User talk:CanadaRed

Welcome!

Nomination of Dean of University of British Columbia Faculty of Law for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dean of University of British Columbia Faculty of Law is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Dean of University of British Columbia Faculty of Law until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Shashwat986 &rarr; talk 19:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

March 2013
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Toronto, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ''Per WikiProject Canadian communities, only census information can be used. Thank you.'' Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 02:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Another thing, it is not a suggestion. Please speak with UrbanNerd, who is much more experienced than I am regarding this matter.  Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 13:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit war warning
The cleanup of the Allard article was discussed extensively at the AfD as well as on the talk page. If you want to restore this you must open a discussion. Please read WP:BOOSTER before continuing.

Your recent editing history at Peter A. Allard School of Law shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 00:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Frankly I disagree with you. What makes your reversions okay? I'd like third parties to weigh in.CanadaRed (talk) 00:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 00:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Advocacy
As I noted at the EWN, your account is a WP:SPA. Please read that, to see the community's experience with accounts like yours. Please also read WP:PROMO which is policy, and WP:ADVOCACY which fleshes that out. Jytdog (talk) 01:19, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Now you're changing the subject and trying to attack me. I have more contributions on Canadian topics because it is what I am more familiar with. It does not mean I'm advocating anything. It does not make my contributions less valuable than yours. Please stay focussed on the topic. The edits that I'm suggesting should be judged on their independent value, and accuracy. They should not be judged on your opinion of my account. Attacking me because you're offended that I disagree with your wholesale deletion of entire sections of the article is quite frankly unjust.
 * There is nothing new under the sun. We get accounts like yours all the time.   Read those things above, plus WP:TENDENTIOUS.  You will become self aware and change your behavior, or not. If not, as SPA describes, you will probably get indefinitely blocked eventually. That is not a threat -- as I said, there is nothing new under the sun here and the pattern of your behavior is one that many people have enacted before you, are doing right now elsewhere in WP, and that others will do in the future.
 * You are making this about "my" edits but eight other people edited the article after i cleaned it up and left it clean. You are acting wildly inappropriately.  Jytdog (talk) 03:17, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Jytdog, dial it back. There is nothing "wildly inappropriate" about CanadaRed's behavior even if this is the only article he's worked on.  Focus on content, not personalities.   Montanabw (talk) 19:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Please format talkpage headers with double equals signs
Hi, CanadaRed. I'm sure it's accidental, but you're only using a single equals sign (=) before and after talkpage headers (like this), which leaves a trail of badly-formatted talkpages, with over-large headers and misleading tables of contents. Please start using double equals signs (==), like I'm doing for this section. Bishonen &#124; talk 21:19, 13 November 2016 (UTC).
 * Thank you for letting me know, Bishonen. I'll be careful to use two (=) from now on. Cheers!CanadaRed (talk) 02:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

COPYVIO
Your addition to Peter A. Allard School of Law has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Jytdog (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * about your note here, you received the notice above because you added the COPYVIO to the article. I only evaluated it when I was trying to fix the bareURL you added to the article and check it to make sure it was actually supported by the source.  It is pretty unkind of you to foist your mistake on someone who was trying to help you: Kingofaces just further edited the version you had proposed to try to make it less promotional.  Jytdog (talk) 04:25, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not write the section. It was written by other users a long time ago, and I did say numerous times that it needed work. I posted it in good faith believing that Kingofaces had worked out the kinks, and that there was a consensus. Anyway, I've taken the liberty to work out the kinks myself. Waiting to see what you will attack me on next Jytdog.CanadaRed (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Link rot
Hey, would you please provide complete citations instead of BareURLs? See link above as to why they are bad.

I don't know if you are aware, but there is a very easy and fast way to do citations

You will notice that when you are in an edit window, that up at the top there is a toolbar. On the right, it says "Cite" and there is a little triangle next to it. If you click the triangle, another menu appears below. On the left side of the new menu bar, you will see "Templates". If you select (for example) "Cite web", you can fill in the "URL" field, and then if you click the little magnifying glass next to the field, the whole thing (or most of it) will auto-fill. If you click the calendar next to "access date" it will add today's date. Then you click the "insert" button at the bottom, and it will insert a ref like this (I changed the ref tags so it shows):
 * (ref) (/ref)

That takes about 10 seconds. As you can see there are templates for books, news, and journal articles, as well as websites, and each template has at least one field that you can use to autofill the rest.

The autofill isn't perfect and I usually have to manually fix some things before I click "insert" but it generally works great and saves a bunch of time, and provides a complete citation. Jytdog (talk) 13:00, 19 November 2016 (UTC)