User talk:Ground Zero/Archive 3

'''See other discussions at User talk:Ground Zero (most recent), User talk:Ground Zero/Archive 2 and User talk:Ground Zero/Archive 1. Thanks.'''

Harp'd
I did laugh! But not reverting would just mean more work for someone else...

(Speaking of which, uh... if you're looking for work, there's still more to be done to improve Dalton McGuinty, I think.) Samaritan 21:54, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

United Farmers colour
Hey GZ... Well aware of the colour master list (I have it watchlisted)--you caught me a split second after I changed it while I was still editing the list. Quick off the mark, you are... =) -The Tom 19:46, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Manitoba election, 1999
My responses:

(i) I have no problem with your proposed approach. (ii) I've never seen the need for "% seat change" columns, to be honest. I have no opinion on how these should be managed. (iii) There was a mistake in your numbers -- the correct totals were 32, 24, 1.

CJCurrie 20:34, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Federal elections
Thanks for giving me the heads up and the kick forward. I've put in pulses of time on other stuff, but not the elections tables. I see you're working on them backwards. Excellent, I'll see how many of these I can do now. --Deathphoenix 01:29, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * ... or maybe not. I'll see what I can do working backwards. --Deathphoenix 01:30, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Got your note too... funny coincidence I actually went to convert some today but they were already done. No worries, I got caught up and didn't get a chance anyway. - Jord 01:43, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Freedom Party
CJ, you're basing your arguments on things you found in the Freedom Flyer''? I'm not sure that that counts as a reliable source. ;-)''


 * I probably shouldn't have laughed out loud, being in a public area and all ... CJCurrie 21:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

MPP not MLA in Ontario
I noticed that in several articles in Ontario politics you changed references from MPP to MLA. The acronym MLA is not used in Ontario politics. As far as I know it's never been used. The correct and legal term is Member of Provincial Parliament or MPP despite the fact that the provincial legislature is officially the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. This may not be consistent or logical but it is a fact;) AndyL 20:28, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Whoops, seems the term MLA was used until 1938. This still means J.B. Salsberg was an MPP, not an MLA, as he didn't enter the legislature until 1943. AndyL 20:38, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Quebec elections
Congratulations for boldness, and also for wise, well-applied boldness. Impressive work! --Liberlogos 02:56, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much, B. I'm glad that you like it. I am still planning to respond to your earlier comments about the National Question, but I really must take a wikibreak for a week and a half. I have been spending way too much time on this. Ground Zero 13:07, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

National party
Is there a reason that the National Party's colour is green on Template:Canadian politics/party colours? I seem to remember black being their primary colour. Also there are already a bunch of parties using various shades of green, which doesn't look too great. See the 1993 resutls at Nepean—Carleton, for isntance. - SimonP 19:07, May 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * I have pretty clear memories of green and white and black NP signs in Ottawa Centre in 1993, butu maybe that was just that candidate. I agree that the cluster of green doesn't help matters. I will post this discussion at question at Talk:National Party of Canada to see what others remember. Ground Zero 13:51, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

The United Federation of ...
Greetings! Thanks for your note; I'm seeking clarification about the best way to characterise Canadian political subdivisions in a summative way. The overview paragraph (and the entire article) are too long and verbose already due to such ... elaborations already. Your statement, as well, seems to imply that, although federally administered, the territories do not form part of the federation which is of course incorrect. It might be wise to state it as follows:

Canada is a federation comprised of 10 provinces and 3 territories

with details about their adminstration left for places where it is more appropriate. Moreover, consult pages concerning Australia, with a similar structure. Thoughts? User:E_Pluribus_Anthony 13:15, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

---

Hello again! I think any of the following will suffice for now:

Canada is a federation comprised of 10 provinces and 3 territories. (preferred) OR Canada is a federation divided into ten provinces and three territories. OR Canada is a federation comprised of 10 provinces and 3 federal(ly-administered) territories.

The territories should be noted, however it comes out in the wash. Thoughts? User:E_Pluribus_Anthony 14:15, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

---

Done! User:E_Pluribus_Anthony 16:05, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

The proper place to discuss this is Talk:Canada. Canada is NOT divided into 10 provinces, as though the provinces existed at the pleasure of and after the fact of Canada. --JimWae 20:53, 2005 May 27 (UTC)

Manitoba/Saskatchewan
If it's any consolation, you're in good company. Sort of.

Canadian Hansard, May 6, 2003:

Hon. Marlene Jennings:

More to the point, the member also talked about how all the provincial governments were opposed to the firearm registry program and gun control program. Why did he not mention the fact that the Alberta government actually challenged the Firearms Act? It went before the Supreme Court of Canada. All the other provincial governments, and I am not sure about the territorial governments, joined in, including his own provincial government of Manitoba. The Supreme Court in 2000 unanimously concluded that both the licensing and registration were tightly linked to Parliament's goal of enhancing public safety by reducing the misuse of firearms and by keeping firearms out of the hands of those who should not have them.

Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where she was when I was speaking but I did talk about the fact this was challenged by the Alberta government and that legal action was taken. She can look at the record on this. By the way, Regina happens to be in Saskatchewan and not Manitoba. She said that I was from Manitoba.

CJCurrie 19:25, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Santa Cruz, Bolivia
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=santa+cruz+bolivia&btnG=Search+News —Cantus&hellip; &#9742;   20:54, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

List of New Brunswick general elections
Thank you for the formatting change, that is much, much less cumbersome. - Jord 13:50, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Re: Brevity!
Thanks alot for your praise; I appreciate it. My goal is to reduce the length of the overview article to 32 kb without sacrificing anything; I've already reduced it by 2 kb, so I'm halfway there! As noted, the stuff I've removed is--or should be--in relevant subarticles. I think there's more to cull in the geography and politics sections of the overview article too.

On a similar note, the 'federally administered territories' was changed; why not just say 'federal territories'? This can still be better tweeked. Thoughts!?

Thanks again! User:E Pluribus Anthony 12:30, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i.e., "Canada is a federation of ten provinces, with three federal territories"? It works for me. Ground Zero 16:21, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

Thanks for your prompt reply; I didn't expect it so soon! I'm gonna go with the following: "Canada is a federation, comprised of 10 provinces and 3 territories." with links to the appropriate definitions. Remember: mentions of territorial administration appear again in the overview, and no doubt in the subarticles. I will change it and see what happens. Thanks! User:E Pluribus Anthony 13:45, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Comprised of" sounds awful. I much prefer the version I nopted above. I'll leave it for now, and see what others think. Ground Zero 17:07, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Senatorial divisions
I'm running to the biggest political geography nuts I know of for a hand here. I'm rather displeased with the article at Canadian Senate Divisions which strongly seems to imply Senate divisions are anything more than political ephemera that dance in the minds of Senators. It was anonymously assembled, and on further examination it seems someone called Cloveious is now putting together articles like Calgary Senate division which perpetuate the mistake on the first article and treat senate tags as if they were ridings--"created from" older divisions on certain dates, and so on. That definately seems VfDish. Just wondering if you had any commentary for the Talk page -The Tom 18:47, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Northern Alliance
Thanks for the compliments. I'd been thinking about writing an article on the group for a while, after the controversy on the Freedom Party talk page (if you haven't read my dialogue with Paul McKeever yet, consider it highly recommended).

On a separate point: Do you think it's appropriate to have a link to the actual Northern Alliance website? I don't believe it's formally banned under Canadian law (yet), but as a general policy I'm not certain that having links to de facto hate sites is a good idea. (Of course, the other side of the argument would be: how are people to confirm the information if they can't check the source?) Thoughts? CJCurrie 19:54, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's necessary to have the link. If people want to confirm your work, it won't be hard for them to find the NA site. I would be inclined to leave it out. I was wathcing your exchange with PMcK. I gather he's finally given up. You presented pretty solid evidence, and I think he's just embarassed. Ground Zero 19:58, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I think he was hoping for a quick victory by intimidation, and backed off gradually when he realized that wasn't going to work. I have to wonder if he even did his research on the party's history before taking it over.  CJCurrie 20:19, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Capitalization of Headings
Hi GZ. You left me a message about cpzn of headings. I did edit the catergory, but those were not the changes I made. Why would it show edits under my name if I didn't make them? --handisnak 20:35, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!
For providing the enlightening which vs. that explication that I stumbled across just now, which was illuminating. -- Seth Ilys 02:02, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you found it useful. Fell free to copy it ot other places to spread the gospel of "that". Ground Zero 16:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for you compliment. I am also quite pleased with how Liberal Party of Canada leadership convention, 1968 is coming along and I'm thinking that I might try to get it up to featured article quality. Did you notice any areas that are still lacking? - SimonP 15:53, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * I think you are well on your way. Citing the sources show the integrity of the text. I would suggest getting another regular editor or two to copyedit it to tighten the text a bit. User:Sunray might be one suggestion. User:CJCurrie does a lot of work on Canadian political history, and maybe another person to ask. Regards, Ground Zero 16:12, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It also occurred to me that the article did not quite capture the phenomenon of Trudeau's popularity at the time, so I have added a comment about and link to "Trudeaumania". Ground Zero 16:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your copyedits to the article. I have listed the article on Peer Review and any other comments you might have would be much appreciated. - SimonP 14:07, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Decima
I've added a bit which I hope is satisfactory. Let me know if they are still complaining and it needs more work. - Jord 01:15, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

CFS/CASA
Can you consider intervening in the dispute between myself and Spinboy on the Canadian Federation of Students and Canadian Alliance of Student Associations articles? I think it's wrong to have an NPOV label indefinitely and it would be good to have a resolution and I'd rather not take Spinboy to Arbcomm if possible as otherwise he's a good editor, he just seems to have a fixation when it comes to these two groups.AndyL 15:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would love to help because I believe that having a third-party mediator can be very useful. I am afraid that I can't be that person, though. I am not able to deal with Spinboy without my blood pressure going to a dangerous place (even though I do not typically have high blood pressure), and I do not believe that Spinboy would accept me as a mediator. I don't think that I would be any use in intervening on your behalf, either, because Spinboy repeatedly ignored anything I had to say on a particular issue. If interested, you can read about the set-to I had with him at the links below. This information may be of use to you if you lodge a complaint against him, and perhaps I could help you there. It would, of course, be better to resolve it between the two of you. User:Samaritan is, from my experience, a very calm and level-headed mediator. Sorry I can't help you more on this one at this point, Andy. Ground Zero 15:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Talk:British Columbia Moderate Democratic Movement
 * User_talk:Spinboy/Archive_2
 * General_complaints

Senate divisions
Thank you, thank you! :) - Jord 15:37, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * LOL I enjoyed your comment. You should note that I flagged Talk:Canadian Senate Division/Temp for a speedy delete, I hope that is ok.  I am not much of a deletionist either, but sometimes it is necessary.  Definately a pleasure to work with you to, feel free to call on me again if something like this comes up and I'll be sure to do the same :) - Jord 19:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I restored the links because the Grandville article is there and one could write an article laying out what their boundaries are. If you think we should keep it to the list article that you've created then I would suggest delinking Grandville as well as the others and nominating it for deletion arguing duplication with the List article. - Jord 17:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Currently the Grandville article has no information that is not in the List article. No-one seems to have come up with boundaries for these divisions, and since they just don't matter, it seems unlikely that anyone will. I do think that individual articles will just duplicate what is in the list article, so I would favour your second approach of VfD on Grandville. What think you? Ground Zero 17:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I am largely indifferent, but we have to be fair, it is almost POV favouring Grandville to link it and not others so we either have to list them all or delete Grandville and list none. I would suggest based on your comments above that this leaves us with deleting Grandville as the only option. - Jord 18:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I have posted the question for discussion at Talk:Grandville (Senate division). Let's see what otehrs say. If someone comes up with a good reason for keeping (e.g., they intend to create articles with more content), then we can let it drop. Ground Zero 18:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I bet you a million bucks that no one will post anything at all ;) Maybe an RFC on the noticeboard as well? - Jord 18:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll take your bet, and then create a sock puppet account and post something and come and collect from you. For a million dollars, I'll make the trip to Ottawa. Where is your home or office? Seriously, I don't think many will care, other than Cloveious and Bearcat who have been involved in this. If I don't hear from them, I'll ask them directly. I just wanted to move the discussion to a public place. Ground Zero 18:48, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * You have made me make a damn fool of myself by laughing here alone in my office!!!!! Agreed with the rest. - Jord 19:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Revert
I don't think our anonymous friend was (necessarily) upset with your name -- to judge from his other posts, he's a vandal, pure and simple. CJCurrie 20:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Trinidad and Tobago/Hedy Fry
I wasn't born in Tobago either, but I was born a a country called Trinidad and Tobago. It's more accurate to use the proper name of the country. Guettarda 18:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmmm.... you're right on this. Ground Zero 19:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

lots of edits, not an admin
Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list, although there is certainly no guarantee anyone will ever look at it. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:07, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Nicholas Bachynsky VfD
Just a minor bit of technical info for you: when you just want to provide a link to a category page, you should actually format it as  Category:Whatever  (with an extra colon before the word "Category"). Otherwise it files the page in the category; your vote was actually causing the Nicholas Bachynsky VfD to file in the Buffy, Star Wars, Star Trek and LOTR categories. (I fixed it already.) Bearcat 21:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property
Please explain how this article is "notable" w.r.t. Inappropriate Uses of Wikipedia? Ariele 03:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ariele, you did not identify what part of "Inappropriate uses" applies to this article, so I am not able to address your question properly. I reviewed that, and did not find anything that I think applies. With respect to this article being "notable", you should be aware that the word "notable" and the concept of "notability" do not appear in Inappropriate Uses of Wikipedia. Furthermore, there is no consensus that "notability" should be a criterion for inclusion. See Jimbo Wales' view on notability, as expressed in the poll where notability failed to become an accepted reason for deletion. I hope this helps. Ground Zero 11:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Good grief. I hope you're not thinking that I'm using reverse psychology here.  I'll repeat this again.  I don't think the organization is notable at all.  I disagree with MOST of their politics and ideology.  And from what I'm seeing here, this organization has personally attacked everyone - including me.  As I have pointed out to Android79, I know all that I would ever want to know about this organization, which pre-dates my time here at Wikipedia.  And I've known of its existence for several years and cringed when I saw it here on Wikipedia.  But you all want to KEEP it around.  That is your choice. Ariele 00:36, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * You have an interesting and unusual perspective on what should not be in this encyclopedia. Should the articles on Nazism, the Ku Klux Klan, Fox News and the Monsanto Corporation be deleted because we abhor what those organizations stand for? As far as notability, I think that you didn't read my comments above. Please do so. Notability is not an accepted reason for deletion. Ground Zero 03:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The issue is whether or not the article was placed here for informational purposes? Since I do not have the historical background on the articles development for topics on the Ku Klux Klan, Nazism, Fox News, Monsanto, and a bunch of others, I am not the "expert" per say to really comment on these others.  The focus is on whether this article American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property should remain.   Ariele 14:50, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, what do you mean by "was put here for informational purposes"? The article provides information in a neutral manner about what you and I agree is an offensive organization. The article is therefore "informational". I have taken a run at re-writing it to (a) provide more information about the organization, and (b) ensure that it is neutral in tone, and does not use Wikipedia as a soapbox. I still haven't seen anyone provide any explanation of how the current article offends these Wikipedia policies. (By the way, if you haven't already see the original version ofthis article, go to Talk:American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property. It is very amusing, but not appropriate for an encyclopedia article.) Ground Zero 20:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Odd ball Senator
I have one odd ball Senator that doesn,t fit in any province, Senator James W. Ross. He was appointed as one of 8 regional appointed Senators, but never actually represented a province unlike the other 7. Instead it just says Maritimes Divisional, Maritimes (Division) on his Senate Profile. Senate Profile Do you think we should just insert him in all four maratime province pages? --Cloveious 20:02, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * There are only three Maritime provinces. There are four Atlantic provinces. This is a tough one. (Thanks, by the way, for sorting out the glitches at List of Quebec senators.) I googled "James W. Ross" + Senate + Canada, and came up with this:  a charity based in Fredricton NB, that as the "Hon. James W. Ross" on its board. Since only cabinet minister, premiers and senators are "honourables", I think this is our man. I know it's not strong evidence, but it is the best we have. Regards, Ground Zero 20:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry to jump in here gents but he does not belong on any provincial page. The constitution allows the Senate to be enlarged by 4 or 8 members - with either 1 or 2 each from the 4 regional divisions (West, Ontario, Quebec and Maritimes) this was only employed once when Mulroney added 8 senators to ensure the passage of the GST which was going to be defeated by the Liberals in the Senate who still enjoyed a majority.  Also, with respect to "honourable" all Senators carry the courtesy title honourable while they are in office but they are not privy councillors so they lose it when they leave office much like provincial cabinet ministers and speakers. - Jord 04:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing that up, Jord. I'm glad someone here knows this stuff. So I would suggest putting Mr. Ross as a footnote on each of the three Maritime province senator pages, indicating that he did not represent any one province. How does that sound?
 * This informaiton would also suggest that there would be another "Maritime" senator, and two "Western" senators, although they may have chosen to designate their own senatorial divisions, either as their provinces, or as sub-divisions of their provinces. I wonder if we should figure out who were the Mulroney Eight and makes a special list somewhere, e.g., on List of Canadian senators? Ground Zero 21:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The Senators are easy to find on the parliment website. Senators since 1867 search page search page, you can search by --Division--, In the western provinces, one is self designated as Saskatchewan and the other is a current Senator Janis Johnson self designated as Winnipeg Interlake. The two Ontrio and Quebec Region Senators are straight forward, and I already made a note of that on the Quebec page, for there self designated divisions. The two Ontario Senators, i think are still current. And as for the two Maratimes Region, one is the "Odd Ball" and the other is current Senator Forrestall from a self designated division in Nova Scotia.

Duplication of effort
Hi, I would like to bring your attention to a duplicate article to your Ethiopian-Eritrean entry. lots of issues | leave me a message 04:59, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing this out. I have merged the two articles. Ground Zero 08:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Senate odds and ends
Senator Angus created a map of the Alma Division on his home page Alma Map and I have sent an e-mail to the parliament library about Senator George Allan who's division is listed as "York New Brunswick" even though he is listed among the ontario Senators. I have done digging and found there is a York County in New Brunswick, which does not clear up the matter.

Offensive accustion
Megan, I have removed the offensive and groundless accusation that you made against me at Votes for deletion/American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property. I am placing it here to await your response. I will also add to my response that I tried to engage you in discussion on this issue, because that is how I believe Wikipedia should work. I do not vandalize, and I respond when people comment on my comments. You did not have the courtesy to do that. Ground Zero 30 June 2005 15:33 (UTC)
 * Me thinks you protest too much. My accusation is not offensive - I asked for an explanation. I voted and then within a day of responding the vandalism occured. How far do you live from Oshawa, Ontario? I notice you edited that article, an area where the anonymous IP originated from btw. The anonymous vandal struck at the same time you were editing on Wikipedia going by both edit histories. Very strange indeed... Megan1967 1 July 2005 02:35 (UTC)
 * It is offensive because I am a constructive editor of long standing at Wikipedia. I strongly resent the implication that I have vandalized anyone's user page. Android79 explained to you that over 2.5 million people live in Toronto. Any nuymber of those people, even just one, could have been editing Wikipedia at the same time as me. I have told you that I was not the vandal (see Assume good faith), yet you continue to insinuate that there is a connection between the vandal and me (see No personal attacks). Now you reveal that the vandal is not in Toronto, but in Oshawa, which is four cities away from Toronto. You continue to present no credible evidence that it is me, but you continue to make this offensive insinuation. Finally, I did not suggest that Australia is a city, only that there are vandals from Australia, and that I would not insult you by suggesting that they are you  without any evidence of that beyond location. Ground Zero 4 July 2005 00:40 (UTC)
 * 2.5 million in total but I seriously doubt that 2.5 million would be editing Wikipedia within the last few days, let alone all have internet access. Oshawa is regarded as the eastern hub of Toronto. It's less than 50kms away from the centre of Toronto. Megan1967 4 July 2005 05:41 (UTC)

Do you think that I would go out to Oshawa, which is an hour away by commuter train (I do not have a car) just to vandalize your page? I have told you that I did not vandalize your page, and you refuse to accept that. And if we're going to include the Greater Toronto Area, we're now looking at 5.8 million people.

Look, there are many people in the GTA who work on Wikipedia. There have been get-togethers here. There are undoubtedly many others here who have visited and edited anonymously. And there is at least one person out of 5.8 million who has come to Wikipedia and vandalized your page. It was not me.

The reason that I find your behaviour so offensive is that you have made and continue to make this allegation against me for which you have no evidence other than something remotely coincidental, and I have no way of proving my innocence. How do you suggest that I prove that I was not the one out of 5.8 million potential vandalizers? Out of 5.8 million people in a largely English-speaking and internet-connected conurbation, there must be hundreds of - if not over a thousand - people who use Wikipedia regularly. You have jumped to your accusation with no further evidence thatn that. But then, when asked to explain how you thought the article in question was POV, you didn't bother to provide any explanation, so I guess this shows how little respect or consideration you have for other Wikipedians.

You are not assuming good faith, and you are making an offensive accusation. Why is it offensive to me? Because vandalism on Wikipedia or elsewhere is childish and pointless. It is justifiably grounds for banning someone from Wikipedia. I am surprised that you would not be offended if someone made accusations of such unacceptable behaviour against you. I do take it personally. And the fact that I am offended by it is a reflection of what I feel is acceptable and unacceptable behaviour on Wikipedia. It is not evidence of guilt.

I have not poked around enough in the history of your user page enough to really know what the vandalism is about, but I gather the vandal made offensive and childish remarks about you being a lesbian. I am gay, and I would not ridicule the sexual orientation even of straight people, let alone lesbians.

Why do you feel the need to attack other Wikipedians without anything but the scantiest of conincidences? How do you think that will contribute to making Wikipedia a better place? Can't we all just get along? I cannot be held responsible for everything that 5.8 million people could possibly do here. I don't even know half of them.

I think it would be appropriate for you to apologize, and then we can move on. Ground Zero 4 July 2005 13:23 (UTC)

Moved from VfD page

 * An anonymous user from a Toronto IP vandalised my user and Talk page, not surprisingly I checked your user page and noticed you are from Canada... Toronto to be exact. Would care to explain the coincidence? Megan1967 29 June 2005 07:50 (UTC)
 * 2,518,772 people live in Toronto. A &#1080; D &#1103; 01D  TALK  EMAIL  June 29, 2005 11:03 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing that out, Android. No, Megan, I did not vandalize your user and talk pages. Please remove this question. I am a long-standing contributor to Wikipedia and resent any implication that I would vandalize any page. I will also note that there have been numerous vandals who, like you, are from Australia. I will not question that coincidence because I recognize that asking about that be ridiculous and offensive to you. Please remove this question. Thank you. Ground Zero 29 June 2005 12:57 (UTC)
 * Actually No I personally wouldnt find it offensive to me but I should point out that Australia is a country not a city. Megan1967 1 July 2005 02:35 (UTC)

Barnstar of National Merit
Thanks for your work on the elections tables and for picking up the slack when I got lazy. I've also noticed that you've contributed an amazing amount of material on Canadian politics, so I figured it is fitting that you be the first Canadian recipient of this award. Feel free to put this up on your user page (or not). --Deathphoenix 18:01, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much! It is so nice to be recognized! (I am officially on wikibreak right now, so I shouldn't be here, but I had to respond.) Thanks to you, too, for your work. Ground Zero 13:51, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. You definitely deserve it. --Deathphoenix 21:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Lightgray
How does it look now? Phoenix2 4th of July! 16:48 (UTC)

Senate Divisions Page
I added some new information to the Senate divisions page, based on information from A legislative and historical overview of the senate., as well as a Table showing self designated Alberta senate divisions, past and present and the number of times senators have used those names. If you have any ideas to make the table better let me know. - Cloveious


 * I've tweaked the format of the table a bit. If you don't like it, you can revert it back to the previous version. Ground Zero 5 July 2005 20:15 (UTC)
 * It looks better centered, and thanks for the re-writes, that reads better as well.--Cloveious 6 July 2005 04:07 (UTC)

Template:Elec
Ground Zero, just to clarify - I've been here very close to 10,000 edits, and an admin, so of course I'm aware of linking policy. The Template is private in the sense that I am the only one that has ever used it, to create over 400 articles &mdash; always with subst: (notice that no articles link to the template), so changing the template does NOT affect any articles. The content is not stable from version to version and I never even noticed that you had edited it, because the content does not evolve like a normal article, it flips about according to demand. If you were a more experienced user, you would have been aware of this alternative method of using templates. But now that 99% of the electoral district articles are created, it will hardly ever be used again (at least for federal articles). Note that the linking format was correct back when the bulk of the articles were created, so when I recalled an earlier version to fill in one or two missing articles, the format was now out of date, which I did not notice until you so brusquely pointed it out. As for incivility, and in light of the forgoing, reread your original post to me to see why you rubbed me the wrong way. In anycase, I agree we should get on with the business of making an encyclopedia. Fawcett5 5 July 2005 21:32 (UTC)

Maurice A Dionne
My comments about Maurice Dionne do not, I feel, apply to every one. Most people are in the middle, but Maurice Dionne was a very strong character, definitely not vanilla flavoured. I knew him well. Anyone who knew him would recoginize the truth of my comments. Look at the biographies in the older versions of Britannica or those in the Dictionary of National Biography. They are not a mere recitation of facts. Many of these excellent pieces are in fact in Wikipedia, since they are now in the public domain. Polycarp

Well, Wikipedia, on the other hand, encourage a neutral point of view. In fact, it is Wikipedia policy. The sentence that I removed again from Maurice A. Dionne really does not add anything to the article. I reassert that almost everyone in this world makes many friends and a few enemies, so this does not tell us anything about the man. This is a biography, not a eulogy. It may be that you are too close to the subject (as you acknowedge that you knew him well) to be able to edit this article in a neutral manner. Ground Zero 20:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

!
I meant "openly" in the sense of refering to a public acknowledgement -- but, yes, point taken. CJCurrie 8 July 2005 18:24 (UTC)

Image
I believe that would be a primary drawing of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba seating plan. It has since been upgraded to my knowledge :) -- Earl Andrew - talk 8 July 2005 21:12 (UTC)

Thanks
For your copyedit of Steven Fletcher. I thought I was the only one who thought that many wikipedia articles lack commas in the appropriate places. I use a screen reader with a speech synthesizer, which will only pause when there is a comma or colon in the text. Usually, if a sentence doesn't sound right when spoken by the synthesizer, it means that it is missing a comma. I've always believed that a comma should separate two clauses, and therefore should naturally break up a sentence into comprehensible parts. I'm just glad someone agrees with me on this point. Graham 9 July 2005 07:40 (UTC)
 * I don't mind at all. I don't think there are many screen reader users who are active in the wikipedia community, so their voices are not normally heard on wikipedia. Also, misspellings can cause confusion to a blind user, especially if they significantly alter the pronunciation of the word, for example "litereally" instead of "literally". Most screen reader users these days use the same speech synthesizer, eloquence, which has fairly standard rules for the speaking of text. You can find |some samples here. Ironically, that site does not read well at all with screen readers. Graham 14:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The screen reader I use, JAWS for Windows, reads the contents of every html file, and puts them in a virtual window so they can be easily read. It relies on html tags to detect such things as links, headings, and tables, and outputs them in an accessible form for the blind user. For links, it puts them on their own line, and announces the word link before the link description. I press enter on that link line to activate the link, or, because the virtual cursor follows the internet explorer cursor, I can press shift+enter to activate a link in a separate window, or right-click on it to open the context menu. I can also list links by a link description with a keystroke, and just press enter on a link in that list to activate it. The only problem is that these shortcuts only work in internet explorer, so I cannot use any other browser like firefox. Graham 06:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do. I like links only when they are relevant to the context of the article. The other things that annoy me are red links, as Its hard to tell when they're red, and links with bad descriptions like "click here!" Graham 04:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

A. Lafontaine and Canada
Particular agenda WRT Quebec independence...located in Elliot Lake...problematic edit/discussion record...I'd say it looks suspiciously like what we have here is the latest incarnation of DW/Angelique/JillandJack. Bearcat 21:53, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

N.W.T. update
With a new source i have dug up, on the web I have completed everything in the 1888 N.W.T. election. When I have time, I will complete the rest of the early elections, and am working on the list of representatives from 1876 - 1905. I am still working on finding a definitive source for appointments prior to 1876, and beyond 1905.

Unfortunetly, this lists only who was elected and their vote counts, and does not include party affiliations, so 1898 and 1901 will be a little incomplete, I might have to go to news papers for that. --Cloveious 20:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

NB Election
Thanks for pointing out the style and thanks for your edits. Did not know that style bit, I prefer the order but I'll get those links out of there. Thanks again! - Jord 19:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, and ...
Thank you for the star -- I'll have to move these to my main page fairly shortly.

On another matter, could you look into the current controversy on the Helena Guergis page? CJCurrie 22:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Many thanks from me as well. I also really need to rework my user page to display these honours. - SimonP 23:08, July 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * I also thank you. You really know how to keep people happy. There should be some sort of barn star for that too. &#0149;Zhatt&#0149;  20:32, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Zhatt. I have been meaning for some time to provide the recognition that is so richly deserved by so many people here. I finally got around to doing it, so that's why I've made a number of awards today and yesterday. they were long over due in most cases. I am still figuring out how it works, though. Ground Zero 20:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Tenses
Hi GZ - thanks for the congrats. Just out of curiousity, why are you going through all the electoral district articles and messing with the verb tense? They were correct as they were, and now there is a mixed tense between sentences. Fawcett5 23:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure I'm right on this. If not, I'll change them back. (Ugh.) Here is my reasoning: They still are former ridings. Either we can say there were electoral districts, or we can say they are former electoral districts. Saying they were former is at least redundnat, if not incorrect. If I say "I was a former student", that means I am no longer a former student, i.e., I am a student again. (I'll try to find a reference tomorrow.) Once we've established that it is a former district, and not a current one, it is appropriate to say that "it was located in". More later. Ground Zero 03:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find anything on the web onr in references that I have, so I posted the question at Reference desk. I got three replies. One said to use "is a former district", two said "was a district", and none said "was a former district". The arguments for "was a district" seem to be sound to me. I'll wait for your reply before I continue. Ground Zero 18:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I actually don't think it makes much difference one way or another, we can let the grammer boffins fight this one out. It just sounds wrong to me... one wouldn't say (for instance) that "Ronald Reagan is a former president of the United States".. he isn't ANYTHING anymore, therefore it would be "Ronald Reagan was..".  I'm willing to stand corrected on this though. Cheers, Fawcett5 19:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

There have been two more comments. One said use either "is a former district" or "was a district", and the second said to sue "was a district". I did manage to find a reference (here) although as a personal page, it is not a great one.

As a far as RR goes, I would also say "was a president". I agree that "is a former president" doesn't work as well for someone who is dead. To me, "was a former president" still suggests that he is no longer a former president, i.e., he has been both resurrected and re-elected (shudder). If you're agreeable, I will start using the "was a district" format. I plan to revisit the changes that I have made when I return in August. Regards, Ground Zero 14:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Trudi Le Caine
Please make your changes to Trudy Le Caine, since Trudi Le Caine will be deleted in prep for the eventual move of Trudy Le Caine to Trudi Le Caine, which cannot be done until after the VfD. This is an unfortunate state of affairs, but we want to preserve the correct history of the page, and moves/redirects are prohibited during a VfD (though why the VfD was called without research up-front... well, that's another story). I'll make a note to this effect on Trudi Le Caine, sorry for the inconvinience. -Harmil 16:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Never mind. Clearly someone did the delete and move during the VfD... hrm... -Harmil 16:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Neighbourhoods
Good work, I removed the maps though. I will make new ones at some point. Also, I never knew the term for the area west of Bronson! Good to know :) -- Earl Andrew - talk 22:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Canada
I'll be more than happy to try and look after the issue, especially considering I'm the one who raised it in the first place (or rather noticed it ~_^). I just came back from 5 horrible camping days in the wild without internet, and that's going to give me something to do. Circeus 21:07, July 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * I see instead of sticking to the agreed compromise, you and Circeus are ganging up to impose your own way on this page. Its a shame because the matter was resolved and is now back in conflict. Astrotrain 21:25, July 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * Astrotrain, you are such a card. It is so funny for you to suddenly become a defender of the 20px version when the first thing you did when some of us begrudgingly accepted it was to chnage it to someting more of your liking. You never accepted the 20 px version. It was only when others came in to argue for going back to the flag-free version that you decided that you'd accept the 20 px version. After all, it was only earlier today that you reverted to the 30 px version, re-igniting the conflict. There is no need for conflict over this: if you accept that everyone else has come to a consensus and therefore a decision has been made. You may not like it, but everyone here has to accept that they don't always get their way. A few months ago I initiated a discussion about the formatting of Canadian elections table that resulted in the selection of an option that I didn't ike. But everyone else did, so I went along with it. And you are going to have to accept this. Sorry, pal. I'm gone for two weeks, so others will have to hold the fort on this issue. Ground Zero 02:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I came from the RFC page and saw the dispute. I have to agree with Ground Zero (and no, your name does not offend anyone. A lot of things have been called Ground Zero) and Circeus: flags in the template is not a very good idea. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Monarchy in Canada
Can you please look at the dispute at Monarchy in CanadaHomey 01:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was out of town for this whole thing. I think it's a little too late for me to try to sort the issues out now. Sorry I couldn't be of assistance this time. Ground Zero 22:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Flag of Canada
Thanks for clearing up the major POV in the article. I admit it does need a bit a work, so you think I could nominate it for some type of clean-up at the Canadian Wikipedian Noticebaord? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 15:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that would be a good idea. This article should maintain a high standard, and I don't think that it meets that standard now. Ground Zero 15:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

User: MichealM
I've had the pleasure of dealing with this use on various fora around the net, and now that I see he's been tinkering with some canadian political pages, making his usual fantasy changes, I'm getting a bit aggrivated. I noticed that you tend to deal with him, and I thank you for that, and while it may be improper to discuss other users on other users pages, I'm wondering if you know how I can get him suspended or banned of he continues. Pellaken 07:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I had noticed that he had made changes. I have been away for a while and am just getting back. Along with a few other users, I came down pretty hard on him and threatened further action some months ago. That seemed to stop his fantasy edits, but it looks like he may be getting back into that. I am not really familiar with the process, but I think after you try to eason with him for a while (and can show that), you can post a Request for Comment. There are further steps after that that can lead to banning if he does not change his behaviour. I would start here: Resolving disputes. I'll take a look at his recent edits. Let me know if I can help. Ground Zero 12:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Sask Party
Thay are a Center-Right Party. Not a Right-wing party Hear is some info.   Some even label them selfs as Liberals. However thay are not a Liberal or a Conservative party. thay are a Liberal-conservative party. Pellaken should not label the sask party as a right-wing party or call them right wing Liberal members to buid the party there is no proof of that. Report us both (Pellaken & Michaelm) if you must. He is just a much the blame as I am.

P.S. think you for helping me out with the Green party of Saskatchewan edits.Michaelm 16:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not looking to report anyone. The Sask Party was clearly conservative under the leadership of former Reform Party MP Elwin Hermanson. They are currently trying to portray themselves as moderate under the leadership of former PCer Brad Wall, but I think it is too early to say how they will really end up. I'll look at their platform. Ground Zero 16:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Ture thats whay the Right-wing label should be removed from the outher pages.Michaelm 16:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

There are still Liberals in the party, that's a given, but the party took ALL PC MP's and 95% of its membership. the party is right-wing, and that wont change regardless. Pellaken 18:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know what to think, so I've started a discussion at Talk:Saskatchewan Party. I think it should be hashed out there before any further changes are made. I have also posted this on the Canadian Wikipedians' page. Maybe someone from Sask can help us out. Ground Zero 18:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

This is stupid! I've reported him. Pellaken 19:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Ground Zero on this one. Michaelm 19:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Hear is some more info on the Sask Party Michaelm 01:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I just wont to make so centre-right is linking to centre-right agree Michaelm 20:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Adminship
I've nominated you. Please go to Requests for adminship/Ground Zero to indicate whether or not you accept. Homey 18:43, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Re:RFA
I'm so sorry! You're absolutely right. I have been watching the nomination since yesterday, waiting to see if you would accept it and answer the questions. When I got on today, I figured I'd stop waiting and just oppose. I didn't see the acceptance (it's on the same line as 'Please indicate acceptance...' so it didn't really stand out). I didn't scroll down far enough to see the answers. I'll immediately change my vote to Support. Please forgive my absentmindedness. :P Acetic Acid 19:24, August 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * Good idea to prepare yourself for the upcoming challenges. Most nominees just jump right into it. You're an example to all of us. Thank you for being so understanding. Acetic Acid 19:32, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

I would have nominated you sooner but I had thought you were an admin until Saturday. Homey 19:44, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

CoR press release
Thanks for writing up the contents of the press release, I did not have time last night. I'm going to order the Hansard transcripts from Elections Alberta, and see what that can turn up. Its rare to have the demise of a fringe party that well documented. Im curious as to why the party fractured --Cloveious 22:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No problem. I was glad that you dug that up. You might be interested in the demise of the Union Nationale, which I have documented in that article. I was fortunate to find a good source on that. Ground Zero

grammar project
(crossposted to User talk:It's-is-not-a-genitive WikiProject Grammar was designed for that purpose, but appears to have sadly gone unused. (That brings up another question: where should the adjective have gone in the previous sentence?) Anyway, I think it would be good to revive that project, and maybe set up a English style FAQ, where we highlight the most frequent spelling and grammar problems on wikipedia pages, and talk about why they are incorrect. For example, the commas, its/it's and which/that, and common spelling mistakes like noticable/noticeable and inital/initial (I've spent the last few days fixing those!) Graham 01:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

(crossposted to [[User talk:Pianoman87) Ground Zero and Graham: firstly, excuse me if this makes little sense: I have just arisen. Secondly, I agree totally with what you both propose. I think that it is rather detrimental to Wikipedia that there is not much in the way of grammar discussion. As you both know, fixing spelling and grammar is a very silent job; we often just find mistakes and fix them, but this does not stop the same mistakes from being made repeatedly. It would be far more productive to discuss failings of grammar, spelling, punctuation and general style on one easily accessible page. It would be great to have our deliberations on one page, rather than on thousands of unique pages. Furthermore, I find that nearly all the errors that I correct are on pages that no one has ever tagged for copyediting. I should bet that many Wikipedians have qualms over style when they read articles, but do not wish to engage in a wasteful fight with the original article writer. I think that people would be more enthusiastic if they could refer their opinion for general debate. Templates could be added onto pages with a message like ‘some of this article’s grammatical accuracy is disputed’, with a link to the discussion on the grammar desk. The petitioner could explain why they find something wrong, and we could all give our opinions. This zone would not be solely reserved for debates about particular pages, but about grammar questions in general. (I can think of many, such as: why should there be an apostrophe s after numbers?) The discussions could help to formulate a more comprehensive style and grammar FAQ. I think that any centralised system has to be better than the current adhocracy. Sometimes, we have to be vigilantes, but it is more constructive to have consensus.

(By the way, as for the question about the adjective, I do not particularly see why split infinitives are such a crime. I think that language should be both as clear and as precise as possible; unlike the use of commas, I feel that unnaturally convoluting a sentence to ensure that there is no split infinitive does not enhance a sentence’s clarity. However, that is just my opinion.)

-- IINAG 10:27, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Hello again, Ground Zero. I am particularly glad to hear of your creating the grammar task, and anticipate working with you on it! I can think of many issues for debate, like on the use of the passive voice and the (incomprehensible) use of 's as a plural, although I do not claim to proffer the definitive opinion on them. I guess that there could be a section on frequently abused words, like hoi polloi, whose meanings have been completely changed due to current misuse. There could be discussion of certain rules of grammar whose purpose people are debating, too. (I confess, though, that most of my ideas for what can be discussed will appear to me spontaneously.) Some other things that come to mind are a discussion of commas, commas unfortunately being the Anglophone world's most maligned piece of punctuation, despite its purpose. There is also the matter of the subjunctive, and also of shall/will, which unfortunately are used interchangeably, even though they serve two different purposes.

I would be fascinated to read your guide on Canadian spelling. Always had I guessed that when it came to products on which the American and Commonwealth spellings differed, it depended on the country with whom Canada traded as to whose spelling they followed. I always wondered, however, why certain things, like organisation, followed the American spelling, and the same with similar words following the British spelling.

-- IINAG 21:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It sounds like a good idea. I also concur with IINAG's suggestion about most commonly confused words/phrases, like which/that, and my pet peeve, try and"/try to. I know that "try and" might be easier to say, but it throws the split infinitive rule out the window, and it is just gramatically incorrect. I am also thinking of words like there/their/they're, and the use of "then" when "than" is what is meant. I need to go offline any minute now, which explains the rushed nature of my message. These are just my preliminary ideas. Graham 03:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Good job on setting up the grammar desk. I will think about words commonly confused, like than/then, would have/would of, ETC. Isn't there also a wikipedia article describing common grammar mistakes? I couldn't find it after a quick search, but I know I've read it somewhere. Graham 01:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Elections Nova Scotia
truth be told, once it becomes clear how frustrated I am at elections nova scotia, I will edit the pages. I MIGHT try e-mailing them once more. if I get another stupid responce, I'll just post it to the discussion page :P

as for Ontario and Manitoba, I have popular vote results going back to confederation. the only problem is in my file I decided to make the results comparable. Check Ontario 1919 for what I mean. I did not split the parties into their 20 subgroups based on what individual candidates decided to call themselvs. Therefore my popualr vote numbers apply only to major groupings. I dont see the point in splitting Conservative and Liberal-Conservative results. I'll add the popular vote numbers going back as far as I can before going crazy about the splitting of parties. I had feared that Manitoba's results would prove difficult, Liberal-Progressive and Liberal, etc. The reality is, however, that the excel file I get all my data from, I built myself over years using results from each provinces elections agency. It was this file, which I sent to others, that was used to build nearly all the provincial election pages, at least at first (some have since been updated with data straight from the source. Alberta and Saskatchewan for example. Other then MB and ON, and the atlantic provinces, the data goes back pretty darn far. I compleated NB to 1935, which is when Elections NB started reporting pop vote numbers. I have pop vote and seat numbers for 1930, etc, but no map, and since most other people stop at 1935, why not me :P. PEI I'm adding back to 1893, again with the map thing. Newfoundland I did in completion earlier. just Nova Scotia remains :) it will be the last one I do, but I ptobably will do it, just based on boredum. Pellaken 20:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC) also, to your comment that NS' page already lags behind the others. I hate to be full of myself, but there's a reason for that :P I may not have done much in my life (other then run for election) but I am one of the top contributors to canadian election pages on wikipedia. Pellaken 20:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Great work! Personally, I find the splintering of parties in early confederation to be interesting, but it's not a great loss if it's not there. I am really glad to see the pop vote percentages added for the major parties. that tells a lot more about what was going on in the province than the seat totals. Regards, Ground Zero 17:56, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations
You're an admin. Have fun, use your new capabilities to build a great encyclopedia, and check out the free advice. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Speakers of Ontario
I have a problem. See Talk:Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Thanks. Homey 18:16, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, H., I haven't been able to find anything. I'll keep looking. Ground Zero 23:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, I've already researched this point. Crawford was Speaker from 1907 to 1911 inclusive; the Assembly website is mistaken.  CJCurrie 23:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Admin
Congrats on the appointment, I am glad to have supported you. I am not an admin but I don't think I really want to be one. I am not much of a vandal patroller and the only thing I would use it for would be fixing my own screw ups which I think defeats the purpose. Besides, now I can just pester you to fix my screw ups ;) - Jord 15:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations on your long overdue adminship! Red Tory's are always welcome in my books :) Unfortunately, they are a dying breed. Have fun with your adminship! :) -- Earl Andrew - talk 16:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

More congratulations! Two things I always have appreciated about your approach is your community spirit and your evenhandedness. I am sure you will continue with that good work. Don't ever forget the maxim that "Power tends to corrupt..." Take regular antidotes! (or anecdotes). Sunray 17:41, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations, and you're quite welcome! --Merovingian (t) (c) 18:32, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Tristan Emmanuel
My comments were directed to the anon, not to you. Personally, I think "many Canadians would consider his views extreme" should have been kept, but I can see the logic of the deletion in that case.

And thanks for your kind words re: the admin's position. Can you think of anyone else who deserves such a promotion? CJCurrie 19:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I asked User:Jord if he might be interested, but he doesn't seem to be. What about User:Sunray? S/he used to be active on politics/history pages, but seems to have moved on. I'll think about it some more. Ground Zero 19:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

RFA
Congratulations! Wield the mop with pride. Good to know we share a common enemy. :) Acetic Acid 20:18, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Admin
I'm on the list -- #63 in the alphabetical rankings, at present. I was actually made an administrator fairly early on.

... and (getting back to the question I posed yesterday) I was going to suggest Earl Andrew for a promotion, but I see he's already there as well. I can't really think of anyone else, offhand. CJCurrie 20:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Just a side note
Ground, thanks for supporting Mariano's candidacy, I know he'll be a great admin. Now, if you don't mind my anal-retentive request, can I ask you to update the vote tally, so it reflects the results?

Thanks, and please excuse my Monk-like moment. :) --Sebastian Kessel 16:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Brother, if you were any quicker than that you could prove Einstein's Relativity Theory. :) --Sebastian Kessel 16:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Reverting edits
Would you be so kind as to advise me how to apply the link to the users edits when noting it in the comments section? Noticed that you had reverted edits by 142.163.244.146 when that person had made a change to Newfoundland and Labrador. They also placed the same mis-information in the article Newfoundland which I had reverted back, but without the link as you had applied. Thanks for this HJKeats 18:09, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Editors who are not administrators can only insert the reversion comment manually, i.e., by typing "revert edits by User:ABC to previous version by Ground Zero 18:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Nice try huh, just a few more thousand edits and in a couple of years and who knows.... :-) Thank you for the reply. HJKeats 22:06, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Little Bow electoral district
I have been focused on Little Bow as a flag ship Alberta electoral district article, tell me what you think. --Cloveious 20:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I have put up another couple images in thumb nails of the whole of Southern Alberta into the Little Bow riding, one of Southern Alberta 1913 and one of 2004. Hopefully it will give some historical reference to the reader of how it gome from A to B. Does it alliviate your concerns? --Cloveious 23:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

McLeod
Which Paul Fromm claim in particular? His alleged role in founding Toronto Free Press, their friendship and her membership in CFAR were items someone else put into the Paul Fromm article - I'm not the source, I just imported it into the McLeod article (or the Free Press article, or both).

The claim about Fromm being the reason for her being fired from the Toronto Sun, well, I was at the Toronto Board of Education meeting in question - she wasn't there but wrote a column as if she had been and disappeared from the Sun soon after - and I recently received an email from someone who used to work for the Sun confirming that as the reason she was fired. And at a previous Board meeting she was cavorting with Fromm which makes me believe the aforementioned claims (which someone else posted) about her being in CFAR and Fromm helping her start "Our Toronto". I don't know if that's strong enough to justify retaining the firing/Fromm as source for her column allegations if they are challenged. Homey 22:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Grammar desk
Hey, no problem, glad to help. Poor grammar irritates me like nothing else can. Proto t c 14:56, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Great, good idea creating the Grammar desk. Could you add it to Template:Villagepump? I always have problems with tables. Zoe 23:33, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Zoe. I've now done so. Ground Zero | t 13:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Geoffrey Capp
I'm glad to see my list-page idea is finally taking off. ;) CJCurrie 18:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I think part of the problem has been that it ahs been difficult to find the articles. I was looking around for the CHP one to add Mr. Capp, and couldn't find it. I have added links from the CHP and Green Party articles to those lists. Ground Zero | t 19:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * My initial plan was to hold off on this until I had completed the relevant lists -- but, yes, linking them now probably makes more sense. (I wonder what the response to Freedom Party candidates, 2003 Ontario provincial election will be ...)  CJCurrie 19:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Parker Law Firm
Hi there! I noticed your note on CSD... in general it's better to take such issues to AN/I instead, or VIP. Anyway. It's not generally proper to delete an article because it's sock-supported; such VFDs tend to end in deletion anyway if the subject is not worth it (and sometimes the subject is salvageable even if some supporters are obnoxious). In this case, I've permablocked some of the sockpuppets (although in general there's little point to that, a socketeer can always make more) and blocked his IP address for two days, hoping that he will get the point. HTH! Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 14:34, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Grammar Desk and the Reference Desk
Hi Ground Zero! It seems that we are in the process of splitting up the reference desk, and I wanted to let you know that I'm in the process of editing all the related pages so that this transition can be facilitated.

Your idea for the Grammar Desk fits in very nicely with helping to divert some of the questions from the original RD, which really helped with keeping its size smaller. However, the recent popularity of the RD has led to a constant proliferation of questions. I think it will be better that all the related help pages can be accessed from a central location. Currently, the RD does not seem to receive enough questions related to grammar in proportion to other humanities and science related questions. For this reason, I'm also going to convert the desk into a more general "language help desk" where one can receive help for grammar, linguistic issues, semantics, et cetera. This way, the size of the subpages related to the RD can be just about the same size. This approach will also help with archival later.

I'm going to attempt to move the Grammar Desk so that it becomes a subpage of the Reference Desk. I know there hasn't been much discussion about this move, and I apologize that I haven't first consulted with you on this move. However, I'm anxious to perform the changeover quickly, as I imagine the current splitting of the RD into subpages has caused a lot of confusion and disruption. Please let me know your thoughts on this - I recognize that this change is being done somewhat on a unilateral basis, and I'd really like some of your feedback. Thanks for your understanding, and don't hesitate to leave me a message on my talk page! I look forward to hearing from you. --HappyCamper 01:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I've also updated your link to the grammar desk to its new location. I'm trying to check to make sure there aren't any dangling links. --HappyCamper 14:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not entirely crazy about it. Making it a branch from Reference Desk means it will be more difficult to find (it has already been removed from Ask a question), and "Language" doesn't really convey the primary point, which is that it is to help editors write better by giving them a place to ask questions and get answers. However, I understand the need to re-organize the Reference Desk, and congratulate you for doing so. Thanks for consulting me, and don't worry about having been bold. You've done a great job. Ground Zero | t 14:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey there! Thanks for the award :) - lots of other Wikipedians helped out. I will probably spend the next few days thanking them as well. Actually, I was wondering if I could help you promote the function of the "language desk" in some way. I'm hoping that it can turn into a place where Wikipedians can ask questions related to language usage, in addition to your original idea of grammar help. It was an exceptional idea, and one that supplements the services of the RD quite well. I only changed it to a "language" desk to broaden its categorization a bit - it wasn't meant to diminish its importance as a place for grammar help. In this way, the size of each of the subpages would be more even. Let me know your thoughts on this, as I suspect it will take about another week before everything is run in. However, if you look at the page history, some anonymous IPs are finding the pages alright, so everything looks okay! :D --HappyCamper 14:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Scimitar's RfA
Thank you for your support on my request for adminship. I appreciate the thought about Maoririder, too.--Scimitar parley 19:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Queen's Privy Council for Canada
Can you please take a look at the argument regarding Ted McWhinney's ideas at Talk:Queen's Privy Council for Canada. User:Gbambino and User:Peter Grey's hair-splitting arguments are trying my patience and it would be helpful to have an outside party come in and look around. Since McWhinney's theory regarding not proclaiming a successor to QEIII was the subject of a Canadian Press/Canwest article earlier this year it merits mention and as the QPCC is the body that proclaims the monarch I think it merits mention there. Thanks. Homey 15:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I think your intervention should settle it until October. If not I'll ask a few more outsiders to take a look. I can't imagine any reasonable person would agree with them that McWhinney shouldn't be mentioned because a press article didn't explicitly refer to the QPC. Homey 17:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

*bow*

 * 1) When was the last time anybody heard from me?
 * 2) When was the last time anybody heard from Belinda?
 * 3) Has anybody even seen us in the same room? Ever...

I didn't want anyone to have to think on this too much. So here I am. ;)

It's good to be back! And thank you. :) Samaritan 21:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

South of Wawa
If I read Samaritan correctly, he was actually inquiring whether the category Category:Road movies would be an appropriate addition to the barebones South of Wawa stub I wrote about a week ago. I haven't actually seen the film, but did a stub on the basis of plot synopses on the Web. Bearcat 18:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC) Northern Ontario. See what else y'all can add. :) Samaritan 23:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It was a long time ago. I don't remember that much about it. I think it was more of a doughnut shop movie than a road movie, and I don't think that's a category yet. I don't remember if they even made it the "the Dan Hill". I will, however, add Highway 61 (film) to that category. that was a great road movie. Ground Zero | t 19:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah...I didn't even know the road movies category existed until Samaritan raised it this morning. Roadkill probably belongs there, too. Bearcat 19:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Or maybe you beat me to it...lol Bearcat 19:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

"Faster, Leonard Cohen! Die! Die!"
Speakin' o' road movies...think Hard Core Logo should go in there as well? Or would you consider the road aspect to be too much of a secondary plot? Bearcat 02:13, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I love your heading for this comment. As far as HCL, which I rented mostly because it featured the fabulous Callum Rennie, I was way too tired when I watched it, so I remember nothing except grainy black and white footage. There was a road? Ground Zero | t 02:39, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah...they were on a reunion tour, so a fair bit of the movie depicted them driving along in their tour bus, reciting potential names for rock bands (of which the heading that amused you so was one) to keep themselves awake. But the road aspects aren't really the plot per se, which is why I'm soliciting input; they're just a facet of the whole touring-rock-band thing. Bearcat 02:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Manuel of Style
Hi, sorry about that - which article was it ? I might have been me ( I have been working on certain members of the Order of Canada recently ) or it might have been my brother as I often forget to log out when I leave the computer Dowew 20:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Bringing Wikipedia to Toronto
I've been working on a bid to bring Wikimania 2006 to Toronto. I have contacted KMDI, an institute at the University of Toronto. They are very interested in partnering with us, and can get us a full range of U of T facilities for free. With this offer I think there is a very good chance of bringing Wikimania 2006 to Toronto. The only thing we currently lack are people willing to help out. I'm willing to do much of the work, but for the time being I am in Ottawa and having some people on the ground in Toronto will be necessary. We also need a number of people willing to assist at the actual event, likely the first weekend of August 2006. If you are interested in helping out sign up at Wikimania 2006/Toronto. Preliminary bids from various cities need to be made by Sept. 30, 2005, at which point a committee will choose which city gets to host the event. The number of people willing to help will certainly be an important consideration. - SimonP 16:16, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Electoral Divisions
The sad thing is, I'd viewed the Elections Manitoba site several times before my recent changes.

My understanding is that provincial divisions in Manitoba are "generally" referred to as constituencies, while those at the federal level are called ridings. That said, I'll probably change the titles of the constituency pages again in the near future, in light of this information. CJCurrie 23:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

The Boys from London
Imagine two people: What was your source for the spelling of the first? (...And how would John Beattie best be disambiguated?) Samaritan 22:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Martin K. Wieche, building contractor and London East candidate on an unidentified National Socialist ticket
 * Martin Weiche, "former developer of some means" in London, once-funder of Paul Fromm, once head of a Canadian Nazi Party said to be the same one John Beattie founded

I am so sorry for not looking into this! I am been stupidly wasting my time on the whole Canada's name fiasco. I am over that, and will look into these points this week. You are quite right about the spelling -- I have moved the article to Martin K. Weiche. It turns out he ran as an independent in 1974 as well. Please stop the pouting! Ground Zero | t 13:55, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll try to figure out how to incprorate the Weiche/Fromm connexion in, but the information is not very strong. I am hesitant to add innuendo. The report ont he party at Weiche's place is interesting. I'll look at that again when I have more time. Wouldn't John Beattie (Canadian Nazi) be the obvious choice? [[User

ArmchairVexillologistDon
An arbitration case against User:ArmchairVexillologistDon was suspended several months ago when he abruptly "resigned" from wikipiedia. Now that he's back one might want to reactivate it if his behaviour remains erratic and disruptive. See Requests for arbitration/ArmchairVexillologistDon. Homey 15:42, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. I've just got back from vacation, so I haven't been involved in his recent doings, but if he keeps causing problems, I agree that we should look at re-activating the RFA. Ground Zero
 * I sent a message to one of the origingal Arb's (who is still one) about his return. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 15:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Ground Zero, as you know, ArmchairVexillologistDon is back at it. I have filed a "Request for Comment" regarding his behaviour. Perhaps I am being naive, but I am hoping that hearing the views of others will convince him that his approach has often not been in keeping with the spirit of the Wikipedia community. I am wondering if you would be willing to certify the basis for the dispute at Requests for comment/ArmchairVexillologistDon. I don't want to draw you into this matter, but I need another user's certification before it can go forward. I know that you have encountered his rudeness, despite your being civil and reasonable toward him. HistoryBA 00:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

His references
Hey, I am going through his references: they are bogus. The main one I can disprove is ((3). Rick Archbold, I Stand for Canada, the Story of Maple Leaf Flag, MacFarllane Walter & Ross, Toronto, pp. 186, (2002).) There is no page 186, and if there was such a thing as page 186, it would be the publishing information. I could scan it if you want. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Ground Zero|Ground Zero]] | t 14:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Popups tool
Congratulations on being made an admin! I thought you might like to know of a javascript tool that may help in your editing by giving easy access to many admin features. It's described at Tools. The quick version of the installation procedure for admins is paste the following into User:/monobook.js: // User:Lupin/popups.js - please include this line

document.write(' ');

popupAdminLinks=true; Give it a try and let me know if you find any glitches or have suggestions for improvements! Lupin 01:56, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

A request
GZ,

I've recently started a project of reviewing pages that I created, in the hopes of (i) catching and correcting errors, grammatical slip-ups and awkward phrasings, and (ii) filling in notable information gaps. I started doing this after discovering that some questionably-phrased descriptions of public figures were being disseminated through the web on Wikipedia copy sites; correcting them here seemed the best solution.

My intent in making these "corrections" is to create pages that are basically finished, barring further updates or the discovery of more relevant information. I've even gone so far as to create separate pages for all of the relevant redlinks on these pages (and to remove those redlinks that didn't quite make the cut).

So far, I've overviewed five pages in this manner:


 * New Democratic Party of Manitoba leadership conventions
 * George Hickes (politician)
 * George Hastings
 * Independent Native Voice
 * Manitoba Labour Party

My question: could you look over these pages for grammatical errors? I've gone through them so many times in the past few weeks that I've basically become numb to the information; an outside perspective might be useful. CJCurrie 16:21, 9 September 2005 (UTC) These are now done. They were in very good shape and didn't require a lot of work. I haven't been creating many new articles from scratch recently, but I'll ask for your copyediting assistance when I do. And feel free to leave a list here for me to review. Ground Zero | t 20:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to do so, CJC. Now that I won't be spending so much time on Talk:Canada, I should eb able to look at them next week. Ground Zero | t 17:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. If you have any similar requests, let me know.  Incidentally, I'm now writing pages on a number of Bill Davis-era ministers; this might be of interest to you as well.  CJCurrie 17:45, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I shall. ;) CJCurrie 23:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar of National Socialist Merit
If you are serious about the award, I can make it. Zach (Sound Off) 19:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the offer, but no, I'm really not serious about that. I was only joking on the basis that the editor had created numerous articles about British fascists and fascists groups. I think that the motivation for such an award could be easily misconstrued and create problems here that we really don't need. Thanks anyway. Ground Zero | t 13:15, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Speaking of which, you haven't gotten back to me on the Canadian Nazis above... *pout* :p Samaritan 13:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Sovereign Grand Lodge of Malta
As already advised in the main page, I congratulate on successfully changing the article as it should be. It looks great. I have a problem with an article on Maltese Nobility. I voted this for deletion because its content is nothing more than a long list of persons which look copied from some book and also in fact there was an article about Sant Fournier (count) which was entered in the Copyright Problems list because of serious copyright infringements. Nobility is not as important in Maltese history as is being portrayed by the people who are talking in the deletion page and who have no idea of Malta as it may seem. In no era, nobility was given great importance - in fact it was even banned from Malta at one point in time. The page seems to be created by a noble who wants to spread the word. I was called stupid for putting a vfd to the article. I wonder if you could look into the matter and post your comments on the afd page. Maltesedog 12:29, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Canada's name: sources
Hi there! I took the liberty to do a little digging and provided some valid sources for content in Canada's_name. I would hope that the article and appropriate parties use this information to inform debate and enhance this article. I think they also (?) support my ... balanced position. In any event; whatyathink? E Pluribus Anthony 14:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC) PS: Congrats on becoming an administrator.


 * Hello again! Thanks again for your analyses; I appreciate the feedback.  I also hope that you don't think my presentations necessarily advocating this or that, excessive, or irrelevant (as some may).  I've tried to provide a balanced perspective.  This issue has consumed far too much personal/collective time that can be better used elsewhere, though my research proved informative for me.  Thanks again.


 * By the way, care to vote on this issue? :) E Pluribus Anthony 20:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Hello again! In case you've difficulty wading through ... all the text, I've posted a reply to your explanation.  I will provide the Oxford reference (p. 183) in the next day or two; I'm unsure if it will resolve anything but I'm largely (not wholly) satisfied with the current Canada's_name section.  And thanks for your vote! E Pluribus Anthony 03:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Greetings! I hope you're well. I – but not alone – have made editions to the Canada's name article, based on recent citations and our discussions. Whatyathink? I think this puppy can largely be put to bed, now.

I hope my contributions have been helpful as much to you as vice versa. In any event, I'd like to thank you for your advocacy, balance, and input during this ongoing, tumultuous (but no less enriching!) process, and hope that everyone benefits from such dialogue – most importantly, visitors and users.

As well, thanks for your vote at my behest! A bientot.

E Pluribus Anthony 14:47, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

PS: I agree with you – Last Night is a fabulous flick!

-

Hello again! I hope you're well. I noticed your edition of the 'dominion' moniker in the Canada article (in response to my edition, in response to someone else's); if I erred, I apologise. I don't necessarily want to dredge up 'old' debates and sources, and am easy either way; however, I suggest replacement of the word 'formerly' with 'infrequently' or 'rarely' (or combination thereof); of course it is disused, or used very infrequently. Moreover, the following sentence is correct if read as follows (brackets added)


 * Originally [a union of former French and British colonies and infrequently] styled as the "Dominion of Canada"...

Moreover, its 'former' styling/position by the federal government must be cited (though I don't dispute it), since others may and have argued it is current and still used.

I hope this helps. Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 16:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi again; thanks for the note. I agree.  It was someone else (someone more 'zealous' than me regarding this) who originally sought out the bill I cited in my prior post to you.  As you know, though, I have sought additional information from reputable sources all-around to clarify this issue.


 * In this case, I will replace "formerly" with "infrequently" in the article (as above): it covers off on the issue (as it implies prior official use (in which case it was also infrequent), though doesn't discount current rare use). With this change, I'm also hoping to fend off other users who would continually make editions tantamount to advancing a monarchist perspective ... and I don't think that's me. :)  OK?  Merci! E Pluribus Anthony 17:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * PS: It is ironic, as I write this, that I’m watching DS9, where the Dominion is a much more 'frequent' concern. :)


 * Thanks again for the note. As I said, I'm seeking something that's more ... conciliatory and accurate (yes: it's not used, but it still is de jure); ambivalence or disuse isn't an indicator of validity.  You can probably count on additonal stragglers making these sorts of editions.


 * Another possible suggestion: indicate that Canada is styled as a dominion (but exclude the name 'Dominion of Canada'). Remember, though: I'm fine either way.  Thanks! :) E Pluribus Anthony 17:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes! Precisely, this (wikified as such, to elaborate appropriately):


 * ''Originally a union of former French and British colonies and styled a "dominion"...
 * OR
 * ''Originally a union of former French and British colonies and entitled a "dominion"...
 * – I've provided an alternate, since a couple of the references I've cited indicate it is the title.


 * Take your pick! :) Merci! E Pluribus Anthony 18:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * PPS: As a resident of a suburb also without a car and an obligate transitarian, I worked downtown at the Dominion Building (University and Adelaide) for another agency that has similar delusions of ... well, dominion, soliciting the support of companies like, well, Toronto-Dominion Bank, et al. But we all get the point ... :) E Pluribus Anthony 18:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Great! I'll make the change ("entitled"); it's a pleasure doing business with you!  Now onto other matters ... :) E Pluribus Anthony 18:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note; noted for future reference (and feel free to copy the related threads to Canada's name). However, this was attempted: if you review the latest discussion there, I requested of JimWae the source of his 'contentions' that dominion is not a title.  He has not done this.  Moreover, he is inappropriately challenging the authority of my citations/references – three cited so far – from reputable publishers/publications, regarding 'dominion'; this is in clear contravention of WP:V.  If he, et al. cannot reconcile these decisions (as we have), provide references and substantiate, or desist, I will have to consider other options.  Thoughts?  Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 20:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Belated congratulations on your adminship
Now that I'm back (it more or less went well, thanks), I wanted to add my voice and congratulate you on your well-deserved adminship. As for my defending you, well, I couldn't stand by while people literally impugned on your good name, especially when I know that you are not evil. Congratulations on being handed the mop and bucket! --Deathphoenix 14:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Vaughan—King—Aurora
You added results to this page, for the 1997 and, um, 1997 elections. I've tried googling for the results to fix this, but I only get pages with only the elected individual, not each party's candidate by riding. Can you fix this when you get a chance? Mindmatrix 23:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for catching that. Here is where I'm getting the info from the parliamentary web site: . Regards, Ground Zero | t 12:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I should have known that, since I've actually linked to that site a few times. I once used the CBC Canada Votes archive, but with the strike, the CBC website has mysteriously lost information. Thanks for the update. Mindmatrix 13:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I really should have known that, since I linked to that very site in this article! And to boot, its the first link listed. Oh boy...anyway, would it be appropriate to include things like registered voters, voting-age residents etc in the table? Mindmatrix 13:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh sure, it would. I am slowly making my way through all of the defunct federal electoral districts articles. I have done about 90 of probably about 900. I don't think that I will ever finish, so I'm not going to take on the task of adding more info beyond the election results and geographical descriptions. I am not sure to what extent that other information would be available on a historical basis. That is not to say that it shouldn't be added to the VKA article if you have it or could find it. Ground Zero | t 13:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Where's the beef?
Hi there; thanks for your response and your incessant balance! I know the article isn't perfect, but it'll do for now ... particularly given the information presented; a true modus vivendi? In part, everything currently there is perfect to ensure some people do not persist in changing the information and have sufficient links (though informative) to keep 'em happy. Thus, I too will disengage unless absolutely necessary. As for excessive contributions by others (hopefully not by me!), I left a note to the relevant party indicating (diplomatically) thanks for the information, an offer to 'consolidate' ... copious text, and a suggestion to provide links where appropriate (in this case, almost always). I can only guess – but don't really want to – about the cited "problems" and next steps: given the recent 'epiphany,' they are likely cited to either demonstrate and substantiate the current user's position (undefined) or to repudiate it, in which case this should be taken to higher channels. But that's it for now for me. Thanks so much again! E Pluribus Anthony 13:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

PS: Have you ever seen Eclipse (for which there is no article, yet)? It's similar to Last Night in concept; however, it's odd and good, but not great.

PPS: FYI – by using the '+' tab, all of this section was initially inserted below your box. Ack!

I will look up Eclipse. I'm not familiar with it. Thanks for the tip. Your contributions were not excessive, in fact, mine probably were, but the problem to which I referred was adding whole bocks of text, flags and coats fo arms, and, of course, lengthy arguments about the names of other countries. I think the note to which you refer was very diplomatic. Sadly, I don't see much evidence of change in behaviour. Although his epiphany was very impressive, as is his willingness to stick to the new position, his modus operandi has not changed over the months that I have been engaged with this despite the pleas of many for him to adopt the Wikipedia methods and norms of behaviour. Regards, Ground Zero | t 13:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Here's a link to Eclipse. Not bad, but not great.  Other movies like Roadkill and Highway 61 (though different thematically) are great!  Enjoy! E Pluribus Anthony 13:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes -- loved Roadkill and H61. Ground Zero | t 14:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Hello again! I wouldn't presume for you to be keeping track of this, but there may be hope ! :) E Pluribus Anthony 19:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Or maybe not. :( E Pluribus Anthony 14:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi; how are you? Well, I completely support archiving of discussions regarding Canada's name and articles. I wonder, though, if it would be prudent to retain only the end of the discussion on the Talk:Canada's name page? I'd hate for the issue to recur and not have things readily visible if they do (particularly for those who may not be in the know). It would also preclude a recitation of (at least) the Oxford reference again, should this unfold. Just a suggestion, though. Thoughts? Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 14:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi again! I know this issue has long since resolved itself (thankfully!), but I wanted to inform you of another (supporting) reference I dredged up in a titular book regarding Canada's name and dominion.  I think that's it regarding this topic.  A bientot! :) E Pluribus Anthony 01:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Party abbreviations
I like most of your abbreviations, particularly the way you have dealt with the ILP/Independent Labour. I've just reverted one change; the CPE(M-L) can't read Communist (Marxist-Leninist) as this will lead to confusion with the Communist Party of Ireland (Marxist-Leninist), who stood in Belfast West (UK Parliament constituency) in October 1974 (but don't appear on the general election results as they didn't muster 1,000 votes). If you've got a thought on how to get round this, please go right ahead. Warofdreams talk 16:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I like most of your abbreviations too, but there are some I disagree with. Some parties, such as the SNP, SSP and BNP are known either by their full names or their initials, never their full names minus "party". For example, it took me half a second to realise what "British National" meant when I first saw it. I appreciate that readers not familiar with British politics wouldn't understand the initials, but nor would they really understand the shortened forms - which nobody familiar with British politics ever uses. Thanks for the positive changes you've made, though. Mibblepedia 12:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Vancouver municipal election
&lt;form letter> I've posted something that may be of interest to you at Canadian wikipedians' notice board/discussion. Hope you can comment there. &lt;/form letter> -The Tom 22:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Patrick Asselin
Thanks for your work on the Patrick Asselin article. You've improved it immensely. I read the obit in the Globe today and thought Asselin's life story was such an interesting one it deserved an article so I tried to write an article based on the obit while procrastinating at work. Homey 00:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Another copyedit request
When you have a chance, could you look over the First People's Party page?

(Incidentally -- notwithstanding my previous comments about "finalizing" these pages, I ended up tweaking the wording for Independent Native Voice and George Hickes again earlier tonight. My ocd tendencies apparently haven't diminished with time. ;))


 * And, now there's another: Jerry Fontaine, who was the FPP's leader. This brings the total to seven pages revised in this manner, for those keeping track at home.  CJCurrie 04:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I've done INV and George Hickes. Will look at JF. Ground Zero | t 17:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

RFAr
I am letting you know that I have filed Requests_for_arbitration. Zach (Sound Off) 08:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Election image
I made that image a while ago when the results were reported differently than they are today. I was considering changing to correct them, but I'm still not sure if the 1921 results are correct. It seems that every source reports a different result. Some state the Progressives had anywhere from 58-64. MS123

CHP
Dear Zero, re your post on my talk page:

I didn't doubt that the CHP sees it that way but I was a bit worried that it is worded in a way that suggests that this is not to be taken seriously. Given the history of Canada, I think the CHP's "interpretation" has a point. Hence I thought the disclaimer superfluous. Str1977 19:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

THANKS
I thank you for your kind words, however you should probably recognise that most of what I say is in no seriousness. I'm actually very light hearted, but sarcastic. If it appeared that I was very upset about the whole legislature thing, I apologize, it was a joke. MS123

Another "finished" page?
GZ,

Thanks for looking over the First Peoples Party page (and should I assume that you didn't find any problems with Jerry Fontaine?).

Now that the basic formula is in place, I've decided to move on to some more prominent figures, beginning with our new provincial Finance Minister, Dwight Duncan. Could look over the page for possible errors, and also ensure that no bias has crept in?

Btw ... interesting that Sorbara would be replaced by a Tim Murphy ally, isn't it? CJCurrie 00:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I've done FPP. I'll take another look at JF within a day. Either I found no changes worth making, or I haven't got to it yet. I'll also look at DD. Ground Zero | t 17:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Question about the 1999 provincial election
''26 independent candidates were affiliated with the Communist Party of Canada - Marxist-Leninist. They won a total of 7,065 votes, or 0.16% of the provincial total.''

Somehow, I'd missed this before. Can I ask your source for this? (Presumably, it would be possible to simply add up the totals to find out who was who ...) CJCurrie 03:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure that's exactly what I did. Ground Zero | t 17:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm ... I hadn't realized that I'd filled in 26 candidates as M-Ls. The number seemed a bit high, and my assumption was that you managed to find an external reference.


 * I should clarify that I've never found a single list of M-L candidates for that election (and I doubt that I will, given that they were going under the pretense of being "independent of all party ties"). I've discovered a 27th candidate now, and I suspect this covers everyone ... but I can't be completely certain.


 * Thanks again for looking over the pages. CJCurrie 18:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Re:Election tables
Sorry for altering your hard work, I know well how much time and effort goes into putting those table together. My main objection to the format you were using was the "LAST NAME, first name" format, which is harder to read, harder to link, and is non-standard Wikipedia formatting. As to the percentage points, I agree that it would be great to have this information, but a higher priority is getting the basic results in place. It is quite simple to readd the extra columns if someone wants to. - SimonP 14:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Electoral Districts
Congratulations, you are the first person to step on my trip wire. In the History of the electoral districts I bolded the names of the electoral districts. I was waiting for someone to come along and change that so I can snag them and ask this question: How should the electoral districts be differentiated from other place names? I do not believe it is explicitly clear that the sentences I was writing were talking about electoral districts. Because they often use real, common, place names in some cases it was down right confusing (especially, for people familiar with the area). I didn't want to repeatedly say the "electoral districts of..." so I just bolded them. What do you think? Should there be a distinction made? If so, what?

Also, please review this page. I plan to hold a brainstorming session (followed by peer review) on Federal Electoral Districts. Since it is a nation-wide topic of general (sometimes emotional) interest I think it best to come up with concensus on what info is relevant. Please review the proposal, specifically its format. Will this format achieve the goal of concenus on what is relevant and acceptable for federal electoral district pages? How can it be made clearer? Other comments? --maclean25 00:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Regarding the History section of electoral districts, what I wrote came from an easy template that I just copy&pasted. Before you create too much work for yourself, there are several other issues that need to be addressed, aside from formatting. As will be discussed here, my source was this which does not directly give me the ridings used to create the new riding, nor the new ridings formed from the dissolution of an old riding. The top and bottom list of ridings appear to be this but are in fact the ridings that have contributed population or land area to this riding during any representation order throughout its history (ie. not just the first and last orders). Does that make sense? Here is an example: tell me what electoral districts this riding, Kootenay—Columbia, was created from using this referenced page here.


 * The other problem is that I only had a copy of the 2003 Representation Order to work from. As you can see not all ridings are created equally. Some are created from 90% of former riding X and 10% of riding Y. Others are 50/50. Yet the are all listed as equals in my History sections. Before 2003 the proportions are a mystery.


 * Your other proposed changes appear to be all valid. No objections to spelling out MP, NDP, Pop. Density. That first sentence will be discussed here. If you have any comments about the format or context (anything to add or remove?) about the proposed brainstorming session please let me know. --maclean25 04:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Due to an (unknown) overlapping effort on the electoral districts, the project has begun early. Please see WikiProject Electoral districts in Canada to sign up. --maclean25 19:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

What do you think of the History section as a whole? Do you think it justifies having its own section? --maclean25 01:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I htink so. I gues the question is -- does hte history of the riding's boudnaries go in the Geography of the section, or in the history section along with the list of Members of Parliament? I'm not so concerned with the organization as I am with the content, so I don't have a strong opinion. Probably I would say tat the Geography section should be where one goes to find out about the current riding, and History about its former dimensions. Ground Zero | t 14:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Carleton-Gloucester
Call it what you want, just never spell Carleton "Carelton" ever again ;-) -- Earl Andrew - talk 23:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * A segue — worse yet: there's Carlton Street in downtown Toronto. ;) E Pluribus Anthony 14:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thet waz jest a tipoe. I kno enouegh aboutt Ottawwa to kno thet its "Carleton". Regards, Ground Zero | t 14:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Election templates
I do have a list at Template:Canadian elections/parties. Note that I haven't yet created one for every party. - SimonP 15:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Object, I'd be delighted if you made some more, as it is fairly boring work. - SimonP 15:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Not returning
I won't be returning, and yours is the only message I'll likely respond to. I will not accept personal attacks, and when I was attacked at Talk:University of Ottawa, no one came to my defense. Further, people opposed my RfA for stupid reasons like I spelled vandalizm wrong and that imagines don't belong in a signture. I won't accept the BS anymore. -- Spinboy  00:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding. It is too bad that you are leaving us. Your contributions will be missed. Ground Zero | t 14:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Senate divisions cleanup
Hi Ground Zero, i was wondering if you would mind cleaning up an old Canadian senate division redirect Nunavut (Senate division) this one got over looked during the original round of deletions. --Cloveious 23:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I've redirected it to the Canadian Senate divisions. I hope that's what you meant. Ground Zero | t 16:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh I actually meant delete it, but that works too, --Cloveious 19:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your vote, and HDI discussion underway ...
Hello! I hope you're well. I'd like to thank you for participating in the vote earlier to include the HDI in the country infobox/template. Yay!

After a lengthy gestation, a discussion piece has been prepared to help give form to the vote. If you've a preference for how and where this information should appear in the infobox, I'd appreciate it if you head on over there and comment. :)

After a decision is arrived at, if at all, I'm also hopeful to prevail upon you to add the values (if you're willing and comfortable) for a handful of countries; the more people doing it, the less time it will take to implement the vote and realise the fruits of our collective labour.

As a segue, I'll be adding some comments/perspectives on how the Canadian riding project can be possibly enhanced soon (I'll be using the Davenport riding as a 'gimp,' as I helped a friend of mine run for one of the parties in last year's federal election. Stay tuned! :)

Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks again for your co-operation! E Pluribus Anthony 04:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'll be working on Canadian electoral divisions for the next several months, so I'm not really in a position to take on extra projects. Ground Zero | t 16:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi! I just noticed this; no problem!  A consensus seems to be forming around the appearance and placement of this information in the country infobox.  As well, I wish I could be more involved in the electoral divisions project and have some ideas regarding it (e.g., current table is fine but in descending chrono order; party names in 1st table, initialisms afterward; riding infobox template w/map?), but I too have been swamped.  I should be more attentive.  Anyhow ... merci! E Pluribus Anthony 01:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Leadership Conventions
I've found a book that has every provincial and federal Leadsership convention results from 1967-1992, in case you need any. Feel free to ask.Habsfannova 02:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks muchly. I'll keep it in mind. Ground Zero | t 16:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Manitoba CCF
I have no objection to the page being moved.

By the way, I've recently started adding detailed citations to a number of pages under my watch (stage two of the "finishing" process mentioned above, I suppose). The ones that I'm more-or-less satisfied with are listed on my user page. I know that your current project is rather time-consuming, but if you ever get the urge for copyediting, your help would be appreciated. CJCurrie 20:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Chris Buors update
I've restored the quote, and have given my reasons on the talk page. You may wish to add the Buors page to your watchlist if you haven't done so already, in the event that the three-revert rule prevents me from keeping my revisions in place. CJCurrie 03:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Another request: Could you make a brief statement verifying that you've read the contentious quote, as it appears the cached page? I'm concerned this page may vanish in the near future. CJCurrie 04:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Move Toronto Subway and RT, too?
Hi ... once more! I see that you recently moved the Toronto streetcar system article. I support that! So, do you suppose a similar move can happen to the subway/RT article, too: like Toronto subway and RT, Toronto subway/RT or similar? I previously created numerous redirects, since the current title wasn't wholly ... intuitive. (I'm unsure whether other users would challenge this or propose alternatives.) Thoughts? Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 04:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You raise a good point about intuition. I don't think that anything with "and" in it is going to be intuitive. A better approach might be to split it into two article: Toronto subway and Scarborough Rapid Transit (which would be capitalized because it is a proper noun). This would take a bit more work to split the article up. What do you think? Ground Zero | t 14:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Merci! I would actually keep them together: the subway and the RT are advertised and 'treated' as one and the same by the TTC (take a glance at one of the system maps; I created the knock-off map; whatyathink?!), and I don't think visitors would know enough about 'Scarberia' (which has its separate article already, as do the other lines) to clue in.  Perhaps Toronto subway should redirect to a unified Toronto subway/RT? E Pluribus Anthony 16:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'd agree about creating a redirects for "Toronto subway" and "Scarborough Rapid Transit". Nice knock-off map! You're very talented! Also, I've posted some comemnts about article naming and categorization at Talk:Viva York. Your input would be appreciated. regards, Ground Zero | t 16:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Great! Actually, I probably wouldn't redirect SRT, since it has its own article and the box atop each article links to the central Toronto subway/RT article; somehow accommodate for that.  And thanks for the praise.  I'll comment shortly ... Viva la différence! :) E Pluribus Anthony 18:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi again! Thanks for weighing in on the Canada intro; I appreciate it. As well (belatedly?), I've commented as requested regarding Viva. I hope my suggestions are helpful; forgive my tardiness. Enjoy, and thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 15:14, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Now that I've moved Toronto Subway and RT, I may turn my attention to the Viva stations. Ground Zero | t 16:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Merci beaucoup! :) E Pluribus Anthony 17:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Alberta politics
Hi Ground Zero, thanks for fixing up the Alberta Alliance leadership convention article, it may interest you, it looks like were on the verge of some major events in Alberta provincial politics. A possible three way merger between Social Credit Party of Alberta, Alberta Party and Alberta Alliance. -- User:Cloveious
 * Thanks, Cloveious. That's really interesting, even if they've all been there before. I will add this to each of the articles. Ground Zero | t 16:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)