it and offering some suggestions? In the mean time I will check out {{Infobox Hurricane}}. Alan.ca 11:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The WPCities banner looks good, although categories need to be created for the priorities (e.g. Category:Low-priority WikiProject Cities articles). – Chacor 11:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• As an initial step to automatic conversion, I implemented a population_footnotes field to separate the footnotes from the population values. Check out {{Infobox City}} and let me know what you think. I implemented the change in the Hamilton, Ontario article. Alan.ca 12:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, your talk page is very busy. Yes, there already is an automatic conversion for this exact thing and it works very well with a new template. It has been very successful over at Template:Infobox_Former_Country. The problem with infobox city is that it is an old and very used template. In order for this to work you would need to have the fields (in this case km2) entered in without any puncuation, no commas, no spaces, nothing. Some of the U.S. Cities have sq miles entered in before the square kilometers; i.e. this is on one line, in one field total area. If everything is not perfect, then you will get an error expression. Also, the numbers in the fields would be automatically formatted with a comma every three spaces and some people prefer a space and visa-versa. Due to the amount of pages that use infobox city template, changing the total area field to no punctuation and only km2 may be more work than it is worth, but it is worth a look. —MJCdetroit 15:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Follow-Up: There are about 3,500 pages that use the infobox city template. If a small group of editors were to prep all those pages, then the the automatic conversion could be installed very easily. By prep, I mean removing any puncuation or superscripts or anything that is not numbers from the desired field. For example if total_area= 11,000 then it would have to be changed to 11000. Editor comments seem to be OK. It is not the template but the prep work itself that would be the hard work. I don't know if AWB would be helpful in this either. I would probably take 30-40 second per page. I think in the long-run auto-conversion would be the best way to go. —MJCdetroit 21:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Prep for conversion features As a first step I created a separate field for the reference footnotes in the population section. I tested this field in Hamilton, Ontario's Infobox City. Ultimately we would modify the template to only do the calculation if the corresponding unit field was empty while the other was provided. However, I'm not certain if there is anyway to check that the input is valid before rendering a conversion. Possibly there is a way to test that the conversion is correct before displaying it. This would allow us to provide nothing in the space if the conversion was unsuccessful. I think I'm going to move this discussion to the talk page of the template. Thoughts? Alan.ca 22:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes I seen the Hamilton page infobox and it looks great. That's a good first step as many articles have superscripts (as footnote markers: See Mexico City) in the actual fields. Yesterday, I play with an autoconversion parameter in my template sandbox. It works well. Although, I am not sure what you mean by saying "check to say if the conversion is correct". It is going to convert the way that it is told to everytime and that's the easy part. You know the old computer saying garbage in-garbage out! The way we did it at another template was to always have the metric units entered in and always convert to imperial. Anyway, lets move the rest of this discussion over to the template talk page. —MJCdetroit 16:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Statistic for wikiprojects

Hi, I'm trying to get WP:CITY moving, but I lack experience in how to collect article statistics. Would you please review the assessment department page and post a note on my talk page as to how I get the templates to show the current article values? Alan.ca 21:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot. Let me know if you have any questions. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Thank you for your support. At the moment, had no thought of responding to CJCurrie's charges on that page but its nice for someone else to stick up for me. So now the score is even. GoldDragon 03:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• I noticed that he tends to contact acquaintances for support when dealing with you. I really hope the two of you can work things out. The Judy Marsales article issue is still not resolved, but some healthy debate has taken place with others on the matter. I know that we often think things are black and white on here, but I find as time passes and tempers cool the shades of gray become more obvious. Do you have any interest or time to assist with WP:CITY? We have a long list of articles that need to be tagged with a new template and summarily rated. Alan.ca 12:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Meta

I've left a response to your query at Meta. Thanks. Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Prep for conversion features in Infobox city

Hi, Alan
I've started to edit city pages that link to {{Infobox City}} for automatic conversion. I am using AWB to remove any formating and references. Take a look at a few of my edits to see what I am doing. There are about 2,900 pages, so the more help, the better. —MJCdetroit 14:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. What features in AWB are you using to do it? Are you using some kind of advanced REGEXP to do it? I'm familiar with the unix regex used with grep, sed and awk, but awb uses the .NET version. I noticed in the Montreal article that someone had come along and reverted the template changes and now the infobox is displaying random characters next to the numbers. Alan.ca 15:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

No, just manually. But it is quicker in AWB. MJCdetroit 15:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I fixed Montreal. —MJCdetroit 15:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Help: Unit Conversion from Metric to Imperial like the date format preference?

I am seeking to have a preference added for metric or imperial in the my preferences section. This would allow us to only have to enter a number once and the wiki software could conduct the conversion of the figure to the appropriate unit system. I am noting a lot of duplication in various templates. {{Infobox City}} is one example. Alan.ca 12:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's possible, but you're best off asking at the village pump (technical). – Chacor 12:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

(That page also says "The technical section of the village pump is used to discuss technical issues about Wikipedia. Bugs and feature requests should be made at the BugZilla since there is no guarantee developers will read this page.") Try submitting a request to http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/, I think. Good luck. – Chacor 12:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• FYI: The bug was previously reported and is currently under discussion, but not assigned to any developer. Alan.ca 12:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know how to take a raw number like 145589 and reformat it to 145,589 using template syntax? This would have to work without knowing the number in advance. I want to use this as a first step in moving towards raw numbers for value fields. This would enable an easier migration to unit conversion. Alan.ca 22:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. use {{formatnum:145589}} which yields 145,589. See Help:Magic words for more magic words. --Sopoforic 23:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Ok, thanks, let's see if it works if the input is formatted with , 14,5,5,89 or with ' ' 14 5 5 89. Excellent, it only formats when a raw number is given! I'm going to start including this in templates. Alan.ca 11:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

{{helpme}}

• Does anyone know how to test a field if it contains only a raw number? When using formatnum, if someone had included a ref tag on the same line the output is all screwie. Alan.ca 15:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • {{#ifeq:{{{1}}}|{{#expr:{{{1}}}}}|it was a number|it wasn't}}. For example: 12 is a number but a isn't (see the edit screen of this comment). --ais523 16:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of a Newspaper story in the Judy Marsales Article

Sorry about that Alan I have been very busy. I'm going to list the article at WP:30 today for you Æon ^{Insanity Now!} 18:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem, in the grand scheme of Wikipedia, that little factoid for that article would have to be ranked low on the priority scale. I am only pressing it because I am seeking an answer to the question of inclusion policy. I have not encountered this issue with any other editors in any other article. Alan.ca 18:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hamilton

Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's practice for disambiguation pages; they only go at "Hamilton (disambiguation)" if the plain title "Hamilton" is being used for something other than a dab page. If the disambiguation page is at the plain title, then it does not get moved. Bearcat 06:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Ok, I'm not totally clear on what you're saying, but I think the gist is that only pages that would typically be called Hamilton belong listed on a dab page. Alan.ca 19:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Cities

Certainly happy to help what I can, anyway! Is there anything in specific that needs looking at? Seraphimblade 14:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• The project is truly a mess. I started developing a new banner template {{WPCities}}. If you have knowledge of esoteric templates, you may want to review it and suggest improvements. Otherwise, the HUGE task ahead is to go through Category:WikiProject Cities articles and change the talk page template from {{WikiProject Cities}} to {{WPCities}}. Of course, a quick rating of the article will be useful and the most time consuming using the class= tag for the template. Comments should be left to summarize the rating. If you're interested we should discuss this on the talk page for the assessment department. Alan.ca 14:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Might I suggest WP:AWB to do the tagging change? It'd be much easier if it was semi-automated. – Chacor 14:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting comment. I tried to use AWB to make the change, but the replace feature wasn't working for me. However, I have now realized there is no real advantage to simply changing the template without rating the article. As the main advantage of the new template is the rating option. Alan.ca 14:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It may actually turn out to be better to have someone develop a bot to do the changes. I don't have a ton of expertise in this area, but perhaps there's someone on the project who does? Otherwise, that will indeed be a lot of work, though of course this has the advantage that articles can be rated as we go. We're not on a deadline, after all, so maybe we should just start rating at the top, and change the template over as we do. Seraphimblade 23:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree, we should just work through the old category and rate as we go. There isn't much benefit otherwise. Right now I'm just trying to define a priority rating scale. Do you want to discuss this with me on the talk page for the assessment department of WP:CITY? Alan.ca 23:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I left some comments on the talk page for WP:CITY regarding assessment, see what you think. Seraphimblade 04:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Seraphimblade, I agree with your comments. I just wish we had more people remarking on the proposed changes. I'm afraid someone is going to return from wikibreak and freak out! Alan.ca 19:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried asking for input at VP? Seraphimblade 20:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Not yet. Would you be willing to make an effort to contact those listed as active members and possibly get some feedback at VP? Alan.ca 20:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Heading off to finish a project up, probably can when I get back. Seraphimblade 21:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I started from the bottom up and promoted to Editor19841. Alan.ca 15:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Alan, I logged online at my usual time and was ready to finish the job of adding the new "WPCities" tag on the talk pages of cities listed and low and behold the list was no more.Nhl4hamilton 15:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Just try using the unassessed category on the assessment page. Alan.ca 04:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Mediation nonresponse apology

I'm sorry I didn't respond to your offer of mediation on MedCab Case: Shia Islam. Matters beyond the Wiki got my attention for the last week and a half; and in any case, I guess I was more after 'mediated discussion between interested parties, aimed at consensus', rather than 'mediation of dispute between specific parties'. I'm sorry to have wasted your time. -- Perey 17:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hey, that's ok my friend. One way to solve a dispute between two parties is for one party to withdraw. :) Alan.ca 04:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar for you

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Alan.ca in appreciation of his Random Acts of Kindness and for his Coaching and Guidance. Nhl4hamilton 17:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Colombo

Hi I happy to see Colombo article is being added to WikiProject Cities, but I am concerned with the class assigned to the article, the article has had two peer reviews and most of the highlighted issues have been fixed, and article has plenty of references. I am wondering what is wrong for it to be listed as a start class article? What could be improved? In fact I noticed your template there when I actually visited the talk page to put a notice regarding reviewing it to list it as a good article. Please help me understand the situation. Thanks in advance ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^Talk 13:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• I don't have the time to do a full review of the article at this time, but if it was me who rated it, I often reduce a rating if there is a lack of cited sources for key figures and information. Alan.ca 01:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you should do a full review before its rated in this manner, this is my kind request to you, please go through the article and rate it again, ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^Talk 05:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• I have requested another WP:CITY team member take a look at the article for his own independent rating. I would like to see more of the facts connected with cited sources before I would consider changing the rating. Hopefully the other editor will have time to give a more detailed critique of the article. Alan.ca 03:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^Talk 16:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Madison County

You've suggested that Cobalt, Missouri be merged into Madison County, which is a disambiguation page. You need to move the request to Madison County, Missouri along with the beginning of the discussion at Talk:Madison County to Talk:Madison County, Missouri. Thanks. If you don't take care of it by 6 February 2007 at 00:00 UST, I will go ahead and take care of it for you. Thanks! drumguy8800 C T 16:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, much appreciated! Alan.ca 19:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

MCV Broadband

Well, since I now live in Guam, I don't think it should be deleted, which is why I have put a hangon. Robert Moore 19:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• You may want to review the links that discuss the inclusion criteria. If you believe this article can meet that criteria, the best thing to do is to include that information. Alan.ca 19:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• I just did. I didn't find anything that merits a speedy deletion, and I used to work for a cable company which is why I placed the hangon. If it is possible maybe I should change the name to Marianas Cable Vision since they are a legitimate company. I believe you need to be more specific on what you found what was wrong with the article before you take it upon yourself to come to this conclusion that it should be deleted. Robert Moore 00:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:CATV USA

Hi Alan, I thought you should know that there was already a request to split Template:CATV into multiple templates. Since your reasons for voting to delete Template:CATV_USA apply even more to the former template, I was hoping you could expand on your comments on the VfD page. It seems as though deleting the more specific template (which is how you voted) is actually contrary to your reasons for voting that way. I'm not sure whether I'm simply misunderstanding your reasons, or if you'd prefer to change your vote given this additional information. Thanks, --Bill Clark 21:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• I feel that I was clear as to why I don't support that NAV template and the concept in general. Alan.ca 21:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm still not clear as to whether you'd support the deletion of Template:CATV as well. If so, then I suggest you nominate it for deletion. Otherwise, deleting Template:CATV_USA and leaving Template:CATV in place will make the situation worse (if I'm understanding your position). --Bill Clark 21:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

On that page, I clearly stated, I support a category. I don't need to nominate anything to make that point further. Alan.ca 21:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

(BTW: I just noticed the public library page you were working on, while watching your contributions list.. I think the original editor made a copyright violation, but perhaps rephrasing the content will be okay?)

The original editor is a staff member of the Hamilton Public Library. I have been chasing them for 3 months to get this information released. I just left a voice mail for their director of communications to acquire the sources for the information in that article. Alan.ca 21:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Cable TV commercial spam

Alan - I've taken the liberty of trying to summarize the views of the responders thus far to this issue here. Would you be kind enough to double-check my summary of your views, and supplement or correct them as necessary.

It appears that [[User:Bill Clark]] is continuing to argue his points with some tenacity, despite the fact that the responses thus far appear to be leaning firmly against his views.

Thanks for your input on this - frankly, I am worried about "opening the door" to this kind of commercial spam - others will want in as well because the "precedent has been set"! Spamreporter1 07:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[[User:Bill Clark]] has posted still another proposal which in my view is no better than his earlier efforts. Would you be kind enough to offer your observation of this latest? Spamreporter1 18:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Cable Company Stubs

Please stop marking the cable company pages I've created for speedy deletion. There are several different discussions going on with regards to these pages (one of which you're already involved in) and I'd prefer to let those discussions reach some sort of consensus, before acting on these issues. These articles are stubs and will be filled out in more detail, once those discussions are resolved. --Bill Clark 19:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The articles that I had flagged for speedy deletion will have to be reviewed by an admin before they would be deleted. I believe they do not meet the notability criteria. If you object to these tags, you may add {{hangon}} under the deletion banner. Alan.ca 19:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand all of that. I'm just asking that you refrain from nominating any more of the articles I've created for deletion (speedy or otherwise) until the ongoing discussions have had time to proceed. If consensus is that these articles aren't appropriate, then I'll simply speedy delete them myself. I'd rather not have to state my case on dozens of different pages, which is what will happen if you keep tagging them for deletion. Thanks for your patience, --Bill Clark 20:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough request. I did however flag those articles for deletion in an effort to simplify the argument. As the discussion on WP:CITY was about your linking to these articles, I figured a debate on if those articles should be included would be a good first step. I think you may need to consider where you draw the line between a Cable Company that warrants inclusion and one which does not. If I started providing Internet to my neighbors, would I warrant inclusion? Please also consider the international importance. As well, when your edits are centered on Cable Companies it seems like agenda pushing when you start editing City articles with your only contribution as the addition of this information. Having said that, I appreciate your polite tone in discussing these matters. Alan.ca 20:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Right now, I'm simply including every cable company for which I can find information. I think the criteria for keeping them should include the number of cities and states in which they provide service, the number of customers, etc. – all facts which will take time and research to ascertain. In the process of adding these companies, I've been using the nav template itself to keep track of things.

As for my contribution to city pages, those edits proceeded by my first compiling a list of cities serviced (see Northland Communications Corporation, or Mediacom for an even more extensive example) and then following those links and adding a return wikilink to the cable utility. I've held off on editing any city pages since discussions on this topic were started, and will continue to do so until the issues are resolved.

Hopefully this explanation will help you to understand my intentions here, and to explain my actions somewhat. --Bill Clark 20:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• After reviewing your discussions Bill, I'm not all that worried about inappropriate conduct from you. I think you had an idea to add this content as a good faith contribution. However, I think including this information in City articles blindly is not appropriate. The policy of Wikipedia these days seems to be on the side of article inclusion for anything that isn't offensive or grossly incorrect. You will probably not find much opposition to your Cable Company Articles, but you might find yourself in hot water again by inserting them list style into connected articles. For the debate about inclusion of the Cable Company Articles, you may find it useful to participate in the WP:CORP guidline as it seems that your articles don't all meet it as it currently stands. Alan.ca 11:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Seaport Capital

I'm thinking of adding a article for Seaport Capital, which happens to own several cable companies, including the one that you wanted deleted. If you're interested let me know, since I'm thinking of merging MCV Broadband into the new article. Robert Moore 07:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not really a big deal for me Robert. Thank you for the consideration. Alan.ca 06:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for helping me in the article of Cúcuta...

File:Seal of Cúcuta, Colombia.png			City of Cúcuta
			This barnstar is awarded to Alan.ca in appreciation of his contributions in the article of Cúcuta. --Ricardocolombia 00:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

--Ricardocolombia 00:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• You're welcome Ricardocolombia! It is a personal goal of mine to get all of the capital cities around the world rated. It seems Wikipedia has excellent North American coverage, but many of the great international city articles are neglected. Best of luck with your future edits! Alan.ca 07:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok

I agree with you that on controversial issues that there may be a COI. But there is nothing that I have written that is other than considered opinion and fact. Brendandh 11:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Brendandh, I have reviewed your user page and I would like to begin by saying I have a great deal of respect for who you are and what you may contribute to this project. In respect to the Conflict of Interest, you may want to ask yourself why this dispute is so important to you. I, myself, have found myself engaged in disputes where I had a COI and I can tell you, it's often best to get another, unattached editor, to review the issue on your behalf. I was particularly insulted when I went and sought a third opinion and you completely dismissed this independent response. If you choose to continue to be involved in this article debate, despite your clear conflict of interest, I ask that you try to be respectful of other points of view. If you have a criticism of any statement I make or have made that offends you in some way, please feel free to leave me a comment here on my talk page. Alan.ca 11:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

FAR

I updated the instructions to remove any ambiguity. It's reviewed on the first section of FAR for two weeks. In fact, if sufficient work is done it may not require FARC at all; this is the ideal outcome. Marskell 13:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Ok, much appreciated! Please consider removing your comment regarding this portion of the issue from the FAR page. Alan.ca 13:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but I have reduced it back to the single sentence. The very beginning of the instructions already states "Articles cannot be listed directly as FARCs, and must first undergo a FAR. The ideal outcome of the review period is to have concerns addressed and the review closed without progressing to the FARC list. However, articles will be sent to the removal list if this is necessary to maintain FA standards."

Sigh . . .

Alan - thanks, for thinking of me. Definitely no targeting! Take a look at my recent contribs and you'll see.

There's actually quite an interesting discussion going on about whether a regional WikiProject's tags should appear, or whether a local WikiProject's tags should appear on city articles. I'm lending a hand in moderating that discussion here which I think has been very productive, and I intend to bring a summary to WikiProject Cities and other WikiProjects when it's over, because I think it raises some very useful questions that are going to continue to arise as more WikiProjects arise. If you want to chime in on this discussion, I'd be interested in hearing your views.

Honestly about that user that you mentioned, I have no idea who this user is, and I have no interest in the user. I called attention to one specific behavior the user was doing which I felt would benefit from more points of view. You'll notice the user posted a big statement on the WikiProject Spam talk page (in part complaining about me), which I haven't responded to and don't intend to respond to. As long as the one behavior I called attention to doesn't continue, I have no further interest in this user (and have never had any other interest).

Glad to hear from you! Spamreporter1 19:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Cities Wikiproject for Azerbaijan

Why did you add Cities Wikiproject to Azerbaijan? I read about the Wikiproject and it seems to cover just cities, but Azerbaijan is a country. The Behnam 03:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• My apologies, I am trying to find every capital city in the world and I must have made a mistake. I will remove it from the project. Alan.ca 03:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Here you go Talk:Baku The Behnam 03:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I found it. Someone interrupted me while I was confirming the City was the capital of the nation and I consequently reviewed the nation article. Alan.ca 04:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Istanbul

I 'm wondering! The city of Istanbul page has many qualities that bypass other city articles which has the good article status. Regarding your decision, which do not have any feedback assigned to it or any effort to build communication for the improve of the article that could help the people (Who are proud of their city). It is difficult understand you "rush" to fail the nomination. At the end, this is not a featured article and the article clearly fulfill the guidance criteria given by the good article list. Have a nice day!!!--OttomanReference 15:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• The reasons for the failure were placed on the talk page here. Alan.ca 10:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

List of women in comics

Thanks for completing the merge! I should have thought of doing an "unsorted" section. Good editing!--Tenebrae 23:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! I originally found the article while clearing WP:BACK. I always enjoy improving articles in areas that are not well represented on WP. Alan.ca 10:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

E-mail

Hi Alan, I remember you telling me one time that you have written down my e-mail address and made a note of it. Could you please send me an e-mail? There's some stuff regarding the Hamilton, Ontario articles that I need to discuss with you. Thanks. Nhl4hamilton 02:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I have sent you an e-mail. Alan.ca 10:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

OK Alan, Thanks. I just replied to it. Nhl4hamilton 10:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

GA Eglinton

Thanks for your thoughtful review - the feedback will be useful in improving the article to GA status. Orderinchaos78 12:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! I was really impressed with the article. It's very close to GA status. Next time you make a nomination be sure to include the talk page template. Alan.ca 12:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Corrections

Hey, thanks for correcting the spelling on my userpage. It's nice to know someone is reading it! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 16:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• You're welcome! Alan.ca 20:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Question about a user

Hello Alan, you may or may not remember me, I'm talking to you because I've had my eye on a "new" user, User:Spamreporter1, and think something strange is going on. I'm coming to you because you have interacted with the user. Maybe I should mind my own business, but how could a brand new user be so immediately and exclusively concerned with spam that he/she would undertake such a vigorous and systematic campaign against it? Is that why most people join? I don't see many new users make it their first point of business to eradicate advertising and also immediately single out one user (in this case, User:Bill Clark). Spamreporter also seems to know a little too much about how things work. Do you think anything is going on here i.e. sockpuppetry? Thanks, --Tractorkingsfan 02:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Well they were both troubling in some ways. They both seemed to be aggressive about their POV in their own way. I just made a posting on the user:Spamreporter1 talk page asking him if he has any outstanding issues. Alan.ca 07:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

True. Thanks for looking into it. I'll leave it alone to avoid throwing around unwarranted accusations; I just wanted to see if elements of the Spamreporter/Bill Clark dialogue struck anyone else as bizarre. Take care, --Tractorkingsfan 10:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your approach to discuss the matter as I was wondering about it myself. In fact, since you mentioned it in reviewing the contribs, I realized Bill received quite the brow beating and posted him a note of encouragement. Thanks for the discussion. Alan.ca 10:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. For what it's worth, I think information on cable operators and other utilities is useful. If you get the chance, please see the proposal, perhaps too late, that I left at User talk:Bill Clark#Lists of utilities. --A. B. ^(talk) 16:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Serbs/Serbians

Hello, fellow Canadian. I have a question: How is "Serbians" more pc than "Serbs"? In my understanding of the two terms, Serbian refers to a Serb specifically from, or living in Serbia, while Serb means someone who is an ethnic Serb but not necessarily from Serbia (ex: might be from Bosnia). Being someone from the Balkans, I always found the confusion between these 2 terms interesting. Stop The Lies 05:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

• I understand your point of view, it seems you are engaged in quite the hostile argument with another editor. I was trying to rework the discussion a bit to take out some of the racism. I simply felt the term Serbian was more neutral. Alan.ca 06:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

What? Hostile argument? I'm not in any hostile argument with anyone (to whom are you referring?). But you did not answer my question as to why you think "Serbian" is more neutral (I am simply curious). Why is Serb a slur? Stop The Lies 06:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

I am assuming you accidentally overlooked my latest post on your userpage. I hope I am not bothering you too much, but it really interests me to know why you feel that "Serbian" is more neutral, wheras "Serb" is a slur? Stop The Lies 02:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

Given your failure to reply, I assume you are ignoring me, for whatever reason. That's quite a shame... If you change your mind, or if this is not true, please reply on my talk page. Thanks. Maîtresse 23:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Lake Forest Park, Washington source request ack/syn.

FYI, I've added in an assortment of external references for the Lake Forest Park, Washington page, and have pulled the "needs sources" tag that you added back out of the article. I've also thrown in a few more facts to expand the history, and a nice quote from the original prospectus for sale back in 1912. Solarbird 06:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Excellent work! However it seems that you did not include the references in the text to support the facts. Please review WP:FOOT and WP:CITET. Let me know when you get a chance to correct the references. Alan.ca 11:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Kenmore, Ontario

Oh, and I got tired of seeing a red link to Kenmore, Ontario in my Kenmore, Washington page, so I made a stub page for Kenmore, Ontario. (This is all relevant because Kenmore, Washington's founder was from Kenmore, Ontario and before that, Kenmore, Scotland. Yes, really. The Scottish Kenmore is a Washington State Kenmore sister city, and Kenmore, Washington has sent people to Kenmore, Ontario to say hi.) Anyway, I see you have interest in Ontario towns, so if you know anybody who knows anything about the Kenmore in Ontario, it'd be nice if you could point them at it. Solarbird 07:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, my main interest right now is to rate every national capital city in the world. We are always looking for help at Wikiproject Cities if you have an interest. At once the Capital Cities are rated, I hope to bring them all up to GA status. It's amazing how poor the coverage is of great cities like Rome. Alan.ca 11:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ninjatō

I closed this AfD. Why have you opened it and relisted it? Please don't do that again. —Doug Bell ^talk 13:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

At the bottom of the afd I read:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached

Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark 13:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you close the AfD before or after this date/time?

They happened essentially simultaneously. The admin that added the "relist" notice while I was closing the discussion did not follow through and actually relist, so I assume he deferred to my closing. But that does explain your action, seeing as that relist comment was added between me reading the AfD and editing it to close it. —Doug Bell ^talk 00:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Ok, glad that we could clear that up. Would you please relist the AfD as it seems there wasn't much debate on the issue and I originally had nominated them both because of a 12 month old merge proposal. The articles have been the subject of much debate and discussion for over a year, yet no verification of the facts has presented. I'm quite certain these two really meet the deletion criteria. At a minimum I was hoping to draw out a debate that might point to one or the other as being the correct one to merge into. I would like like to resolve this 1 year old deadlocked dispute. Alan.ca 00:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

  I sympathize with your request, and had I decided to weigh in on the discussion, I might have agreed with your rationale. However, since there were 5 comments, none of them to delete, I'm going to leave it closed. You can renominate it in a month or so and maybe get a more rigorous discussion at that time. Thanks, —Doug Bell ^talk 01:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

  I think you have misused your admin powers to revert and protect this AfD. The AfD was clearly relisted more than ten minutes before your closure. I am not an admin, so I don't have the power to revert your protection and heavy handed closure, but I have notified the relisting admin and I guess he will have to decide for himself if your actions have been appropriate. I challenge you to consider: if two articles with a history like this are met with a simple closure of an AfD for keep without any meaningful debate, where are we setting our deletion standards? Alan.ca 01:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

  Sorry, I forgot about the protection—please assume good faith. That was before the reasons behind your action were clarified. I've unprotected it now. If the relisting admin wants to relist, that's OK with me...I just don't see that it's warranted. —Doug Bell ^talk 01:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

  The AfD is still protected. I have assumed good faith throughout this discussion, but I am concerned about your reluctance to revert your mistake. I don't see why Tigershark should have to revert your changes when clearly he thought it should be relisted before your closure. If you acknowledge that you made a mistake in closing a relisted AfD, why not revert your mistake? Alan.ca 13:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

  I'm not acknowledging a mistake, except that for some reason the previous unprotection didn't take. I did it, but it must have been lost (sometimes the database gets locked, that's the only thing I can think of.) However, there is nothing wrong with my closing of the AfD. The fact that another admin was deciding on relisting at the same time that I was closing it is not particularly relevant, although as I said, if they want to reopen and relist it I don't have a problem with that. But me closing the AfD was not a mistake—I meant to do it. —Doug Bell ^talk 13:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

  Debates are only relisted when there isn't enough input from the community. In this case, it was quite clear that that various users wanted the article to be kept. You cannot unilaterally add the afdrelist template to AfDs that are not going the way you want them to be. Which part of Please do not modify this page do you not understand? I fully endorse Bell's actions. Please use WP:DRV for this in the future, and don't allege admin abuse when you are at fault. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 13:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Nick, another admin relisted the debate. Subsequently Doug closed the AfD ten minutes later. I reverted his mistake. What brings you into this discussion? Alan.ca 23:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hamilton - Good Article

I see that the Hamilton, Ontario article has just been designated a Good Article, thanks to your efforts and those of User:Nhl4hamilton. I wanted to extend my congratulations and appreciation for your work. I don't know if I would have the patience to take on such a project, so I mostly do vandalism reversion and other janitorial tasks.

Keep up the good work! ... discospinster _talk 02:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment. Have you considered helping out with Wikiproject Cities? Alan.ca 13:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ann Arbor review - a question

I saw that one of your comments concerning sub-sections. From my perspective, I don't believe that changing the formatting is possible given that such sub-sectioning for city articles is now almost the norm (see Seattle, Washington, Louisville, Kentucky, Boston, Massachusetts, and Canberra). When it comes to sub-sectioning, are you more in favor of those seen at several non-US city articles (e.g. those in India) that do not use sub-sections? Personally, the idea of sub-sectioning is to improve readability, and some areas (e.g. culture and geography/climate) demand it for organization purposes.

I appreciate it when people give suggestions on article improvement, but it becomes a problem when someone is bound to one thing without willing to hear out another person's opinion on a particular matter. I am hoping this is not the case and that any suggestions will further improve the article rather than lead to an edit war and/or more arguments. Thanks. Pentawing^Talk 05:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• I am totally flexible on all article development concepts. One of the problems with all of these sub headings is that it creates a long TOC. As well, when I read these sub-sections, I often find incomplete paragraphs. It also seems common that the long sections containing these subjections would be better served by forking to a dedicated article on that subject while keeping a good summary in the main article. Admittedly, the Ann Arbor article isn't the worst offender. Here's a thought to ponder: Why create a Geography and Climate' section, just to create two subjections basically about Geography and Climate? Would it not seem more sensible to create a Geography and Climate main section separately? How about condensing the entire section with subjections down to 3 to 4 well written paragraphs under one heading? This discussion really should be taking place at WP:CITY to get broader input. Alan.ca 11:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I took your suggestions into consideration. For now, I think the two sections that should retain sub-section headings are culture and infrastructure (this is a personal preference, since these topics are fairly broad and cannot be summarized into three to four paragraphs in an adequate manner). Also, I noticed that you believe Boston has similar problems (most of which I have addressed), though you did not seem to have similar concerns on the other articles I mentioned (particularly Seattle and Louisville). Is there a reason for that out of curiosity? Pentawing^Talk 22:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Given that it doesn't appear likely that we will be reaching an agreement concerning sub-sections in city articles in the near future (e.g. < 1 week) before the Ann Arbor FAR is automatically closed, I have proposed to do the following: I will be posting this issue on the WikiProject Cities talk page and attempt to gain feedback and hopefully have a consensus reached concerning a proper policy for sub-sectioning. Since this will take time, I am also proposing that the FAR for Ann Arbor be declared closed in favor of the article's maintaining its FA status (given that the other issues, in my view, have been addressed and corrected). Given that such a policy can have a major impact on all city articles (notably for those which are FA or are achieving FA status), it would be the most prudent to gain greater feedback on the matter. At the same time, the Ann Arbor article will continue to maintain its FA status until the issue is finally resolved by the larger community. Pentawing^Talk 03:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• I eliminated the sub-sections in the article per your suggestions (I figured that there is no point in fighting any longer on this issue as it concerns the Ann Arbor article). Nevertheless, I am leaving the post on the WikiProject Cities talk page in hopes of getting a final consensus concerning sub-sections in articles. In the meantime, you have not yet answered one question that I have presented: why focus on only the Ann Arbor and Boston articles while not bothering with the Seattle and Louisville articles? I am not trying to be judgmental or accuse you of something, but unless you can give a reason the lack of similar comments for the other two articles to me is very telling. Pentawing^Talk 00:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

My current goal is to rate every capital city in the world for Wikiproject Cities. I have found most Top importance articles are not actually all that wonderful. In fact, many are below the GA standard. I try to find examples of FA articles that can be used to show editors a picture of what their article could look like in the end. I prefer to find cities of similiar geographic and political parameters. In searching for these examples, once in a while, I find a FA article that has fallen below the standard. That is most likely how I came across Ann Arbor, and so I investigated the WP:FAR process. It is not my goal to FAR nominate every sub FA article, as you can see it's a very time consuming process. Alan.ca 15:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Marshall, Texas

Would you please tell me why you classified a featured article as a start class article with no explanation? The Marshall, Texas article is the oldest surviving city article and the second city article to be FAed, it is still being refered to as in city FACs and peer-reviews, and it survived a FARC attempt this year, because the nominator's concerns were addressed. Despite the fact that the article is an FA, it has been classified at the bottom of the projects classification scheme. I'd appreciate it if you'd elaborate on your rating. It seems a little severe to rate an FA at the bottom of the barrel with no explanation. Thanks. -JCarriker 23:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

As I am trying to review every Top importance article in the world, I can be short on Mid importance articles. I appreciate your interest for feedback on the article so I have taken the time to provide a numbered list of concerns on the comment page. If you have any further questions we should most likely discuss them on the talk page for the article. As I am not watching that article, just leave me a note here if you open a discussion on the talk page for the article. Alan.ca 15:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to comment on the articles flaws and for raising its rating. I've read your criticism, and will try to do what I can with the article, as I am largely retired from wikipedia anything I do will be slow, for instance I've been after a skyline pic for some time. However in the interim, your criticisms will be an invaluable caveat to anyone who uses the article as a model. Again, thank you for taking the time to write things out. -JCarriker 15:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

So we're clear on how WP:1.0 works, all articles that are featured should be rated accordingly on a given project's quality scale, along with articles that have achieved good article status. I've changed the rating on the Marshall, Texas talk page. -- drumguy8800 C T 05:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Boston, Massachusetts

Could you have a look at the article to ascertain whether your comments have been addressed concerning its featured status? Thanks. Pentawing^Talk 17:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• You may want to request a re-assessment at WP:CITY. Alan.ca 09:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Aly & AJ.

I decided to come to you for this, as you handled the mediation over Aly & AJ that I was in.

Anyway, Otto4711 has blanked the Alyson Michalka and Amanda Michalka articles, saying that they are not notable. The user also eliminated links to those articles on the Aly & AJ article itself. The user believes that the two Michalkas are not notable enough to have their own articles. I reverted the edits, but they were reverted back. I don't know if this situation involves mediation, but I definitely think that an administrator is needed in this case. The user didn't even discuss the changes on the talk pages first either. Acalamari 23:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I've averted an edit war, but you may want to join in these discussions: 1 2. Acalamari 00:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Page blanking is considered vandalism under WP:VAN. You can report a user to WP:AIV where a user ban can be placed if the user doesn't cease. There is also the WP:3R policy to consider. I will look into the issue and see if I can assist in some way. Alan.ca 09:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• I initiated a discussion on both talk pages considering the matter of inclusion. I also placed two warnings on User talk:Otto4711 diff. Just remember to maintain your civility and not to get drawn in too deep into the debate. I will try to focus the discussion on how these two articles do or do not meet inclusion guidelines. The best way to resolve this may be an WP:AFD discussion. Alan.ca 09:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't vandalism

I redirected two stubby little pages with duplicate content to the article about the group. Please do not accuse me of vandalism when you have no clue what you're talking about. I have removed your nonsensical warnings from my talk page, lest anyone see them and think your baseless accusations have any merit or basis in fact whatsoever. Otto4711 13:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No, no, Otto4711 is right: he didn't vandalize at all. I should have been more specific. What a mess I've made... Acalamari 17:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, blanking and redirecting a newly created page without consensus is clearly considered vandalism. Alan.ca 04:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hughson Street

Hi Alan. I just finished with the page for Hughson Street but I have a minor problem. I created the page as Hughson Street (Hamilton, Ontario instead of Hughson Street (Hamilton, Ontario)...I forgot to add the second bracket after Ontario. Check: Hughson Street. Is there any way that we can correct this? Thanks.  Nhl4hamilton | Chit-Chat 

• I fixed it for you. The instructions and discussion of the subject are at WP:MOVE. Alan.ca 11:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a million Alan. Greatly appreciated!  Nhl4hamilton | Chit-Chat 

I like mustard, actually

Sorry to take so long to get back to you, I've been up to quite a bit! Figured I'd help you out a bit with the city project, I would very much like to get Denver to FA, and I think it's got a shot. What have you been doing? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 01:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Last time was just a bit early, I guess! This one is certainly going...better, to say the least. I could certainly look up some sources on capitals too, but, well, Denver's home, so I just happen to personally like that one. Not that I have any biases or anything. :) Let me know what capitals you plan to start on and I'll see what I can dig up. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 02:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Try me anyway, when you're ready. You'd be amazed what can be dug up with a bit of looking. Certainly done it before, Wiki and otherwise. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 02:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

About your request for a coach...

Your name is still listed at Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Requests.

Note that the instructions may have changed since the last time you checked, and the department now follows a self-help process. See the instructions on Wikipedia:Admin coaching.

If you are no longer in need of a coach, please remove yourself from the requests list.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist    03:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I was quite certain I had read the instructions, but I don't know what you mean by self-help process. I am looking for an admin coach, how do we proceed? Alan.ca 05:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Aberdeen

I saw that you rated the Aberdeen article for Wikiproject Cities about 6 weeks ago. Since then a lot of changes have been made and I wondered if you could re-rate the article and give me any suggestions that can be implemented to standardise it against the Wikiproject for cities templates? Bobbacon 07:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Excellent work, I upgraded my rating to B class. I think the article is close to GA, but requires some formatting and copy edit improvements. You may want to compare the content against WP:NOT and WP:MOS as a start. Alan.ca 03:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Bot update of stats

That's good to know. It would be a pain to do manually, considering how many there are. But I do have to ask, can you confirm that the bot is still running nightly? When I first looked at it, I think the FA, A, & GA figures were all incorrect? Dr. Cash 21:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Ha! Silly me! I after looking at the chart's history, I can see that the bot clearly is running! Well, that will make things much easier! I guess I can concentrate on tagging and rating articles then. Cheers! Dr. Cash 21:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I appreciate your efforts in rating the articles. I have personally been making an attempt to make sure all national capitals have been reviewed. Alan.ca

prods

Hi, sorry, you're right. I had missed how old those merge discussions had been dead. My primary concern, however, was that these are not really proddable articles. AFD is a more fitting venue for both, in my opinion, since it might bring the article to the attention of someone who can improve it, save it, or do the merge. (As a matter of policy, you shouldn't re-prod an article, even if you think the reasoning was erroneous.) All the best, semper fictilis 12:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• It's no big deal really, I'm sure we're both trying to keep the improvements moving here. The reason some of us use the prod tag is in cases where we believe an AfD would be a waste of community time considering the state of the article. I prod a very low percentage of articles relative to the number which I merge. I reverted your edit on the one article because it was clear that your reason for removing the prod did not apply to that page. It wasn't a matter of opinion, it was a fact, you had referred to a merge discussion that wasn't occurring. I could only assume, as the WP:ES was verbatim the same as another prod you had removed that it may have been a mistake on your part. Was it in fact a mistake on your part? Alan.ca 16:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, as I said, I was mistaken in the reason that I *gave*, but as is often the case, the edit summary reflects only a small portion of one's thinking on a subject. In this case, I don't think this is a suitable article for a prod and would remove it regardless. All the best, semper fictilis 18:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Right, but I am still confused as to why you would do this since you never really gave a reason. Alan.ca 23:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, I don't have to give a reason, I merely have to remove the template. The point here is the article seems to me as borderline-enough that someone might actually decide it's keepable or mergeable. Those kinds of cases should go to AFD, not PROD. Now, I expect that it would fail at AFD, as most articles do, and I might !vote delete at AFD myself. But that doesn't mean that it's a prod-candidate. semper fictilis 17:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

From your point of view, what is a prod for? Alan.ca 10:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments on Mediation in RfA

I noticed your comments in Acalamari's RfA referenced interactions between yourself and him/her during mediations in which you acted as a mediator. IRL it would unthinkable for a mediator to make such a comment. This would be for several reasons including: 1) It would violate confidentiality (this might not apply here given the highly transparent nature of wiki based processes) 2) It would place the mediator in a "decisional" role inconsistent with mediation; 3) It would discourage candor and disclosure by mediation participants, and 4) it would be seen needlessly contentious and unseemly. I am interested various forms of dispute resolution, including those used in Wikipedia. Could you elaborate on such comments by cabal mediators, including any limits on these disclosures. Edivorce 17:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't take personal issue with this editor, but I do not believe he is ready for adminship. Alan.ca 22:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alekhine's defense, Modern variation, 4...Bg4

I believe your closure of this discussion was premature, please undo it and allow it to continue for the full 5 days. Beyond that, your edit summaries indicate you counted numbers. AFD's are not votes, and your summaries should not treat it as such. FrozenPurpleCube 01:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It seemed clear that the AfD was not going to pass with 9 supporting keep and 0 otherwise. If you feel my assessment was incorrect, I don't object to you reverting my closure. Alan.ca 01:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thank you, I'll do that then. I think you're overstating the keep, since at least 4 of the people said "they'd rather review them more closely" and at least one person only supported keeping two of the articles specifically. In any case, I still don't think the keep arguments are valid, but giving the people who want to closely review individual articles the benefit of the doubt, I'll nominate a few more separately. FrozenPurpleCube 01:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It was the first AfD I ever closed, it was most likely a mistake on my part. Thanks for your patience. BTW, I have always found those chess articles extremely useful. It would be a shame to lose them. Alan.ca 01:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, useful is not usually considered a good reason to keep a page, as there are many things that are useful, but simply don't belong on Wikipedia as they aren't encyclopedic. Instead, it's considered by many people as one of the arguments to avoid, and in general, I have to agree with it. Take the recent Zip Codes discussion. There is no question Zip Codes are useful, as are lists of them. But appropriate for Wikipedia? The consensus doesn't seem to think they are. I have a similar concern about most of these chess openings. They are basically instructions to play certain openings. If somebody wanted to transwiki them somewhere, I'd have no problems with it, but nobody has stepped up to offer to even do that much. FrozenPurpleCube 02:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

From my perspective, the first test for any article in Wikipedia should be... is it useful. If it's not useful, why do we have it? In terms of inclusion criteria, I believe there are many attributable sources on these chess openings as more books have been written about chess than any other sport. The openings also serve a historic purpose, as they were developed quite some time ago. I do recall reading that a test for inclusion in general is, "Will anyone want to know about this subject in ten years". In the case of chess, I believe many people will be interested to know about these openings in ten years as we are looking at openings that are well over 10 years of age in many cases. Alan.ca 03:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it might be an important question, but as I said, useful is not the only question, and if you're not aware already, WP:NOT#IINFO notes many useful things that are not appropriate articles. An instruction on how to change the oil in a car might be useful. So would instructions on how to program certain code. Neither would make an appropriate Wikipedia article, no matter how it was referenced, or how useful it might be in 10 years. Heck, I can imagine somebody might find lists of every game played by Bobby Fischer useful. I wouldn't put it on Wikipedia.

Besides, most of these pages have zero content that does anything but describe the opening. That completely leaves out the history, and adds little in the way of content that isn't teaching somebody how to play chess. Which laudable thought it might be, is not what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. If that's the goal, I suggest trying Wikibooks. There are some openings like say, the Ruy Lopez which seem to have an argument as to their interest to folks even if they're cluttered now with lots of overly technical material that reduces their appeal to the average reader. FrozenPurpleCube 03:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I've pretty much discussed all of this before, so if you want to review the talk pages of WP:CHESS you can see my other thoughts on the subject. FrozenPurpleCube 03:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I will certainly review your discussions. I think there is a difference between archiving a famous chess opening and instructing someone on how to change the oil in a car. Alan.ca 21:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Relisting

Hello. When you relist an AfD, it has to be removed from the original day's listing, else it appears in both places, making it impossible to close the day off neatly. As an aside, relisting is really only intended to generate further debate if the debate is so sparse that no decision can possibly be reached - it's not really the tool for dealing with a debate where the decision of the community is divided, since that's a "no consensus" close, a legitimate outcome. Splash - tk 23:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the guidance, if you note any other issues please advise here on my talk page. Alan.ca 02:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Editor review

I reviewed you. YechielMan 00:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Admin coaching

Hello Alan, are you still interested in Admin Coaching? I don't have a terrible amount of time, but I get the impression you're a quick study and fairly knowledgeable already. If you are still interested, please let me know what areas of adminship interest you (you may want to answer the three basic RFA questions, if that will help condense your thoughts). -- nae'blis 22:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I am still interested, however I tend to be controversial at times and I wanted to get some independent advice. I will review the questions. Alan.ca 07:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Get through your coaching, and I'd be happy to be the one writing your nomination this time around. :) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you find your editor review useful? I seem to recall when I posted in your review there wasn't a whole lot of constructive contribution taking place. Alan.ca 08:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the second one I did really did get quite a bit of constructive feedback. I would certainly recommend doing one, never hurts to get a bit of advice regardless. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• If you two could check out my review, it would be appreciated. Wikipedia:Editor review/Alan.ca Alan.ca 08:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. If you think you're ready, go for it. I won't oppose you, the incident was a while ago. Good luck. :) – Chacor 08:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your support Chacor. More specifically I am curious if you have any constructive criticism. Do you think I'm ready for adminship? I know you participated in a great deal of RFA discussions. Alan.ca 08:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It's good that you're tackling editorial backlogs. Maybe you want to get slightly more involved with admin stuff (either at the village pump or admin noticeboard). And a word of advice that undoubtedly people will choose to oppose because of your block history. The important thing is that I no longer hold anything against you, so just let them oppose you if they want to because of the block, as fighting back would not be of use. – Chacor 09:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thank you, aside from the RFA, I am grateful that we are able to move past that mess. Alan.ca 09:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey there; having Chacor not oppose you will definitely help; your block log is longer than most, but you seem to have made strides since then in working on communication. You've already answered two of the questions as part of your editor review, so really I just want to see what areas of adminship you're interested in working on (I'm guessing mediation is one, but people will tell you you don't need the bit for that), and any updates to your ER answers. I like that even your oldest edits are thoughtful and well-written, and that you started using non-article spaces like Talk: and Wikipedia fairly rapidly. How long did you edit as an anonymous user before getting a username? You seem to have a very steep learning curve, which might lead to some contention that you are a returned user that had a different name/history before. Thanks! -- nae'blis 14:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like the bit so that I can edit protected templates and pages. Blocking obvious vandals would be helpful. I often notice a mounting backlog of items, some of which only admins can clear, while I am clearing the WP:BACK. In time, I would like to work on closing AfD, but I haven't really found the process to be worth the investment of time, so that would be in the distant future. As for my pace of learning the wiki media software, I have worked in the computer industry for over 10 years running my own business and we use the wiki media software for project management/documentation. I don't recall how long I was editing anonymously, but it was most likely over 2 years. Alan.ca 00:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

There really isn't much I can add to the advice already given except don't lose your cool if you get opposes because you were blocked once. Despite the fact that I was the one who blocked you, you seem to have a pretty good record otherwise, and you handled the block quite well. Try to get a little more experience in AfD, because even if you don't intend to close AfDs, the experience helps a lot and strengthens your knowledge of policies and guidelines. --Coredesat 00:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Cordesat, I appreciate your support. Alan.ca 01:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

nae'blis' subsection

What sort of questions do you have about adminship? What admin-only backlogs are you noticing? What sort of edits would you like to perform on protected templates and pages? The last question in particular will probably come up on your RFA if you state it in that manner, so I would like to see you clarify it now. Anything else you can think of to ask, let me know; per your request I will keep discussion here. -- nae'blis 16:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking of helping anywhere that I felt comfortable where a need had arisen. I am motivated to have the bit because it enables more options when working through something like the merge backlog. I often find when I am merging articles that issues come up such as page protection or vandalism that I could fix if so empowered. One frustration was adding a field to the news citation template, as it is a popular template, it took what I seem to recall was several weeks for someone to respond and add the ISSN field. As I am not empowered with the ability I have chosen to spend my time in areas where I can make the greatest difference with the level of access afforded by my account. I will most likely seek to be involved with the mediation process again where having the ability to block a malicious vandal would be helpful. In short, I can't say for sure where it will take me, but I am confident that I would use the access responsibly. Alan.ca 02:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. I will continue to check here if you come across questions, but at this point I don't see much of concern or lacking knowledge (then again, this is my first coaching so I'm approaching it fairly blind). -- nae'blis 22:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

One question: Are there any ways in which you would approach Talk:Brian_Mulroney#Articles_for_deletion_nomination differently now? Can you be specific, or show examples since then - that was December 2006, after all. -- nae'blis 22:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what there would be to handle. I didn't nominate the article for deletion. The point I was asserting in the discussion was that when writing an article on a well documented person it is quite silly not to include any references. If that situation was before me today, I would choose to express myself with a better choice of words. Alan.ca 17:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Ninjaken and Good faith

Please assume good faith when making statements in public debates. Alan.ca 12:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It took me thirty seconds, using Google alone, to come up with six sound references for the existence of the weapon. As I said on the talk page, I won't even touch the "did this weapon really exist in period?" maelstrom, but there is overwhelming evidence that the weapon exists today (oh, like every single bloody movie with a "ninja" in it), and filing repeated prods and AfDs on various permutations of the article is misuse of process. The way to request sourcing for a blatantly notable subject is through the use of citation tags, not through prods and AfDs. As it happens, I stated explicitly that I was not accusing you of bad faith, but this isn't the first time you've advocated deletion over taking a few minutes to source a blatantly notable article (Brian Mulroney being a startling example}. The governing reasons given in the official deletion policy are" "Article information cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources" and "All attempts to find reliable sources to which article information can be verified have failed;" "Because we don't see any sources and aren't looking for any either" isn't among them. As I mentioned in your Editor Review page, this delete-on-sight approach is of grave concern given your ambitions for adminship.  RGTraynor  14:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you might be taking the process a little too personal. The point of AfD is to discuss the issue and waiting 3 months for a second nomination when the issues of the first nomination were not addressed is not unreasonable. You will also note that in both nominations there were editors who did state they would like to see it deleted suggesting keeping the article was hardly consensus. In the case of Brian Mulroney, I had not nominated the article for deletion, but was trying to make the point that it is silly that such a well known person would have an article here with no references whatsoever. Thank you for taking the time to provide an editor review. Alan.ca 14:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

NightOwls Merger

Hello there, thank you for merging the nightowls show page to metro back in janurary. I hadn't realised it had been merged until i was thinking "why isn't there a page on this?". Anyway i know the article was not in Top encyclopedia format and i thought i could have a go at bringing back the article and making it more relavent . I have helped with big changes of Metro Radio and Alan Robson and thought it would be a good idea since it is such a popular show which is part of daily conversation for many people in north east england. Please let me know if this would be alright with you . I would leave your merger sections in metro radio alone as they are a good relevent part and if i was thought to mess up, i would not mind it been reverted back. Thank you for your time AceLink™

I really can't recall the merger. There is a page WP:BACK where backlogged maintenance tasks are listed. I often visit the merge backlog of over 10,000 articles and try to get a few done. You may want to try your hand at doing a few yourself. Alan.ca 01:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much, I'll give it a go AceLink™

RFA

To be honest, I am certain you will draw some opposition at this time, but if you are interested in the administrative tools and have no further questions, I am willing to nominate you (and hopefully you will pass). If you'd rather wait or have someone else in mind as a nominator, that is fine too, just let me know. -- nae'blis 16:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You know, I have been thinking about it. Wikipedia seems to need more references and copy editing than anything else. Arguing with people about deleting articles seems to be frustrating and based on unclear guidelines. Even so, if an article isn't deleted, I'm not sure how much harm that really does to the project relative to all the other neglected, non-admin tasks. I still haven't brought the capital cities of the world up to what I consider a basic standard for an encyclopedia of this depth. I think I'm going to remain a common editor and observe the admin tasks. I appreciate your guidance and I thank you for the discussion. Alan.ca 04:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all, I respect your decision, as I've found my own time for article-writing decreased since gaining the extra tools. Unless I hear from you on my talk page, I'll consider the coaching matter closed, okay? Good luck with that focus! -- nae'blis 21:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks for your assistance. Alan.ca 01:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your Prod of Rina (Suikoden)

Hey Alan. I saw your prod of Rina from Suikoden and contested it, but I just wanted to let you know why. Your concerns are highly valid; in fact, I am trying to start a Task Force to address the problems within the Suikoden articles. Basically, I contested your prod because I have not yet started revamping the pages - I am still in the planning stage. If you'd like to see what I've got so far (it's pretty rough, I just started doing actual written work last night and have been working in the conceptual up to this point), check out User:Bwowen/Suikoden. That should give you a good idea of what I've got planned. Thanks for your vigilance on this, I know that these articles need a lot of work and many will probably end up being merged or deleted. Thanks again, bwowen ^talk.^contribs 13:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Good luck with your endeavor. Alan.ca 10:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete

Your request for a speedy delete of Thaksin Get Out was declined. You may wish to move it through AfD but it is a heavily edited and sourced article. If there are specifics in the article with which you disagree please continue your talk page discussion, seek at 3O or other mediation. BTW, I am an amateur radio operator too in Alabama. JodyB _talk 12:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no interest in the article, I came across it while clearing WP:BACK. It seemed quite inappropriate to me. Thank you for taking the time to review it. Alan.ca 12:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Cypriot refugees

Hi Alan,

Please see the edit summary in my revert. Thanks, --A.Garnet 17:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries are not the place for discussion. I am merging hundreds of pages that have been outstanding for over a year. I have no personal interest in the article and if you wish to obstruct a merge that is not opposed, I guess that will be your prerogative. Alan.ca 03:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar for you

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Allan.ca in appreciation of his Coaching and Guidance. Nhl4hamilton (talk) 09:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Corolla

Hi! Are you sure about this change? After a quick glance at the pages linking to Corolla, it seems to me that the majority is referring to the botany term. Either these need to be changed or "corolla" should redirect to "petal" instead. /skagedal^... 17:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

In reviewing the discussion on the talk page, it seemed there was a strong push towards referring Corolla to the automobile as it is the most commonly understood usage of the term. If there are multiple horticulture articles referring to Corolla the best approach would be to modify those articles to refer to petal. Alan.ca (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Coral Springs

Hi Alan, how are you? Sometime ago, you added a To-Do list to Coral Springs. I was trying to prepare the article to FAC, and would like to ask if you could please stop by it's peer review and/or assess how good were the actions on the To-do list. Thanks!--Legionarius (talk) 04:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

A lot of work has been put into that article. I'm quite impressed and those involved should be proud. I commented in the peer review that the lead of the article could use improvement. Alan.ca (talk) 15:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Timeline

The timeline was already included in the History of Budapest article so there is no need to duplicate it, I'm sure if you take even a one second look at the article you will notice it, it's quite easy to spot, just need to scroll down a little. Hobartimus (talk) 05:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, thank you for your diligence in catching my mistake. Alan.ca (talk) 05:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you plan to work a lot on the Budapest article? There is definitely room for improvement there the biggest help would be good quality english sources and adding citations from them. Hobartimus (talk) 15:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Talk:Smoking cessation

Please archive rather than delete old talk page comments, see Help:Archive. I have restored the comments you deleted, but if you think they are obsolete you may archive them. Thanks. --Uncia (talk) 14:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I found the talk page on the article to be outdated and cumbersome to moving forward. I can't see a great deal of material in that talk page that should be archived. However, if you feel the content should be archived, please feel free to archive it.Alan.ca (talk) 16:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia Canada

Hey, Alan. If you're still interested in WMC I think we should all have a meeting among interested wikimedians to see if there is enough drive to get Wikimedia Canada up and running. I've therefore been bold and tentatively scheduled a meeting, with the date and forum type still open to change. Check out meta:Wikimedia_Canada/Meetings/2009-02-04 and it's talk page to discuss how we should organize a chat and what date is best. --Arctic Gnome (talk •contribs) 20:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd love to attend, but I will be out of town on that date. Alan.ca (talk) 06:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

AFD nomination of Selected court cases in the Terri Schiavo case

Hi there. Back in January 2007 you removed a merge template from this article, indicating you think it should be kept; I have now nominated it for deletion. If you still have an opinion about the article, please add your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Selected court cases in the Terri Schiavo case. Thank you. Robofish (talk) 22:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Message moved from userpage

Dear Alan,

You were once very helpful to me with some entries I made, back in 2006.

Might you be available to help again?

Kind regards

Barbara Biggs User: barbbiggs or email biggs.barbara@gmail.com - User talk:Barbbiggs 12:51, 24 August 2009

Help with dermatology-related content

I am looking for more help at the dermatology task force, particularly with our new Bolognia push 2009!? Perhaps you would you be able to help us? I could send you the login information for the Bolognia push if you are interested? ---kilbad (talk) 04:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I am interested in helping, can you email me the login details for the text? ---Alan.ca (talk) 06:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I sent you an e-mail with the login information. See WP:DERM:MA for more details on how we are using the source. If you have any questions, just let me know, or any other participant (I know Calmer Waters is also pretty active). ---kilbad (talk) 14:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Bolognia push

We have been making a lot of progress with the Bolognia push, but we still need your help. Would you consider picking up another letter? ---kilbad (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikimedia Canada

Wondering were thing are with getting Wikimedia Canada up and running? [9]--Doc James (talk ·contribs · email) 18:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't really worked on the project in quite some time. There is a mailing list where people are active whenever there is a post. You might want to try subscribing to it. Alan.ca (talk) 02:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ninjatō

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, fordeletion. The nominated article is Ninjatō. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ninjatō (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletiontemplate from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:FredEisenberger200x300.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:FredEisenberger200x300.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email topermissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationalejustifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by followingthis link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Hekerui (talk) 10:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why the permissions on this file were not correct. I personally took this image for the purpose of adding it to the article. I see the file has been deleted and I'm not sure I have the source image any longer. What steps can be taken to restore the image? Alan.ca (talk) 05:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

This file was deleted on Commons by the admin User:Killiondude. You can ask him there for the file to be restored. Your Commons upload log shows the image was taken from the City of Hamilton website with a claim to a free license. If I remember correctly the website didn't show this and no permission from the mayor's office was sent. I'm not sure, however. To be sure, ask for the file to be restored. Hekerui (talk) 11:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You might be right, I know I added a lot of Hamilton content. This OTRS and licensing component of Wikimedia has always been a bit confusing to me. Alan.ca (talk) 02:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' editson certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located atSpecial:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 02:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Help with legal services in Ontario pages

Hi Alan, I found you on the WikiProject_Ontario page and was wondering if you would be interested in helping peer edit some content I am drafting for Legal Aid Ontario. Unfortunately, that page has been quiet neglected over the years and it really needs to be brought up to standard. Let me know if this is something that interests you and please read my user page since it's quiet relevant to why I'm trying to recruit some help. Thanks!
Lawyer in training (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your concern about the availability of information on this subject. I will take a look at the articles you're working on and see if I can make a positive contribution. Thank you for the heads up. Alan.ca (talk) 05:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey Alan, actually the piece I'm working on is being developed on my userpage. I am awaiting confirmation on some numbers before I plant it on a sub-page of the LAO article, however you're more than welcome to check it out. I completely agree that the content needs serious revision as it's lacking information about Legal Aid Ontario's history and services, and most importantly, citations about where the facts are coming from. I'm hoping to have a draft up very shortly that we can begin playing with.Lawyer in training (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I have not been doing any massive editing on Wikipedia in the last year, but I do recall there is a bit of preference towards incremental changes on the article page versus a complete re-write and replace. Have you considered attempting a more collaborative approach while minimizing the risk of having your work rejected in the end? Alan.ca (talk) 05:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought about that, although since the article is still a stub and is missing verified sources, I went with the presumption that it would be easier and more beneficial to Wikipedia if it was brought up to an acceptable standard first. I haven't edited or posted on Wikipedia before, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I would presume that there are more people willing to edit and build upon a B or C level page than a stub. After reading through the history on it anyways, it has remained for the most part static since its creation. I'm not too worried about the work being rejected. If it does, it does, (I'm not married to it!) but at the very least I foresee that some content from what I put together is put into the current article. Same goes for the content on thelegal aid page. Lawyer in training (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, we definitely always need contributing editors. May I suggest that you present what you have as you complete it? Possibly focus on one section at a time. You may find other's contributing or adding sources as you go along.Alan.ca (talk) 00:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey Alan, sorry I didn't see this talkback. Lol, yes I understand, the overwhelming majority of users read content and don't submit changes or edits. For the LAO article, the content as it stands is, in my opinion, in a sufficient state to let anyone edit or discuss. I'm just waiting on receiving some photos for the current image placeholders. They'll be uploaded to wikimedia commons under CC license. You're welcome to read it and please don't hesitate to let me know what you think. The draft is linked on my userpage. Lawyer in training (talk) 14:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey Alan, thank you very much for taking a look at it! Glad to hear you think it's ok, I was pretty nervous about the quality. There still is a lot of work to do, but hopefully now that it's public, the page should get some feedback. Thanks again for everything, it was very much appreciated. :D Lawyer in training (talk) 16:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial ofPending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated.Off2riorob (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Hamilton, ON discussions

I note that you deleted the discussions for Hamilton, Ontario, but I didn't see where you had archived them. I have done so for you. PKT(alk)14:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you PKT, every time I nuke an old talk page history there someone jumps in and lets me know they have archived it. Maybe you guys could just archive it in the first place and save me the effort. :) Alan.ca (talk) 23:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Alan.ca. You have new messages at Seraphimblade's talk page.
Message added 05:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your GA nomination of Legal Aid Ontario

The article Legal Aid Ontario you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Legal Aid Ontario for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Alan, I posted some feedback on the Legal Aid Ontario discussion. I'm not sure how COI is managed, but I'd like to help with getting the article cleaned up for a GA promotion. Lawyer in training (talk) 13:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Ottawa/GA1

Hello Alan, I just reviewed Ottawa for GA. Unfortunately, since almost half of the article was unsourced, and several other issues, I had to fail the article. After my issues have been addressed/fixed, you may re-nominate Ottawa for GA. Regards,--12george1 (talk) 02:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks George, I appreciate your effort. It should give the editors of that article some direction on what needs to improve.Alan.ca (talk) 06:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Template

Thanks Alan. --Doc James (talk ·contribs · email) 01:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)