User talk:CJCurrie/Archive 3

Ontario leader of the opposition
Do you have any idea why the Liberals formed the official opposition in 1923 despite the fact that the UFO had more seats? See Leader of the Opposition (Ontario)Homey 09:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

UFO
The story about Ferguson is quite outrageous! Anyway, I found this article on an unrelated topic that I think you'll find interesting. . Homey 02:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Stuart Smith
Yes, I sent the Citizen a letter to the editor to that effect about a week ago. Don't think they've published it. Hopefully you'll have better luck. Homey 22:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Robert I has slipped up
This may interest you Homey15:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Double spacing
Don't know anything about it. Homey 21:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

You may also
want to take a look at Alex Kulbashian, which is User:Imstillhere's other contribution. Is it reasonable to think that this user is a new name for someone who was banned? I can't figure out who, though. Ground Zero | t 02:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

John P. Manley
Thanks for fixing that title. Who on earth refers to the guy as "John Paul Manley"? -Joshuapaquin 05:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Samuels
What would you like me to do? -- Earl Andrew - talk 01:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Only needs a little NPOVing in my opinion, as long as it is credible information. -- Earl Andrew - talk 02:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Edit out what you think is original research then. -- Earl Andrew - talk 02:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I would assume they're MPs until the next batch get sworn in. However, if we are putting raw dates in, then we would put in Nov 29, 2005 because it is impossible to tell if, say someone died after parliament closed but before the next election (for earlier elections of course), so for consistency, use Nov 29. But, for succession boxes, I'd suggest using 2006. -- Earl Andrew - talk 02:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Please email me offline re: same. Important. --BradPatrick 19:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem
So what do you think we can to do resolve the problem. It does not look like the RfA is going anywhere. I expect that the avalanche of information is preventing arbitrators from being able to sort out who is right. Any ideas? This problem takes up way too much time. Ground Zero | t 22:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Cannabis on Liberal article
I noticed that you reverted the "see marijuana" change on the Liberal Party article. Perhaps the link should just be to marijuana rather than cannabis (it redirects there anyway) as marijuana is the term usually used in political discussion. --JGGardiner 20:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I might normally prefer the term as well. In Canadian political discourse marijuana seems much more common. I don't have a strong opinion either way but I thought it might maintain what the anonymous user had intended. --JGGardiner 21:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment
Hey CJ, an editor has been changing the order of the results of an election in riding article from the current standard (ordered by the number of votes the candidates received) to alphabetical order. I think we should develop a consensus. Given your past interest in these articles, your comments would be welcome at WikiProject Electoral districts in Canada/Election results. Ground Zero | t 02:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Charlie Angus
You need to edit the Charlie Angus page to reflect that he does not live in the riding he represents.

He lives in Cobalt which is 60 km outside of the riding boundary. This is verifiable in the January 21st edition of the Timmins Daily Press in which Angus said that he "technically didn't live in the riding".

R...

Elections tables
I understand that it makes sense to put the riding name in a table when you're putting tables in a person's article and you want to identify where they ran. But for my part, in the article about a riding, it seems like unnecessary clutter to repeat the riding name in every table, especially when it's at the top of the page as the article name. And do you think that User:Lightoftheworld is someone we know? Regards, Ground Zero | t 00:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Canadian federal election, 1993
I assume it wasn't your intent, but your most recent edit to this article blanked the last half of it - possibly because of a bad connection? Or maybe a browser crash? In any case, I thought you should be notified. Cheers. --P e ruvianLlama(spit) 03:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Roger Carter
Hi - saw the redirect you created. Just curious : what's the link between Roger Carter and the article? Thanks. --Oscar The Cat talk 22:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Mike Wisniewski page
Hi, CJCurrie. I'm the author of the Mike Wisniewski page. Thank you for integrating my work into the page Independent candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election. It is much appreciated. Eduard Gherkin 21:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Freedom Party of Ontario
I'm one of the people responsible for replying to mail to the Wikimedia Foundation. As part of this, I have been told to take this action (deletion of relevant sections) whenever there is a legitimate complaint that may have legal connotations. It is better to have a section removed for a time that to have problem material on view. We can then repair and replace as needed.

I mentioned the main problems, as I understand them, on the talk page - The disproportionate representation of these "controversies", and the implication that gives. If an article on you has two paragraphs about the time you shook hands with a racist, that implies an awful lot about your views - even if the reality is that he was someone you met once and whose views you never knew.

This ties in with our NPOV policy - issues should be included in proportion. So the questions are, are they important, are they relevant, and are they balanced in relation to other information. And, of course, we need to check that they are also fully accurate and properly sourced.

All the above applies to the last section too. Is it in proportion? Are these really significant events? Or are they minor incidents that are thrown up to smear and make implications? This needs to be decided before the section can be put back in.

I hope this answers your questions -- sannse (talk) 00:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, it seems that there is a lot of mail related to Canadian politics at the moment. I've got another three in my in-box, and know of another that has gone to the next level. I read that it's an election year - I guess we are likely to be somewhat in the firing line now that we are so popular. Anyway, I hope you will bear with me when I encroach on your area of expertise. Hopefully it won't all get to difficult. -- sannse (talk) 01:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikinews?
I would like to invite you to write stories for Wikinews... I've seen some of your research on the Raymond Samuels article and I'm quite impressed. - Amgine / talk 21:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

FPO
Please see my statement to the ArbComm regarding Freedom Party of Ontario. Feel free to add something if you like. Homey 03:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Revert
Thanks much for the revert on my user page. Ground Zero | t 13:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Freedom Party of Ontario again
Good work! That really seems to cover the problem well. Now we just wait and see if we get any further mail. But from my point of view, this was just what was needed. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 20:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, I removed a sentence that I didn't think fitted the section by the way - see the talk page for more. Ta -- sannse (talk) 20:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it still seems to me to have little context and read oddly... But it doesn't seem as out of place there as where it was. And at this point, my objections to it are as an editor, and not in my role as part of the info team - and those objections, of course, you are fully welcome to ignore ;) Thanks for letting me know you've replaced it -- sannse (talk) 13:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Gold Dragon
No, you're quire on track with Gold Dragon. I have been concerned about his editorializing. I don't think that he is a genuine POV-pusher, but rather that he is writing in a more florid, journalistic style that is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. This style is very prone to POV coming out. If I had more time on Wikipedia right now, I would join you in you watch, but I'm afraid that my time is very limiited. Keep up the good work. Ground Zero | t 13:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

David Miller
The line: "noting that a fiscal self-examination was overdue while spending on new programs was rampant" also caught my eye as being blatantly biased/POV, and was actually part of my last edit, though I decided to postpone doing anything about it until I've checked out the reference, in the unlikely event McGunity actually said something to this effect (which I highly doubt).

Re: Royson James - I would consider him to be more of a free agent (better yet, a Lastman apologist). In any event, calling him a "supporter" of Miller is an overemphasis in spite of his stated preferences. A critic would have been far more appropriate.--AlvinofDiaspar 16:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Response to the Truce Offer
Not withstanding our recent disputes over the articles of several current politicians, I otherwise hold most of your contributions in high esteem.

I define myself as a moderator of extreme criticism and apologist articles. Obviously, certain articles are being used as attack vehicles and I commend your efforts for blocking vandalism to the Stephen Harper article.

Compare the articles of Jack Layton and David Miller. Yes, the Layton article is a lot less formal but it is more about the facts. Just facts. Andrew Coyne's editorial was brought in because I felt that his column best described Layton's election strategy. At the same time, the reader does not get a sense of whether his direction is right or wrong.

By contrast, the David Miller article is rather apologist and supportive. The facts are arranged in such a way so that the reader is driven towards a conclusion, whether it may be a sly dig at his opponents or a vindication of Miller's actions, even though the raw information might be NPOV on their own.

One example is the "police in jail comments" which was described at great length and ends with Miller having an 82% approval rating. Likewise, the garbage dispute which despite the Mayor's optimistic outlook has not been resolved and still remains at the mercy of Michigan politicians. In our recent dispute, I feel that while you afford lots of attention is given to the downloading issue and the board of trade criticism, the spending policies are barely discussed and they are reduced to a footnote despite the abundance of material.

Raising the formality of the article effectively sets that apologist tone in stone, and that essentially stifles any potential criticism whatever. Because of these constraints, there is less room to maneuver and suddenly those minor words become all important. That is what I feel is causing the impasse.

Another article that has a similar problem is Joe Clark. Although I do admire his policies and his style, I do take issue with the way that his PC leadership comeback has been presented. It runs contrary to many pundits who feel that the effort had mixed results at best, or even a failure.

Although there may not be a quick solution over the dispute with David Miller and several other current politicians, there are other articles that we have worked upon that have left no protracted diagreement between us. I await your response on my talk page.

GoldDragon 22:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Gregory Lauder-Frost
You asked about GLF's letter etc. I had my attention drawn to this by a friend at Chelsea. In the letter he refers to two constituency meetings (one of which he attended) where overwhelming support was made for two issues. After the meetings had said what they wanted their MPs (the "member for Chelsea" being one) stood up and said they disagreed and were not going to take those wishes any further. I am told that members of his Ward committee suggested he resign after the letter was published as they felt it was "disloyal". Clearly he did not. 86.143.82.10 05:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Some anon user is reverting for the sake of harassment
You may notice anon reverts, that go by the IP 201.58.153.33 or something similar in Canadian politics. Daniel Davis has traced the IP back to Brazil4Linux whom I and several other wikipedians had a nasty edit war with back in December 2005 over some video game articles. Brazil4Linux's account has been permanently banned for personal attacks and sockpuppetry among other things, but as an anon user, he is still watching our contributions list and harassing some of us.

Brazil4Linux's recent anon reverts are likely for the sake of causing trouble to me, rather than being an endorsement of your work. I'm sure that he doesn't even pay attention to the content since Canadian politics is outside of his expertise on videogames, Brazil, and soccer. Chances are that Brazil4Linux will do you no harm.

GoldDragon 4:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Jason Crummey
This article is being turned by Mr. Crummey into an off-topic personal and family history. He has taken the surprising measure of personally phoning me to complain about my editing it to stay on topic. To avoid an edit war between myself and Mr. Crummey, I'm requesting some other active Wikipedians monitor the article and help bring it into line with Wikipedia standards. (I'm posting this request to some of the people who've previously edited the article.) Thanks. —GrantNeufeld 17:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Lady Wall
Was kicked several times and had to be treated by ambulancemen. It was reported at the time in the local newspapers and Copping mentions it in his book on the Monday Club. Where is the "dispute"? How does a good kicking equate to "alleged"? Sussexman 10:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Axworthy/Vellacott
I stand by my version because it can be interpreted ambigously as a "he said she said", with both sides making their respective claims. The problem I find with your sentence addition is that it is a defence that the Axworthy camp would take, and putting it in a non-biased article would clear Laliberte of the accusations. GoldDragon 03:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Len Evans
Hello, CJCurrie- I've prepared an article on Len Evans, the "godfather of the Australian wine industry," and was trying prevent his name from redirecting to Leonard Evans of Canada. However, it was late at night and I didn't get to complete the transaction. I think a disambiguation page would also be in order, although I don't know how to set one up. Please share your thinking on this. Many thanks. David Justin 19:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for taking care of the disambiguation, which I appreciate.David Justin 03:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Name removal
Despite the heated edit wars that we have been having as of late, I nonetheless have to commend you on that astute observation. I have found that name in one mainstream source but in this case, I'm willing to defer since I'm pleased that your wording leaves it in a "he said she said" ambiguous situation. GoldDragon 02:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Anthony Murphy
Please explain your comment about "watching Sussexman's contributions". Have I broken a rule? You have deleted a statement which places Murphy in a positive light - what he was arguing actually came true - and you have deliberately changed the entry to show, basically, that he was expelled by the party when it is a known fact, even reported in the Bradford newspapers, that Eric Pickles bragged that he (1) would have him expelled and (2) did. What, therefore, is offensive about facts and why have you altered them? What is wrong with my contributions? I have not been involved in politics for 14 years now. Sussexman 08:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Bill Graham
If you have a moment, would you mind taking a look at the dispute on the Bill Graham page? I might be wrong in the position I'm advancing, but if so I'd like someone whose opinion I value to explain it to me in a rational way. HistoryBA 00:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Knesset
I don't know if parties in Israel are required to provide a "full list" of 120 candidates for 120 Knesset seats. I know it's customary for the "big" parties to do so as a point of pride but I suspect a number of the smaller parties would have trouble mustering a 120 person list. If there is no such requirement then, really, there'd be no need for most parties to have a list of more than a few dozen names (if that). Homey 01:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Adam Daifallah
Yes, it is getting a bit old. I have that article on my watchlist after I spotted a copyvio and it keeps being vandalised or whatever that person does. Anyway, thanks for the revert. One day he/she will give up. I hope. :) Garion96 (talk) 23:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Howard Moscoe sexist remarks
Why don't you rewrite the Pitfield and Nunziata controversies so that are according to the Vellacott page? GoldDragon 03:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with CjCurrie revert. --Great Sensation 01:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

 * Thanks for the confidence on Mario Racco, they don't really listen to me.. pm_shef 02:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Harper
Zanimum,

I'm somewhat puzzled by your recent edits on the Harper page, which have left two different sets of footnotes. Could you please explain your rationale for the change? CJCurrie 18:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to gradually transition them to the current standard of REF tags on Wikipedia. I simply haven't the time at this moment to do it all. -- Zanimum 18:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

New anti-Semitism
I've left a couple of responses on the talk page. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 03:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Just thought I'd draw your attention to a note I left on Slim Virgin's talk page. I can feel a WP:RFC coming on. TreveXtalk 17:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The arguments we are putting forward are scattered across the talk page. In order to make sense of them all, I created a sub-page in my user space. Please feel free to edit this page at User:TreveX/NAS if you find a good source or formulate a good argument that we haven't got yet. The page is split into sections to seperate the main issues of contention. Please feel free to fiddle with the structure or do whatever. TreveXtalk 18:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well done on reading that book. Dedication above and beyond the call of duty! :-) TreveXtalk 02:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

1974 Federal Election
The impression I got from Pierre Trudeau's memoirs was that he got his majority back by attacking Robert Stanfield for advocating wage and price controls. Instead, it turned out that Trudeau accomplished the majority at the expense of David Lewis' NDP. Some said that Lewis may have played his hand too much during Trudeau's minority government, but I have found little info on this. Any thoughts? GoldDragon 03:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Paul Martin
As you've probably seen, the last week or so I've been trying to "Paul Martin" the Paul Martin article...now, that the cuts are mainly over, would you have any ideas where to find more useable pictures?Habsfan|t 21:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, OK. Also, understand I wasn't necessarily endorsing Goldies edits on the page with my edit...I just wanted to keep the changes that I had made in the article and let you guys decide what was best for that section.Habsfan[[Image:Flag of Nova Scotia.svg|20px]]|t 22:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Tony Ruprecht
Not sure what to make of this Grit homes in on Cuba: Christina Blizzard reports on a backbencher who misses votes in the Legislature to stay in a seedy seaside town and 'learn the language' Homey 15:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Sundry matters
Hi CJCurrie. Your user page says you specialize in Canadian political history. I also see that you're in an editing dispute with SlimVirgin. I'm in an editing dispute with her on Judi McLeod and Canada Free Press. Slim had no prior knowledge of the articles before she began doing mass edits. Bearcat has questioned some of her edits and requests for citations. . HOTR is senior admin on both articles and has made many excellent edits. --Cyberboomer 22:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for replying. I understand your reluctance. I've been following the NAS discussion and agree she crossed the line of basic civility... many times! Best wishes. --Cyberboomer 22:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Ruprecht
It was actually on the front page of the Toronto Sun (complete with a full page picture). Homey 23:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Well yes, the subtle(?) innuendo I got was the suggestion of sex tourism (men coming in and out all day, one guy coming out to play catch with a boy - heavens, what is a Sun reader to think - perhaps I'm overly suspicious but I don't see the point of including such mundane details otherwise). Ruprecht is quoted in the Star today saying a Spanish teacher friend of his died last week after being in a coma for 10 days which is probably the truth, Blizzard's innendos notwithstanding. Whether his other trips to Cuba are health related, I don't know. I know Cuba is renowned for "miracle" cures for eye ailments but I don't think they're known for anything else health wise that couldn't get elsewhere. Mexico is usually the destination for people looking for magic health cures but you never know. Homey 02:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Invitation
Fasten 17:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

NOW and Ruprecht
Today's NOW has an interesting take:


 * Sun's weird Cuba tripping
 * We're not sure what the Stun was after when it sent a reporter and photog to track weirdo Grit MPP Tony Ruprecht all the way to a seedy beachfront escape in Cuba. Seems like a lot of trouble for the cash-strapped little paper to make the point that the little-known Ruprecht hasn't been in the Legislature much lately. If it's dirt they're after, all they had to do was look at Ruprecht's election returns to know that he isn't shy about taking cash from strip joints. Something tells us there's more to this story.

Homey 22:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Greens
Please see Green Party of Canada where past GPC candidate Eric Walton is trying to spin the Green Tax Shift. Homey 03:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

eMac
Do you by any chance use one of these? Noticed on the 1993 Canadian Federal election talk page. GoldDragon 02:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Green Party of Canada
Please see Eric Walton's edits to Green Party of Canada.Homey 11:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I have sought to be completely accurate in the changes I have made. The original text was in fact repeating similar inaccurate "spin" put on the Green Tax shift by opponents seeking to portray the Green Party as right-wing. This may be fine in a partisan context but should not be given the credibility of Encyclopedia record. I can back up any changes I have made and asked Homey to specifically state what is inaccurate. Homey has not done this to date. Please see the talk section of Ericbwalton. EricbWalton

Dave Barrett
What do you think of the "what-if" Dave Barrett was elected NDP leader over McLaughlin? Since he campaigned about Western alienation, do you think that the NDP did not make that a priority since he lost (which might explain their 1993 federal election showing somewhat)? I feel that McLaughlin have tried to concentrate on Quebec instead, particularily after Phil Edmonston won the by-election. Several other BC politics articles had "what-if" scenarios, such as when many (one was NDP's Mike Harcourt) saw Rita Johnston's victory over Grace McCarty as a mistake for the Socreds in the 1991 election. GoldDragon 03:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Paul MacEwan
I have started an article on Paul MacEwan, Cape Breton MLA from 1970-2003. You may be interested in him as someone who bounced from the NS NDP to his own party, the Cape Breton Labour Party, to independent status, to the Liberals. Additions would be welcome. Ground Zero | t 22:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar
I just quit (see talk page). TreveXtalk 01:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

For your interest...
Hi CJ. I've been following the NAS discussion. Depressing, isn't it? For what it's worth I posted a partial list of problems with Slim's edits and conduct across WP on an advocate's page. Here's the diff link. The Pamela Anderson claims are especially mind boggling. I hope to do some NAS research when I have the time, which hopefully will be soon. --Cyberboomer 02:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Marijuana Wiki
Hi there,

I saw your contributions over at the Marc Emery article, and thought you might be a good person to talk to about this.

I've started a Marijuana wiki (aka The Sticky Wiki) which I think you might be interested in. I'm hoping you can help me get started with this project. Whereas lots of articles about weed get speedy-deleted on Wikipedia, they would be totally cool over at MarijuanaWiki. But really I want the site to be more of a marijuana community than merely an encyclopedia.

To give you an example, I want to have city guides about where to score, find pot-friendly cafes, marijuana events, and what represents a good price in that city. Etc. (You can check out the featured article: "Toronto" to see what I mean). I also want to have grow diaries and marijuana blogs. All in all, basically more communal than encyclopedic.

I am in need of admins/moderators, and people experienced with MediaWiki to help build policy, categories, and templates, etc. If you'd be interested in helping me with this project, the URL is MarijuanaWiki

Thanks for your time and consideration. Hope to see you there!

-- nsandwich 23:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok then, take care! :) -- nsandwich 23:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Media search
CJ, if you don't mind me asking, what tools do you use for doing your newspaper searches regarding topics? Thanks. Deet 02:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Winipeggers up to no good
Jane Birdwood. Regards, Ground Zero | t 17:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Stock Sr.
Hi CJC. I noticed that you got into a bit of a reversion tiff earlier with an IP over whether Stock Sr. was associated with right wing causes (you) or separatist causes (the IP). In fact, the IP has a point: Day Sr. seems to be associated with Doug Christie and several letters of his are published in Christie's newsletter. Now, that doesn't invalid your edit, but I thought you should know (if you don't, which you might). Best. (Love your work, btw.) Bucketsofg✐ 02:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Outing contributors
Please stop doing it. Ceraurus 00:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Western Goals Institute
What is the point of an edit like this ? Fred Bauder 21:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Ontario treasurer
If you have easy access to a Parliamentary Handbook or Ontario Hansard could you figure out who was Ontario Treasurer from 1896 to 1899? The Ontario Legislature website doesn't have anyone for that period. Is this an errror on their part or was the Provincial Secretary or Premier delivering budgets in that period?Homey 18:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

WG(UK)
I would be happy to discuss your complaints re the Western Goals (UK) page. I was extremely upset that you carried out a blanket reversion of edits I had taken some time to do and which were only rearranging what was already on that page. I don't believe I added anything but I am happy to stand corrected. Sussexman 15:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Tristan Emmanuel
I did both a quick google search and factiva search on Tristan Emmanuel and controversial/controversy. The only thing that came up, other than the wikipedia info in question, was the controversial nature of same-sex marriage legislation and the controversial nature of the hate crime bill. While I accept that the one Islam commentary was controversial, what is the bigger controversy? I trust that it's more than the fact that he holds social conservative views. I note that Svend, a confessed thief and instigator of controversial legislation, gets to be introduced only as a "prominent activist" in his introductory sentence. What about Laurier LaPierre and his bizarre anti-Christian comments. Does that warrant a controversial intro? What is the standard for being "controversial" and are we applying it in a balanced manner? Deet 03:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Gary Filmon
The reference to Filmon's religious affiliation was based upon records of his receiving accolades for decades of work in the Jewish community and involvement in the executive of B'nai Brith. "http://www.utpress.utoronto.ca/cgi-bin/cw2w3.cgi?p=ferley&t=60636&d=1421". Homagetocatalonia 02:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC) I suppose so. I'll remove the tag until something more substantial comes up. Homagetocatalonia 02:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

GLF
We have had our differences in the past and doubtless we have entirely different political ideologies. But given your many contributions in the form of articles, which, I think, none of the British right-wingers have tampered with, might I call upon your sense of fair play as an Administrator? Gregory Lauder-Frost's article has been vandalised in the past day or so by some newcomer called User:Edchilvers.This individual, I have found doing a trawl of Google, is having some unholy argument with Michael Keith Smith of the Conservative Democratic Alliance. He appears now to have decided to import that row into Wikipedia via vandalism of those he associates with Keith Smith. I cannot say for certain but I would say its unlikely that GLF, living in Berwickshire, ever sees Smith, who lives on the South Coast. GLF is interesting and at one time he played a prominent role in Tory politics outside parliament. Personally I think we need more articles like his on Wikipedia. Can you look into this EdChilvers affair? I would argue that such an obvious attempt at vandalism for personal reasons warrants a block. 86.137.204.101 09:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm on here rarely but could I support this posting. 195.194.75.209 16:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have posted my asessement of this dispute on the GLF Talk Page. Sussexman 12:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Er ... that's fine, but why are you talking about it here. It doesn't appear that my services are needed in this matter. CJCurrie 23:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC).

Ah! You're alive! I wondered what had happened to you. Are you engaged in examinations at the moment? Sussexman 12:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not. To get back to the main point, it appears as though the GLF situation is working itself out without my involvement. CJCurrie 00:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Having done a little research I can see that HOTR is a friend of yours but surely even you might agree with my comment on GLF's Talk Page. Personally would rather concentrate on other articles but I hate this unfairness. Sussexman 08:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Jim Fannon
We were discussing it because I couldn't move it, not being an admin. Thanks for your help! Ardenn 20:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving. Ardenn 20:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You know, I haven't been asked that before. I don't know. Ardenn  22:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you think there's consensus for me to be one? Ardenn  22:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * None that I am aware of. Ardenn  23:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't say I have any info on those, sorry. Ardenn 00:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Apartheid outside of South Africa
Please see Apartheid outside of South Africa. More silliness from Jay & Co. Homey 03:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, compare the current version to which I cannot revert to. Homey 06:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

3RR
3RR applies to any reversion of any sort. Many people have been blocked over tag reversions. Homey knows this, but he keeps getting out of blocks by claiming "oh, I didn't know that counted too". WP:3RR has been around for a long time, and, as an administrator, Homey should know what it says. Jayjg (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sometimes people claim that removing a tag is vandalism, and think that they can restore a tag as their fourth revert. It says here:
 * Note that the test applied to determine simple vandalism is usually quite strict; adding or removing POV tags is not simple vandalism.
 * It seems pretty clear that restoring a tag counts as a revert, unless, of course, the tag was removed a couple of weeks ago and is now being put in because of new issues that have arisen. AnnH ♫ 21:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I must agree with the above. It would also appear that there needs to be more (if that's possible) discussion on the talk page. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I came here to explain why your understanding of 3RR is wrong and thus your unblocking of HOTR was improper, but I see you were already explained this before you unblocked him. This sort of blatant disregard of policy - WP:3RR, WP:BLOCK - is disruptive. I've reinstated HOTR's block for the remainder of its duration, and suggest you accquaint yourself with policy a little better before unblocking your friends again. FeloniousMonk 02:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
I'd like to suggest that instead of spreading the battle out over multiple talk pages, we should consider opening a centralized RFC discussion to cover the whole shebang in one place. My own position, reviewing the whole affair, is that I'm personally uncomfortable with Wikipedia using "apartheid" in the title of any article that isn't specifically about South Africa — in other cases, I really think we should stick to neutral and accepted titles like Israeli-Palestinian conflict instead of Israeli apartheid, or homophobia instead of sexual apartheid. Would you be able to help provide a neutral summary on a centralized RFC page? Bearcat 01:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ugh. After all the inappropriate and undeserved crap I'm getting for the first one, I'm just not sure I want to stick my neck out a second time. Know what I mean? Bearcat 04:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Working Man's Barnstar

 * No, sorry. I'll look it over tomorrow again. Ardenn  05:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Howard Moscoe
Then leave the gaffes and Ducharme section in while you continue your other edits. By truncating that section, you are removing essentially what made it controversial. GoldDragon 03:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * And why would you try to be covering something up? We would all love a day when we could just delete controversies from politicians that we support, but the fact is that it did happen, all of it. GoldDragon 03:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Northern Alliance Photo
I was wondering if you could take a look at Jason Ouwendyk's photo? I may have violated fair use but as I'm not very knowledgeable about copyright I'm not sure. Dogmatic has flagged the image as a violation. I just want to be sure that I didn't break the rules. AnnieHall 01:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can confirm it came from the Northern Alliance website. If that means that it is in violation then I do support it's removal. That aside, there is an image that could perhaps be used. It is from the Northern Alliance website, however it was also used in a story on Ouwendyk in the London Free Press. Where would that fall legally?

3RR warning on Irgun
Hello CJ, I should notify you that if you revert one more time you will be in violation of the 3RR and could be blocked fomr editing. Also I forgot a comma, not an apostraphe. I meant "You are right that this is silly".- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

John Snobolen
Perhaps I didn't need it any more. Thanks for pointing that out. GoldDragon 03:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Personally, is there any problems with the edit that you find contentious? GoldDragon 03:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Scandalicious
Since you're like the Canadian political reference god and all, any chance I could bug you for a bit of help on a sandbox item I'm having some trouble researching? It's at User:Bearcat/Northern Ontario Natural Gas, and for example I can't find a single Google reference to who in Leslie Frost's cabinet was implicated. Bearcat 08:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you kindly...that helps quite a bit. Bearcat 22:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Saskatchewan Party
Please stop vandalizing this page. It is completely unnacceptable to do a blanket revert simply because you don't like a few of the edits, but not all of them. You obviously may want to revert certain edits, but to do a blanket reversion is quite simply abusive. See also the Talk:Saskatchewan Party page, for further discussion. Try refuting some of the claims there before you go blindly reverting a page that fairly accurately portrays the points that have been expanded upon and elaborated upon in the talk page.

64.110.251.69 02:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I reverted it, and left 3RR notices on the applicable talk pages. Ardenn 00:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I did. Ardenn  00:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You can report for violating 3RR. Ardenn 01:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Reported. Ardenn  01:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Holy POV-mongering! A quick dig through the history shows that you're quite right about that article being subject to heavily POV edits. As requested, I've added it to my watchlist (although it's currently under protection, it'll undoubtedly have problems again once protection is lifted). —GrantNeufeld 11:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

is suggesting that you have been engaged in activities contrary to the Sockpuppetry policy. I've replied to reject those claims. You may want to look at the discussion on my talk page and their talk page. —GrantNeufeld 22:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

ndp articles
NDP articles are victims of vandalism. It appears you are good at making edits and moderating discussion. Some articles that are under attack are Prairie Giant, Saskatchewan Party, Weyburn-Big Muddy and Saskatchewan New Democratic Party, and if you'd be so kind as to help moderate, that would be rad cool.

Thanks, Schnits

Completely innappropriate behaviour
NDP articles are not 'victims of vandalism', and it is completely innappropriate of you to request that User:Bearcat perform reverts on articles for which he is in a direct conflict of interest per the Conflict of interest policy without making the appropriate disclosures and abiding by appropriate Wikipedia rules.

Thank you

64.110.251.69 14:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

"Green party controversy" on Canadian federal election, 2006, article
Would you mind taking a gander at the recent edit by User:82.152.204.174 (talk • contribs), please? I don't think it's appropriate to that article (I'd think that matter would be more appropriate to the Green Party of Canada article), but I'm too POV on this subject to fairly judge it. Thanks. —GrantNeufeld 11:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for providing your third-party perspective on this, I appreciate that! —GrantNeufeld 16:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Apartheid
You might want to take a look at Central discussions/Apartheid as there is now a poll going on regarding various proposals. Homey 21:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

RE: New Anti-Semitism Invite
No thanks. Its not really my thing. --Ben Houston 02:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk page protection
I had reverted some stuff on my talk page. Such as the helpme template. Ardenn 03:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Reopened Stuart Millson AfD
In the light of an apparent serious externally-directed abuse of process regarding the original Articles for deletion/Stuart Millson discussion, I have reopened the AfD discussion at Articles for deletion/Stuart Millson 2 with the proviso that anon IPs/new accounts will be excluded as probable sock- or meatpuppets. You voted last time around, so you may wish to take a look at the new vote. -- ChrisO 23:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

RfM
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/[[Apartheid (disambiguation)]], and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.SlimVirgin (talk) 01:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Reverts &c.
From a strictly quality-of-Wikipedia perspective, I wouldn't say I think you've gone overboard. From a personal perspective, I'm more concerned that you might end up driving yourself nuts in this situation. On a few occasions I've forced myself to step away from unresolved disputes on here, if only to preserve my own mental health because I was starting to let the dispute drive me crazier than was really necessary. To be fair to GD, some of his edits are really more divergent style preferences than NPOV issues per se; the problem is that he makes them at the same time as the more problematic edits, and then reverts wholesale, so it's very difficult to separate the two types of edits effectively. So as regard policy, I think you're doing fine — although personally I couldn't and wouldn't fault you if you felt the need to step away from it once in a while for your own sanity's sake. Bearcat 21:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

GoldDragon and Bearcat
I have responded to GD's questions to me about Bearcat, and have provided comments on the whole dispute between the two of you on my talk page. Regards, Ground Zero | t 06:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Ontario general election, 1990
There is Allan Brown listed that currently links to Allan Brown the British football (soccer) player. Not sure what you want to change the politics one to, so leaving it up to you.Markspearce 22:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

New Wikiproject!
Hi!

I wanted to invite you to join the new WikiProject Politicial parties and politicians in Canada. The goal is simple. To create a project, to create and maintain high quality articles on Wikipedia related to Canadian politicians, and Canadian political parties. Come on over and check us out at WP:PPAP.

P.S. Saskatchewan Party is yet again a magnet for POV Pushers. Ardenn 03:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

About the Ruby
Please checkout the modifications I did on the the Ruby Dhaila entry and the modifications I did to her riding. The idea is, if you modify one, both pages get correct at the same time. It is just proper syntax. It'll be a pain to reformat the whole electoral districts. Well let me know what you think,


 * I must say, that of all the ridings you go to first. It is Joe's riding. I am guessing you live there? Pete Peters 04:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please check out my latest modifications to the Brampton—Springdale  election results for 2006. I have made a new template CanElec7 that can speed up edits. The CanElec7 Template has two entries, the first is the election year, and the second is the Electoral District. What are your opinions? I just think that if editors want to go about putting electoral records on politicians entries, that it should be done via a template, that way it easier to make corrections and additions without going about modifying the whole thing. Pete Peters 15:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Then Maybe we should wait till the next election before any decision on the new version is made. At that time, more editors well be present to debate the idea. I does have benefits, such as being able to plug this info into all categories where it could be beneficial. Pete Peters 13:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Jews
Any thoughts on the new anti-Semitism as a FA candidate? - Abscissa 21:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Schoonmaker again
You may be interested in this: Articles for deletion/L. Craig Schoonmaker (3rd nomination). Ground Zero | t 19:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Status of religious freedom in Canada
CJ, the above article has proven to be controversial. I've worked with Ansolin on a major re-write to remove the more controversial sections, although it will never please everyone. Your input is welcome as always. Deet 02:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Your input was welcome as always. Well, it spices up my life in any event. Regards, Deet 03:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Status of religious freedom in Canada
The removal of the AfD noticle creates a bit of a pickle. Speedy keep states it can be done only when no one votes delete, and there's still a delete vote. I can't decide whether to re-add the tag or close the debate. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

VaughanWatch

 * CJ, first off, thanks for reverting Michael Di Biase, I'm not sure if you're aware, but earlier today, CheckUser confirmed that two IP's ( and ) who had been violating PoV guidelines on Michael Di Biase were both socks of VaughanWatch. Within the hour, a new user popped up, and lo and behold, his first and only edit is to revert the Di Biase article back to the one favoured by the VW socks. Then a bit later,  started, again, first and only edit is back to VW's preferred version. It's pretty clearly that VW has no regard for our policies, and will do anything to evade his block... any help would be really appreciated. - pm_shef 22:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you an admin? (sorry I forget already from last time..) if so, adding the new socks to VW's indef block would be a good first step. Beyond that, another editor suggested that we create a Willy on Wheels-style policy regarding VW, not sure what you think about that. - pm_shef 23:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

LaRouche
Thanks, I'll take a look. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Correns
OK, I'll get you the reference. Wait a sec. Deet 00:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

opening paragraph here.

And also:
 * ''Independent schools that receive government funding insisted they wouldn't be affected by the deal, even though they are required by law to teach the same curriculum as public schools.


 * "As far as we're concerned, this agreement applies to public schools only," said Doug Lauson, head of the Federation of Independent School Associations and associate superintendent of Catholic schools in Vancouver.


 * The ministry would not confirm that directly.''

This wasn't the reference I was looking for but does it suffice?

Just read your comments. Read the National Post article and you will see that the Government has been full of it all along and they refuse even now to confirm it officially. The law today doesn't permit it.

CJ, in all the article, Kempling and Corren need to be there from my perspective, and I don't even care how they get written up, and I'm flexible on absolutely everything else. Leave it in there until the ministry confirms there is not religious freedom issue, then I'll happily take it out.

Due to your edits, the Kempling blurb to the unfamiliar will read like he pursued the LGBT material issue all the way to the Supreme Court. Please clarify the paragraph.


 * FYI only. I watched in interview today with Peter Corren, who quite unapologetically said directly that he thinks all faith-based schools will need to use his redesigned cirriculum because he understands that's the rules if you receive any funding from the BC government (as most faith based schools do). He also said in response to a questions about religious rights that the charter (in his opinion) guaranteed freedom from relgion, etc. FYI only. Deet 00:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent reverts
Why are you reverting all the edtis from 64.231.242.68, they appear to have added content with referenecs and reveting the vandalism from pm_shef,mwho has no business editing any articles involving the City of vaughan. He has been warned on many many occations about the fact that he is trying to use wiki to promote his and his fathers politcal agenda--64.228.214.13 00:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Wh yare you removing content from articles? What you are doing is supporting vandalism, if you keep this up it will be considered vandalism on your part--64.231.175.238 01:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Brad Wall
Mr. Wall, as well as many Grant Devine era politicians, has a fan who feels the need to be their advocate on wikipedia.

Please stop the abusive reverts of Brad Wall. I am not the only one who is reverting your nonsense-reverts of Brad Wall, Devine, and others.

64.110.251.69 06:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The reverts that I and others have made are not nonsense and certainly not abusive. They are an attempt at NPOV which the article you favour is lacking. We're trying to create an article that conforms to wikipedia guidelines. The article you've become an advocate for does not meet those guidelines. It's not a personal attack on you or on Mr. Wall. AnnieHall 07:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Vaughan
I am familier with the Vaughan related debates on articles. I got involved to some degree many months ago, baiscly I was asked to provide some info on a person that I added to another article (unrelated to the City of Vaughan) I thought everything was settled that everyone involved be it Vaughanwatch, EyeOnVaughan, TheOnlyEdge, pm_shef etc was not going to make any further edits to Vaughan related articles. I would say this started again because pm_shef removed some content from Michael Di Biase's article. I see you edit lots of politcal articles, are you involved with any party or politicians? I am somewhat involved in politcs and in fact I have been asked to help out with one of the candidates in the Vaughan Municipal election even though I don't live in Vaughan. --JohnnyCanuck 02:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Michael Di Biase

 * CJ, go check other pages profiling politicians. Nothing is personal with public officials, especially regarding a potential abuse of the legal system, as is the case with Mr. Di Biase. This information is only 2 and a half years old, and there has been no election since this information has surfaced. ED209 01:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

3RR

 * You've reverted the same information SIX times at the Michael Di Biase page. I have reported you. ED209 17:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Warren Kinsella RFAR
Please be advised that a request for arbitration is being filed over the continued edit war occurring over this page. Please feel free to make a statement on the request page. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk (u|t|c) </tt> 20:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Infoman
Since you seemed confused (from Paul Martin). --JGGardiner 21:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Moscoe
Funny thing, I am about to volunteer for Moscoe soon. Errrr, I hope.

Is he trolling you or something? I noticed on the Volpe page, he reverted your edits, and never even mentioned it. I am suspicious of people with soapbox edits. Oh yeah, you are wanted at the RfAR. Pete Peters 04:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

He pissed me off when he rereverted me on the Moscoe entry, then made some arrogant comment. So I am looking at his past edits to make sure he is not on some political vandal or soapbox spree. Like my situation with the Kinsella page. Did I mention you are wanted on the RfAR. :)Pete Peters 04:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Toronto municipal election, 2006

 * As a you were listed in the edit history of the article, I wanted to pass along a comment I added to the talk page which may be of interest. &mdash; MrDolomite | Talk 03:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

NAS
Thanks, CJ, and you're right, I hadn't noticed. I've undone the latest revert as a gesture. If you want to revert further back, please feel free, or if you want me to do it, let me know. My apologies. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 05:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. We could start (gently) to discuss what the intro should be, if you like. :-) I've left a note on talk. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 05:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Gary Goodyear
Can you please see what is going on at the Gary Goodyear entry. I like to focus more on data and numbers than monitoring vanity content. I am not too sure what is acceptable, the editor Ace Ventura is fixated on promoting Gary Goodyear while reducing his opponent Janko Peric to mere stub. The editor is stuffing a lot of committee info into the entry, I am not too sure if this excessive or acceptable. I am not too sure if these committees are realy that notable, because every politician is on committees, and it saturates the entry with his committee involvement. I provided an external link that identifies his committee experience, I like to think that is sufficient. But you are lot more experienced than I on these bios of politicians. Pete Peters 14:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

My above statement is not that urgent. I think Ace has done an adequet job providing citations. So everything could be kosher. Pete Peters 22:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Although i will make it no secret that i dislike Janko Peric with a passion if u look at the history of my edits on his page i have not only added info but uploaded a picture of him, so even though i may hate the guy i still have contributed to his page and not reduced it to a stub like what is claimed. Also, yes, every politician is on comittees, however not every politician chairs a committee and i have only added the committees he chairs and nothing else. :)--Ace ventura 02:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Mike Harris Grammar
My mistake....thought the old one was the new one and the new one was the old one. I need sleep. Thanks for the oversight. Schrodingers Mongoose 03:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Howard Moscoe
CJ, you and Gold Dragon have been at it so long that it's pretty impossible for anyone to sort out who's right here. I have, instead, compared your last two versions and tried to work out what sounds reasonable to me. I'm sorry that I don't have time to sort out the voluminous arguments on the tlak page. I have posted explanations there, and some questions that, if answered, would be the basis for adding some things back in. I hope that this helps. I am afraid the two of your will have to work it out between you otherwise.

An alternative would be to freeze the article (e.g., at my imposed compromise), and work out one issue at a time, make the change to which you agree, and then move on to the next issue. Best of luck. Ground Zero | t 23:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Who should be banned?
Please read my user page. --JohnnyCanuck 22:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Telegdi
I thought we would have this discussion here because i don;t wnat u to get the wrong impression that i am starting some sort of edit war. This news comment made national news Globe and Mailand did effect the national campagin. Throughout this article it talks about many other controversial comments he made with no links or anything to back it up i have provided 2 differnt links, and i fail to see why you get to decide if it is worthy of entry on his page, you even said if i am going to mention this i need to mention both sides which i have done. I mean no offense and thought by providing links it was not a problem. Also the 3RR rule only applies when u add nothing encyclopedic as i have provided links as proff of this comment and each time i have changed the article i added more substance to the article i don;t think that rule applies to this situation. Also i am curious how do you determine if this applies to me or you? look forward to your reply thanks--Ace ventura 01:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is a few more links showing how this slur made local news, this one doesn't say the actual word and also say he apolgized, (so you were right when u said he did i just couldn't find a link)The Record. This is a local paper and in their article about the riding of KW they thought it was enough to add its a lil ways into the article. The Record another article in the recor mentions it. This is from the U of W paper it mentions it half way through Imprint i just feel if it made the paper this many times and also in other local papers as i can remember only they don't have archives that can be viewed on the net i think just a small mention should be consiedred since it obviously made the news.--Ace ventura 16:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

David Miller
There are many David Millers, as you can see here. The original "David Miller" link led to some politician (David R. Miller).

Ok. I tried to revert my edits, first by deleting the redirect from David Miller to David Miller (disambiguation). I then tried to move David R. Miller back to David Miller, since I want to preserve file history. But it said David Miller was already existing, so now I need administrative help. You're not by any chance an admin, are you??--Ed 01:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks alot. I will be quitting for the night. I don't know about you, but I live in the US, and its kinda late. (Well, I could tell that you're Canadian, so I'll talk to you tomorrow if you need anything).--Ed 02:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Telegdi consensus
Since i haven;t heard back from u since i provided those links to local newspapers, i thought i would write u again. Since both of us can;t agree on this issue i thought i would suggest an entry of this page that is a neutralas can be and is pretty much taken from a local paper, here it is:

''During the 2006 federal election Telegdi drew some criticism for using a racial epithet normally directed at blacks, which he says was a metaphor for the oppressed, while a student leader in 1974. He denies it was any type of slur however, he has apologized for using the term.''

Since this made news all over the local region i think it should be added. Just because it may not have made a huge impact on national news does not mean that it didn;t have an imapact locally, and i think omitting this simply because it was not a major news story does a disservice to wikipedia.--Ace ventura 01:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with you when u say that it should be clear that he was in his early 20s, and wasn't a national controversy, if you would like to add that comment that would be fine by me otherwise if i haven't seen his site updated within the nxt couple of days i will add it taking into acount what we have discussed.--Ace ventura 02:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Joe Volpe
I just ran across your latest edit to one of my local politicians while patrolling recent changes. I tend to be an impatient hit and run editor changing a bit here and there. I'm impressed by the amount of effort you put into his page. --Brat32 05:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Star
You're very welcome. It was well earned. AnnieHall 21:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Youth For Volpe
I am glad you took out the Youth for Volpe, I was just about to tell you that I did not think it belonged there. I remember reading that the site got shut down because it was not properly registered, and had nothing to do with censorship. Pete Peters 02:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 19:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Pm watch

 * I've just emailed you with what I think of User:Pm watch. In addition, would you mind undoing ED209's edits at Michael di Biase? we had agreed before that the traffic tickets issue was receiving undue weight, yet he put them back in anyways... Thanks. -- pm_shef 21:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not me . It is user:ED203. ED209 21:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you really need to toss my name around like that? Either way, you're right, the similarity of the name confused me. Either way, CJ, you'll notice that ED203's very first edit was to join the middle of a discussion on a User's talk page who is only involved with this dispute through warning JohnnyCanuck. The rest of his edits are so unbelievably similar to ED209's (bordering on identical), it seems almost for sure that he is a sock of ED209. -- pm_shef 21:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it is my style to at least argue edits and try to support them with evidence the best I can. This is a sockpuppet of either user:VaughanWatch or user:pm_shef. The latter would be a pathetic atempt to frame me. I don't know what to believe at this point. ED209 21:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that ED209 has suddenly gone from defending VW to suggesting this might be his sock.... -- pm_shef 21:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't defend his socks. It is quite an accomplishment to be able to do this. I can't change my IP because I am on cable so I wouldn't be able to do it. However, it only hurts me in my quest to keep the articles free of any Vaughan councillor influence. I have never said I agree with the act of creating socks. I agree with what VaughanWatch writes. ED209 21:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

For my part, I'm not inclined to believe accusations of a frame-up from a contributor who habitually reveals the real name of his rival.

One way or the other, this isn't the place for this discussion. CJCurrie 22:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Kimble Ainslie, politician
Just noticed that Kim Ainslie's put up his own page on WP and got a kick out of your editing comments. Yuk yuk yuk! Barry Wells 22:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

How is this user name?
--PeteM Watch 23:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

What about this user name? If you don't like this one then please give me one YOU think is appropriate.--Pete&#39;s Watching 23:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

What do Ya think
PetePetersTest

It isn't perfect. But I thought it better organizes yours user page. The banner is ribbons used to replicate a medal on military uniforms. So what do ya think? Be sure to Click the SHOW button.Pete Peters 04:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I see I have some typos to fix. I didn't create the full effect I was hoping for. I wanted the medals to overlap the chart when the show button was triggered. Pete Peters 05:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

David Scrymgeour
You originally flagged the POV in this article some time ago. David Scrymgeour has now shown up, and is asking for changes. Your comments would be helpful. Ground Zero | t 17:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks muchly for your help. Ground Zero | t 13:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Question re Scrymgeour Entry
very much appreciate your renovation to this entry. now that things are balance does the discussion that had to take place in public on the discussion page of the entry have to remain? at this point it serves no purpose and was intended to be private.


 * just picked up your answer re talk pages. thanks. i find this system cumbersome but am trying! prior to reading your post i shifted the personal 2 way conversation to his page as that is where i would have put it given what i understand now. guess if he doesnt like that he will move it back.

What about this one

 * Perhaps this one better suits you user page. Pete Peters 20:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Telegdi
Hi CJ as we agreed telegdi's racial comments should be added to his site. As a token of good faith i offered it to you to add. Since you are too busy or maybe it slipped your mind it has not been added yet. I am just letting you know that i plan to add his remark in the nxt couple of days, taken into acount what we agreed apon. Just giving u a heads up.Ace ventura 22:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Michael Ignatieff
Hey CJ, a reliable source tells me that you are the foremost authority on Canadian Politics. The Michael Ignatieff article has just been protected, but I was wondering if you would mind take a look at it in a couple of days? I am Australian and don't really know anything about the actual article content, I only became involved there due to a lot of trolling and apparent sockpuppeting. I was hoping that when the page is unprotected again, you might be able to look at the actual contents. There seems to be a lot of pro- v. anti-Ignatieff trolling going on there. And just so you know, regarding the complaint about comments being moved, I transferred a discussion about a personal attack which was made by one IP to another on the user's talk page, to the talk pages of the various users involved because it was unrelated to the article and it seemed it was being used to escalate problems there. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

John Bercow
Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.

Alliance of Concerned Jewish Canadians

 * Hey there. I was wondering why you removed the WP:PROD tag from Alliance of Concerned Jewish Canadians. It has been up, uncontested, since July 27th, meaning it has been in place for far longer than the 5 days necessary. Should the article not have been deleted? -- pm_shef 17:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your getting back to me. I do in fact disagree with the decision (though I'm not sure as to the official recreation policy of a prodded article). The organization itself has little notability outside of its own members. Most of its Google hits are either promotional press releases or single name mentions in a CJN article. IMO (and no offense meant if you're a member), they're not much more than a fringe group, one of any number of left wing independentist Jewish groups. As someone who is involved at the national executive level of the Jewish community, I can tell you that I hadn't heard of this group until I stumbled across the article. IMO, the article itself is a vanity page. Perhaps, if they gain stature as the Congress of the "Left" they should be entitled to a page. But at this point, I could list you a dozen groups of equal standing to the ACJC, none of which deserve articles. Hope that clarifies my view on this. -- pm_shef 04:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Okey doke. Works for me. Thanks for understanding. -- pm_shef 04:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

See Articles for deletion/Alliance of Concerned Jewish Canadians. Ex-Homey 20:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Kimble Ainslie
Noticed your previous removal of the category of public polcy analyst from Kimble Ainslie's article (can we say "vanity article" ladies and gentlemen?) and your more recent reinstatement of the Ontario politician category. The truth is Mr. Ainslie can legitimately claim to be a semi-widely published public policy analyst, whereas the claim that he is an "Ontario politician" is a significant stretch if one uses the litmus test of common sense. i.e. a defunct political party that never really got off the ground in the mid-1990s; no elected candidates; no impact or discernable support then or now. Makes the Freedom Party by comparison seem like a bona fide political dynasty. Ditto for the Rhino Party. Best regards. Barry Wells 22:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

This might be of help
Pete Peters 22:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Vaughan Election Pages

 * Hey CJ! I need some help at the Vaughan_municipal_election%2C_2006 as user:pm_shef is not acknowledging my arguments and is removing valid information. ED209 23:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh give me a break. We were in the middle of a discussion on the Talk page when ED decided that what he says is automatically the law, and he added the content in question. He hasn't made any arguments, and when presented with evidence that the issue is not relevant, he simply ignores it and re-adds the content. This is ludicrous. -- pm_shef 23:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please do not force this discussion on CJ's talk page. We are having it on the election talk page. Sorry CJ. ED209 23:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me get this straight: ED209, after starting a discussion on my talk page, then apologizes for the fact that a discussion has started on my talk page. I see ... CJCurrie 00:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

CJCurrie - here is your proof. From the linked Feb 9 2006 article in the Vaughan Citizen:

"Vaughan Mayor Michael Di Biase wasn't far behind, throwing his name into the ring Jan. 10.

But unlike Ms Sherban, Mr. Di Biase is already facing a challenger -- community activist Gino Ruffolo, whose wife is suing the city for wrongful dismissal. "

Mangerno 01:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please note that Mangerno's edits are suspiciously similar to those of User:VaughanWatch including his 7th post which is a copy/paste from AN/3rr to AN/I against me and a seeming intimate knowledge of the Vaughan conflict. -- pm_shef 01:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Jim Maddin
You're article on Jim Maddin needs work. It needs sourcing and should be toned down to become more balanced. I am trying to show in a balanced way why his policies failed and became unpopular, which resulted in the 4th place showing in his re-election bid. I also quote facts, hard numbers, about his attempts at both re-election and federal politics, and you are removing them. Is this due to a NPOV on your behalf? Not only this, but what you seem to be quoting as fact, about the Stonechild case, only went to an inquiry and has never been legally proven one way or the other. That is dangerous. -- DerekDD

Homey
Fred did not lift any restriction so he could immediately restart his disruption. I don't know why you continue to try to defend him. You know as well as anyone what he's like. I know you agree with him politically, but try to put that to one side, and stand back and look at his behavior. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 05:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you post either to my talk page or to AN/I please? Of course he is being disruptive. Please stop to think about this for one minute. If he was so desperate to return and edit Wikipedia quietly, he could have done it weeks ago and no one would even have noticed. But he doesn't want to do that. He wants people to be falling out because of him instead. He is vindictive and disingenuous. Any further posts to AN/I, please. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 05:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Ignatieff
AGF until proven otherwise. The issue of Ignatieff's own site as a source has now been settled. Tyrenius 17:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi CJ. I was wondering if you'd be willing to voice an opinion on the www.stopiggy.com link. Might put the discussion to rest. -- Gaius Octavius | Talk 09:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Query
Query for you here, CJ, in case you miss it. Cheers, SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 00:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Neturei Karta
We have three people bringing this information now: me,, and a few weeks ago (July 25). The edit you referred to was actually the latter's, not mine. I know of this also and am well aware of the situation, but there are no verifiable sources. Apparently, both I and the two anony 88.152 and 138.89 are well aware of what is going on. As far as I'm concerned, now that we have three people (including me) bringing the same input, independently from each other, it should be considered verified... --Daniel575 11:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

ACJC

 * Looks like the article is a keep. I can live with that, I guess people think it is notable. I look forward to seeing the organization surprise me in the future :) -- pm_shef 23:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Boston Tea Party
Howdy, I noticed that you and I seem to post in one or two articles dealing with progressive issues in political science/sociology. There's currently a debate beginning in Boston Tea Party as to whether the article should include the category. It meets definitions set in the articles Terrorism and Definition of terrorism, however, there are several self-proclaimed patriots who watch BTP who refuse to recognise the fact. The simple criteria for terrorism generally seem to be intimidation or destruction of property in order to change public policy or public opinion while a state of war has not yet been declared. Some users would rather use recent acts of terrorism as a yardstick, rather than using a firm definition, and hence lose their ability to discuss matters calmly. Would you be able to pop in to the Talk page and join in the discussion? Thanks much, samwaltz 05:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Peggy Nash
Saw you removed the Lebanon bit altogether - fine by me, actually. I didn't want to be accused of playing favourites. At some point, it's probably worth mentioning that she WENT to Lebanon, but it seems to me that we could at least wait for some more information to develop before it gets written up. Regards, Wencer 05:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Sigh
Why is it that people opposed to my articles on the far right in Canada keep insisting that I'm Richard Warman?

Sorry. I'm a bit frustrated when people vandalize my talk page. s there any way to prevent such vandalism in the future? AnnieHall 23:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll let you know if it becomes a problem. In the meantime, would it be possible to correct an error? I did an article on William John Beattie but accidently spelled it Wlliam John Beattie initially. I re-did the article with the correct spelling and removed the content of the incorrect one, but the incorrect article still exists. AnnieHall 21:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Peter and Murray Corren
The Correns are editing their own article. I've tried to get them to make comments on the talk page as per Wikipedia's autobiograhy rules. I'm going to be limited by the 3R rule. Please assist. Deet 00:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Harper Humour
Once again my link to a Harper related humour site has been deleted, despite my reasons upholding it's place in the edit commens. We obviosly have a dispute. Wiki dispute guidelines: 1 Avoidance 2 First step: Talk to the other parties involved 3 Second step: Disengage for a while 4 Further dispute resolution 4.1 Informal mediation 4.2 Discuss with third parties 4.3 Conduct a survey 4.4 Mediation 5 Last resort: Arbitration 6 Requesting an Advocate (at any time) 7 See also

I have undertaken 1., 2., and have no problem with 3. This means we must go to 4.

As my Dancingwaters account has been tampered with and the password is no longer the same, I've had to create this new account. You will find I've been very civil throughout discussions with anyone who has ever removed any link or edit I've done.

Please cite your reasons for removal despite my citations of why I believe my view is following Wiki guidlines. We can work through there and hopefully reach compromise, otherwise will have to move to step 4.1 Thank you for your cooperation Inspirit 02:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)inspirit sept.04'06 7:03pm

Thomas William Taylor
Hi CJ, thanks for all your Canadian contributions to Wikipedia. I am interested in your sources for information on Thomas William Taylor, he is my Grandfathers Grandfather and I would like to teach my children about him. Please let me know of any published/public sources that you know off hand.

Please forgive me if I am not editing properly, I am still learning Wiki etiquette. Thanks, Geoff

John Ferguson Jr.
Do you have any ideas to "improve" the quality of the article about the Toronto Maple Leafs GM? GoldDragon 15:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

there's no reason for you to keep reverting
Hello. I've rationalised all corrections per wikipedia policy. What User:Zero0000 is doing is wrong and I don't see why you're contributing to that cause. Amoruso 06:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

My "big three issues" with NAS article
My "big three issues" with the NAS articles are as follows: I think that if we can address these three issues then I will be satisfied. --Ben Houston 21:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Talk:New_anti-Semitism
 * Talk:New_anti-Semitism
 * Talk:New_anti-Semitism

For my own purposes
Gordon was a political activist in Toronto for many years. He was initially active with the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, which he joined in 1945 while still in his teenaged years.

He wrote in support of removing the Union Jack from the Flag of Canada in 1946, arguing that the removal of a British symbol would show Canada's maturity as a nation. The following year, he endorsed the abolition of the Canadian Senate. In 1949, he criticized the policies of the Dutch government in Indonesia.

Gordon was chosen as the Ontario Cooperative Commonwealth Federation's candidate for Bellwoods in the 1951 provincial election, defeating former candidate Sid Midanik at a nomination meeting on October 24. He was a twenty-one year old university student at the time of the election. He finished fourth against Progressive Conservative candidate John Yaremko.

[To be filled in when required.] CJCurrie 16:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Judy W-L
Hi, I admit that that edit might be considered original research, in that it's not something I looked up, but rather heard it discussed in the office. Thinking this information is probably out there somewhere, I just added it. Perhaps her pro-Israeli stance is a clue? Anyways, I will try and find something to prove it. -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right, she's a member of the United Church: . Judging from her google hits though, one could certainly get the idea that she was Jewish. -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of that, but I can see how someone would think she was Jewish. -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Howard Pawley
Is there any way of compromising to include McFayden's idiot comments in the Pawley's bio? Also, I agree with you on Hugh's lack of mentally capacity and crazy right-wingness. User:Whoneedspants 23:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC-6)

Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella
This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above. Arthur Ellis is banned indefinitely from Warren Kinsella and articles which relate to Canadian politics and its blogosphere. Any article which mentions Warren Kinsella is considered a related article for the purposes of this remedy. This includes all talk pages other than the talk page of Mark Bourrie. Arthur Ellis is required to use one registered account. For the Arbitration Committee. FloNight 03:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Volpe and Moscoe
I'd love to help out, but it appears like too much for me to gain a handle over. Perhaps if you could summarize the edit war for me in a few points, I could maybe create a compromise. -- Earl Andrew - talk 05:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Family Values
"I'm still not sure this belongs here "
 * ... yeah, I know ... but there should be some mention of his position on Social Policy in the article, I think; especially considering that according to some, it is a major aspect of who he is. Though given his unwillingness to publicly take a position, this is the best I can come up, which tries to stay neutral. Probably needs a second quote from the right, to balance things up. And perhaps a reference in the same section to his gun-control position. Nfitz 03:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Ain't the media grand?
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=0cdccc5a-56b9-4921-bca2-3dee2d3d3c83&k=84681

You were quite timely in the reverts, just four and five minutes. But of course Canada.com has so much time they seem to have a person sitting full-time on a watchlist... yeesh. I wish the media would get over it. Wikipedia has vandalism. -- Zanimum 18:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello
Hello I'm Aeon from the Mediation Cabal, a request for mediation as been filed by Alan.ca about a disupte. The case can be filed here. The Mediation Cabal is a non binding informal medation process. If you wish to go through with this please let me know on my talk page. Thank you Æon  <sup style="color:red;">Insanity Now! <sub style="color:green;">EA!  00:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Toronto municipal elections, 2006
Hi. Since you are involved with this page, can you please offer an opinion on the following debate: Talk:Toronto_municipal_election%2C_2006

Wolfchild 20:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

David Miller
Sure thing, I am enjoying reading the article and I appreciate all the effort you have put into it. Some of the points don't jive with my recollection, so I've been visiting the central reference library to look up the newspaper archives just to verify that the articles being referenced concur with Wikipedia. Atrian 23:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it's nothing in particular, however now and then I get the feeling that something is not quite right, or the point of view is improperly skewed. For example, there was a point about Miller doing a Pulse24 phone-in show. It was mentioned that he was just repeating what Lastman did. To me that didn't sound right. When I read the article, sure enough Mel had done a phone-in show in 1998 but the content was markedly different. I felt that needed to be mentioned. Atrian 23:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, so I did some proofreading. A couple of points, the lead paragraph says "He is a member of the New Democratic Party, but was elected mayor without any party affiliation." I don't think this is particularly relevant to his being Mayor except to his opponents. It is mentioned in background section. I also think this initial paragraph needs to be augmented so that it is more of a proper introduction, rather than depending on the individual sections for details. I have seen this in other biographies.


 * In the background section did he actually say "Toronto needed to improve its public transit system to establish itself as a world-class city"? World-class seems too cliched for him.


 * I think garbage disposal rates its own section rather than being subordinate to environmental policy. Just a few thoughts. Atrian 05:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Another thought, the Mayor section could use an introductory paragraph, sort of like an executive summary. This might help anyone who doesn't want to read through the entire section. Atrian 18:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Summary of Mayor section
I have added a couple of paragraphs at the head of the Mayor section. Basically I want to summarize the ups and downs of the previous three years. I think there are many good things to say about it, as he has initiated several foundational projects that will only bear fruit in the long term. This looks like there isn't much to show for the first term and a couple of reporters are more than willing to point this out, Barber calls him an underachiever, with which I disagree.

Nevertheless, what's the best way to capture this essence in 2-3 short paragraphs without being too POV? Maybe you can take a shot at it as well. Atrian 03:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * THe wordsmithing looks good. I'll need a couple of days to mull it over but I don't think it needs major changes. Thanks for helping out. Atrian 04:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

re: FYI
thanks. I blocked User:CJCurrie. as well :) -- Earl Andrew - talk 23:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Anon oppose
Hehe it was sneakily inserted today and the anon got away with it because the RfA's simply huge. Thanks for pointing it out - next time just indent it yourself. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * btw, this is my only known edit to the Deir Yassin page. And, as you can see, two out of three categories that Yas added have since been deleted (scroll to bottom). - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Editor Review
Hey, I've recently put myself up for the Editor Review process. With the (seeming) end of the Vaughan-gate mess, I've been back to normal editing for the last while and wanted some outside opinions as to what kind of job I'm doing; if I'm on the right track, if there's anything I can do to improve, etc. If you have some free time, I'd really appreciate it if you could take a look and leave me some feedback! Thanks. --Chabuk 03:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Really? Awww thanks :) -- Chabuk 03:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Amaro Silva
A tag has been placed on Amaro Silva, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable. If you can indicate why Amaro Silva is really notable, you can contest the tagging. To do this, please affix the template  to the page and leave a note on Talk:Amaro Silva, explaining how Amaro Silva is notable. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.

Please read the criteria for speedy deletion (specifically, articles #7) and our general biography criteria. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.Cbrown1023 01:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Ignatieff article
Hi, I am just watching right now but I wonder if you noticed that Valpy's interviews were acclaimed on the discussion page? The information he gleaned in those interviews is what you are now deleting, I assume because you were unaware. Happy editing. Ottawaman 02:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Winnipeg municipal election, 1995
While it's not a vote, this is the way to deal with it, not deleting the AFD. Thanks for your work on this. Born in St. Boniface. --Walter Görlitz 05:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Canadian City Municipal Elections articles
Hello. I see that you've created quite a few articles about municipal elections for various Canadian cities. I was wondering what you would think about merging articles about municipal elections in the same city for different years into larger articles (e.g., something along the lines of "History of municipal elections in (city)"). This would create fewer, more comprehensive articles, as opposed to a whole bunch of stubs. Just a thought, since, to me at least, each article on its own doesn't necessarily come across as noteworthy. The current proposal for notability guidelines for candidate and election articles (which, granted, is just a proposal) doesn't have a guideline for municipal elections - it only goes down to State Legislature. In any case, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. Feel free to respond on my talk page. --JaimeLesMaths 05:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm just concerned with the slippery-slope. At some point, the community will have to define which municipalities' elections we're going to add and which ones are insufficiently notable. (Similarly for positions: I'd say that School Board (even for Winnipeg) is probably not automatically notable, but Mayor probably is.) Based on what you said, I do disagree with the speedy tag on Winnipeg municipal election, 1995 (by the way, the date in the article is listed as 1992, which I assume is a typo), but I'd bet it's going to go to AfD unless it gets expanded with a stronger assertion of notability. --JaimeLesMaths 05:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Please stop the pro-Ignatief censoring
I know you know that Valpy's article is not pov; if you do not, please read it before deleting references to it. 67.71.123.225 12:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Michael Ignatieff
Hey CJ. I just wanted to let you know that I unprotected Talk:Michael Ignatieff and reprotected it in my name just to put a stop to the accusations of conflict of interest etc. I've tried semi-protection and I promise I will keep a close eye on it and if the vandalism starts up again, I'll fully protect it. Also, I blocked User:BarbWatts for personal attacks, trolling and general disruption. She repeatedly started Talk talk:Michael Ignatieff to accuse you of admin abuse and other rubbish. And when I looked at her "contributions," she had only one mainspace edit and that was to troll you at Liberal Party of Canada leadership convention, 2006. 8-| If I can help in anyway, please let me know. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I've protected Liberal Party of Canada leadership convention, 2006 and I've blocked Neutraliser and Canuckster. You should have a look at their edit summaries...socks, much? Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Your comment
If you assume it was accidental, why mention it? Why not just restore the posts? SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 20:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Good books
Getting to YES and Getting past No. Highly recommended. --Deodar 01:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Email.

BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Ric Dagenais:
You recently protected this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 03:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Wilson Parasiuk
Hi CJCurrie, I made a few edits to your Wilson Parasiuk contribution. I tried to keep as much of what you wrote as I could but I did add where you left off and took a few things out because they were incorrect. I hope I haven't broken any rules or conventions but I am Wilson's son and he wanted to have the information as true as possible. Michael Parasiuk

Your unblock
It is totally inappropriate of you to wheel war when an uninvolved admin responds to an AN/I thread expressing the view that someone has exhausted the community's patience. You are a friend of Homey's and not only on Wikipedia. You have helped him with the disruption; you've edited many of the same articles where the subjects ended up making legal complaints to the Foundation. You are directly involved in this situation. Please revert your unblock and have respect for the community's processes. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 20:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * FreakOfNature I do not believe was implementing the community ban if you look at his block comment, but rather a separate issue. Thus I do not think that was a test of the community ban as Homey is claiming. FreakOfNature should be asked what his motives where. We have to watch the emotions right now, because there is a huge potential for misunderstanding. --Deodar 21:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * CJC, just to let you know that it has been suggested (by an entirely uninvolved admin) that you be blocked if you unblock again, so I hope you'll carefully consider your situation; we need to move toward ending this and not making things worse. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 22:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm confused about what you're failing to understand here. The account is blocked because there is overwhelming community consensus that the person operating the account has exhausted the community's patience. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 23:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You're wikilawyering so there's no point. This is a community ban. The two blocking admins are in favor of it; 23 editors/admins have posted in favor of it. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 23:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * CJCurrie, if you're serious about trying to rehabilitate HotR you might consider filing an ArbCom case directly yourself. I would think the worse that could happen would be that it'd be rejected. (→ Netscott ) 23:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Regardless, the only way he'd not be community banned (judging by the way consensus appears to be forming) would be due to an ArbCom filing (even then his editing would be almost assuredly limited to the case). (→ Netscott ) 23:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, given that quite a number of people are suggesting an ArbCom case solely for the purpose of examining CJCurrie's behavior in all this, I think quite a bit worse could happen, particularly to CJCurrie. Are you sure you're doing this in CJCurrie's best interest? Of course, you would probably not be sanctioned, so I guess it's safe of you to suggest it. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Nothing like a little threat to spice things up I always say. I think User:Fred Bauder would likely provide a decent counter balance Jayjg particularly as there'd likely be a call or two for your own recusal. (→ Netscott ) 23:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there would be a call for my recusal, and a call for Fred's recusal as well. Not sure of the relevance to my comments, though. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's all about conflicts of interest Jayjg and impartiality and fairness and all of those good things. (→ Netscott ) 23:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, CJCurrie, I understand your claim, but the conflict of interest guidelines still do apply. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * People have already said Fred would have to recuse, because he's been so heavily involved in this. It seems odd to want an ArbCom case where the outcome for Homey is guaranteed; the more people look through his contributions, the more evidence of sockpuppetry is emerging, and his editing of articles he's personally involved in (very clear conflicts of interest, and not just for him). Perhaps someone wants a different mechanism for the block, even though they know the block is guaranteed, but that's process fetishism; and perhaps Homey wants an ArbCom case he can try to turn into another circus with all the toxicity that has involved in the past. But it's the toxicity we need to get away from, not make worse. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 23:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Unblocking an absurd block is not "process fetishism", and there is no community block. CJCurrie 23:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Honestly I would think the ArbCom would sanction HotR with a year's ban... but permanent? I'd be surprised... CJCurrie... Jayjg's rather threatful comment is true though... you'd have to consider your own situation and the fact that your own involvement would be scrutinized if you were to go the ArbCom route. (→ Netscott ) 23:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think the ArbComm route is necessary, and I have no problem defending my actions. CJCurrie 23:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Strangely enough, FreakofNurture does not agree that his block was "absurd", even after your explanation.
 * 2) I have no idea why this would apply to FeloniousMonk; is he a personal enemy of Homey's in real life? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I recommend that you don't argue with Moshe. --Deodar 23:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC) My responses: There is no need to response to any accusations with regarsd to your unblock. If they had merits they would file an ArbCom case that would likely clear you. Its sort of a nasty emotional pile on right now that you need to pull back from. --Deodar 00:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) You shouldn't rely on this kind of convoluted wikilawyering when involved in an obvious conflict of interest.
 * 2) FM's "hostility" is actually actually proper administrative concern over Homey's bad behavior; by that logic you could claim an admin could never block anyone, since that would immediately make them "hostile". And there are no "questionable blocks"..
 * 3) Good advice, intended to let you know that others might not have your best interests at heart, is not a threat; you have again failed to assume good faith. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and I don't believe that anyone apart from Jay has seriously suggested taking me to ArbComm since I posted my response. That he continues to pretend there's a "conflict of interest" here is unfortunate, but not entirely unexpected. CJCurrie 00:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm done. I think it is a lost cause given the evidence. --Deodar 00:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Setting the record straight
I want to set the record straight about some statements I made concerning you, specifically "Homey and CJCurrie campaign for this Canadian political candidate Marcell Rodden", further implying you edited the article on Rodden as part of that campaign. Let me qualify what I have said with the following.

That Homey and CJCurrie have personal connections through university is certain (whether they are close friends is unknown to me). That Homey and Marcell Rodden have personal connections through activist groups is certain. That Marcell Rodden edits his own page is certain as he even states himself (of course that is a separate issue irrelevant to anything associated with Homey). That CJCurrie and Marcell Rodden even know each other is *not* certain. That CJCurrie and Homey have violated Wikipedia policy by editing the Marcell Rodden page as part of some political machine is an unsubstantiated overstatement that I wish to retract.

The above allegation I made was a side issue I brought up in the context of a discussion about long-term disruption caused by Homey leading to a community ban. I think the merits of a community ban for Homey based on all the other evidence regarding exhausting the community's patience with months of disruption are solid enough. However, I do not like that I made smearing comments, so to Homey and CJCurrie I apologize for any allegations I made which appear to me now to be false. -- M P er el ( talk 21:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up my mess for me
mea culpa, mea culpa, mea ultima culpa. Thanks for the assist. =) Looks like I didn't know what I was doing. --Kguirnela 03:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Heads up
Hey CJ, I know you've had your hands full with other dramas, but I just wanted to let you know that Ottawaman is using socks to avoid Pschemp's one week block for using sockpuppets to file that spurious RfC against me, to make repeated RFPP requests for unprotection of Michael Ignatieff and Liberal Party of Canada leadership convention, 2006. I just reprotected Michael Ignatieff because he got User:Shyam Bihari to unprotect it for him. One edit was made before I reprotected it so you might want to check it. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 17:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, what do you think about trying s-protection on the article? Sarah Ewart (Talk) 21:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Paul Fromm
For some reason there appears to be copyright issues with the picture being used. I'm not sure how to fix it. AnnieHall 23:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Harper misrepresentation of source cited
CJCurrie, this is regarding your edit to Stephen Harper [your edit's URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_Harper&oldid=88529401] at 00:27, 18 November 2006. Part of your edit reverted my edit [my edit's URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_Harper&oldid=88378419] at 06:52, 17 November 2006. This should not be as my edit made the sentence agree with its citation. I can see including the original language, but not at the expense of misrepresenting the cited source. I will return the change from my edit and include the previous language as well (which you restored), but I will also include a citation needed tag for that statement. Please let me know if you disagree with this change. OBriain 01:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * While I believe the Pope's statements bear an influence on the issue of a same-sex marriage vote, especially based upon the size of Canada's Catholic population, I agree with you that it is not related to Harper's social policy. For the same reason, I would like to remove the latter statement as well since it does not affect whether or not a revisitation of same-sex marriage rights is actually policy he promotes (and especially so as it is unsourced). Please let me know whether you agree or disagree with this assessment. I will await your response before making the change. OBriain 01:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe that my new edit [edit URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_Harper&oldid=88545734 at 02:11, 18 November 2006] best provides the appropriate information, a main article tag for the article to which you made reference. OBriain 02:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Councillor

 * I actually agree with you about the two L thing, but my spellcheck always corrects it to one L for some reason... -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 03:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not sure, makes sense though. By the way, I just noticed this and this. I know we don't indef block IP's, but this one is begging for a nice long block. We'll take bets on how long it takes VW to get a new ip. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 03:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Controversial
I realize that, but my edits are still valid. Deet 03:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In any event, I'm moving off politics for tonight so I won't bug you any further. Regards, Deet 03:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Wilson Parasiuk page has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality
Hello again CJCurrie, I just noticed that there is a POV COI note on the page. Anything I can do to clarify this situation? There doesn't seem to be anything added to the talk page. I was planning on copying my earlier note to you and your response to demonstrate that you didn't seem to have objections to what I'd contributed. Mwparasiuk, November 19, 2006

checkuser
Please revert yourself on RFCU/Case and undelete the HotR case page unless you have specific authorization from Mackensen or Essjay. Even if you do, it would be better to copy me, one of the other checkuser clerks, or a checkuser to actually perform the deletions. Your prior associations and strong defenses of HotR make this look like a unilateral action. Thatcher131 19:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not suspicious of your actions, however, there may be an appearance problem in you doing them versus someone else. Thatcher131 19:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Munich
I see you're into politics. Would you like to help out with political articles in WikiProject Munich? Kingjeff 23:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Green Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election
In your edits on November 20, you removed the section on Andrew Basham. Your edit comments didn't give a reason, so I'm curious as to why? Thanks. —GrantNeufeld 21:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I figured there had to be a good reason like that. I was just curious what it was. Thanks for the clarification. (and for your continued great work around here!) —GrantNeufeld 05:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Moscoe

 * Please take a look at the Moscoe talk page. I totally understand your frustration (trust me, if anyone on here would, it's me!) but editwarring isn't going to help anything. Also, though I know you're fully aware of it, I just wanted to remind you to try and use the preview feature. You clogged up the article history pretty bad a couple days back. Have a good weekend! -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 06:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Rae/Nunziata
I noticed that the info about Nunziata which you removed from the Rae article is also present in the Nunziata article. I don't know if it is correct or not. --JGGardiner 19:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I just wanted to bring that to your attention so that you could clean up both articles at the same time. --JGGardiner 10:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

3RR
Next time, give me a heads up on ALL the articles. GoldDragon 01:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Got it.GoldDragon 18:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Di Biase

 * Would you mind taking a look at this edit? It's a single-issue editor intent on re-adding the traffic tickets issue to Michael Di Biase. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 22:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

+/-
I always use the +/- when I improve an article on a riding. I don't know how useful they would be in articles on individual people, as you tend to use them in. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There are places you can get information on redistributed percentages. But, not before the 80's. My campus library has a few books on ridings. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe it is The Almanac of Canadian politics / D. Munroe Eagles ... [et al.]. we have the 1991 and 1995 editions. We also have this book which is from 2002. It's quite interesting. I was reading the entry from London North Centre the other day, and I remember it discussing rumours about Joe Fontana running for mayor :-D -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Some thanks
...for keeping on top of the Michael Ignatieff article at this rather significant time. -Joshuapaquin 01:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

extrapolation in one direction: ok; extrapolation in the other direction: no way
You placed this in the article: "Others have also defended Tutu against this accusation [of antisemitism]. .... In the same period, Likud MK Yuval Steinitz described Tutu as one of the three most important freedom fighters of the twentieth century.[18]"


 * Since you hadn't provided a live link to the article and hadn't explicitly said how Steinitz's remarks defended Tutu against antisemitism, you gave some quotes from the article: "Likud MKs praised Sharansky and joked about whether he had more fun and better conditions in the Knesset or prison."..."Former foreign minister Silvan Shalom called Sharansky an Israeli hero, who "bridged the gaps" between immigrants and veterans and the religious and secular. He questioned why Sharansky received greater respect abroad than in Israel and predicted that he would one day return to public life."and ""The twentieth century will be remembered for three freedom fighters: Mahatma Gandhi, Desmond Tutu and Natan Sharansky," MK Yuval Steinitz said. "Sharansky caused the end of the evil empire. He is one of the greatest leaders the Jewish nation has ever known.""(Knesset celebrates Sharansky's lifetime achievements as he says goodbye, SHEERA CLAIRE FRENKEL, GIL HOFFMAN, and NOGA MARTIN, Ariel Jerozolimski/The Jerusalem Post)CJCurrie 10:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I asked, "So, is he really defending Tutu from charges of antiSemitism? no. It is just an Israeli saying something good about Tutu. Does it really belong here? Elizmr 11:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You replied: "I think we can extrapolate that Steinitz doesn't consider Tutu an anti-Semite, but I won't push the point if you disagree with its inclusion. Perhaps it could go elsewhere in the article ... CJCurrie 11:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I asked: "how can you possibly extrapolate that? He says he will be remembered as one of the three freedom fighers of his century. That doesn't say anything about his views toward Jews.


 * You answered: "I think we can reasonably assume Steinitz wouldn't have honoured someone he considered an anti-Semite, and particularly not in Knesset debate.

I am really confused by your position. You are upset when extrapolations are made in one direction, but feel fine making it in the opposite direction. This is a personal comment, and I apologize, but it seems to be something you might possibly consider when editing stuff on antisemitism. Elizmr 12:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * To be perfectly honest, I'm not certain what you're talking about. I stand by my previous comments, and I don't know what you're referring to re: "extrapolations in the opposite direction". Your last remark was uncalled for. (Btw, you left out the part where I agreed not to return the reference to the article.) CJCurrie 01:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That bit wasn't relevant to the subject of my discussion. What I was saying is that there's not enough evidence here to say that he's saying Tutu isn't an antisemite, but you are perfectly willing to make that connection. I've seen you argue very strongly against the possibility that a conclusion of antisemitism could be drawn, with mych less evidence. Elizmr 00:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC) And, look, I'm sorry if you think this is uncalled for. I was just shocked that you'd make that extrapolation. Maybe I'm just not seeing your point. Elizmr 00:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
CJ, thanks for hanging in there on the Rachel Marsden talk page. I'm too upset about how the discussion has been going to go back there myself. I really appreciate your work on this. Kla'quot 18:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

your email
Yes. Cheers,<font color="#009500"> :) Dlohcierekim 02:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Rigby and Regional Council
His appointment hasn't been made official yet, though he's already been seen hanging around the council building in Thorold with the St. Catharines delegation. St. Catharines officially decides on his future on the 20th. Legally, they could hold a byelection to replace Partington, but in all previous cases they've just appointed the 7th place finisher when it was so close to the actual November election. Snickerdo 19:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Judy Marsales
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. Alan.ca 06:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

re: Julian fantino
why did you delete the quote from Julian Fantino? it is worth mentioning, and is a very revealing quotation.

--Jadger 00:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * A source does not have to be NPOV, and the point of the quotation was to show that Fantino is not neutral on the subject. as the first line of the WP:NPOV page states: All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV)  note that it states article not links that have to be NPOV. sources don't have to be NPOV, or else there would be practically no sources anyone could cite, as you must admit that everyone is biased. see this particular section of NPOV for another example of how sources don't have to be neutral. I don't think that 1/2 of a sentence is all that is needed on the subject, one should demonstrate why he is against the gun registry. If you were to ask someone if they are against gay marriage (or any other subject), would you not want to know why? rather than just whether they are or not. because some reasons may be bad reasons, and some may be good (the reason in question being a rather good one)


 * --Jadger 01:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What is wrong with the "presentation"? because it blames the Liberals who were fully responsible for the act and its subsequent failure and fallout? assigning blame where blame is due is perfectly fine. If not that, what is wrong with the presentation? cite what is wrong, I am not adverse to your editing what I have added, that is what Wikipedia is all about, but deleting relevant information because you do not like the style the paragraph is in, is well, ludicrous. don't delete: improve perhaps you can provide an alternative way to cite Fantino that will be more to both our likings?


 * --Jadger 05:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Western Goals
I see that you had input into Western Goals' articles but I cannot now locate the Western Goals (UK) article which has apparently vanished. Whilst I note you may not approve of their activities they did play a prominent role in the British political scene in the 80s and should have an entry if the history of the period is to be accurately covered. Could you look into this? Chelsea Tory 12:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Allegations of apartheid
Please stop revert warring. It's not for you to censor what the critics say. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 00:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Readers may determine for themselves if this edit constitutes censorship. I think "a partial restoration of balance" might be more accurate. CJCurrie 01:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The edit describes what critics say. It's not for you to provide what you see as "balance" to what critics say. Are you truly unable to understand that? Should I go to New antisemitism and edit what Finkelstein said, in order to change it to what I wish he had said? SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 01:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * For my response, click here. CJCurrie 02:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

VaughanWatch XfD

 * Hey, you might want to check out Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long term abuse/VaughanWatch -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 01:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Your reverting
One day I'm going to go through your edits and count your reverts. It seems that about 90 per cent of what you do on Wikipedia is reverting. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 23:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, you said you would provide links to articles about left-wing figures where you added, or clearly supported the addition of, lots of criticism, as you've done at Rachel Marsden and elsewhere. You said you would provide the links to show that you're capable of writing for the enemy and that your approach to criticism in BLPs is consistent across POVs. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 23:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Not a ridiculous request at all. You've added a lot of criticism to right-wing BLPs, so it's perfectly reasonable to ask whether this is a political thing or whether it's a stance you take with all BLPs. Do you have only one example? SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 00:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * His bigotry was obvious from the start in most of his edits. That you didn't see it says nothing about the bigotry, but about the way you perceive that kind of attitude. That you didn't see it as bigotry is why I criticized you to begin with. It was only when you realized he was far right that you decided not to support him; so long as you believed it was left-wing bigotry, you were happy to let him get on with it, and even to take a barnstar from him. This morphs into the issue I raised above and have raised with you before, namely that you appear to apply different standards depending on whether an issue or person is on the right or the left, and there are many examples of you doing it. I recall you even accepted a cartoon on the NAS page when it came from a leftwing editor; then when you realized an editor you perceive as right-wing supported it too, you withdrew your support. That was as explicit an example of prejudice as I have ever seen on Wikipedia. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 02:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This is complete nonsense, and doesn't merit a response. CJCurrie 02:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC) Obviously, I changed my mind on this. CJCurrie 07:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The breather and cup of tea recommendation applied equally to both of you. I realize this isn't my talkpage, but please stop the pointless bickering and try to reach a middle ground. This sort of discourse is rapidly taking the both of you toward a trainwreck. In this case, CJ, I recommend that you at least consider, whether you choose to respond or not, that there is at least the possibility of a kernel of valid criticism in what SV is saying. Tom e r<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk 02:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your intervention, Tomer, but I can't agree with your recommended course of action. My preference at this stage would be to ignore SV's comments entirely, but I can't let things like this stand unchallenged:


 * His bigotry was obvious from the start in most of his edits. That you didn't see it says nothing about the bigotry, but about the way you perceive that kind of attitude. That you didn't see it as bigotry is why I criticized you to begin with. It was only when you realized he was far right that you decided not to support him; so long as you believed it was left-wing bigotry, you were happy to let him get on with it, and even to take a barnstar from him.


 * With all due respect, Slim, I'm not prepared to accept "it was obvious from the start" as proof. I'm still waiting for a page diff.


 * This morphs into the issue I raised above and have raised with you before, namely that you appear to apply different standards depending on whether an issue or person is on the right or the left, and there are many examples of you doing it. I recall you even accepted a cartoon on the NAS page when it came from a leftwing editor; then when you realized an editor you perceive as right-wing supported it too, you withdrew your support. That was as explicit an example of prejudice as I have ever seen on Wikipedia.


 * I remember this situation quite well. Someone added a Latuff image to the NAS page, and I waited a few days before taking it down. I never "accepted" the cartoon, and I wanted to remove it from the beginning, but I decided to check the group consensus before getting into a possible revert war. As it happened, another contributor deleted the image, JayJG restored it, and I removed it again. In the process, I took issue with a remark JayJG made, and wrote something that JayJG interpreted to be an assumption of bad faith. I then acknowledged that I may have misjudged his intent (SlimVirgin seems to have forgotten this), and the controversy died down. The image was not restored. Looking back now, I'm quite confident that I behaved appropriately.


 * Anyone who's curious as to the specifics of this exchange should review the following edits:, , , . JayJG did not respond to my last edit this chain. For additional perspective, consult and CJCurrie 02:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Please note: I originally posted the preceding text to SlimVirgin's talk page. For reasons that I cannot fathom, SlimVirgin decided to remove it, and post it here. CJCurrie 02:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Argh. I then fall back on the rest of my original recommendation...that both of you sit back on your haunches...have a cup of tea or a jog. Try to find common ground on some other uncontroversial topic for a few days, and use that productive dialogue as a way to move forward toward resolving your differences. Right now all the two of you are accomplishing is wasting each other's time with heated argumentation that, as far as I can see, is, on its present course, bound for, like I said, a trainwreck. You're at loggerheads, and it's keeping both of you occupied with fighting, rather than with productive editing. It might take a bit of work to find something to edit together, but I think that's the best way to go forward. Forget what you're fighting about for a few days, and work really hard, both of you, to find something to collaborate on, even if it's something so mundane as stylistic edits to Bird. Hopefully this exercise will help remind both of you why we're here. If it doesn't, some serious introspection is probably in order...or an RfC. I wish both of you the best. Chagh urim sameach. Tom e r<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk 05:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As an addendum, CJ, if you're inviting me to help mediate the dispute between you and SV, I'm happy to do so, but if that's the case, I'm going to begin by requesting that SV agree to it first, and second, that both of you agree to wring out your collars before we procede. Cheers to the both of you, Tom e r<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk 05:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Your request
Hi,

I have completed your request. --YUL89YYZ 00:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks like I was a little late. I've already reverted him once at McGuinty. I've added Bryant and Zimmer to my watchlist just in case. --JGGardiner 00:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've actually had Volpe watchlisted since HOTR suggested everyone keep an eye on all of the leadership candidates at the leadership article. I've noticed the recent changes and I tend to agree with you (including not liking Volpe much). I don't usually like to get involved in those big edits, particularily the ones between you and GD (I remember when Pete Peters asked if he was trolling you). But I've taken a look and should have something to say. --JGGardiner 06:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

re: Talk:Alliance of Concerned Jewish Canadians
In case you're wondering, I'm waiting for more before responding. Cheers, Tom e r<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk 02:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

OfficialPhoto.jpg - Stephen Harper - Copyright conflict
I noticed that you had become involved in the copyright dispute. What are your thoughts on the discussion thus far? When I viewed the image page I noticed there was an ongoing copyright dispute. At the time, I did a google search for the filename and found that it was copyright Herman Chung. I don't have a great deal of experience with this kind of dispute and I am open to discussing it with you here. I presently have two links that demonstrate a Herman Chung copyright, one of them is the current member page for Stephen Harper under the 39th Parliament link on the parl.gc.ca site. Alan.ca 02:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

RFC on Talk:Allegations of apartheid
Howdy CJ. I would appreciate your feedback on this RFC. -- Kendrick7talk 06:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm about to go on an extended wikibreak; I'm leaving you in charge!

-- Kendrick7talk 08:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC) If I come back and the front page is just a big star of David on a blue and white background, I'm going to be very disappointed!

Reverting
What is the point of the mindless reverting? I am trying to add a source, and now can't because you won't stop changing the text. Your level of repeated reverting for no reason is becoming unacceptable. You held up improvements to New antisemitism for several months with this behavior. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 07:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Tea, anyone? Tom e r<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk 08:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I apologize, but it's just getting too much. I'll try to keep my mouth shut from now on. :-) SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 08:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't keep your mouth shut. The problem isn't with open mouths, it's with both mouths open and all four ears closed. Tea. Tea. Tea. Both mouths open, sipping tea. All four ears opened. Tom e r<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk 08:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Seconded! I hear from the Cetaceans Portal that we need pictures of porpoises. We could all go find public-domain photos of porpoises and arrange them nicely on the various porpoise articles... Kla'quot 09:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks like I missed all the fun. CJCurrie 00:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You're all invited to my porpoise-sorting party here. Seriously, I'd appreciate some help and company. Tomer, are you in? Kla'quot 05:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello
Hello I'm Aeon an Advocate for the AMA. User Alan.ca has request assitance in a dispute he is having with you in reguards to reverts and content removal. Please see this case (The AMA Case) and leave a reply ot Alan on my talk page. It is my hope that this is resoloved easily and quickly. Æon <sup style="color:red;">Insanity Now! <sub style="color:green;">EA!  02:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Judy Marsales Edit War with Gold Dragon
Hi, I noticed you are having an edit war with Gold Dragon on the Judy Marsales main space page. I have posted a comment on the talk page, maybe if we get on discussing the issue we may be able to work out a compromise before the MEDCAB case comes up. Alan.ca 05:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Possible copyright violations
Hi. Since you seem to be online right now, please see this message I left on Ground Zero's talk page. If you can take care of it as fast as possible, thanks. dh ▪ 2¢ ▪ 08:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

3RR
I think you've violated 3RR; it doesn't have to involve reverting the same material each time. Please revert yourself. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 01:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that I have violated the 3RR. My 00:50 edit on Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid did not revert any other contributor's edits, either in whole or in part. I'm perfectly willing to revert myself if I've misinterpreted the rule, but I don't believe I've done so. CJCurrie 01:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You seem to have reverted four times. I'll check the diffs. Regardless of that, you must stop the kneejerk reverting. It has reached the point where frequently people are unable to make further edits, even edits you might agree with or edits that involve adding citations, because they get edit conflicts with you, because you instantly revert anything you don't like. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it isn't okay. Or that you can't tweak it to make it okay. For example, instead of repeatedly removing that transcript, why didn't you just edit that he was speaking about the situation in Rwanda instead of the genocide, as I did? If everyone edited the way you do, we'd just be going back and forth endlessly over the same two versions of all our articles with no progress. You apologized recently for that kind of behavior, so please allow the apology to mean something. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 01:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And here: why do you have to revert the bullet points I added just because you want to restore the tag? SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 01:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You're system-gaming, so I'm going to note that your apology was meaningless. Also, please archive your talk page. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 01:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin does not understand WP:3RR. I've gone to great length to try to help her to understand, but my efforts were fruitless. KazakhPol 05:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Coming from KP, that's a compliment. KazakhPol's recent 5RR, one of the clearest examples of a violation you could hope for, was not a violation by "any stretch of the policy," according to him. Careful, CJ, or you'll be getting another inappropriate barnstar. This one wants to label Islamic political parties "terrorists" in the first sentence without a source. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 06:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't accept such a barnstar, Slim. I'm not really familiar with KazakhPol, but what I've seen of his posting history hasn't impressed me. CJCurrie 06:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * To Slim: When I gave CJ the barnstar, he had deserved it. --YoYoDa1 20:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * To Both:I haven't looked at the edit history enough to pass any judgement on what else has happened, but I wish that both of you, especially as established editors, could move past this for the good of the community. --YoYoDa1 21:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe this shows four reverts in eight hours. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 09:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Version reverted to 07:53 Dec 22, CJCurrie removed Dershowitz/Rwanda debate.
 * 1st revert 00:45 Dec 23, removed Dershowitz/Rwanda debate.
 * Version reverted to tag 00:50 Dec 23, added "totally disputed" tag
 * 2nd revert 01:00 Dec 23, restored "totally disputed" tag
 * Version reverted to 08:19 Dec 23, before the antisemitism template was added.
 * 3rd revert 08:42 Dec 23, removed antisemitism template
 * Version reverted to 07:31 Dec 23, version of section starting with "Alan Dershowitz, a professor of law at Harvard University and author of several books on the Arab-Israeli conflict ..." before the following was added: "Alan Dershowitz, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at the Harvard Law School, and author of several books on the Arab-Israeli conflict &mdash; including The Case For Israel &mdash; has written that Carter's book has been condemned as "moronic" (Slate), "anti-historical" (The Washington Post) ..." etc.
 * 4th revert 08:42 Dec 23, removed "Alan Dershowitz, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at the Harvard Law School, and author of several books on the Arab-Israeli conflict &mdash; including The Case For Israel &mdash; has written that Carter's book has been condemned as "moronic" (Slate), "anti-historical" (The Washington Post) ..." etc., and returned the first paragraph to the 07:31 Dec 23 version.

Response

 * SlimVirgin appears to be unfamiliar with this section of the 3RR: For instance, consecutive edits by the same editor are considered to be one; thus if an editor makes three separate successive edits, each of which reverts a different section, but with no intervening edits by other editors, this is counted as one revert.


 * If the point isn't already clear, there was no violation. CJCurrie 09:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You're system-gaming. It can be done as follows instead, putting you just 50 minutes outside the limit, which as you know is blockable. You're reverting so much nowadays that it's only fair to warn you that the next time you violate 3RR or system game like the following, I intend to report it. I don't normally do that with established editors but you're doing it too much, and unnecessarily, because most of the time all you need to do is tweak the edits. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 10:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 50 minutes outside the limit is blockable? Do tell? Where does it say this, precisely? CJCurrie 10:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You're an admin; you should know the policy. It says "Users may be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day," and admins will block persistent reverters when it's just outside the limit, especially when the reverting is happening across multiple articles. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 10:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * In the first place, I'm not certain that 49 minutes was what the drafters of this rule had in mind by "Just outside the limit". By my definition, such a time frame would be *clearly beyond the limit, without ambiguity*. Second, could you show me some practical instances of this policy being carried out? I have a feeling you may be mistaken as to its application here. CJCurrie 10:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Version reverted to 00:40 Dec 22
 * 1st revert 07:53 Dec 22, CJCurrie removed Dershowitz/Rwanda debate.
 * 2nd revert 00:45 Dec 23, removed Dershowitz/Rwanda debate.
 * Version reverted to tag 00:50 Dec 23, added "totally disputed" tag
 * 3rd revert 01:00 Dec 23, restored "totally disputed" tag
 * Version reverted to 08:19 Dec 23, before the antisemitism template was added.
 * Version reverted to: 07:31 Dec 23, version of section starting with "Alan Dershowitz, a professor of law at Harvard University and author of several books on the Arab-Israeli conflict ..." before the following was added: "Alan Dershowitz, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at the Harvard Law School, and author of several books on the Arab-Israeli conflict &mdash; including The Case For Israel &mdash; has written that Carter's book has been condemned as "moronic" (Slate), "anti-historical" (The Washington Post) ..." etc.
 * 4th revert 08:42 Dec 23, removed antisemitism; also removed "Alan Dershowitz, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at the Harvard Law School, and author of several books on the Arab-Israeli conflict &mdash; including The Case For Israel &mdash; has written that Carter's book has been condemned as "moronic" (Slate), "anti-historical" (The Washington Post) ..." etc., and returned the first paragraph to the 07:31 Dec 23 version.

Summary
There was no 3RR violation, and SlimVirgin is criticizing me for a non-violation. You can't please some people, I suppose. CJCurrie 10:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Have you ever read WP:3RR? The bit about 3RR being a limit, not an entitlement, reversion not being endorsed as a way of resolving disputes, and about how wikilawyering about the number of reverts is bad? Instead of wikilawyering you could make up your mind not to edit war. Guy (Help!) 08:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

peace not apartheid
I was going to edit it to a way which I thought was reflective of the sources, but then I noticed there had been a heated debate about it. I'm just going to let it sit awhile so that it can calm down. It will work itself out after awhile hopefully. --YoYoDa1 03:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Lance
I have visions of you lounging in a deckchair by a pool, cigar in one hand, bowl of punch at your side, barking out orders to me. I'm going to have to get you a large stick to beat me with as I work.

For once I have to say no, because I'm all diffed out. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 10:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This is becoming rather surreal ... CJCurrie 10:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not interested in your petty edit wars.
Your comment on my talk page is infantile: Bug off.--Lance talk 06:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This was my comment on Lance's talk page. Readers can decide for themselves if it was "infantile". CJCurrie 06:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Does seem pretty sucky. 209.217.79.235 20:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Reporting someone for violating Wikipedia policy seems neither infantile nor sucky. Wikipedia policy is what keeps things runnings smoothly around here. People who don't want to abide by it might reconsider whether they want to continue to participate in this project. Ground Zero | t 14:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the manner in which Lance is editting his talkpage, removing warnings and helpful suggestions. AnnieHall 06:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
Responding to your offer of a truce, might as well have it so we can both enjoy the Christmas holidays in peace. I doubt neither of us have time to be edit warring anyway on December 25 or 26. GoldDragon 23:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Judy Marsales mediation

 * Hiya CJCurrie,
 * I have picked up the request for mediation over the Judy Marsales article and hope that i can help to resolve this amicably.
 * Regards
 * Squad&#39;nLeedah 04:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Norman Finkelstein
Norman Finkelstein bases his credibility from his claim that his parents were concentration camp inmates. Based on what he has said about them and their supposed history, I don't believe that this is true. He claims it to be true, and I think it is appropriate to reflect that fact in the article concerning his biography. There is no independent verification of this claim.

I am restoring my edit.

I am happy to discuss this issue with you, but I would suggest that you follow Wikipedia's guidelines on civility before hacking away at another's contributions.

Thank you.

Robert E. Rubin

Roberterubin 19:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)robererubin

I have reproduced below our last exchange on Finkelstein. I would like to resolve this issue, and would appeciate a response on my talk page or the talk page for the article.

Thanks,

Robert E. Rubin

24.9.138.213 01:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)roberterubin

If I were to write a book claiming that the Apollo missions to the moon were a hoax and I also provided as part of my biography that my father worked at NASA, I think it would be legitimate to explore the source of that claim of a personal connection to NASA. Bad analogy. A book claiming the Apollo missions to the moon were a hoax would constitute a novel interpretation of a well-known event. There's no meaningful parallel to Finkelstein's assertion that his parents were Holocaust survivors, particularly given that he has never questioned the reality of the Holocaust. I'm going to repeat my request that you not add any qualifying text to the article, unless you have evidence from a *reliable source* that NF misrepresented his parents' history. CJCurrie 00:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC) I am not drawing an analogy between Apollo and the Holocaust, I am drawing an analogy between someone making a controversial claim while claiming special credentials -- in a hypothetical case involving Apollo -- and doing the same thing with respect to the Holocaust. The analogy is between one claiming a special connection via family who worked at NASA versus a special connection through parents who were Holocaust survivors.

Finkelstein has repeatedly emphasized his connection to the Holocaust via his parents while making very controversial and strong statements about core aspects of the Holocaust and the role of the Jewish community with respect to it. It seems to me perfectly legitimate to reflect the fact in the article that this special connection exists only through his own account. That is a fact, plain and simple. I suggest language like "According to Finkelstein's account of his family and background, his parents were..." That implies nothing but the fact that this information comes from Finkelstein himself. Why don't we compromise on that? It is much weaker than "claims" or "according to" and implies no doubt or deception.

I can find nothing in Wikipedia's guidelines, as I read them, against this proposed edit.

24.9.138.213 01:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)roberterubin

Cross Posted Response (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  <sup style="color:red;">Insanity Now! <sub style="color:green;">EA!  01:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

My appoliges, that is what I ment. Æon <sup style="color:red;">Insanity Now! <sub style="color:green;">EA!  03:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Assossiation of Member's Advocates case
Good afternoon (GMT time); you are invited to participate in the WP:AMA case regarding User:Alan.ca and yourself, over the article.

We aim to resolve the matter in a peaceful manner, maintaining civility at all times. We also aim to resolve this matter before it has to proceed higher up the dispute resolution chain.

We hope to see you over at the case page as soon as possible; if there's anything I can do for you please don't hesitate to ask at my talk page.

Cheers and regards, Anthony cfc  <em style="font-size:10px;">13:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * '''I am now handing you back over to User:Aeon as advocate - the conflict of interest has been resolved. It has been a pleasure working with you. Best Wishes, cheers and regards -- Anthony  cfc  <em style="font-size:10px;">21:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Marc Lemire
I suppose I should welcome you to the club (membership now 2) as Veritas-Canada just accused you of being Richard Warman in his latest revert of the article. AnnieHall 06:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)