User talk:Canada Jack

Welcome Johny Canuck to the John F. Kennedy Assassination article. It is good to find more people willing to examine the evidence presented to make their conclusions and not approach it the other way around. In addition, as this page is oft vandalized, the more eyes we have watching the page makes all of the editors job easier. Feel free to make edit's you feel are appropriate, keeping in mind WP:NOV, WP:FAITH and WP:VERIFY.

Welcome, and good luck. Ramsquire 00:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment:Clay Shaw
I'm asking for an Rfc on the Clay Shaw page regarding the Max Holland article. Please comment. Ramsquire 17:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You've been on for less than a month and I'm dragging you into an argument. ;). Seriously though, I'd love to know if you have any thoughts on the subject. Ramsquire 17:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Username
Hi Johnny Canuck,

I'm afraid it has come to my attention that you need to change your username. We have an existing editer, User:JohnnyCanuck, and a rule that editors shouldn't have names likely to be confused with one another. (Obviously we have good reasons for that. And from what little I know, you really wouldn't want to be confused with the other guy.) This is policy, spelled out in Username. Fortunately we have a process to change your username (and associate all you old contributions with the new name). Please pick out a new username and go to Changing username to request the change.

Thank you, &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for putting in the request -- sorry about the kerfuffle below. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Tag on your page

 * It seems that someone has decided that you are my sockpuppet. Despite the fact that I don't think we've ever edited the same page. Anyways, if you want it removed, feel free to post at WP:AN/I. If you don't, I probably will in a few days. -- pm_shef 21:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * My advice to this user is to change names. For the record, I think it it likely that he is NOT a sockpuppet.  However, the tag should stay displayed until this is cleared up. ED209 21:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have already told this user, above, that he is required by policy to change usernames. What that has to do with you deciding he is a sockpuppet of one party or another in your, um, circle of dispute, I don't know. Why not tag him as a suspected sockpuppet of JohnnyCanuck? If you don't have any evidence for puppetry beyond his name (sounds like you don't) and if you think it's likely he's not a sockpuppet, why on earth would you think his page needs to be tagged like that?!?? I am removing the sockpuppet tags. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Rename
As requested, I've changed your username to User:Canada Jack. You will probably want to move your user pages to the new name. Warofdreams talk 02:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I took the liberty of moving the pages for you. I appreciate you cooperation, Canada Jack. I'm sorry I haven't had much of a chance lately to look over your work at Carl Lewis. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Paranormal
Hi! Due to all the great work you've been putting into Roswell incident, I wanted to invite you to join us! The project is undergoing a large expansion right now, and we need quality editors! We are a WikiProject with the goal of improving the quality of articles having to do with Ufology, Cryptozoology, the Supernatural, and other topics. We provide a centralized forum for concerns that effect multiple articles within our scope, as well as methods to rate and categorize articles by quality, get input on how to improve an article from our other members, and a collaborative project once a month where the whole project pitches in to make an article great. You won't be required to do anything special once you join; all that we ask of members is that they sign our participants page, though if you do join you may also find it useful to add some of our pages (especially our main talk page to your watchlist to keep yourself apprised of what we're up to. If you have questions about any of this, please don't hesitate to contact me directly. Thank you for your time, and happy editing! --InShaneee 15:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Spaceflights, etc
I think you were being too nit-picky on the length of missions, however I have changed that to say "over three days" instead of "four days", although that is commonly used. I saw a little of what you here doing to the Roswell article. I tried to improve that article in 2005, but I met with a lot of resistance from Dr Fil and an IP address user. The discussion page mentions a possible mediation or dispute resolution between you and Dr Fil. If that happens, let me know. Bubba73 (talk), 00:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I dunno about the nit-pick charge - the first four-day flight was the first flight to be up for four days, which the flight in question did not manage. This is even more true for the first two-week flight, where G7 was listed even though S9 was the first flight to be in space for two weeks. I mean, for a page which such a huge debate over what "rendezvous" means, I am rather amazed that there seems to be no problem with calling a flight which lasted 13 days and 18 hours the "first" two week flight when clearly it was not.


 * Besides, in this place we should be "nit-picky". IMHO.Canada Jack 00:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, if you want to be nit-picky, Vostok 1 didn't make one complete revolution, but everyone counts it as one orbit. The articles on the individual flights refer to them as the number of days, properly rounded up if it is more than half of a day.  The arguement over the rendezvous was started by a person who believes that the moon landings were fake.  Bubba73 (talk), 02:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I read your latest message on my talk page. I admit that I got a little angry over what I thought was being too nit-picky, and I'm sorry.  Later I decided that it was too small of a thing to get angry about.  I was working on the Roswell article and others such as "Majestic 12" in late 2005 and gave up becuase of Dr Fil and 66.117.135.19.  I haven't read the Roswell article lately, but I did read most of the talk page were you were involved, and I got a good sense of what has been going on.  I'm on your side versus Dr Fil.  In a choice between someone who I think is a little too nit-picky over facts and one that refuses to accept any fact that contradicts his beliefs, I'm going to pick the former every time! :-)  So good luck with Roswell and other UFO articles, I appreciate what you are doing very much.  If you need references, I probably have them. Bubba73 (talk), 01:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Three articles
Based on your interests, you might be interested in looking at:
 * Apollo program missing tapes
 * Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings
 * Examination of Apollo moon photos

The first one had what I think are factual errors, you may know more about it. The second one is up for deletion/merge. Bubba73 (talk), 21:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Sutton Hoo images
From Spitfire1 Sutton Hoo 1939 Pictures

I've just been looking at the Sutton Hoo article discussion, and am really interested in the fact that you have 1939 film and pictures: my mother was at the 1939 dig most days, as Basil Brown took her along (she was staying with her aunt, who was Mrs. Pretty's housekeeper, who was also putting up Basil Brown. I wonder if she might appear in any of your photos? She was 12 at the time.


 * I've just checked the film and in the initial sequence, there are only men present. Then in the second sequence, there is a part where a man is talking to a woman, but my uncle says that this my great-grandmother Mary Boyle (CW Phillips' remarried mother). There IS a sequence where we see three women from behind looking at the south end of the excavation. They seem to be adults, but one of them may be your mother. I work at a TV network and when I have a change, I will do a high-resolution screen capture of the film I have (I dumped it to an SP tape), and I will get a jpeg of the three women as well. Canada Jack 15:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Spitfire - I realize I DO have a photograph of the same three women. Give me some contact info and I will e-mail it to you. Canada Jack 16:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Canada Jack, I have been away from WP quite a lot for the past couple of months owing to illness etc, and hadn't had a close look at the Sutton Hoo article discussion and the new images you uploaded. As you may know I put quite a lot of work into this article in January, and while I don't see myself as in 'possession' of it I do feel a little parental affection for it, shall we say... So this is just to say thankyou very much for making such a very useful contribution to it with those images, which it was generous of you to make generally available. I have had a lifelong professional interest in Sutton Hoo and of course I'm very familiar with the role played by your great-uncle in the whole affair. What a marvellous job he made of the 1940 publication under such difficult circumstances. With best wishes, Dr Steven Plunkett 21:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Your pics
In practice the main policy on Wikipedia is "assume bad faith". If you want your pictures of the Sutton Hoo excavation to remain on wikipedia, please add or  in the description of the pictures. User:Eagle 101's bot is removing the links to the pics and will probably continue to do so until you have added the necessary tags.--Berig 09:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Majestic 12
With your interest in Roswell, have you done any work on Majestic 12? Bubba73 (talk), 00:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Rowsell aliens
Is it correct that no one who actually saw the Roswell debris claim to have seen aliens? AFAIR, Marcel didn't say he saw aliens. Bubba73 (talk), 01:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Debris
I've read a lot about Roswell, but one thing I don't remember reading is what happened to the debris. Was it destroyed? Does it still exist somewhere? Has anyone tried to track down what happened to it? Bubba73 (talk), 17:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. Has anyone tried to track down what happened to the debris?  The GAO did a huge search for documents.  Trying to track what happened to the debris seems like a natural thing to do.  Did any document say anything about the disposition of the debris?  It was supposed to be going to Writht-Patt, but I haven't read anything about it after it was in Texas. Bubba73 (talk), 18:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Something very similar was recovered five years later, but it no longer exists either: Ralph Horton flying saucer crash. Bubba73 (talk), 19:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

1997 World Championships
Was planning to complete it, yes. In a couple of days or so. :) Sam Vimes | Address me 07:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Done! Can I ask for a favour? Could you please check that the page as it is now agrees with the one-week-old version so that no errors have crept in? Sam Vimes | Address me 18:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for checking :) I didn't understand why you removed the WL from the women's relay because it was an AR though? I mean, you can set an area record without it being a world leading time? (It's not too likely, but could happen...) Sam Vimes | Address me 20:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Carl Lewis
Nice job on the Carl Lewis article by the way. It's a coincidence, but the first article I contributed to in a big way the was the Ben Johnson article back in October of '05. The version that is up there now is a shadow of it's former self because of the unencyclopedic way that I wrote it. Check it out - you might enjoy it if you're a track fan. Cheers.--Yankees76 19:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Oldest People
You've made your point, and the concensus is not with you. Please consider 'cooling off'. I have added a 'disclaimer' per your suggestion. Ryoung122 17:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Basically, I feel like you are wrong. I'm also disappointed you didn't bother to read what I wrote before you continued your attempt to 'roll a boulder uphill.' Let me put it this way: being 'world's oldest person' is more honorable than merely being 'oldest man' or 'oldest woman' (which encompasses only about half the Earth's population). Since anyone can qualify for the 'oldest person' title...even transgendered persons who are neither male nor female...then we need an 'oldest person' list. The 'oldest person' list is the MOST important, not the least important. We could have an 'oldest woman' list but that would be currently redundant. It is not too much to ask to wait until 2008, when a hypothetical problem becomes a real problem (i.e. we won't have an 'oldest man' in the top 10 until about Aug 2008, based on current projections). With lots of work to do in other areas, it seems you'd have a little more consideration than you have shown so far. Ryoung122 08:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Canada Jack,

Wikipedia is not the place for ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Guinness World Records has named 'oldest living person' and 'oldest living man' since before I started there. Wikipedia should 'reflect' what is already in the press, not create their own, competing version.

Further, what you consider a 'gain' for women is just one way of looking at it. Is it more to say that a woman is the oldest of 51% of the human population, or 100%? I would think that 100% carries more prestige. Also, such a list would match the 'oldest person' list for something like 35 out of the last 36 persons...a redundant waste. And for the woman (Julie Winnifred Bertrand) 'unfortunate' enough to die six days before Emiliano Mercado Del Toro? She's already listed in the '115+' list which is INTENDED to catch those who might otherwise not be listed. That includes persons such as Bettie Wilson and Susie Gibson, both of whom lived to 115 but fell in the shadow of Maria Capovilla. Note that if we created a list of the 'world's oldest women', not a single woman would be listed who isn't already on the page, since at least 1986.

Also, your 1/3 analogy doesn't make sense. Truthfully, in the last 20 years men have held the top title for only 44 days...

Ryoung122 12:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

3 Revert Rule violation notification
This is to provide you with a required notice that you have violated the Three-revert rule on numerous occasions, including twice in the last week on "Roswell incident." As stated on the 3 revert rule Wiki page:


 * "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time.


 * "Any editor who breaches the rule may be blocked from editing for up to 24 hours in the first instance, and longer for repeated or aggravated violations."

Specific violations of the 3 revert rule are as follows:

Roswell incident: Nov. 2, 2007: 4 reverts Oct. 28/29: 7 reverts

Witness accounts of Roswell incident: June 11, 2007: 4 reverts November 20/21, 2006: 7 reverts November 13, 2006: 4 reverts November 7/8, 2006: 6 reverts

There are numerous other instances of quick deletions of my material by you. Wikipedia also frowns on repeated deletions of another editor's material even if not in technical violation of the 3 RR rule (you have also been guilty of this):


 * "Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. Efforts to game the system, for example by persistently making three reverts each day or three reverts on each of a group of pages, cast an editor in a poor light and may result in blocks."

Wikipedia notes that repeated deletions or reverts of another editor's good faith edits with no attempt at first discussing the issues is an example of edit warring. "A content revert is an intentional reversal of the changes made in good faith by another editor rather than improving upon the edit or working with the editor to resolve the dispute; it is not to be taken lightly."

Editors who may not technically violate 3RR but show a consistent pattern of reverting other's work may be held in violation:


 * "...there are other measures that indicate may edit warring, even in the absence of a 3RR violation. This could mean 4+ reverts on a page in a day, or three, or one per day for a protracted period of time, or one per page across many pages, or simply a pattern of isolated blind reverts as a first resort in response to disagreeable edits."

Wikipedia states that you can possibly mitigate violations of 3RR:


 * "I have violated 3RR. What do I do?
 * If you have broken 3RR by mistake and now realize it, or if another user has left you a note on your talk page that points out that you broke 3RR, then you should revert your change back to the "other version", even though you may not like the previous version. In general, this should be enough to prevent you from being blocked, although there are no guarantees.

If you do a restoration of the material you have deleted within the next 24 hours, I will not put you on report. I have no problems with good-faith discussions of the material that has been added. What I object to is how you always delete the material first then later maybe add a supposed "discussion" on it where you feel you always have to have the last word, contrary to guidelines laid down by Wikipedia.

Please read the section on the Do's and Don'ts of reversion. In part it says:
 * Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism, or anything very similar to the effects of vandalism. (Vandalism is NOT another editor trying to add material that you personally disagree with.)
 * ”If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate, discuss it FIRST rather than immediately reverting or deleting it. (You always delete first before "discussing")
 * ”If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it. (You almost always just delete.)
 * ”Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view.
 * ”Do not revert good faith edits. (Hey, I work hard and spend a lot of time trying to add good, solid material to these articles. They are always done in good faith.  Please respect that.)
 * ”If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof.
 * ”Generally there are misconceptions that problematic sections of an article or recent changes are the reasons for reverting or deletion. If they contain valid information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly. Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly.

Also please read Ownership of articles, where it states certain editors may feel they own articles and justify reverts for frivolous reasons as a way of "defending" "their" article. Wikipedia tries to encourage contributions of many editors to an article. "Consensus" does not mean stagnation and Wikipedia also warns against "tag-teaming" by a small group of editors to block any changes and to enforce ownership.Dr Fil 19:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * And you have been hereby warned of the same, Dr Fil. You are guilty of imposing substantial rewrites of pages WITHOUT ANY DISCUSSION, and of ignoring repeated requests to halt your actions without entering into discussions.


 * And, you have it utterly backwards. YOU are the one not operating in good faith, The Roswell page has been the product of a painful process which took the better part of a year. If you think you can simply tear that up, insert a lot of irrelevant material and THEN enter into discussion, then you are operating in reverse. I invited you to discuss these changes each time I reverted them - you actually entered into discussion ONCE. Therefore YOU are not operating in good faith.


 * Some of you material, despite your approach, WAS kept as it was relevant and added important detail to the page. But most of it was extraneous and irrelevant. And each and every deletion was explained.


 * Your changes were reverted for cause, and if you want to go to arbitrators, so be it. I have repeatedly said that your changes are welcome - if they are done in the proper manner and are relevant. Turning a synopsis of a book into the longest section on the page is not helpful, or reasonable. Citing the need to "balance" unfavorable accounts of a UFO author with stuff on skeptics wasn't omitted because it needed to be censored, it was omitted because it was completely IRRELEVANT. The UFO author was mentioned because it was his research with ROSWELL which was questionable, NONE of the stuff about the skeptics you mentioned had ANYTHING to do with Roswell, therefore it has no place on the page. What here do you not get?


 * And I will take this to the arbitrators since you clearly are not operating under any normal rules of conduct, you seek to turn this into a pro-UFO page when the function should be to elucidate on the various aspects of the case, NOT to build a pro and con court case. Your approach here is wildly out of whack with what goes on Wikipedia. So if the result here is not what you expect, it is because others will identify what I have identified - you are utterly missing the point of what these pages should be about. Canada Jack 05:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Before I had an account, I was blocked for 33 hours for my first offense. What's up with that? Also, I had been removing vandalism; the person who kept putting it back in was the one who violated the 3rr first, but I couldn't figure out how to block him/her.Hawkrawkr (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:EAR
The format of your recent request was completely unsuitable. As with all help pages, editors need to follow the instructions in the header when they post questions and doing otherwise can result in other questions being prioritised. When an editor fails to follow the clearly stated posting instructions, they should not be surprised if someone brings that shortcoming to their attention when they bemoan the absence of replies, particularly at a project page that has recently become busier by a factor of at least four in the last two weeks. The limited number of staffers can no longer answer every request. If those of us who work very hard to keep EA going miss your request or opt not to assist, that does not permit you to make comments like that. If you were a new editor, that would garner an NPA warning, but I have opted for the softer approach of merely editing the comment to remove the attack. If the other respondents did not see it prior to that point, they may still reply if they have the time to do so, but assistance may not be forthcoming otherwise. Adrian M. H.  10:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You rock!
Wow, you totally rock! This is the best answer I have ever read on the topic! --Kralizec! (talk) 16:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I read your work on the Roswell main and talk page. I love how you typed and edited everything. Nice work. You rock out loud!! MKguy42192 (talk) 01:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Revert not the way to go there
Hi. I was going to link an external source, but as it turns out there is no need. Just read the very first phrase on Split infinitive. It is a grammatical construction, and the choice to use it pertains to grammatical considerations. It is advisible to use it only if the phrase in question would be ambiguous without it, which is not the case. Retaining the term "successfully" does not lead to keeping the split infinitive. Further, by simply reverting, you restored a type of language unsuited for an encyclopedia (that sentence beginning with "Also, he is..."). We need to adhere to higher standards in terms of language, and that is why I modified it. Reverting is often used as a quick way to change things back in an article, but it is necessary to look at the entire scope of the changes made, since a revert will erase everything. That said, I will restore, or rather, remove again the split infinitive, but this time by moving the word "successfully" to the end of the relevant sentences. I believe that solves the problem. Redux (talk) 02:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

just hello
Glad you saw what I meant on the Roswell page. I am new so it would not have been THAT unusual for me to make a mistake. cheers Derekbd (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Maria Tomson
I got involved in the Estonian longevity claims because User:Kask complained that he added Maria Tomson on the page Oldest people but it was deleted there. Different people on the talk page commented differently on the rules of that page. There is no explanation on the page and there also is no explanation on the National recordholders page. I added Maria Tomson and Juhan Kallaste there because when I asked on which page Maria Tomson could be mentioned someone recommended me that page. Please place the mentions on the right place. If no relevant pages link to them then there is no use of the articles.

In the article Maria Tomson I wrote everything I know. In Estonia only enthousiasts collect data on centenarians, as far as I know. The main enthousiast, Helje Loopere, died lately, and I am not sure whether anyone knows who is the current oldest person in Estonia. I read that Helje Loopere had her little apartment full of documents. There also is a national record book where Maria Tomson is mentioned as the oldest Estonian ever. I am not sure where to start research. I know a demographer, I'll ask if he knows anything on the topic. Andres (talk) 16:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You are interested in genealogy and there is a project in Estonia about this subject. But for entering it needs log in. The books about Lutherian Church (luterlik kirik) are in German and the books about Orthodox Church (apostliku õigeusu kirik) are in Russian. I don't know what was Tomson's name before weddings, then is her birth and weddings checking now. Kalev Kask (talk) 20:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Please
Stop reverting the Burj Dubai article, you are clearly wrong in your statement, the construction shots ARE themself sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.135.239 (talk) 16:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Before we are forced block you, I suggest you read the discussion page on Burj Dubai. There has been a long discussion on what RELIABLE sources are pertinent here. Time to brush up a bit on how wikipedia works, 84. Canada Jack (talk) 17:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Query on edit
I am a little iffy on this edit. What do you think? --Kralizec! (talk) 12:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Burj Dubai- Emaar is unreliable, outdated and Inaccurate
You say that Emaar is a reliable source but if you go to the official website the height is still 629.0 meters but you quote a height of 636 meters which does not appear on the Burj Dubai offical website. I understand that this 636 meters is on an article that Emaar released but although it says 636 meters it also says 2,064 feet not 2,087. Obviously Emaar said 636 meters and 2,064 feet but you put 2,087 feet so you are putting up false information. Another thing is that both Emaar sources conflict with each other as one says 629 meters and another says 636 meters. Since Emaar obviously does not know the conversion between feet and meters and they quote different heights on different sites they are unreliable as a source. It doesn't even say when the tower reached 636 meters. It just says the tower is over 636 meters and Emaar does not even list 636 meters on their offical Burj Dubai site. On top of that they claim the tower is both 636 meters and 2,064 feet right next to each other in the same article. Since 636 meters is not 2,064 feet which height is correct? 2,064 feet corresponds roughly to 629 meters another height that Emaar simultaneously claims on the Official Burj Dubai website. This leaves me to beleive that Emaar is not reliable source because of conflicts between its articles, outdated information, and inaccuries betwen feet and meters. They obviously have no idea what they are quoting. 636 meters and 2,064 feet are not the same thing! I suggest we stop using Emaar as a source and use www.BurjDubaiskyscraper.com because it is a much more reliable, accurate, updated, and clear source with thousands of pictures, videos, and links. Emaar gives us none of these pictures, diagrams or nothing.Maldek (talk) 21:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

To The People Who Do Not Belive In Aliens.
If you do not know or belive in aliens you should not offend the ones who do belive. The reason I come forward with this message is because of many people being very and highly offended just because they belive in aliens. You do not have the right to discrimanate the people who do belive.

5:56 June 12, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikkilubbsyou (talk • contribs) 22:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * And when did I offend those who believe in aliens? I've had some very cordial correspondence with Stanton Friedman, one of the most prominent alien researchers around, might ask him if I sneer at his beliefs. I will sneer at those who seem offended when they slap nonsense on pages riddled with typos lacking even the barest references and I revert. If you don't like playing by the rather simple rules here, then leave. Canada Jack (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If any offend those who believe, they are only offending their own relatives, friends, and nature.MKguy42192 (talk) 01:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:List of countries by GDP %28nominal%29
Hi - you're invited to join in a discussion on the inclusion of the EU in the List of countries by GDP %28nominal%29 article. Regards  SilkTork  *YES! 23:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Jack. I enjoy very much your argumentations on this mediation case. You have brought a bunch of new insights (I adjusted parts of my opinion) and your explanation as to what the core business of wikipedia is--even though we should all know it--appears also very helpful to me. I hope that by your entry, the discussion will continue better mannered now than it has been in the last two days, when it was (perhaps also due to my actions) not very nice.
 * There is however one question that I would like to ask. How does it fit into your concept of being absolutely true to the sources that the CIA also ranks the EU in their list. I feel that all editors expressed that the EU is either not listed or listed unranked. Would you really like to rank it at CIA, thereby reflecting even clearer how different the definitions of the three sources are? Tomea s y talk 16:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I was not fully satisfied by your answer because of this CIA ranking In case of the GDP PPP the CIA does publish a ranking and not only an alphabetical list. Consequently, also the EU is ranked in this list. We do not know why the CIA has ranking and alphabetical list for the PPP data, but only an alphabetical list for the nominal exchange rates. However, I think that the published ranking for the PPP influences the case we are considering as well, for the following reason. The outcome of the mediation will hopefully settle the EU issue for the GDP nominal article and its sister article for the GDP PPP.
 * To understand more clearly your approach to this situation, let me ask you two questions: (a) Do you target a common guideline for both articles? (b) If so, I would just want to ask the question from my first posting again, explicitly with respect to the PPP article and thus implicitly for the nominal one; if not, wouldn't it be weired to excluded the ranking on the nominal list (because the source does not force us to use it) while at the same time list the EU ranked on CIA (because of the maxim to be as true as possible)? Tomea s y talk 17:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the long reply. I had read all your postings on the article talk page and understood already from there. I absolutely agree with your reasoning. My question was merely about this ranking detail in the CIA list. Also here, I agree that we exclude the ranking for the EU, even if the CIA does not for the case of the GDP PPP. However, I do feel a little bit shaky on this ground, because we are second-guessing the source here. Good you pointed out that also the world is ranked in the CIA. This shows that in the CIA ranking, the number on the left is not meant to be the rank but merely the number of the row.  Tomea s y talk 19:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

EU map
Oh wait. I fixed the map but I never replaced the old one. I am honestly sorry. I replaced some of the other ones though. Thanks for letting me know but I think its already resolved. regards --Geographyfanatic (talk) 23:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

oops, I think the replacement was flawed as well. It included Belarus : -). I had to redo it myself. I hope it looks fine now.--Geographyfanatic (talk) 23:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29
The Mediation discussion regarding the inclusion of the EU in List of countries by GDP %28nominal%29 has come to a conclusion with the following result:
 * The EU to remain in List of countries by GDP (nominal).
 * The EU to be positioned according to GDP rank between World and USA.
 * No consensus on the EU appearing in all three charts. By convention this means the situation would remain as current - that is the EU remains on all three charts.
 * Data for the EU on each chart to only be given if sourced, otherwise a dash to replace the data.
 * Explanation to be placed in the lead section for the appearance of the EU and other non-countries. Possible wording: "Several economies which are not normally considered to be countries are included in the list because they appear in the sources. These economies are not ranked in the charts here, but are listed in sequence by GDP for comparison."
 * The List retains the current name.
 * A suggestion by Tomeasy that I feel should be carried out is that the sister articles are given the same treatment as agreed above.

Unless there are significant disagreements within the next 48 hours I will be closing the Mediation. Any questions, please get in touch. Regards  SilkTork  *YES! 10:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Liechtenstein
The nominal GDP reported on the CIA website is obviously a typo. They report the PPP GDP just one line above and its value is more than 20 times lower. So this is not a case of an intentional deviation from common standards as in our previous discussion.

Leaves the question, what the precise intended value was. Certainly it is 10-20 times smaller than the reported one. If it is the exact 10 times smaller appears really as original research until this exact value is found in context with the CIA. I even doubt that it is exactly 20 times, because it differ still too much from the PPP value. I would guess the factor is even larger. But we should not guess around here. So the footnote should not be so confident in suggesting what the intended value is, as there is no evidence for either 3,33 or 3,63 as you've pointed out.

How to deal with it in the list. Here, I think we differ. The list is for comparison and I think Liechtenstein is much better placed for the somewhat arbitrary value 3,63 that is at least the correct order of magnitude. We should not place it at the position referring to the obviously wrong figure, since people will learn to relate its economic volume to the wrong countries. Tomea s y talk 23:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. We need to make clear that—whatever number we put in order to get Liechtenstein into the correct neighborhood—this number is just an estimate of the magnitude and free of the claim that it precisely is the intended figure by the CIA. I am happy that you agree we should aim at putting Liechtenstein somewhere around 3.5, so that the comparison property of an ordered ranking is preserved. I think italic would be better than bold, as it is more often italic that refers to some tricky thing underlying data than bold. Bold would rather seem to indicate that this Liechtenstein figure is more important to observe than the others, which is not at all what we want to show.
 * With respect to the numerical inconsistency, I think it cannot be ascribed to an exchange rate fluctuation. Actually, as I understand this statement you can compute the underlying population absolutely independent from the exchange rate. To make my point clear: Even if the exchange rate changed dramatically, the first part of the quoted sentence leads you to the conclusion that in 2004 Liechtenstein had 3,441,000/130.277 = 26413 inhabitants. Three years later, whatever the exchange rate is, Liechtenstein's population is apparently 3,633,000/106.082 = 34247. So, I absolutely agree to your initial suspicion that there is something wrong. Obviously, Liechtenstein's population did not grow by 30% in this time frame. BTW, assuming that the population was constant and the only wrong or unknown figure is GDP in 2007, we can conclude that this number is 26413*106.082=2,802,000. This, however does not look good either, because I cannot imagine that Liechtenstein's $GDP declined by 19% in three year. Bottom line, the footnote is fishy. Tomea s y talk 15:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Please, go ahead, I am sure you'll do it right. Actually, I am at work and shouldn't do all this now ;-) Tomea s y talk 15:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Posting for blocked users
I am going to (almost) repost the same message that I left for User:Bart Versieck on your talk page. Unless the policy has changed, I'd like to note that indefinitely blocked and banned users are not allowed a voice or an opinion on this project, that's why they were blocked/banned. Giving them one, as you did for the indef. blocked Robert Young here, can land you in the same type of trouble, so a friendly recommendation is to not do it. Robert Young, as with all users in his position, have had their editing privileges revoked and, as such, do not get a say on Wikipedia. It's one of the reasons it takes so much to indef. block or ban users is because the consequences are so harsh.

If I have misinterpreted "In the interest of furthering discussion, here are some comments to the above from Mr. Young" and you are not posting for an indef blocked user, please excuse the misunderstanding. Cheers, CP 18:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you are unaware, but Robert Young was blocked because he had an extensive campaign of on-site and off-site harassment of several Wikipedia editors and administrators and generally refusing to abide by Wikipedia's principles. If you choose not to research or appreciate the gravity and seriousness of the situation, that is fine, but he has lost his voice on this website. Whatever your opinion, this response is completely inappropriate and, as a long time user, you should be familiar with WP:CIVIL. I will give you a chance to revert your irrelevant personal attack from the talk page yourself. Cheers, CP 18:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have made a request at Wikiquette alerts in hopes that this issue will be quickly resolved. Cheers, CP 19:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that, as an indefinitely blocked user, Robert Young gets no say on this, or any Wikipedia page, and users who continue to proxy post for him are subject to similar consequences. Cheers, CP 18:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * CP, speaking as a fellow Canadian, could you please be a little bit less of an asshole? Thanks. Canada Jack (talk) 18:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been on wikipedia for several years and I have never been threatened as I have been - twice - today, by CP. CP, back off, and cease being an asshole. I don't know who the hell you think you are, but grow up. Canada Jack (talk) 19:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * And, just for the record, since CP has made this a big issue, this page was discussing about proposals for a revamp of the page. It is not for discussing the various disputes one has with past members. What he is talking about, I have not a clue, but it seems clear to me that CP seeks to avoid discussion by threatening other members, as I have just personally experienced. I have one word for that, and I won't use it again. Canada Jack (talk) 19:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If you noticed, I started the proposal, I am the one initiating all of the discussion, and I am the one who provided the first (and thus far only) alternate vision for the page. So I am not seeking "to avoid discussion by threatening other members"; much the opposite, I started it and am streamlining it. No one has been threatened, only warned not to post in proxy. I am mentioning it on this page, since so many users are posting in proxy for him here. It saves me from having to tell everyone on individual pages every time it occurs. Cheers, CP 19:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You threatened me, CP, pure and simple. You were drawing this discussion into something completely different, and I bluntly called you on it. Your response was to say you'd drag me in front of some arbritation - which you went ahead and did. You are the one who turned this discussion into something else, not me. Take your petty disputes elsewhere. Canada Jack (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please quote where I threatened you in the Wikiquette alert thread then and quit posting on Talk:Oldest people about this. Cheers, CP 20:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for removing your b.s, CP. Please refrain in the future from your thinly veiled attempts to change the subject. Canada Jack (talk) 20:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm here from Wikiquette. Canada Jack, it does seem like you are being pretty WP:UNCIVIL to Canadian Paul. Even if he were being an asshole, you shouldn't say so. It wouldn't help him be less of one, would it? It would only make him madder. However, as I read things, he seems to be entirely polite -- and entirely right that posting stuff from banned users is a huge no-no. If I'm not seeing something here, please let me know, but whatever the case, I think it'd be a really good idea if you'd refactor your comments.  IronDuke  22:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

World Records question
I remember you did some work on sport's world record articles. I wonder if you could answer the question here: Reference_desk/Entertainment Thanks Rmhermen (talk) 00:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice
Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 22:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yo, what's with the avidity about destroying ather's people contributions?
What is your point about deleting stuff from the 100m progression table? Nergaal (talk) 17:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Your statements are s. Check this: http://www.athletix.org/Statistics/wr100men.htm. Nergaal (talk) 17:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, the article you so much declare yourself proud of, lacked any sort of refferencing, and therefore can be deleted at any time. Nergaal (talk) 17:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Oldest People article
Greetings,

It seems the "Oldest people" article is threatening to spin out of control...thanks for coming back. A lot of this is "recentist" bias: expanding the "10 oldest men" list to 15 was just a ruse to put Tomoji Tanabe on the page, IMO. He looks to be in great shape, no need to rush things. Ryoung122 03:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Your Sutton Hoo film etc
Dear Canada Jack,

About 18 months ago when you uploaded a couple of stills from your movie of 1939, I wrote you a line above: in those days I passed by my own name User:Dr Steven Plunkett, but am now User:Eebahgum as I wanted some anonymity and a less formal handle! It would be a great help to research a little more about the date your film was made. Basil Brown in his diary said that 'Mr Phillips's brother' (I take it Harold John Phillips) left the site around 31 July, though the pictures you uploaded suggest a slightly later phase of the clearance of the ship - maybe he came back? Do you happen to have the date, or indeed other dates of the comings and goings of members of the family, including Mrs Boyle? I wonder if you would be willing to chat ex-Wikipedia about a couple of other related queries? Best wishes & hope all's well, Eebahgum (talk) 14:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Lee Harvey Oswald
Hiya CJ. The magic bullet theory always hurt the Warren Commission's findings credability IMO. Anways, there's nothing I can add to the article. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * However the suppossed single bullet was found on a stretcher in the hospital, in mint condition. GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm still not convinced. But then, I also don't believe that humans have landed on the moon. Anyways, I've no intentions of making changes to the Oswald article. GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm still not convinced of Oswald's being guilty. Oh well. GoodDay (talk) 23:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

guns
I'm talking here because this discussion no longer has any place in the USA discussion board. If you think that by banning guns altogether, like those sold in gun stores, than you will keep criminals from getting them, you are dead wrong. UK cast a gun ban a while ago, and in a short documentary on the subject, a thug was interviewed on the streets of London. He said, and I quote: "It's a crock. Criminals are going to get their guns no problem." Criminals don't need legal gun stores to get their hands on guns. One way, and everyone can use this resource, is the Black Market. You can buy just abouut anything that shoots or explodes on the Black Market. If you take away guns, only the law-abiding citizens will give up their guns. What makes you think that a criminal will turn in his guns because the government tells him to? If he did everything the government told him to, he wouldn't be a criminal in the first pace, and before that even, there wouldn't be a need for gun bans if everyone abided by the law. So actually it is your arguement that defeats itself, not mine.Prussian725 (talk) 13:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I would argue that with the fact that gun control has no bearing on the difficulty/ease of criminals getting their hands on guns. Guns are here, and there's nothing we can do about it.  We can, however, ensure that people who wish to have a weapon/weapons to defend themselves and their families with have access to vendors who sell the means to do so.  And I would go further than that to say that there souldn't be specific "type" of gun sold, because that just opens the door wide open to gun control and then we are back to point A.  It is remarkably easy to aquire guns, explosives, even tanks, on the black market on which nobody has a tight enough leash to stem it's operation.  But it still comes down to the thinking that taking away guns will cripple, or even eliminate, crime, and that just simply isn't the case.  Guns have been around for approx. 500 years, people have been killing each other for thousands.  If I really wanted to kill someone, I could hit them with a car, I could throw a brick at their head, I could stab them in the neck while they slept...etc., it comes down to the individual, and unfortunately, no government on Earth, or directives thereof, can ever govern the way a man thinks or feels.  Murder is going to be here forever, so the best thing to do is to be prepared to defend yourself, and in America we think that is a fundamental right.Prussian725 (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, Prussian725. Here, in Italy, people are attacked in their own homes by criminals with guns (as you correctly say, criminals have no problem obtaining guns), and the poor victims cannot legally protect themselves or their families because of gun control. If there was that type of gun control in America, the country would rapidly descend into a maelstrom of violence against innocent, law-abiding citizens who would have to stand by helplessly and watch their wives and daughters being raped, their sons beaten and killed, their homes robbed and ransacked by dangerous, armed criminals, thanks to liberals who just want to change the Constitution, AGAINST THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE. --jeanne (talk) 07:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Well Jack I must thank you for your civility through all this. Perhaps you do have a point about the pre-existing amount of guns in a certain place. One thing I would like your opinion on is resisting a tyranny. I would even use my own country's birth as an example. One of my distant ancestors fought alongside "Swamp Fox" in the colonial militia. They were made up of regular citizens, many of them veterans of the French and Indian War, but do you think they would have been as effective had they had to go to the government or army to aquire arms, or simply didn't exist because none of them were allowed access to firearms?Prussian725 (talk) 16:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well said. That an armed citizenry would not do much, at least conventionally, against a modern army is one point on which I have thought a lot.  I am still personally undecided on this point, but there are some who say that absolutely no restrictions should be made as to what weapons the public shoudl be open to, i.e., tanks, aircaft, explosives...etc.  Like I said I still remain undecided as I have not done enough research into that particular subject.  On another subject, I will admit that my nation is one of fighters, not at all saying that yours doesn't (WWI, WWII...etc.), but I think that it also has to do with the general populace.  Americans of the 1770s were very different from Americans now.  Maybe I am biased because I am one, but most Americans back then were Christians or at least called themselves Christians, and I think that our nation was generally a God-fearing nation.  As can be suggested from such an observation, most (but by no means all) Americans would not use their weapons for crime or selfish ambitions, and therefore could be trusted quite liberally with weapons and such.  (what is your opinion on this?)  The flipside would be that nowadays, more people than before would use firearms for what I call "evil".  (my Christianity again)  This brings up a difficult point, at least for me, because it brings into question whether or not the government should decide what the people can and can't be trusted with, which I guess it already does.  What do you think?Prussian725 (talk) 03:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I see what you are saying. I want to share with you the fact that in my home state of Texas, gun sales have sky-rocketed since a week or two before the 4th, and have been, and still are, at a record high since then. I was at the gun store just today, and the weapons I was looking for had all sold out. This obviously shows that many Americans are concerned, if not scared, that Obama is going to try to take away firearms; he is, after all, the most liberal member of our Congress. He has even talked of creating a "civilian defense force" that will be "just as strong and well-equiped as our Army". I know for a fact that I am not the only one down whose spine shivers have been sent by these and other remarks.

Now, I know that using the Nazi or Communist rise to power is not really applicable since Hitler and Lenin were welcomed into their countries' governments. That is why I am using the French Resistance as just one example. I know it wasn't hugely effective in driving out the Germans, far from it, but I have one point which I derive from this situation. The majority of the French people obviously were not resistant of the Nazis; I use the British as a comparison of people who would "never surrender", and who did not end up being taken over. (whether or not they would have been wiped out is debateable) But back to the Resistance. I think that if the whole of France could have been called the French Resistance, then the Germans would not have had as easy of a time beating the French, and perhaps would have either backed out, or just obliterated the French people altogether (the Nazis, of course, needed subjects so they stayed).

That being said, I think that conservative Americans fear that a takeaway of guns could easily lead to other fundamental freedoms being trampled. I know it's far-fetched, but it is a very real fear of Americans that should someone like Adolf Hitler, Mao...etc., be elected, and the American people be without guns, then our rights could be trampled and we could do nothing but take it. We may not be ultimately victorious in crushing an army sent against us, but at least we would die with our freedoms intact. I will even look to the Vietnam War. I personally do not believe that we were "beaten" or "lost", but that debate is for another place. What I am saying is that in Vietnam we had a tough and determined enemy. By their simple stubbornness not to capitulate or lay down their arms, I mean the Communists, they were able to prove that our politicians were not really behind the effort, and Washington eventually pulled out our troops because the going wasn't easy, a foolish assumption on our government's part, but the point still remains.

If someone wanted to take away guns in America, there would be a bloodbath. That is just simple fact. It comes from a fear that without guns, we would be pawns, like in a Communist country, and would lose our freedoms should someone with the mind to take them come along. We may not be comparable to a modern army, but at least we would not be, to a certain degree, slaves, and that is what we fear.Prussian725 (talk) 01:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Without an armed militia, the US colonists could never have defeated Britain in the War of Independence, and later as Americans in the War of 1812. Guns are a cruel, dangerous but neccessary evil. I hate them because in a split second they can wipe out a human life, either in an act of folly, during a marital quarrel, or by a child getting his hands on his daddy's gun and shooting his little sister or best pal. But without them, American citizens would be sitting ducks for marauding criminal gangs as well as a possible totalitarian government. As for Hitler, although he hated the French as a nation, I don't think he would have eliminated the French people due to the fact that they were a Frankish people and therefore part of the German race. Same with the English, themselves being descendants of Angles and Saxons. He would have probably instigated a programme to re-educate the French and English children to regard themselves as nothing but German had the Nazis completely conquered the two nations.--jeanne (talk) 09:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * (Canada Jack, please let me know if you do not wish to host this brief discussion, I mean the one between the three of us, not you and I) I would not necessarily call guns "evil".  In actuality, they are an assembly of metal and wood, or plastic as the case may be.  On those grounds, I do not believe that guns are evil since they are inanimate objects, but like any other tool, they can be used for good or evil.  About the Germans, from the research I have done, the Nazis held a grudge against the French and all of the Allies for the outcome of WWI.  They also did view the french as inferior since they were not "Nordic" in descent or lifestyle.  Maybe they were some time ago, but the nazis were notorious for manipulating fact and reality to push their views.  They did eventually start conscripting troops from all of their occupied lands once the need for personnel arose and Germany was almost fresh out.  It does of course bring up the way Nazis treated "Slavs and other trash", mainly the Russians.  The Nazis destroyed the Russians whereever they found them, so I have to wonder why they did not do the same to the French.Prussian725 (talk) 18:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am a student of war, not in a class, but I have studied it extensively for years now. And I am aware of the ungodly amount of deaths that resulted from WWII; my great-grandfather was a combat medic in the 2nd wave at Omaha Beach and Battle of the Bulge; it was no picnic. I firstly want to say that you are probably right about the numbers of people who would actually resist a tyrant, I think we can both agree that they would be surprisingly small; but who can definitavely say until it happens?

Next, about our fear being somewhat unfounded, and I am not using this a a parralel for guns but for a power takeover, I would look at Germany during the Nazi takeover. Most Germans did not really care about the Nazi party, but just about everyone loved Der Fuerher and trusted him with their lives. Unforunately for the Germans, they didn't fully realize exactly what they had gotten themselves into until after they happily sold their freedoms and guns to Hitler. The resulting attempts to regain Germany's dignity, and well-being, were characterized by internal sabatoge and attempts to kill Hitler himself. History has shown that the vast majority of Germans did nothing to stop the suicide run of their homeland, mostly out of fear, and for good reason. But even if they tried to salvage their country, what could they do? They had no guns with which to fight, and I think that is a small contributor to why they did nothing.

I also want to say in support of this arguement a little bit about the war in the East, in comparison to the war in the West. The war in the West Front was in a sense over much quicker than the war in the East Front. A major reason, and possibly the only reason, was the fact that we took prisoners and the Communists didn't; or when they did, they were starved, so the German army fought to the last yard to avoid the Soviets. The Germans knew this once the war started to swing in the Allies' favor, and even the top brass of the Wehrmacht tried to kill Hitler so they could negotiate with the Allies and avoid the Communists. This shows, I think, that when men are faced with certain defeat, and they have the means to resist, then they fight with their last breath. At least, this applies to free men and not slaves.

The Germans surrendered to us willingly in droves because they knew they would be well-treated and not have their rights as humans trampled. The opposite, of course, applies to the Communists. Anyway, back to my point. (sorry if I lectured you) Our fear, at least I believe, is not unfounded, because of what happened to the Germans. A power grab would happen slowly and inconspicuously. If someone tried to take away our basic human rights as listed in our Consitution, and we had the means with which to fight back, then you bet the small number who would be willing to die for their rights would fight to the last man just like the Germans in the East Front, because the German prisoners of the Russians were treated like dogs, and we would be too.Prussian725 (talk) 16:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I know exactly what you are saying. I am a bit ashamed myself for the large number of Americans who don't know squat about their government, their constitution, or why they should have guns.  I think the third point reveals the first people who would turn in their guns because they have no clue why they have them, and once somebody comes along and takes them, they don't know the difference.


 * Well, I've enjoyed talking with you. I think we may have found some common ground in all this.  It's really nice to be able to civilly debate with someone.  I do not know what religion you ascribe to or if you do at all, but the Bible even says "Just as iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another."  Thanks for the discussion, and hope to talk again soon.Prussian725 (talk) 03:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Rollback
I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see New admin school/Rollback and Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. Kralizec! (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Addendums
Greetings, I'm glad that you have reinserted the addendums. The anonymous IPs that are deleting them are not providing a rationale for deletion. To me, that says their edit is little more than vandalism. Some people do not understand that Wikipolicy supports pluralism, or including major points of view and letting the reader decide. While Guinness accepted cases like Izumi and White, scientific groups like the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research do not. Thus, both are validating authorities and do not agree; the way to reconcile this disagreemt is to use footnotes. Since the media has generally deferred to Guinness since the 1950s, it should remain the standard unless there is a major shift away from it by the media. This field is still a lot cleaner than boxing, for example, where the world heavyweight title has a plethora of ABC, WBC, WBA, IBF, etc contenders.

Also, in sports like baseball, the World Almanac, for example, lists Ty Cobb as the 1910 batting champion, but notes that researchers now believe that was a mistake and that Nap Lajoie batted .383 and Ty Cobb .382 (instead of .385). But that was part of Cobb's 9 consecutive batting titles in a row. Even if the decision to award Cobb the title in 1910 was a mistake, it was the decision that was made then (just as Bush's 2000 recount victory over Al Gore is seen by some as wrong).

The point is, the list serves a dual purpose: its first goal is to provide the reader with the most accurate information available. However, a second goal is to provide the reader with the history of the subject. Thus, even if Izumi is discounted by some scholars, he should remain on the pages (at least until a scientific work is published that clearly demonstrates that his age was incorrect, as was done with Pierre Joubert). These two goals sometimes don't agree, and that's what footnotes and addendums are for. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a video game; not a current-events list. It must reflect not simply what is currently known, but the history of what was thought to be over time by the leading authorities. After all, the "oldest person" lists are for the most part set by chronology (dates), so history over time is one of the most important issues here. The two most important objectives are determining how long humans live (scientifically, based on evidence) and whether the maximum life span is increasing. But the history of the subject is a close third. Ryoung 122 19:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Tagging
Feel free to cull tags. I do a lot of cursory checking, and just so you know, the article (which I did read) seems a obsessive and lacks perspective. The third-party independent sources should be to groups other than those who are fully integrated into the Roswell cults. See what I'm saying? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hamilton et all
Hi

Have you checked in the F1 discussion page to see what has and hasn't been done yet ?

I have reworked all of the article up to the " Awards " "records" section, as well as doing half the Refs, 1-44

thanks --Chaosdruid (talk) 20:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Carl Lewis
Having removed the article, it will be difficult for me to restore it without due process (i.e. a new GAN). However, I am quite happy to review the article for GAN myself once improvements are made and, if it is good enough, pass it then. Once you think it is ready, nominate it in the normal way and notify me. I'll be happy to do a full assessment then and pass it if it merits it. If you need any further assistance before nomination then let me know and I'd be happy to help.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Apologies !! I just read your note - sorry about that, I should have read it properly before writing to you --Chaosdruid (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Martha Graham
Just to note, the Martha Graham case was accepted based on a 1900 census listing of born in December 1844. Such a listing would not pass muster with today's rules (because it was outside the 20-year window of the birth event). Therefore, the case should be considered "disputed" in my opinion. Ryoung 122 18:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

User 87.18.21.52
Greetings,

The above user has repeatedly made unconstructive edits (adding unsourced/uncited claims and those below age 110 to the super-c lists). This anon has shown no inclination to follow the rules or to listen, or even to give their side of the story.

Do you think you could give this user a warning, then a block, as I expect these edits to continue.

Ryoung 122 00:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Maria Radaelli
Hi, she was reported on websites of Inter Club (she is a supporter) as a 109y.o. woman, and then on World's Oldest People with her birth date (today)... This afternoon she received wishes for her birthday (110) on tv. So she is alive for sure but I found nothing online about her bithday.--Pascar (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Orion flights
Nasa plans to fly manned Orion flights to the ISS. And Nasa has published future planned flights. Therefore, despite these flights not yet appearing on Nasa's launch manifest, they should appear here, unless Nasa changes the program or cancels it. Canada Jack (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * To date, the ISS mission is scheduled until early 2011. Orion missions - to date no more than the desire of developers of Orion, but by no means official NASA plans for astronauts flights to ISS--SeNeKa (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

New Orleans, Garrison and Baker
Hey Jack, I thought that with this recent Judyth Baker business, it's high time that the JFK conspiracies page finally got a section on the Garrison Affair. I don't think anything I've written will ignite any edit wars, as all the Garrison-related stuff is just cut and paste from other articles. I'm hoping what I've written will also provide a good substitute for the Baker page that's going to be deleted. Any ideas you have are quite welcome. Thanks, Joegoodfriend (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Dal-Tex Building
Hi Jack, thanks for bringing this to my attention, I have sourced the material on the Dal-Tex building recently added and then deleted from the JFK conspiracy page. It is also of note that the page on Jim Braden has been tagged for deletion. Hope you will help save it for those of us who seek more available info re: JFK assassination theories.DrippingGoss (talk) 17:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Marathon world record progression
Hi, Jack. Would you mind commenting in Talk:Marathon world record progression about the Robert Fowler issue and whatever else you think should be addressed? Thanks! Location (talk) 20:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello again, Jack. Hope you find this new comment buried in an old thread. I wanted to draw your attention to our previous discussion. Cheers! Location (talk) 03:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Re:Men's pole vault progression
OK: 21 june --Kasper2006 (talk) 15:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Rollback
Hello. I would strongly urge you to revert your revert on the North American Union‎ article. Using the rollback tool in what is essentially a content dispute can result in the tool being stripped from you (or worse). If you disagree with another editor's changes, use the undo button and write you own edit summary explaining why. — Kralizec! (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

National records in the Marathon
Hi, Jack. I've cross-posted this to the Athletics Project, but I thought I'd let you know since you were very helpful in resolving some of the issues in Marathon world record progression. I've updated National records in the Marathon to resolve periodic conflicts regarding which "nations" should appear in the list. Please take a brief look there and offer your comments if you think some changes need to be made. Thanks! Location (talk) 01:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

John F. Kennedy assassination
Well, there is certainly more evidence for Hitler's guilt than for Oswald's. Look e.g. to other wikipedias (de:Attentat auf John F. Kennedy, cs:Atentát na Johna Fitzgeralda Kennedyho, sk:Atentát na Johna Fitzgeralda Kennedyho etc.)... --94.113.9.226 (talk) 21:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The amount of evidence suggesting Oswald's guilt is, in a word, staggering. There are easily close to a hundred individual pieces of evidence, whether it is physical, witness or circumstantial, directly linking Oswald to the murder of Kennedy. What is truly amazing about the case is the efforts by many over the years to pretend this evidence does not exist. One may be able to explain away one or two pieces of evidence, it defies reason that so much evidence of culpability suggests anything other than one conclusion: his guilt. Canada Jack (talk) 21:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I would like to have your certainty. The life would be nicer and easier:-) --Rudoleska (talk) 09:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Most Europeans and Middle-Easterners are convinced Oswald was part of a conspiracy; in point of fact, the Italian media is very pro-conspiracy. I personally have never encountered anyone who believed Oswald acted completely alone. I was indeed surprised to discover how most editors here at Wikipedia support the WC report.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW - do you know about this game? http://downloads.gamezone.com/demos/d11901.htm Try to play it, it's funny:) --Rudoleska (talk) 11:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Rudoleska: Your response tells me you have not looked at the evidence which links Oswald to the crime. Because if you had, there would be no doubt in your mind that Oswald shot JFK. Otherwise, you'd have to explain away close to 100 separate pieces of evidence which link him to the crime. I used to think that, clearly, the evidence was there to suggest a conspiracy. Then I started to take another look at it, and realized the amount evidence for Oswald's guilt was, in a word, staggering.

The JFK case is an example of a great many people in denial that Oswald was responsible. One could accept, for the sake of argument, that several bits of evidence could have been planted. But the case for Oswald's guilt doesn't rest on, say, whether that's his fingerprint on the rifle, or whether he could have made it down the stairs in time. It rests on a) multiple witnesses who saw Oswald actually fire the rifle b) witnesses who saw him carry a package into the TSBD which was found at the sniper's nest c) with his fingerprints on the rifle and at the sniper's nest d) with his ownership of the rifle e) with the bullets found at the scene matched to the rifle f) with he being the only employee not accounted for during the assassination and after the assassination g) with him shooting dead an officer h) with multiple witnesses either seeing him shoot the officer or fleeing the scene i) with him telling provable lies to the police after his arrest j) with his leaving cash for his wife and children that morning, the list goes on and on. While any one or two pieces of evidence might be explained away or not proof of guilt, the totality of evidence suggests one thing and one thing only, to the reasonable person: Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt. But, as I said above, a great many people are in denial here. Even if we open the door to the possibility of a conspiracy, Oswald still had his fingerprints, quite literally, all over the scene of the crime. Canada Jack (talk) 21:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is not, that there is evidence found. I believe that Oswald was a part of the assasination plan. But I am sure, that the most important things are still hidden (as you may know Bush sr. decided to publish all documents in 2017 only). For example - you can see at the film that there were at least two shots, one from the front + one from the side, but not from the back, where Oswald stood. Other questions are, why was Oswald killed and why were many other people, who were allegedly involved, killed after the assasination... The explanation, that Oswald was homosexual communist is crazy for me (because communists were the last people on earth who wanted JFK's death at that time...). --Rudoleska (talk) 23:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Jack, Oswald's prints were not found all over the scene of the crime. None were found on the window sill nor frame, which would have been there seeing as he had to have opened the window in order to fire at the motorcade. You will note by looking at photos taken of the TSBD before the shooting that the south-east corner window was the only window open on the sixth floor. The rifle only had his prints on the inside, none on the outside, which means that the rifle, which did belong to him, was either planted after the crime or he took more precious seconds to wipe it down after the shooting. As for the witnesses; well, their descriptions were all rather vague, if not contadictory. And the woman who described the assailant of Officer Tippit as having been "stocky in build with bushy hair"!!!!!!!!Oswald was slim with lank, thinning hair. And lastly, the time factor is always important in any killing which is why autopsies have to prove the exact time (if possible) of death. That way a court of law can decide whether or not the accused had the opportunity to commit the crime of which he is being charged. Oswald had 90 seconds to fire off at least three shots, wipe down the rifle, move aside the heavy boxes, walk quickly across the floor, down four flights of stairs, and then appear calm enough to convince his supervisor and Officer Baker of his non-involvement in the shooting.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

For example - you can see at the film that there were at least two shots, one from the front + one from the side, but not from the back, where Oswald stood.

This is the sort of "denial" stuff I am talking about. Can you see the bullets in the film? No? Then how can you tell the shots are coming from the front and side? ALL the pathologists and autopsy personnel - including pro-conspiracy believer Cyril Wecht - agree two AND ONLY TWO bullets struck JFK and BOTH came from the rear. Without getting into the autopsy details, the bullet wounds PROVE that the bullets entered from the rear. As for JFK's movement to the backwards and to the left, this is an example of people who don't know what they are talking about coming to conclusions as if that movement indicates a bullet strike from the front right. Any movement associate with being struck by a bullet from that range would account for a grand total of about TWO INCHES of movement in another direction. That's it. So, even if we were to accept a strike then, THAT WOULD NOT ACCOUNT FOR JFK'S MOVEMENT. This is what a lot of the "denialists" don't get. And that is why the most accepted explanation for JFK's movement was a nuerological/muscular reaction to having his brain shattered by a bullet.

Other questions are, why was Oswald killed and why were many other people, who were allegedly involved, killed after the assasination...

Evidence, please, evidence. People died after the assaination, but, despite a Times (London) article from 1966 suggesting the odds of this happening were billions or more to one, and despite the late edition of that paper retracting the absurdly wrong numbers published, the odds of all those people dying within the several-year time span is roughly even. Besides, people dying years after the fact do not alter what happened on Nov 22 1963, and what happened on that day is consistent with Oswald acting alone.

Jack, Oswald's prints were not found all over the scene of the crime''. None were found on the window sill nor frame, which would have been there seeing as he had to have opened the window in order to fire at the motorcade.''

We;ve had this debate already, Jeanne. And you are still operating under the same fallacy - absence of evidence does not negate positive evidence. In other words, the lack of fingerprints there on the windowsill does not in any way negate the evidence which WAS there, which indicated Oswald's presence. Besides, as I have already repeatedly pointed out, MOST FINGERPRINTS ARE NOT VIABLE. If the prints were smudged for example, they were useless. It is not at all remarkable that prints are not found at every location where someone was supposed to be. Not only did several people identify him as being in the windowsill, his prints are on boxes in positions precisely what you'd expect if he used the boxes as a gun rest. Further, Oswald was the ONLY employee observed by fellow employees to be on the sixth floor that day, and still further OSWALD HIMSELF accidentally admitted to being on the floor when questioned.

And the woman who described the assailant of Officer Tippit as having been "stocky in build with bushy hair" There you go again, Jeanne. The identification of Oswald as the killer of Tippit does not rest on one eye-witness account. There were multiple other witnesses who either saw Oswald shoot Tippit or saw him flee the scene. But who do you quote? The one person whose testimony was fraudulently manipulated by author Mark Lane to make it appear as if she was describing someone clearly not Oswald. To see how much in denial and how desperate the pro-conspiracy theorists are, one should read up about Lane's treatment of Helen Louise Markham, from where the above quote comes from.

He had been interviewed by the Warren Commission and he revealed that she had described Tippit's assailant in this way. When the WC asked Markham if she had ever described the man in such a way, as Lane had described, she said she never had, and had never even met Lane. Turns out that was because Lane pretended to be Capt Fritz of the Dallas Police force. When the WC had Lane testify again, they asked Lane to hand over the tape he made of the conversation, but he refused. He finally relented, after posing bogus legal argument after bogus legal argument. And after reading the transcript thus produced, one can understand why.

Lane: I read that you told some of the reporters that he [Oswald] was short, stocky and had bushy hair.

Markham: No, no, I did not say this.

... Lane: And was he a little bit on the heavy side?

Markham: Not too heavy.

Lane: Not too heavy, but slightly heavy?

Markham: Uh, well, he was, no, he wasn't, didn';t look too heavy, uh, uh.

...

Lane: He was short and they asked if he was thin or heavy, and you said he was a little on the heavy side?

Markham: He was, uh, not too heavy. Uh, say around 100, maybe 150 [he was in fact 150 pounds at death]

Lane: Well, did you say he wasn't topo heavy, but he was a little heavy?

Markham: Uh, huh.

Lane: You did say that in the line-up?

Markham: I did identify him in the line-up.

Lane: Yeah, and did you tell the officers that the man who shot Tippit had bushy hair?

Markham: Uh, no, I did not.

Lane: But he did have bushy hair you said, just a little bushy?

Markham: Well, you wouldn't say it hand't been combed you know or anything.... he had probably been through a lot and it was kinda tore up a little.

What's amazing to me, Jeanne, is that you would 1) ignore the dozen or so OTHER witnesses who say Oswald shoot Tippit or flee the scene 2) you would focus on one witness who NEVER SAID WHAT MARK LANE CLAIMS SHE SAID and 3) who POSITIVELY IDENTIFIED OSWALD at the police line-up as the man who she saw shot Tippit!

Oswald had 90 seconds to fire off at least three shots, wipe down the rifle, move aside the heavy boxes, walk quickly across the floor, down four flights of stairs, and then appear calm enough to convince his supervisor and Officer Baker of his non-involvement in the shooting.

A feat which Earl Warren himself matched, Jeanne. And numerous others. And, since the building was sealed soon afterwards and no one else was seen descending the steps from the perch where we all agree SOMEONE fired shots (if not Oswald), well then, prey tell, how did this person vanish into thin air since each and every one of the other TSBD employees was seen and accounted for during the assassination?

This is what I mean about "denial," the curious ability to see a brown leaf on the ground in an otherwise verdant forest, and thus declare the forest not to be green. Canada Jack (talk) 20:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Canada Jack, there is clearly a vigorous debate as to the number of potential shooters/shots that day that I would like to avoid taking part in. But, there seems to be an incorrect/false sentence in the JFK Assassination article summary that appears to need correcting/updating.

Wikipedia's JFK Assassination article, Paragraph 4, sentence 2 states "The Committee was not able to identify any individuals or groups involved with the possible conspiracy." This sentence appears to be false, as the HSCA specifically identified Carlos Marcello and Santos Trafficante as having the means, motive, and opportunity to assassinate JFK, stating "The committee found that Trafficante, like Marcello, had the motive, means, and opportunity to assassinate President Kennedy." (Source: )

These HSCA findings were supported by alleged confessions from Marcello in 1985 to an FBI informant and Trafficante in 1987 to his attorney, Frank Ragano. (Sources: )

It seems that paragraph 4, sentence 2 should be updated to "The Committee found that Carlos Marcello and Santos Trafficante had the means, motive, and opportunity to assassinate president Kennedy." (Source: )

If you do not dispute these facts, are you able to update the JFK Assassination page or should I contact another Wikipedia member? Thanks for your help/contributions. Nopoliticsatthetable (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Nopolitcs: Funny, I just posted a response, so check it out. Basically, though the committee did identify several who would have had the means motive etc, it failed to find any evidence that these people were actually involved in the assassination. So there is no need to change the text. Canada Jack (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Carl Lewis
Thanks for taking time to comment on the talk page. As I've indicated, I haven't yet had the time to look at the article in detail. Has there been BLP discussions in the past on this article? --Ronz (talk) 16:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not that I am aware - you can see the page discussions go back a few years. I've checked out Mr. Lewis' new website (fitforever.com) and it might be relevant to mention that somewhere in passing. Canada Jack (talk) 16:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment on wake-up calls in space shuttle articles
There was a request for comment made at WikiProject:Human Spaceflight, on the inclusion of a table containing the wake up calls. If you get a minute and could comment on what you think, that would be great. Thanks!--Navy Blue84 14:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Greetings.
Hey Jack, sorry about the photo. I never really had an editor here in the Wikipedia who was interested in showing me how things work (well, one, after a year, who isn't interested really in biographies, mainly hard sciences-- Spinning Spark is a very kind person, for all that, he did help when I hadn't a clue) and I didn't even know how email worked until just a handful of years ago. I'm sorry about the photo of The Cramps. When I go out hunting for photos for the Wikipedia, if I see any CC-BY-SA images there, and we don't have a photo, or the newer one looks clearer, I pick them up too, and if there's space or relevance in the article, try to work things out chronologically. Since generally people only stop by my talk page to yell at me, I'm hoping you didn't mind the replacement. BTW, I did look for a decent one of Lux Interior -- the b/w photo of Poison Ivy came from the same photographer in Japan. (I think I must have been a used car salesman in my last life!) If you like, I just uploaded a whole mess of garage rock, New wave, and other bands to Wikimedia Commons, same username. Have a look if you like. I think there are still some not placed. Sorry I removed your photo. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 09:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

JFK assassination article
I tried to discuss your removal in the discussion section of the article. Now you've removed the material twice. How about discussion on the article's talk page before removal?Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * (In response to the note you left on my talk page) The proper place for this discussion is on the article discussion page at John F. Kennedy Assassination. You removed the Mauser information from the Carcano section. It is historical fact supported by references, that the weapon was first identified as a 7.65 Mauser. Just because some editors express a preference doesn't mean they are right. But, in an effort to be agreeable and cooperative, although I disagreed, I moved it to the Conspiracy section of the article. It was removed again, without any discussion. So let's discuss this on the discussion page, shall we? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghostofnemo (talk • contribs) 03:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Non Free Files in your User Space
Hey there Canada Jack, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free files are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some files that I found on User:Canada Jack. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.


 * See a log of files removed today here.


 * Shut off the bot here.


 * Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 00:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Terry Fox FAC
I've nominated Fox's article at FAC here, and a user has requested an OTRS ticket be sent verifying that you are the photographer for the picture of Fox running through Toronto that serves as the article's lead. I would be most appreciative if you would do this, both to satisfy the requesting editor and to help this article reach the status it deserves. Cheers! Resolute 20:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I indeed took the photograph. If there is any other form of verification required, let me know. Canada Jack (talk) 13:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's good enough for me, but the editor in question is always concerned about appearances when it comes to older images. He'd appreciate it if you sent the OTRS team an email verifying it is your photograph. They would create a ticket logging it as such, which would satisfy the user.   Great photo, btw.  It's always cool when you can get a picture of historical moments. Thanks, Resolute 13:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I took a look and I have absolutely no idea how to send an e-mail to these guys, where it goes, etc. Please advise. Canada Jack (talk) 17:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow... they certainly did make things a lot more confusing since the last time I sent a message to OTRS. The email address you want is "permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org" (replacng the At and DOT, of course) And you need only to confirm in the email that File:TerryFoxToronto19800712.JPG is your photo and that you have released it into the public domain.  I suspect it will help them if you reference the Terry Fox FAC so as to give them context as to why the request is coming in.


 * From my POV, your on-wiki declaration should be enough, but I appreciate your going to this trouble to help satisfy the concerns of another editor. Cheers! Resolute 17:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. Canada Jack (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thanks! Resolute 18:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit-warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. I have reported this latest action.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Calmer  Waters  19:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

RE: Mad magazine
First, I suggest you look at the section ahead of this one. Next, look WP:NOTAFORUM and the tag on the talkpage. Discussing the general downhill slide of the magazine is not article improvement. If you don't understand that link, take a look Template:Uw-chat1.


 * It is if the section is in the main body of the article. Canada Jack (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no section on "slide". And while Viviano is cited in the article, it is in reference to the Controversy section. BTW, next you post on someone's talkpage, please follow the norm do it at the bottom of the page. The entire section you reverted to does not address article improvement which is the reason for its talkpage. You are again now in violation of 3RR. moreno oso (talk) 20:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, for anyone else dealing with Morenooso, my short exchange with him revealed troubling behavior from someone who has a relatively robust edit history. For one, his approach is schoolmarmy. Instead of engaging with me, he first put a template on the discussion page in question, then he started to omit material. I re-inserted said material saying it falls within the range of what the discussion page should be. Instead of engaging, he removed the material again, pointing to the various policies he saw as relevant. I patiently told him that I understood his point but in my opinion the material fell under the purvue of what a discussion page should be.

And, he is overly sensitive. When I pointed out to him that I am an experienced editor, he took that as some sort of personal attack. And after politely explaining how in my view the discussion he removed should stay if there is a good faith disagreement between editors, as a default, he described me as being a "pompous editor" for suggesting I was an experienced editor, even though that was in response to his schoomarmy approach better suited towards a novice editor NOT as a comment on HIS experience. Then ignoring my point about good faith agreements, he declared me wrong and perhaps incapable of understanding the "notaforum" rule, then he told me to "buzz off." And he closed the discussion. Someone responded to THAT, and I briefly responded to that poster, only to have THAT deleted.

I've been here some four years and I've never experienced this sort of condescending and childish conduct from an established editor. Anyone else who has complaints about his conduct can feel free to cite my experience.

Here is what I posted on his page and the exchange:


 * You've reverted the discussion on Mad magazine's "peak" four times now. I've expressed the view that the material is relevant, so you are in violation of the 3R rule. The discussion is relevant to the material on the page. Why? If the original poster's comment was to stand, the section could be removed. I've justified its inclusion. It seems rather odd that I have to justify the inclusion of comments on the discussion page on THIS page for material which justifies the inclusion of material on THAT page!

Obviously, you have a different opinion on whether the material is discussing improvements to the page. I am a long-time editor here, and I believe the material should stay. You've not estbalished the material is non-relevant, therefore the material should stay. Canada Jack (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Nope. I am following Wikipedia policy and my reverts have been all in good faith. In fact, I granted you that courtesy when I established the WP:NOTAFORUM tag. I could have reverted immediatedly but decided it could wait until my next visit. However, you chose to ignore the tag and continued random conversation. And, while we are both long time editors, I will point to you to that I have three time as many edits. BTW, you are approaching 3RR on the article which is why I visited your talkpage. Please don't try to revert or turn the conversatiion. moreno oso (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

And I recognize that your actions, though misguided in my view, are in good faith. As I said, we have a difference of opinion. There is no "fact" established that the discussion in question must go, your claims notwithstanding. Your opinion is it should go, mine is it can stay. Therefore the default should be to retain the material in this sort of good-faith difference of opinion we are having. The discussion is relevant to improving the page as if the poster's remarks were to stand, the quote should be removed. As, the poster suggests, though true, the quote is trivially true. I suggest the opposite, the quote is non-trivially true, citing my own experience. The quote therefore deserves to stay.

If I was engaged in a debate on when Mad peaked, you'd be justified in removing the material. But though mentioned in passing, the discussion is not, per se, on when the peak happened, it is on whether a quote regarding the peak is trivial or non-trivial.

As for the bigger issue here, the issue here is not who has more edits - a rather amazingly pompous remark to make - the issue is whether one editor can assume the right to remove material from a discussion page when another editor maintains the material is relevant to the article in question. In other words, unlike adding contentious material to a main page which has not been arrived through via consensus, you are declaring the discussion I am having as outside the bounds of a discussion page and removing it with NO discussion.

I've been in far more contentious debates on discussion pages, some of which should properly be removed as per the guidelines you cite. And much discussion has been removed as it strays into debate on the topic in question rather than on ways to improve the page, the primary function of the discussion page.

In the case of a main page, when there is good faith disagreement over inclusion of material, the material should be debated on the discussion page. However, as long as an experienced editor agrees material on a DISCUSSION page should remain unless it is so clearly outside the bounds of the article in question, the default should be to leave the material there.

So, in good faith, I will remove the material in question if you can convince me that it falls outside the bounds I describe above. Canada Jack (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Two words (but they will come at the end because you're wrong). You're the pompous editor who brought up he's been around here a long time. If you don't get the notaforum discussion then you're really missing it. Now for the two words: buzz off.

Canada Jack (talk) 18:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

August 2010
Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: Talk:Mad (magazine)‎. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --moreno oso (talk) 03:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Salyut expeditions
awesome, thanks for the message. There's a few things being discussed in this direction Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human spaceflight. :) Mlm42 (talk) 23:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Spaceflight portals
Hello! As an member editor of one or more of the Spaceflight, Human spaceflight, Unmanned spaceflight, Timeline of spaceflight or Space colonisation WikiProjects, I'd like to draw to your attention a proposal I have made with regards to the future of the spaceflight-related portals, which can be found at Portal talk:Spaceflight. I'd very much appreciate any suggestions or feedback you'd be able to offer! Many thanks,

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Human spaceflight at 08:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC).

WikiProject Human spaceflight activity
Hello there! As part of an effort to determine how many active editors are present in the spaceflight-related WikiProjects, I have made some changes to the list of members of WikiProject Human spaceflight. If you still consider yourself to be an active editor in this project, I would be grateful if you would please edit the list so that your name is not struck out - thus a clearer idea of the critical mass of editors can be determined. Many thanks in advance!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Human spaceflight at 19:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC).

WikiProject Spaceflight reboot
Hello there! As you may or may not be aware, a recent discussion on the future of the Space-related WikiProjects has concluded, leading to the abolition of WP:SPACE and leading to a major reorganisation of WP:SPACEFLIGHT. It would be much appreciated if you would like to participate in the various ongoing discussions at the reorganisation page and the WikiProject Spaceflight talk page. If you are a member of one of WP:SPACEFLIGHT's child projects but not WP:SPACEFLIGHT itself, it would also be very useful if you could please add your name to the member list here. Many thanks!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 00:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC).

The Downlink: Issue 0

 * You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 16:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC).

The Downlink: Issue 1

 * You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 14:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC).

The Downlink: Issue 2

 * You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 00:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

ArbCom
Your name has been mentioned in recent evidence for an arbitration case filed on 2010-11-18. You were not originally named as a party, but I am sending this notice proforma to editors named in evidence, before the workshop period closes. If you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity/Workshop, or elsewhere on that page or the case's four talk pages. Additionally, the following resources may be of use— Thanks, JJB 21:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

The Downlink: Issue 3

 * You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Spaceflight at 09:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC).

Your good-faith revert regarding Martha Graham at List of the verified oldest people
I had seen your revert to my edit several days ago, but hadn't gotten around to discussing with you per WP:BRD. Before I discuss, as a GRG volunteer, I decided to investigate further on this particular case to see if I can assist in researching this case. I have made some progress but obviously the discoveries I have made to date would be WP:OR anyway, but I'm just letting you know about this development as this discussion may become moot in the future.

Regarding your revert, I thought about your edit summary comment. First, I made an addition error (must have missed adding up a month) in using fl. 145 days, when I realized I meant fl. 176 days instead when using the latest date of 31 December. Besides that error, secondly, I could see why my edit looks like OR. I had been aware that the sources were quoted as saying "114 days, c. 180 days". This was an indication that no reliable source knew the actual number of days, which is understandable. I was just trying to focus on being factually correct in the list -- using floruit to indicate that we only know when a person was indeed alive, in this case, the birth month/year being sometime in "December 1844" according to cited sources.

At first, I was not able to make a response regarding my edit as being OR as your revert did make sense. Then, I realized this: the use of "c. 180 days" in a list that is ranked chronologically is actually OR, too!  There is no source out there that has cited Martha Graham as being born on 27 December 1844, which would translate into 114 years, 180 days; yet, she is listed as being ranked exactly that (tied with two verified people that has complete birth & death dates). If that's not OR, I don't know what is. :-)

Since both our train of thoughts may seem to come to a screeching halt due to OR concerns, instead, I propose this: since cited sources do mention the birth month/year to be "December 1844" (irrespective of them also saying "114 years, c. 180 days), without making further assumptions on the list, should we should use this phrase:  "114 years, at least 176 days"?  After all, we (and the sources) don't know whether Martha Graham was born on 1 December 1844 (as many as 206 days) or 31 December 1844 (at least 176 days).  That definitely would change the rankings as it would stand right now.  Thoughts?  Calvin <font color="DarkGreen">Ty  19:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I say leave as "c.180 days." I think we are getting a bit too fussed over ranking here when there is already a built-in margin of error of about 48 hours. I.e., someone who lived the "180" days may in fact have lived longer than someone who live 182 days - given we usually aren't certain of the precise time of birth and sometimes the precise time of death. Another point is "at least 176 days" to me sounds like "circa 180 days," and I think the "at least" or "+" designation is more appropriate when we don't know a date of death. Canada Jack (talk) 11:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not consider the "built-in margin of error of about 48 hours", although that thought had come to me in the past regarding tied cases. At one point, we had 3 living cases that were born on 24 July 1899.  One was an Englishwoman (who have since died),  but two others were in USA.  So, yeah, time zones could play a role here, particularly for emigrants across continents.  Although, if they were born and died in the same time zone, respectively, then that no longer comes in play regarding the number of days they lived.  Anyway, about your point, I think I like the "+" designation better as it's a smaller designation to add to a list for any future potential ambiguous case with lack of birthday information.  Thanks for your input.  Cheers, <font color="Sienna">Calvin <font color="DarkGreen">Ty  12:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The "48 hours" issue means that the margin of error is greater than the increment for ranking - i.e. 1 day. So, if a person is ranked behind a person who lived one day longer, the margin of error means the "younger" person may have in fact lived longer. In the extreme example, if the "older" person was born just before midnight and died just after midnight, (s)he would in fact be younger than someone of one day less age if that person was born just after midnight and died just before midnight. And, as you note, emigrants could add or subtract more hours.

But this is all fussing in my opinion over issues of limited relevance. In gerontology, it is not particularly relevant who is older if there is a difference of a few days, the issue is where the overall trend in extreme age lies. Canada Jack (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

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

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

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

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The image is a screen capture from a video dub I had made of the original 8 mm film made in 1939 by my grandfather, deceased since 1981. His son, my uncle, gave the original permission to use this image, I can't find the e-mail, but I will ask him to do so again. What needs to be said in the e-mail? Canada Jack (talk) 14:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

You see, dear Canada Jack. All my last comments in Talk : JFK assassination page have been deleted again yesterday by Binksternet, with the futile excuse it was "chat" and no "information". It was information indeed with clear sources links to Jim Garrison interviews and comments about WC report, but Binksternet decided himself it was not. Instead he let comments in that page which ARE pure chat and zero info. These were the links I gave. "Disruptive" indeed, but for Wikipedia so-called official version of the facts. How disruptive is that : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKY2pin7_Hk&NR=1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBKcJAwwKrQ&NR=1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ut9tDZKz5ME&feature=related That Wikipedia truth policy is properly outrageous, like no institution would ever dare to enforce. Unbelievable. Comprenne qui pourra, mais cela ne grandit pas Wikipedia.

Johan-Frederik Hel Guedj <hellstan@skynet.be> --109.88.39.130 (talk) 10:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC) As I said, cnsorship does exist here.

Kennedy Assination
Im curious do you agree with the WC magic bullet claim? Do you think the WC got the correct answer or the answer they needed too? (if so theres no reason why they changed the rifle, or maybe just its font?) Ever watched the Zap film? First Kennedy grabs the front of his neck. If he was leaning foward and one bullet went from back thru his neck how come no damage to any hand? OH and why did he grab the front of his neck with both hands?--Biebersbro2 (talk) 12:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The rifle recovered was proven to be the Carcano which fired the bullets which were recovered, there was no "changed" rifle. JFK lifted his hands after the bullet pierced his throat, not before. His actions are consistent with being shot in the back. Canada Jack (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Eurozone
I just wanted to mention a comment made at Talk:Eurozone. A user added a comment above your comment, and I have replied to it. You might want to indent and re-locate your comment to maintain the chronological order. I think the rules would permit me to do this, since I would not be changing your comment, but I didn't want to tread on any toes. --Boson (talk) 08:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Oswald
Please see my note at Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald.  Acroterion   (talk)   04:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Reverting at NAU page
Just so we are clear on this. You have reverted my edits twice within an hour. Reverting the entirety of an edit twice based on an objection to one small part of the edit is not only likely to be seen as edit-warring, but also an attempt at gaming consensus.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 00:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Jack, that is the third time within 24 hours that you have removed the material from the lede. Furthermore, your removal of the citations has meant the sources are no longer provided on the article. Please self-revert your removal of material from the lede.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Nice try, Devil. Your material, about 75 % of it, is now in the article. We needed to discuss it and its weight, and you have failed to make the case that this warrants additional mention in the lede. Since the article is about the North American Union and your insert regards assessments of positions and implementation which led to the SPP several months later - and the SPP isn't even mentioned in the lede - it is hard to see how this should also be in the lede. Canada Jack (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories
If you have the time, would you mind offering an opinion regarding reliable sources and the attribution of opinions and statements provided by Warren Commission critics? Thanks! Location (talk) 01:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your input! Location (talk) 02:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

FYI: Saw this this morning. Location (talk) 12:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Removing Carrie White, Kamato Hongo, and Other Disputed Cases From the Oldest People page
You should see my last post in response to your post on this issue. Please go to the Oldest People talk page and you'll see it.

P.S.: I just registered under my new account. Before this, I used my IP to edit Wikipedia.

Futurist110 (talk) 06:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I asked a new question for you about this issue. Please see my new question. Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 11:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I responded to you again right now. Futurist110 (talk) 22:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I just posted another link on the Oldest people talk page that excludes Hongo and White while including disputed cases such as Beard. It's the newest GRG SC list so far. Futurist110 (talk) 03:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

May 2012
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal). If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ''Please refrain from making ad hominem attacks on other editors. Thank you. '' Fasttimes68 (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Fasttimes68 (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Fasttimes68 (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Fasttimes68 (talk) 15:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
i mean what I say. stop the attacks Fasttimes68 (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Fasttimes68 (talk) 22:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Robert Cloughen
Hi, Canada Jack. I believe that you were once working on the 100 metres record progression article and I stumbled across the following statement in Robert Cloughen: "In 1910, Cloughen broke the world's record for the 110 yard dash..." Given that there are so many unofficial (i.e. non-IAAF) assertions of world records floating about by even reliable sources, do you think this statement and others like it should require proper attribution? Location (talk) 04:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, it wasn't until 1912 that the IAAF was formed and started to recognize world records. They may have ratified this in 1912 or after as they did recognize some pre-1912 records as being world records. I've not seen lists of IAAF-ratified records for defunct events, though. While the 1910 article may have indeed said "world record" I think it would be more accurate to say "claimed" world record unless this was indeed later ratified by the IAAF, or, alternately, mention that the record was set before the IAAF, the official and universally recognized sanctioning body, was formed. Canada Jack (talk) 15:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. I've encounter this enough before that I've thought about creating some sort of generic footnote in order to impart information about the unofficialness of the mark, but without being obnoxious in the body of the article. Something like:
 * According to the International Association of Athletics Federations, the international governing body for the sport of athletics who ratifies world records in track and field, road running, cross country running, and race walking, John Doe's mark is not listed as having been a world best or world record.[appropriate citation here]
 * I could always run it by WikiProject Athletics, too. Location (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a good idea, but, as I said, since this event is a defunct event, it is a bit harder to determine whether in fact this record was ratified or not by the IAAF. All the yard records, save for the mile, were discarded after 1976, and I've not seen those old record progression lists anywhere. So saying "John Doe's mark is not listed as having been a world best..." may be accurate, but only because those old yard lists were discarded. Might be a project to find those old progressions. They gotta be somewhere!


 * So, while that blurb may work for many cases, especially in road races, in this particular case I am not sure we are being accurate. Canada Jack (talk) 15:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I see your point. I haven't stumbled across any detailed discussion of the 110 yard event to know who compiled what in the early 20th century. (I imagine it's not high on either of our priority lists though.) Cheers! Location (talk) 17:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 15
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Men's high jump indoor world record progression (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Urbana, Herne and Eugene


 * Men's pole vault indoor world record progression (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Portland and Mobile

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Good call
...at Roswell incident regarding the undue weight devoted to a single book. I'm wondering if an entire section devoted to a single book's hypothesis about a "Roswellian Syndrome" is needed, or perhaps just a short paragraph mentioning the book within the "Cultural influence" section? --Tenebrae (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I didn;t check, but that looks like it comes from a recent Skeptical Inquirer article. Might fit better in the part earlier which discusses Roswell as an example of building a myth, condensed. Canada Jack (talk) 16:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Roswell/Sunrise
Hi Canada Jack, It appears that the Sunrise marketing campaign has re-surfaced on the Roswell page. To me this is a obvious marketing ploy and I have deleted it once more. Do you think we should ask for page protection to stop this advertising? With best regards, David. David J Johnson (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. Canada Jack (talk) 23:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Canada Jack, I have requested protection on the Roswell page. Thanks for your help. Regards, David. David J Johnson (talk) 11:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello again Canada Jack, Please see my latest on Roswell Talk page. There has been another insertion/deletion by unregistered users, obiviously from Sunrise, which appears to be a rather strange organisation. They do not seem to want to discuss their book/organisation - only market the book. I fear we are in for an "edit war" and would appreciate your support for urgent page protection for the Roswell article. With best regards, David. David J Johnson (talk) 00:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

If you are worried about someone marketing a book, then remove Annie Jacobsen's Area 51 book and the others from the Roswell incident page. If not, then make the necessary edits to SUNRISE Information Services contribution to the Roswell case to make it seem less like what you think it is but leave the scientific facts in place. Until you do the verification on the facts (which people can see you have not done so, therefore don't delete the whole text), let others read about the latest scientific results and let them decide to visit the SUNRISE web site to gather more information. Obviously you would not want to see 80,000 words of just one book to appear on the Roswell incident page, so leave the contribution from SUNRISE as is and people will decide if they want to purchase the book. Plain and simple.


 * Hi Canada Jack, Please see my latest on Dennis Brown's Talk page. It appears from the SUNRISE webpage tonight, that they are planning to re-spam as sooon as the block expires on 31 August 2012. This will probably mean that the unsigned, offensive comments will also re-appear on individuals Talk Pages? If this happens something more serious will have to be taken. Regards, David. David J Johnson (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting to see the focus on supposed "spamming" by SUNRISE by reading some aspect of its web site that it wants to add an important contribution to the Roswell case on Wikipedia. Maybe the individual who is taking offense to the contribution should define "advertising" in the SUNRISE context and how does this differ from Annie Jacobsen's book Area 51 mentioned on the Roswell incident page? In fact, you have a number of books mentioned (funny that?). What's so special about those authors that SUNRISE can't mention to Wiki readers of further details of the contributed research information in a book? And, more importantly, what's wrong with the contribution? If the contribution was accepted on the first time it was added, it would not be seen as "spamming". Indeed, it is nothing offensive for SUNRISE to consider adding the contribution it believes is important for readers to know and in notifying people that more details exist (and where to find those details, since clearly no editor of a Wikipedia page is going to accept 80,000 words contribution from an entire book). It can only be offensive if some silly person can't see the value of the contribution and wants to take the entire text right off the page (and that effectively means "censorship"). That's not science. And that not the fundamental aim of Wikipedia (if the work of Julian Assange is anything to go by). And if this person thinks it is advertising (he must be heavily focussed on the first paragraph but somehow can't get past that point with the rest of what's being contributed), then give the contribution the necessary edit it needs (but make sure people know where to find more details). Wikipedia is there to encourage people to contribute and improve the contents of the wiki pages, and if there is more information to support the latest research, to direct them to either a web page, or the title of the book (or perhaps both if it makes it easier for readers to find). The comment in favour of SUNRISE by whoever is clearly telling us someone at Wikipedia just needs to decide whether the contribution from SUNRISE needs further editing or not (to meet whatever standard you think is necessary, but not to take it down). And this is certainly not a situation of "...something more serious will have to be taken" in an attempt to stop the entire text from appearing. That's the dummest talk I have ever seen so far and goes against the fundamental aim of Wikipedia. <span style="font-size: smaller;"

Sky city
Hello,

I noticed that you were one of the prime contributers to the Burj Khalifa article, and I thought you could help me. I am trying to take Skycity to DYK, considering what an interesting hook it will make. For which, I intend to expand the article as much as I can (to meet DYK expansion standards). For this I request your help to expanding the article and making it a truly great hook.

I am trying to keep all edits at User:TheOriginalSoni/Sky city so that we have more than the traditional 7 days to finish this hook. Hope you shall help!!!

Thanks and cheers!! TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

IAAF source
Hi, Canada Jack! FYI: It appears as thought the IAAF source we previously discussed here has gone off-line. Please drop me a note if you happen to stumble on its new location. I used it quite a bit and I feel lost without it! Thanks! Location (talk) 23:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Check out the links on the World_record_progression_100_metres_men lists, they are archived versions of the IAAF lists. Canada Jack (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Very cool! Thanks! Location (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

SBT
Hey! FYI: I reverted this edit by another editor since it effectively split-up your post and made it unreadable. I left a message on his talk page about this. Location (talk) 05:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Sask and I have had debates in the past, not usually agreeing. I think he has good intentions and valuable contributions, but his edits need to be reigned in somewhat. This NAA section is a good example. I've proposed to personally rewrite the section to make it more readable (it's too confusing as it stands now) and we'll see how it goes. Canada Jack (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

BTW, do you have any thoughts on reformatting Template:Garrison JFK investigation in a manner consistent with Template:Assassination of John F. Kennedy? Might look better on the bottom, but I'm not sure what the MOS has to say on this. Thanks! Location (talk) 01:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

ANI notification
Hello. Please participate in the current discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Long term incivility from User:BrandonTR. Thank you. — Gamaliel ( talk ) 19:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * i fear that the Devils Advocate has successfully derailed my request for assistance unless other editors speak up at ANI. otherwise they may accept TDA's contention that it is just a minor personal spat between me and BrandinTR.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 13:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

RFC on BrandonTR
I've started a draft of an RFC. I wanted to see if you thought the summary was appropriate and if you had any suggestions or concerns. Feel free to edit the draft and to add diffs if you wish. Gamaliel ( talk ) 18:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Kennedy assassination
I just want to commend you for standing firm for facts, logic and common sense. You clearly have a deep command of the sources, while my study has been relatively superficial by comparison. Maybe that's because I have little patience for unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. However, I've come to the same conclusions. I just want you to know that I am very grateful for your work here, and will try to back you up on the core issues.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  05:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Uncivility in Talk:Assassination of John F. Kennedy
Please do always maintain a WP:CIVIL conversation style. Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative and refrain from making personal attacks. (e.g. here, here, here and there) Editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect, behave politely, calmly and reasonably. Thank you. Icarus4 (talk) 22:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

A
I think you are making too much of a distinction. There is no difference between the way IAAF treats the list and the world records. I cannot cite any other examples of an IAAF distance world record set at altitude, because it is so rare. T&FN has listed many altitude distance marks throughout the decades as well. When this record is posted, if it ever gets to the ratification process at all, will also show as an A. I only hedge with my expectations that this mark will be improved by the same group of girls later this year at sea level. Trackinfo (talk) 18:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Track - there is absolutely no reason to post this "A" beside the record because altitude does not assist distance events. The IAAF list of records doesn't affix the "A" which underlines my point. The only times "A" are affixed are on affected events, like the sprint events, as these events are assisted at altitude. You might as well put a "B" for "barefoot" when Zola Budd and Abebe Bikila set their records, or an "R" when a record was set in pouring rain. It's trivia, it's interesting that in conditions which tend to work against record-setting, a record is nevertheless set. But that's shouldn't be on the page. Canada Jack (talk) 18:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Tenths/Hundredths
We're going to argue about the tenths and hundredths too. You are absolutely correct that prior to 1977, all times got rounded for record purposes. But that was because they did not know how to equate the times between two different timing methods. When they published marks to the tenth and the data was retained (often) we have the reported time and the official rounded time for the same race. Point is, when we have something to the tenth only, it is, by common abbreviation form, an indication that it was a hand time. I'll revert your edit and try to include this kind of language in the article. Trackinfo (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It does get down to bookkeeping. What mark was recorded, how?  Essentially before 1977, we had the data but had no place for it to go into records.  I was one of those guys.  I started doing FAT timing in 1970, when it was virtually new.  I was trained by the guy who did Mexico City and did the biggest meets in the Bay Area (where T&FN was located).  Holding a watch then comparing it to the picture, I was able to get my corrected time down on an electronic stopwatch accurate to .01 to within .03 variation from auto, but I also saw the opposite from other officials on the same finish line.  Most of those guys were in their 80's with their thumb on an old mechanical stopwatch.  .24 was just a statistical average.  There certainly are incorrect portrayals of the times reported from those days.  Lots of mistakes.  There are meets where they tried to pass off .24 conversions as auto--even in the last few years.  We need to be diligent to correct reporting errors.  Some people are absolutely stupid about this sport.  Or there is out and out fraud.  But on the abbreviations page we are explaining the convention.  One digit is intended to mean it was hand timed, two digits mean it was auto timed. Trackinfo (talk) 01:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not that old. I saw Ryun's 3:51.1 on TV.  I started officiating at age 15, ran heads up with Montreal gold medalists Millard Hampton (beat him once) and Bruce Jenner (was ahead of him in a decathlon, for 2 events).  You are welcome to take a stab at making the point clear.  There is nothing proprietary about the editing on this article, its all about trying to help the public to understand.  My point was, under abbreviations, we are looking for what is intended in conventional circles.  We can and should enumerate where other people do it wrong, and how to possibly catch it. Trackinfo (talk) 04:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Questions on backward snap
I have three questions concerning Talk:Assassination of John F. Kennedy: 1) Who are the "many ballistic experts" your comment referred to? 2) You state "the physics involved with a bullet of about 200 grain bullet [sic] traveling at c. 2000 ft/sec striking a man weighing c.180 pounds works out to a body movement of about 1 to 2 inches." What is this physics? You're giving Wikipedia readers a choice between you and Newton's first law. 3) Consider this scenario of the President's head wounds: a bullet fired from behind him strikes a glancing blow to the back of his head, driving it forward, and an unjacketed bullet fired from in front of him then strikes the right side of his head, fragments, and does not exit, driving his head and upper body backward, stopping when his back hits the limousine seat. Can you demonstrate that this scenario violates the laws of physics? Robert O&#39;Rourke (talk) 15:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Robert, obviously you failed high school physics. If you believe that a 200-grain bullet can knock over an adult male, then you don't know your physics. And if Newton was here, he'd crunch the numbers and come with the same result - 1 or 2 inches. Don't rely on the conspiracy guys - they don't know what they are talking about, and when they do - they lie. Took my 25 years to figure it out. Canada Jack (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Roswell incident - again
Hello Canada Jack, I'm afraid the date of the "incident" had again come into contention. I have been accused of "inventing facts" by reverting a edit that stated the discovery was in early July 1947 - see article Talk page. I have no intention of starting a edit war, but I think the article is being attacked by the conspiracy buffs - yet again. Any suggestion would be welcome. Good to talk with you again, David, David J Johnson (talk) 09:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * FYI: Hey! Related discussion on WP:FTN, but it probably belongs on the article's talk page at this point. Cheers! Location (talk) 03:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

This is the last edit I ever do; a note of forgiveness
I'm sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.147.178 (talk) 14:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.

Last edit
Please give this following message to Acroterion and DRKiemna This is the last edit. Why?

I have nothing left. I search what to edit and find nothing left. I shall fold this confession of my existence and place it near my breast, my heart. I disappear now.

Sam Fraser

December 2014


 * Sorry, I've not the slightest clue who you are or what you are talking about. Canada Jack (talk) 17:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Acroterion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DrKiernan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.159.6 (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Connally's head turn at Zframe 160
I think an explanation for Connally’s head snap (circa frame 165) is answered in the article by reporter Mary Woodward.

“We had been waiting about half an hour when the first motorcycle escorts came by, followed shortly by the President’s car. The President was looking straight ahead and we were afraid we would not get to see his face. But we started clapping and cheering and both he and Mrs. Kennedy turned, and smiled and waved, directly at us…After acknowledging our cheers, he [JFK] faced forward again and suddenly there was a horrible, ear-splitting noise coming from behind us and a little to the right.”

So there it is. Woodward claimed that both Kennedy and his wife, turned towards them as they started to clap and cheer. Now wouldn’t Governor Connally, who was also watching crowds throughout the motorcade, turn his head quickly from looking to his left (just prior to frame 165) upon hearing the clapping and cheering? Of course he would. After all, isn’t that precisely the sort of reaction we would expect from anybody hearing cheering? I sure believe that to be the case.

Now, Woodward herself never claimed that Connally had turned towards her. This is understandable however, considering she was paying attention to the President and his wife, and not Connally. Supporting Woodward’s observation,   many other witnesses made it clear that both the President and the first lady turned to their right before the first shot, not after. I honestly don’t know how much clearer it could be. When we also take into account the witnesses who observed Kennedy waving as the first shot was fired, along with Connally’s claim of turning to his right as the limousine was behind the sign, it’s obvious the first shot was fired between Zapruder frames 178 and 190. It makes little or no sense that President Kennedy would hear a loud noise such as a gunshot, and continue to smile and wave.

And like I said, I don't believe in the SBT; refer to my blog for this matter: The Single Bullet Fantasy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.159.6 (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Your account is inconsistent with Connally's account AND is at odd with what we see in the Zapruder film. You seem to think that Woodward's account is unimpeachable, but the key is Connally ALWAYS maintained he turned after hearing the first shot. And that this turn was at Z160 or so. Why is this more reasonable? Because we see multiple near-simultaneous turns by the occupants, and at least one spectator, clearly reacting to something startling. It's an unconscious reaction as opposed to a conscious reaction with JFK waving.


 * Besides, your attempt to shoehorn the first shot after we see JFK wave means that Connally needs to turn again to his right, then almost back to his left all in the span of about 1, 1 1/2 seconds. And while he is mostly behind the sign. Obviously, given the film and the varying accounts, the most reasonable reconstruction here is at Z160 a shot is fired, Connally turns to right, JFK THEN waves to Woodward etc as he goes behind sign, the second shot hits its mark Z224 as Connally was just about back to his left. Then he turns again and sees the 3rd shot hit Kennedy.


 * The president turns to his right - as they turn the corner. This was before the first shot. As for Kennedy smiling, we still have Connally saying he immediately turned to his right - which he only does at Z160 until the bullets hit their mark. It's the only scenario that best matches the film AND the physical evidence, as you ALSO need to account for the bullet which hit Connally - which had already hit something else. JFK. Canada Jack (talk) 18:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * FYI, you've received a reply in Talk:Single-bullet theory. Cheers! - Location (talk) 03:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Davis
Sorry - I think we both tried to revert around the same time and I just hit it second. So after editing Davis's article and leaving a comment on the talk page, I DID find some possible sources that could support the claim, but without enough info around them to really make the call. See and. Neither a really good, especially without a specific date and location for the race. Almost need a track and field historian for this! <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 21:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Maybe the answer is just simply the IAAF didn't/doesn't recognize that record for whatever reason. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 21:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured you made a revert error and would see what I did when I so quickly reverted that! But I checked your sources and none say he ever set a 400m world record - 400mH yes, and the 440y world record would no longer be listed as the IAAF hasn't kept the record since 1976. His 440y time was slower than the extant 400m WR. Canada Jack (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Watchlist
Hope you are well. If not too much trouble, would you mind adding United States House Select Committee on Assassinations to your watchlist? There has been some "discussion" there about cherry-picked material regarding Willem Oltmans' claims about George de Mohrenschildt. Thanks! - Location (talk) 15:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

List of oldest living people
How was this the "original" edit? This was the version until December 17th when it was changed to just the GRG. There's my edit here, its version, that reversion, your reversion (ignoring the fact that it's Legacypac reverting his own change), my reversion back to "reliable sources", and then TFBCT1's change to make it 'consistent' with another article. If you want to go for just the GRG as a source, fine but don't pretend like this wasn't just TFBCT1's way to keep anyone else out of the table and make it GRG-only. And there is a talk page discussion which show a lot more consensus for a change than TFBCT1's version which he won't discuss. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
I've started a discussion about your editing at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Please comment there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments
thanks for your replies at Talk:Assassination of John F. Kennedy. I replied to you there. I was trying to sneak in a conspiracy theory, but one of the editors there was on to me. let me know what you think, thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 04:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:
 * Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. User:Calmer Waters (talk) 16:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Atsugi
FYI: WP:ANRFC. The only way to stop some zealous conspiracy theorists on Wikipedia is to close the discussion. I've stopped commenting because it will go on endlessly. Thanks for you help in the discussion. Sundayclose (talk) 15:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

That was thoughtful of you User:Sundayclose. I have a question, all the editors on the wiki, are all of them on good terms with each-other like a closely knitted community, or is just us guys? The ones connected to JFK. usernamekiran (talk) 00:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Oswald RfC
User 5198blk removed your !vote. I restored it and wanted to let you know. For now I'm assuming good faith that it was not intentional. Sundayclose (talk) 02:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Hickey's purported shot
See Talk:Assassination_of_John_F._Kennedy. CodeBadger claims you support including a short version of this information, but it's not clear to me. At this point I think we should just keep it all out until more editors have commented. Meters (talk) 02:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your clarification on the talk page. It seems to me to be a case of clutching at straws in an attempt to keep that in. Meters (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit reverted but no reason given
I had wondered why you reverted the image box with the photo of the follow-up car and associated text in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy article as no reason for doing so was given in the edit summary or on the Talk page. CodeBadger (talk)



Another edit reverted but no reason given
I had wondered why you reverted my edit of the 'Conspiracies section' in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy article in which I deleted references to specific conspiracy theories like those involving the CIA and KGB due to weight concerns and added a link to the Conspiracy theory page, as you gave no reason for doing so in the edit summary or on the Talk Page. CodeBadger (talk) 05:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

MY EDIT (reverted by you)

Many conspiracy theories posit that the assassination involved people or organizations other than Lee Harvey Oswald.

CURRENT PARAGRAPH

Many conspiracy theories posit that the assassination involved people or organizations other than Lee Harvey Oswald. Most current theories put forth a criminal conspiracy involving parties as varied as the CIA, the Mafia, Vice President Johnson, Cuban President Fidel Castro, the KGB, or some combination of those entities.

Medal boxes
I was pleasantly surprised to come across your User page after leaving some comments on this page in relation to the JFK assassination article. It seems to me that the ‘3000 metres steeplechase’ event name could be shortened in boxes by calling it the ‘3K steeplechase’ rather than '3000 m steeplechase', which would save four spaces. Likewise, the ‘100 metres’ could be called the ‘100M’ rather than '100 m' in boxes which would save a single space. CodeBadger (talk) 03:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

continuous vandalism
Hi. Few minutes ago, i reverted an edit on JFK assassination conspiracy page. The user who did it, has done few vandalisations before. User: Leafconeybear I posted a message on his talkpage. There were previous warnings too. I wanted to know what steps would be taken further regarding that user. You and User:Ceyockey sort of feel like mentors to me, dont know why though. usernamekiran (talk) 00:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not much of an administrator, best to ask someone else for discipline. Canada Jack (talk) 01:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

list of unusual deaths
Hello, I recently removed the death of Isadora Duncan, 1927; from list of unusual deaths because her death is not unusual. But my edit was reverted. Even after providing satisfactory citations/sources, the death of Isadora is not being removed. What do you think further steps should be? talk page of unusual deaths Thanks. —usernamekiran (talk) 08:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit-war warning: John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Whether your intent was to be contentious or not, please understand that your actions at least seem to imply a measure of disregard for established consensus-building conventions. With a little effort, I'm sure we can reach some acceptable resolution on this issue.

Thank you, —Earl of Arundel (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Arundel - It's not a matter of "consensus" - your edit was factually incorrect, which is why I pulled the quote from the actual HSCA report which says that the dictabelt evidence was the single piece of evidence driving the conclusion. Canada Jack (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Whatever your rationale for doing so, the fact remains that it was unwarranted. At any rate, we both obviously have similar standards of quality, so perhaps we could find a way to channel that effectively and actually improve the article. Truce? Earl of Arundel (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I simply corrected your error, Arundel. There is nothing personal here - and if you read the dissent to the Report, you'd realize that. Not sure what "truce" you are suggesting - of all the changes you've recently made, I altered what amounts to a single word. Canada Jack (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, the alteration of a single word which effectively reversed the meaning of an entire sentence. I'm afraid the error is entirely yours. You've disregarded reasonable points in an attempt to synthesise your own interpretation of the HSCA report, and you refuse to follow Wikipedia's basic principles of good faith collaboration, a clear indication of your intention to engage sincere editors in fruitless disputes in order to achieve your goals. Proud of that, are you?


 * —Earl of Arundel (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


 * What "synthesis" of the report are you talking about? The dissent quite plainly describes the change in the fundamental conclusion of the committee owing to the receipt of the dictabelt evidence. The only one who is imposing their personal beliefs here is you, a belief that the conclusion was derived from multiple lines of evidence when the conclusion itself cites only one piece of evidence suggesting multiple gunmen - the dictabelt evidence! This is not controversial, Earl, and I'm amazed you are extending this debate this far. Canada Jack (talk) 03:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Follow the layout of the report carefully and you will readily see that the findings are organized in a logical fashion. Exactly four of them are delineated, but only two concern the possible involvement of co-conspirators: again, they are 1.B. and 1.C.. Each of those two individual findings contain corresponding sets of evidence and the discussions thereof; the first set addresses the acoustical evidence that ostensibly led to the conclusion reached in the first finding, and similarly the second set specifically addresses the "probable existence" of conspiracy concluded in the second finding. Those are the only official findings relevant to our discussion here. Full stop. The opinions of the dissenting members are at direct conflict and in direct opposition with these findings. Maybe the rulings were changed at the eleventh hour or ninety-nine percent of the internal debate really did focus on the role of the dictabelt evidence with respect to possible conspiracy. It's all interesting and notable, but it just doesn't change the fact that the findings are the findings, and those alone should be used as the final word in the commission's overall assessment. And this is what puzzles me about your insistence on emphasising the importance of the opinions of dissent. Because it's synthesis insofar as it's essentially heresay, strictly speaking. For all it's worth, a dissenting member could just as well have asserted that Kennedy had instead been zapped by Martian death-rays and it wouldn't really matter. So he dissents, and that's fine. That's the whole point of dissenting opinion, after all. Earl of Arundel (talk) 05:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


 * We've probably covered enough here on your talk page. The remainder of this discussion really belongs on the article talk page... Earl of Arundel (talk) 05:33, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Another assassination conspiracy question
I need to clean-up Kenneth O'Donnell a bit. In 1964, O'Donnell told the Warren Commission that the shots came from the right rear.(p.448) In 1975, he strongly denied as an "absolute lie" a report that attributed an unnamed "CIA liaison" as stating O'Donnell believed the shots came from elsewhere and he was pressured into changing his testimony.(page 1) In 1987, Tip O'Neill claimed O'Donnell said: "I told the FBI what I had heard [two shots from behind the grassy knoll fence], but they said it couldn't have happened that way and that I must have been imagining things. So I testified the way they wanted me to. I just didn't want to stir up any more pain and trouble for the family." Various conspiracy sources cite O'Neill's and the "CIA liaison" as supplying the truth while ignoring O'Donnell's on-the-record comments. Do you happen to have anymore info on this "CIA liaison"? I cannot find anything about it in the official documents. Thanks, Jack! -Location (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Location! In Bug, he says that the claim about what O'Donnell said originally came in 1975 when a CIA "liaison man" (the quotes are in Bug's text) told the story to the Rockefeller Commission. Perhaps if you search the Rockefeller testimony? Here is a link: . Hope this helps! Canada Jack (talk) 02:17, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. I only get one hit for "O'Donnell" in the Rockefeller documents and that is not for Kenneth O'Donnell. In searching "liaison", the best hit is for Raymond Rocca in one of Belin's reports about the WC withholding information. Again, there is no mention of O'Donnell but the timeline and the subject matter of the report are very similar. I wonder if Belin "leaked" something to the Chicago Tribune. -Location (talk) 02:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey Location - the source cited by Bug includes O'Donnell's denial that the claim was true - and it's from the Seattle Times, June 14, 1975, page A2. Not sure if that is where the "liaison man" is mentioned, but it seems so given O'Donnell is quoted as replying to something. It sounds like it was as you suspect a leaked allegation that doesn't seem to have any documentation behind it if even in the form of testimony from a source. Which is hardly credible of course. But it's been picked up and repeated for decades now. Even if true, and O'Donnell was pressured by the FBI to change his testimony, many witnesses in fact made a similar claim about shots from the knoll. Fifty years have produced no evidence that the FBI was doing anything other than covering their asses for not bothering to track a guy - Oswald - who had threatened one of their agents just before Kennedy's visit. What the FBI did in terms of pressuring witnesses doesn't alter the facts of the case - only one sniper was seen, at the TSBD; 95% of witnesses heard a maximum of 3 shots; 95% of witnesses reported gunfire from a single direction, even if there was disagreement where those shots came from. The witness evidence, IOW, establishes with a high degree of certainty that only one sniper was in the plaza, and that sniper fired from the TSBD. This is the fundamental Emperor-has-no-clothes reality that many in the conspiracy crowd refuse to acknowledge, let alone address. Canada Jack (talk) 16:32, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. I was hoping to find out who this semi-anonymous source was because I've found that the conspiracy believers rarely give the full story when they repeat allegations and interject them into Wikipedia. I'm skeptical that some unnamed person in the CIA would state this "for the record" and there be no paper trail in the various Kennedy documents. Various papers published a UPI report on July 16, 1975 that cited the Chicago Tribune's story from the previous day (i.e., so it's interesting that the Seattle Times would have a similar story a full month earlier. Oh well! -Location (talk) 23:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Your papers are in fact from June 16, not July 16, 1975, so I'd guess that the Tribune was the original source of the Seattle Times story as well. Canada Jack (talk) 23:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess one of my two neurons stopped firing! Cheers! -Location (talk) 00:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In the event you want to double-check my work, I've updated that section in O'Donnell's article a little bit. I don't have Bugliosi, so hopefully it jibes with what he has to say about it. -Location (talk) 04:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

The article on Godfrey McHugh discusses McHugh's charge that Johnson was a mess hiding in a bathroom aboard Air Force One. McHugh appears to have been a part of JFK's circle so I'm skeptical, and it certainly contradicts the excerpt from Caro that you linked to in the autopsy article in which multiple people describe LBJ as calm, quick to assess, and ready to take action. The author of the Huff Post article cited in the McHugh article appears to believe that McHugh's statements were accurate, noting that RFK had described LBJ similarly in a different situation. From what little I know of RFK, I wouldn't consider him to be an objective source on LBJ; and from what I've read, I wouldn't consider the Huff Post to be an objective source on anything related to the Kennedy assassination. I'll have to re-read this account of the timeline in Air Force One, but I was wondering if you had anymore info on whether LBJ was alone when McHugh came aboard. Cheers! -Location (talk) 20:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't sound consistent with his actions from the moment of his assassination. There were certainly many instances in the past where, under stress, he was almost comically cowardly, but that is not I've heard about him on that day. When in the limo, pushed to the floor, there were no reports of him in a panic when it certainly was a time to be afraid, nor when he was in the hospital, where all say he was calm and cool. On the ride to Love Field, he was crouched between two in a car, but he was advised to do so and he was not described as being in a panic. And the accounts we have of him being sworn in, and in-flight, he is also similarily described as being calm and making decisions. It could be a true account, but it doesn't ring true. I don't have Caro at hand right now. Canada Jack (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Location - a close reading of Caro on the time from the assassination to Johnson's arrival in Washington shows a man completely in charge and deciding what needed to be done once he was back, not a man panicking with the sudden burden of the presidency, as depicted by McHugh. Indeed, there are dozens of accounts of the transformation in the man as he became president, from his calmness in the car as it raced to the hospital, with the agent sitting on him, to waiting in the room for word on Kennedy's condition. The only sign of possible fear is him slouching between the two men as he was driven to Love Field. Once he said the oath of office, and many sources back this up, he said "Now let's get airborne." IF anything, McHugh, back with the casket, was sobbing, repeating "My president, my president." HE was the mess, understandably so. But Johnson, but all accounts in Caro, was completely in charge of the situation... and in charge of himself. Canada Jack (talk) 02:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. Given the amount of acrimony between the Johnson and Kennedy camps, I'm curious to who would have described him as cowardly in other situations. Any chance that it is an exaggeration by those politically opposed to him? (Again, just curious. Doesn't matter as far as editing.) -Location (talk) 03:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There are consistent accounts of Johnson being a coward, whimpering when he had the slightest physical ailment, stuff along those lines. RFK was probably accurately recounting some incident along those lines. But as Caro says, when there was a life-and-death crisis, Johnson transformed into a man completely in control, even when he felt - especially when he felt - he might actually die. But in terms of how he handled the sudden and tragic transition to power, the accounts are near-unanimous (McHugh being an exception) to his certainty and decisiveness. Canada Jack (talk) 04:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey! Would you mind taking a look at my comments in Talk:Albert E. Jenner Jr. and seeing if I'm out-of-bounds with my last edit to that article? Thanks! -Location (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Location: I'd say that even mobsters hire lawyers and that doesn't on its face mean these lawyers are suspect. Seems like a guilt-by-association thing, and this only seems sinister if you believe the mob was involved in the assassination. Which obviously some do. I don't know enough about this guy to know the weight of these controversial allegations or connections so that's about all I can offer you in the way of help. IOW, I can't really assess if the controversies section really merits inclusion or not. Canada Jack (talk) 17:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem. Bugliosi obviously discusses "the mob did it" theories, but there is no mention of Jenner within than context. If he didn't discuss it, then it's probably going to be difficult finding reliable sources that do. Cheers! -Location (talk) 19:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm back (and sorry to bug you again). I'm not super familiar with the spiderweb that surrounds the Jim Garrison's investigation, but I stumbled upon a bit in Gordon Novel that states Walter Sheridan directed him to "work as an operative inside Garrison's office" with the pretext of debugging the office. The first part of that is cited to Rosemary James and Jack Wardlaw, but with the limited views that searching GBooks offers I cannot verify that they actually wrote that. The debugging-bit is cited to Joan Mellen and I cannot see the reference page for it in GBooks, but my guess is she is taking some unreliable source - possibly Novel himself - at face value. I cannot verify any of it elsewhere with my internet sleuthing, so I was wondering if you might have any more information or thoughts to share whenever you get 'round to here again. Cheers! - Location (talk) 05:38, 18 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I checked Bug for this but didn't find the claim nor its source. But both Novel and Garrison were wing-nuts, so who knows who claimed what... Sorry I couldn't be much more help. Canada Jack (talk) 04:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

FYI: Badge Man is going to be the featured article on May 5, 2023. I thought I would mention it in the event you see something that looks amiss. -Location (talk) 15:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up there, Location. Checked out the article and it looks good to me. One thing that always rang false for me is the "muzzle flash" claim - despite the blurriness of the image, the area around the supposed flash is sharp - and a true muzzle flash captured by a polaroid camera would likely be much blurrier. What we are actually looking at, IMHO, are shadows and lights through the trees. Canada Jack (talk) 23:38, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

O.J. Simpson suggestion
I have seen that Lee Harvey Oswald has been named as John F. Kennedy's killer on Wikipedia; I suggest the same be done to O.J. Simpson and name him as the killer of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman. Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia so this article presents the accepted version of the events according to reliable sources. Various programs (America Crime Story, Made In America) have resulted in the consensus that reliable sources state that O.J. Simpson murdered Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman. If you disagree with the current status, you are welcome to bring your concerns to the article talk page. The legal contexts of "burden of proof" and "presumption of innocence" apply to someone who is being tried for a crime. Although Simpson was found not guilty in a court of law, reliable sources firmly establish his culpability.

Taken to Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.110.41 (talk) 04:22, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * But he was found "responsible for deaths" of the two, so why not simply repeat that language? Not sure what the issue here is. Canada Jack (talk) 04:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

July 2017
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Alexbrn (talk) 19:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It was indeed a minor edit. My apologies if you felt slighted. Canada Jack (talk) 19:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It was not by Wikipedia's definition. Since some editors don't see minor edits, deceptive use of this flag is a problem. Alexbrn (talk) 20:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've been an editor here for more than a decade and it looked like vandalism at play. If you feel otherwise, take it up on the Roswell talk page. Canada Jack (talk) 20:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You may have been hear ten years but the level of WP:CLUE is low if you think that is vandalism. Please read WP:NOTVAND. Alexbrn (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Clearly you feel slighted. In the future, before removing blocks of text which had the same day been removed and reverted, take it up on the talk page. Canada Jack (talk) 20:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Not in the least - but we have a problem with abuse of the minor edit check box, and some users don't understand why. Kindly don't make up rules about how I need your permission on Talk before editing, that is classic WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Alexbrn (talk) 20:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't abuse the check box, I used it in what appeared to me to be a clear case of vandalism. That was my good faith interpretation of what happened. As long as you are citing policy, you should recall the one on assuming good faith. You see the edit differently, but this is simply a difference of interpretation between two editors, not a personal attack which you seem think this is, judging by your reaction. Not sure what "rule" you are referring to above. But, generally speaking, if an editor makes a major change to text which has stood for a long time - entirely removing a block of text which has been there for a decade, I believe - then it is reasonable for another editor to revert the change and ask for the edit to be justified on the talk page. Canada Jack (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * But it's not WP:VANDALISM - I even left a fairly meaty edit summary, so if you took this as deliberate act of damage, then AGF is your issue. As I said, clue is the problem (not necessarily good faith). As to Talk pages, it depends on the text. The problem with "your" text is that it implies the military were engaged in shoddy research, among other things. You also added a copyvio link (read the page: it says it's a copyvio but the poster doesn't care). I'll spare you the template for that because surely you know that is a no-no, and that these *need* to be removed. Alexbrn (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Roswell incident. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn (talk) 20:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * Migod, Alex, take it up on the talk page as I have said! It looked like vandalism, I reverted, you objected, so I said take it up on the talk page - fair enough? Canada Jack (talk) 20:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I have. Alexbrn (talk) 21:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#000; background-color:#FFB924; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

Happy Halloween!

Hello Canada Jack: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!   –  — <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran (talk)   21:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC) Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

May 2018
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Lee Harvey Oswald. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.Please revert your last edit, it was in violation of edit warring policy and the guideline that the person who restores challenged material must provide direct citations to support it. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:22, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * As always, good work on the LHO/JFK pages! - Location (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Leavelle interrogating Oswald on 22?
I just noticed that the LHO article (great job, btw, it certainly deserves its star) contradicts the one covering Jim Leavelle. This article says Oswald was questioned by Detective Jim Leavelle about the shooting of Officer Tippit on the 22nd after his arrest with the words, "Oswald was taken to the Police Department building, where homicide detective Jim Leavelle questioned him about the shooting of Officer Tippit". But Leavelle’s biographical article on Wikipedia states the exact opposite - that he only interrogated Oswald on the 24th - the morning Oswald was shot, and that he had never talked to him before. Not accusing Leavelle of being unrealible or a liar but his interviews he has done in recent years are in contray to his WC testimony. Memory always distort from time to time. When Leavelle testified before the Warren Commission, he claimed that the first time he had ever sat in on an interrogation with Oswald was on Sunday morning, November 24, 1963. When Counsel Joseph Ball asked Leavelle if he had ever spoken to Oswald before this interrogation, he stated; "No, I had never talked to him before". Leavelle then stated during his testimony that "the only time I had connections with Oswald was this Sunday morning [November 24, 1963]. I never had [the] occasion to talk with him at any time..." In various interview since the 1970s and up to the mid 2010s, Leavelle said that he was the first to interrogate Oswald after his arrest (contrary to his Warren Commission testimony).

In the course of my research into the JFK case, I encountered a number of examples where I had testimony or accounts by people from 1963/64 as well as from years or decades later. It became apparent that the testimony and writings from 63/64 were superior. These were obtained when the events was still fresh in their memories, and as a result were clearer, usually more detailed, and consistent with what other people wrote or recalled at the time. Whenever I had conflicting accounts by a person to deal with, I would use the earlier of the two. As Jim Leavelle’s interview testimony to the Warren Commission were so specific that the first time he had ever sat in on an interrogation with Oswald was on Sunday morning, November 24, 1963, and that he had never talked to him before. I would place no value on second-hand information based upon various interviews with Leavelle which had occurred over two/three/four decades after the event.

Bart Kemp has done an article looking at the differing accounts, called "Anatomy of Lee Harvey Oswald's interrogations" that can be found on the internet. Kemp is pro-conspiracy, so be warned if you want to read it. :)

Should the words "homicide detective Jim Leavelle questioned him about the shooting of Officer Tippit" be removed and/or Leavelle's warren commission testimony used instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.220.81 (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I read his WC testimony again; Leavelle never "interrogated" Oswald about the JFK assassination or Tippit murder on Sunday morning, Nov. 24th, or any other day. He merely "spoke" to Oswald about the upcoming transfer while Oswald was changing clothes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.220.81 (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited High jump, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Eugene, Furth and Split. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 8
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Pole vault
 * added links pointing to Columbia, Jonesboro, Lyndonville and Beckum

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 10
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1500 metres, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Josh Kerr.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

STOP Vandalising the all time top 25 BY ATHLETE please
Please!!!!!!! Lloyd jones 17 (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2021 (UTC)


 * YOU are not even a registered editor, changing pages with zero discussion - and I am the vandal? Canada Jack (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The irony here is the pages I changed were never lists "by top athlete" - they had BOTH the top athletes and top marks, but in an incoherent way. I simply combined what was already there. Can what I did be improved? Yes, and I've seen others have done so on some of those pages. But if we want to have both top athletes and top marks - as we had before - then some form of what I did is the way to go, or certainly up for discussion.Canada Jack (talk) 16:28, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Boo!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#000; background-color:#FFB924; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

Happy Halloween!

Hello : Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween! —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 22:28, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Roswell incident up for GA
Roswell incident up for GA, Talk:Roswell incident/GA1 &sect; Lingzhi (talk) 03:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Respect
I respect that you are, from your perspective, being responsible and honest. It is a privilege that we are able to disagree. Please don't take my words personally, it's about progress. You were doing the right thing, as was I. PS see my last reply. LairdCamelot (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks - it's a tightrope here for sure. I helped build the conspiracy page not because I wanted to discredit it but because it was so badly framed. So when there is a relevant and important argument out there, I feel it should be discussed. Like the "prayer man" claims, one of the more prominent ones in recent years. But in terms of this "toppled over" theory, this is a pretty weak argument IMHO, certainly not one to rise to such a discussion on a page where it is only a side subject. Notwithstanding the analysis by Farid in 2015 that places Oswald's centre of balance over his feet, therefore his stance being stable, even if it is granted that the position is "impossible" and he'd topple over... well, perhaps he WAS in the midst of toppling over as the photo was being taken, or stumbled immediately afterwards. I mean, you can't prove he didn't stumble after the photo was taken, can you?
 * Recently, I even weighed in with an author I met who photographed witnesses to the assassination and events surrounding and recently published a book - Kaspar Deline - and he told me of the thesis for his new book which posits a new scenario in Deally Plaza - I gave him the skeptical viewpoint and he was good at his counter-arguments, but still not convincing to me. But we had a good-faith discussion even as I expressed by skepticism and I took his scenario at face value. As I hope I have with you. I made a promise of confidentiality to him, so I won't discuss any of the theory with anyone, he hopes to publish in time for the 60th anniversary.
 * I have a bit of affection towards the conspiracy crowd, as I was one of them from around 1972 to close to 2000... I know the arguments... and I know I was wrong once the single bullet theory was basically proven by the high-resolution scans of the Zapruder film in the 90s and the "conspiracy" house of cards fell down. ALWAYS examine the claims that are being made, not just the "government," Laird, but the conspiracy authors themselves. Mark Lane was perhaps the worst liar in terms of the assassination. I was stunned at how misled I was by him. Canada Jack (talk) 20:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply, I appreciate it.
 * I have much to say on all of this, but it is difficult to compress it to a single message/post.
 * The first is that the best scenario is where both sides of a debate, as we're beginning to do here, meet in the middle.
 * My view is that you're entirely correct: much of the conspiracy peddling is misinformation. However, I have grave concerns about certain aspects of the official story.
 * I must retire for in my timezone it is late, but tomorrow I will compose a fuller, more comprehensive reply.
 * All the best LairdCamelot (talk) 22:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

OJ Simpson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:O._J._Simpson#How_should_we_treat_Simpson's_%E2%80%9Cculpability%E2%80%9D_in_the_murders;_neutral_or_adamant?

I have raised the discussion as to whether how we should reflect's Simpson's culpability for the "crime of the century", much like LHO is named "guilty". Discussions open here. 92.17.198.220 (talk) 21:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

The talk section is "How should we treat Simpson's “culpability” in the murders; neutral or adamant?" 92.17.198.220 (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)