User talk:Ground Zero/Archive 9

Belinda Stronach
Thanks for reverting the vandalism by Michaelm. I discussed this with him in the past, but appartently he thought I would not notice.Cafe Nervosa 00:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Afd (list pages, again)
Articles for deletion/New Democratic Party candidates, 1990 Manitoba provincial election. CJCurrie 23:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Watermens page
Thanks for formatting lists on the watermens page, as you can see from the earlier versions I was struggling to get the layout to work.--deepwaters 11:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Republican/Democrat
Thanks! I will be careful to put the US party links. Wooyi 15:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks amigo. I was cutting and pasting governor infoboxes. I should have checked the party affiliation link. I'll get them all corrected asap. Spacini 04:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

HELP!
Please visit the NAMBLA article talk page Talk:North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association and voice your disgust at NAMBLA being included as an LGBT organisation. Alternatively, if you believe that this is indeed an LGBT organisation, then you're welcome to voice that opinion. Either way, discussion is needed!Enzedbrit 21:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Labour
OK, I know I should have linked Labour to Labour (UK). There were a lot of links and ISBNs to check, that one got missed. I am deeply sorry, guv, it will not happen again. Promise. :-) Guy 23:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Canadian parties with English name
I do not agree with you, but, anyway, I won't tray to revert your edits. --Checco 14:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * But why have French, Italian, German, Austrian, Swiss, Dutch, Belgian, Swedish, Spanish, Portugese, Greek, Polish, etc. parties articles named in English and why Quebecker parties not? I think that it is defenitely absurd. --Checco 14:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, some of my translations were definitely wrong, but why is the policy you are advocating not applied to all the parties of the countries I mentioned? This is strange. I think the uniformity and coherence should be two important pillars in Wikipedia. --Checco 19:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Party Logos
I thank you for your work in adding those pictures, I added them because I was bored one night and figured I would pop in at wikipedia. Thankyou for your work. MS123

UCC, again
GZ - I hate to bring this to your attention, but the anon editor who caused such disruption at Upper Canada College about a year back has taken serious issue with recent edits I made to the article in the hopes of getting it up to FA standards - specifically not giving enough prominence to the scandals, etc., at the school. I sought a third opinion, but what was given seems to have not been effective enough to end the edit war. Could you please weigh in on this debate again? You helped greatly the last time. Thanks. --G2bambino 06:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

St. Columb's College
Please remember to mark your edits as minor when (and only when) they genuinely are minor edits (see Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one (and vice versa) is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'. Thanks! --Mel Etitis ( Talk ) 19:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * With respect, I do believe that my edit here meets the criteria set out in Minor edit in that my only changes were of capitalisation and bypassing a redirect by changing SDLP to Social Democratic and Labour Party. (And I added one typo, which I thank you for correcting.) I am curious about why you chose to provide this reminder to me. Ground Zero | t 19:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You're quite right; I misread the edit as being more substantial than it was &mdash; sorry. --Mel Etitis ( Talk ) 19:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Resolving a loose end
GZ,

There's still one outstanding issue between GoldDragon and myself on the Talk:Joe Volpe page (re: "The placement agency"). No-one else has weighed in on this matter after two months; your tiebreaking vote is solicited accordingly. CJCurrie 05:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Thanks regarding Museum (TTC) error
You're welcome! Captmondo 19:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Socred split
Thanks for creating this article. There's one thing I'm wondering about, though:


 * On 10 September 1963, Lucien Plourde, MP for Quebec West, declared his support for Caouette[9], bringing the Ralliement des Creditiste caucus to 13, and reduced the Social Credit Party caucus to 11, one less than the minimum for a party to obtain “official party status” in the Canadian House of Commons

Are you certain that the "12-member rule" was in place in 1963? My understanding is that it wasn't introduced until 1990, when the Mulroney government used it to deny official party status to the original Bloc. CJCurrie 22:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I have access to the G&M's online archives (and the Toronto Star's, for that matter), so I'll be able to check the source material shortly.

My question regarding the "twelve member rule" was taken from a separate newspaper entry that I came across yesterday. I'm currently expanding the biographical entry for Bill Blaikie (aside: thank you for your corrections to the related Dean Whiteway article), and was reviewing his press coverage from the 1980s and early 1990s. In the process, I discovered that he made a special appeal to the Speaker for the NDP to considered as an official party for the purposes of House business after the 1993 election.

Here's an excerpt of a letter that he wrote to the Winnipeg Free Press on the subject (printed on 13 June 1994, editorial page):


 * The Free Press was its old predictable self in trashing my recent point of order in the House of Commons as a self-serving whine.


 * Even The Globe and Mail, not exactly known as an NDP rag, called it a well researched and convincing argument. Rather than responding to my argument with counter-arguments, all the Free Press could do was simplistically and ignorantly repeat the very same false claim that my point of order was addressed to, i.e. that the rules of Parliament say official party status, which gives the party more resources and the members a better chance to be heard in the House, is granted to any party which has elected 12 members. My point the other day was to show that this very claim, repeated uncritically by the Free Press, has no foundation. The only place where the number 12 appears is in the Parliament of Canada Act where 12 is the number of members that parties must have in order to qualify for certain financial support. There is no other mention of the number 12 anywhere else, and certainly not in the Standing Orders, or the rules of Parliament as the editorial claimed.


 * What I therefore asked the Speaker to consider was all the historical precedent for treating parties with less than 12 members as parties for the purposes of conducting House business and allocating time on the floor of the House. The CCF in 1958, and Social Credit in 1963, 1974, and 1979 were given as examples.


 * And as for the only counter-example, the treatment of the Bloc Quebecois in the last Parliament, it was pointed out that the Bloc was formed by defectors from other parties after an election, and that they were not a party as far as the Canada Elections Act was concerned. The situation of the NDP caucus in the current Parliament is obviously quite different.

It's possible that Blaikie was misinformed on the matter, but this seems to indicate that the official Socreds didn't suffer the modern penalties of "non-party status" after the split.

On another matter, I should apologize yet again for not having done anything on the SPBC front over a period of several months. You've probably noticed that I've been taking a methodical approach to my current work on Canadian politics, and that I've been focusing mostly on active legislators. There is, of course, a reason for this: many of the articles that I wrote on active politicians in 2004-05 are currently in need of improvement, and will likely be put under increased scrutiny when the impending provincial and federal elections take place. My "historical" work has been put on the backburner, accordingly, as I've tried to add references and make corrections to the existing pages.

If I start working on the SPBC page now, it will probably drag me into several other matters relating to BC politics in the early 20th century, and take up quite a bit of my time. I'm still willing to begin work on this in the near future, but it's simply not my strongest priority at present. (Perhaps I should simply learn how to pace myself ...)

That being said, I'd be able to look up specific things in the G&M and Star archives, if you should need them for your own research. I can do word searches, so it generally doesn't take very much time or effort on my part; feel free to ask if you need something. CJCurrie 23:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Heritage Alliance
Please go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_April_8#Canadian_Heritage_Alliance —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.55.154.236 (talk) 13:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

David Lewis article
Hi, I was wondering if you can keep an eye on the David Lewis (politician) article? I've also asked Bearcat to do the same. The reason? (1)the good: It got nominated for a Did You Know article on April 15. (2)the bad: It now has more of a chance to be vandalized and I will be without an Internet connection for a few days, so I won't be able to monitor it. There has already been some minor vandalism to David's portriat that I've reverted. Abebenjoe 10:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Earth jurisprudence and Wild Law (book) articles
Thank you for correcting the Lib Dem links there. --Lesley Fairbairn 13:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yet again
I've made another effort to end the seemingly interminable Joe Volpe dispute. Your feedback is solicited as such. CJCurrie 23:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for clearing up all the style errors, spelling and myriad other mistakes I caused when trying to improve the Appeasement of Hitler article. I'll have to make sure I check all the manuals of style in future. Thanks again. Ian Goggin 23:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

John Mitchel
Thanks Ground Zero for all your efforts in improving the John Mitchel Article. I really appreciate it, and will endeavour to implement it in my contributions. I am still relativity new, and have had a rough time getting to grips with all the policies. Through your practical advice and formatting, illustrating the policies makes it much more helpful. Thank you again, Regards --Domer48 11:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Again
After a relative lull, new revert wars with GoldDragon seem to be brewing at David Miller (Canadian politician) and John Baird (Canadian politician). I'll try to summarize the matters on their respective talk pages. Any interventions you could make would be welcome. CJCurrie 04:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know, my current dispute with GoldDragon seems to have narrowed to a few key paragraphs. If you have the time, your views would be appreciated. CJCurrie 03:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

afd
Could you please review Articles for deletion/Windsor municipal election, 1991? CJCurrie 01:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:From Quebec Provincial electoral districts
Thanks for those fixes, probably next thing to do will be to add the defunct or ex-districts, but some can be merged (if possible) with the existing ridings as it won't make sense to create an article with for example only one elect-member. This site is certainly a gem for the work.--JForget 18:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Banque Canadienne Nationale
A tag has been placed on Banque Canadienne Nationale, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

There is already an article about this. National Bank of Canada and the content in this page has already been entered into that page.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Flubeca (t) 21:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:A rickitt cd.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:A rickitt cd.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 04:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Best of limahl.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Best of limahl.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 01:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Your username
Isn't your name a bit controversial, I mean with the connotations of 9/11.--William Henry Harrison 04:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The concept of a "ground zero" predates the tragic events of 9/11. I have indicated on my user page why I chose the name. Perhaps younger people associate it only with 9/11, but it has been in use for a very long time. The connection to 9/11 did not occur to me when I chose the name. I mean no disrespect to the victims of the September 11 attacks or their families and friends. Ground Zero | t 04:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fatigue relief dvd.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Fatigue relief dvd.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Samuel J. Crawford
Great contribs to Samuel J. Crawford page! I really appreciate the help!--Paul McDonald 03:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, nice edits to James Manney Hagaman. It reads much cleaner!--Paul McDonald 02:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

List of largest Heists
Thanks for the clean-up.What do you think about the nature of the article, if its notable enough, or the source that was provided? Rodrigue 00:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Spreading some Wikilove :D


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Re Edit war
Sounds good, though I tried limiting myself to WP:1RR, so I don't see how I was "edit warring". when I actually tried to prevent one. Anyway, I'll discuss it on the talk page. &mdash; Selmo  (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Katrina Swett
Thanks for the fixes to edits on this article, especially the bad links (which were not my fault, I might add). Tally ho! Bearian 18:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

request
Richmond, California id like to make a request for comment in the 80 image section please. Cholga saYS THANKS!Cholga is a SUPERSTAR ¡Talk2Cholga! Sexy Contribs 01:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Grammar note
in Fran's Restaurant, Toronto, "haunt of Glenn Gould's" was not incorrect, as you can find by consulting Fowler. You wouldn't change "a favourite haunt of his" to "a favourite haunt of him," I hope. Language is not mathematics, so the double possessive is not wrong, and is in fact more idiomatic than your alteration. Anyway, I'm not going to change it back unless I can find a more important reason for editing the article. However, I hope I have spared you some future editing work.

Oh &#8211; and do you have an opinion about my deletion of the word historic? I was hoping to get some discussion of that. John FitzGerald 14:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the small contributions you made to the Serranus Clinton Hastings article :). It's going for GA so every improvement matters. Psych less  23:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

John C. C. Mayo
Thanks for your edits to John C. C. Mayo. After writing an article, it's sometimes hard to see the minor mistakes you've made. -- Steven Williamson (HiB2Bornot2B) - talk 02:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Page Blanking
I am currently creating a portal for the Iraq War. As I work through it and clean things up you may see more pages from me or Langloisrg --Kumioko 20:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Norman Gardner
Happy Canada Day!

Yeah, this is another scrap between CJCurrie and myself, considering that Loaf of Meat is pretty well a proxy for CJCUrrie. This time, I feel that there is POV and undue weight, similar to Joe Volpe and Jean Lapierre, so I did a considerable edit and later explained it. In general, I feel that the article is already lengthy enough, there are only two paragraphs needed to explain the ammo gift, and there doesn't need to be several references to his gun ownership stance, among other things.

I would kindly appreciate if you would step in (for the nth time) as the peacemaker. GoldDragon 17:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll wait until you've finished before I'll add anything. Your intervention was key in moving it forward. GoldDragon 00:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter
Ground Zero, nice work on the compromise on Jimmy Carter. Please note that I reverted originally back to you thus not harming your edits. It was the other guy who blasted away your edits. Thanks again. Jtpaladin 13:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Veterans' day (UK), MP
I take your point about the link to MP being to a disambiguation page. The trouble it now reads rather oddly to British readers who are politically aware. Could the MP be replaced after Brown but linked directly to Member of Parliament? I am not sure of the syntax for that here. This could then mean the ugly phrasing of the Jim Devine paragraph could be put right too as MP would also have been referenced earlier. Kingsmead 16:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Colours of Tory parties
Just thought that you should know that the old debate about the old and new Conservative party colours has started up again at Template_talk:Canadian_politics/party_colours. The user in question has been changing tables to match his view on the topic and I can't stop him without breaking 3RR. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ground Zero. In my talk page on the colours for the Tory parties you said. "Neither is the case. it is a new party, formed by members of two former parties, and so it should have a new colour. I hope this helps clear things up." in reference to the formation of the new Conservative Party of Canada. In the 1940 election the National Government Party ran candidates as did the historical Conservative Party of Canada. The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada was a new party formed prior to the 1945 election by members of two former parties, the National Government Party and the historical Conservative Party of Canada. So to follow your logic about the new Conservative Party of Canada the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada should have a new colour. That is my bigger question. If NPOV is truly the goal then shouldn't the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada have a separate colour from the historical Conservative Party of Canada? Schoeppe 19:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Er, no. In the 1940 election, the most Conservative Party candidates ran under the "National Government" banner. Some ran as Conservatives. They were not separate parties. Please read the National Government article I've linked. In 1942, the Conservative Party renamed itself the PC Party. I think that will help clear things up for you. Regards, Ground Zero | t 19:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I think history, and NPOV, is being distorted in this case. Yes, you are correct about the 1940 election. However, the historical Conservative Party of Canada would not have been able to do that under the changes to the elections act in 1974. By presenting the new Conservative Party of Canada with a distinct colour, while all former Tory parties have the same colour, this gives credence to the argument of those who argue that the new Conservative Party of Canada is separate and distinct from all previous Tory parties in Canada. I still don't know how this doesn't violate NPOV. At the time of the merger a strong majority of members of both the Progressive Conservative Party and the Canadian Alliance voted in favour of the merger. The "Tory Leaders Since Confederation" and "Tory Prime Ministers of Canada" sections of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada page starts with (Liberal-) Conservative Sir John A. MacDonald through to Conservative Party of Canada Stephen Harper. If the history and common link is acknowledged in these sections how is it NPOV to specifically deny that link with different party colours in the Minority Governments in Canada page? Schoeppe 19:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "However, the historical Conservative Party of Canada would not have been able to do that under the changes to the elections act in 1974. " I don't know if that is true, but it certainly isn't relevant. In any case, using the PC colour for the new CPC denies the role that CA members had in forming the new CPC with PC Party members. On what basis do you deny their role? I disagree that Stephen Harper belongs on that list because the new CPC is a different party from the historical CPC/L-C/PC Party. Let's remove him. Ground Zero | t 19:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe that is relevant because people have argued that the new CPC should have a new colour as it is a separate and distinct legal entity from both the CA and the PC Party of Canada. Had the same laws applied in the 1940 and 1945 elections the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada would have been a separate and distinct legal entity from the National Government if the intention was to run under two distinct names. I am by no means trying to deny the role of CA members in the formation of the new CPC. I believe the majority of members of the Canadian Alliance would argue that the formation of the new CPC marked a return to the conservative traditions of the historical CPC and would view the new party as more of an heir to the tradtions of the historical Conservative Party than was the Progressive Conservative Paty of Canada. Only the small number of PC party members who split with the party at the time of the merger would argue for the different colour schemes as are currently being used. On what basis are the majority of former CA and PC members wishes being ignored?Schoeppe 20:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "Had the same laws applied in the 1940 and 1945 elections" -- but they didn't.
 * "I believe the majority of members of the Canadian Alliance would argue" They are entitled to their opinions. The purpose of an encyclopedia article to represent the facts in as neutral a way as possible not to portray a political party as its members what it to be portrayed. The treatment of the PC Party + CA = new CPC thing is the same as for the CCF > NDP thing. The CCF "merged" with the Canadian Labour Congress, i.e., by giving the CLC voting rights, and became a "new party" called, at first, the New Party, and later the New democratic party. Wikipedians have assigned the CCF and the NDP different colours to reflect this. When various conservative parties joined to form the Unity Party of British Columbia, it was given a new colour, and not the colour of the British Columbia Conservative Party, which was a part of the coalition (it later left). The Liberal Party and the Social Democratic Party merged, and the resulting Liberal Democrats have a different colour. Treating the PC/CA merger any differently from the Wikipedia standard would be POV. Ground Zero | t 21:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It appears that there is a lot of intransigence here and very little interest in anything but protecting your views. You have made contradictory statements as a result. First you said "In any case, using the PC colour for the new CPC denies the role that CA members had in forming the new CPC with PC Party members. On what basis do you deny their role?" To which I expressed the honest belief that the majority of former CA members feel they were heirs to the traditions of the historical CPC (a big part of the reason that name was chosen post-merger.) After I pointed that out you said "They are entitled to their opinions. The purpose of an encyclopedia article to represent the facts in as neutral a way as possible not to portray a political party as its members what it to be portrayed." If that is truly what you believe, why did you ask the question about denying the role of CA members in the first place? I am trying to deal with your arguments, but when they contradict it is difficult to have an open dialogue. Schoeppe 15:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello
G'day mate...(lol...I love saying that :D :P)...anyways, I left a reply to your comments on the PC Party talk page. :D Nat Tang ta 06:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit request
Hi there. Since you seem to be keen about copy editing, could you take a look at the David Lewis (politician) article and perform your magic to it? Copy editing is the last item needed to get the article to the GA stage, according to the GA reviewer that looked at it. Much abliged. --Abebenjoe 21:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

RE: Canada's name
Your reverts, in support of JimWae's unsourced content editions, are unjustified. There are numerous sources that corroborate the current content, which was in place for months beforehand. Only arguments, without sourcing, have been promulgated in opposition. Present your evidence with reliable sources on the talk page, or withdraw. 142.150.134.50 03:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * User:142. Welcome to Wikipedia. New contributions are always welcome, but must be within Wikipedia standards, and users must follow Wikipedia guidelines. It would be very useful for you to register so that other editors can communicate with you directly. Until you have familiarised yourself with Wikipedia policies, I recommend that you not start doing things like asking other editors to "withdraw" from a debate. Also, if something has been wrong for months, does that make it right? Of course not. Ground Zero | t 14:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello -- please see my response. Given the apparent intransigence of certain editors (and this applies to AVD), amidst a number of reputable citations, editors shouldn't have to be asked to withdraw: they should provide sources as requested, modify their understanding, or quit while they're ahead.  Thus, the question should be more if editors have been wrong for months, does that make them right?  Of course not.  142.150.134.56 17:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I am certain that your recent comments were not directed at me: as I've indicated, (the basis of) my argument is different from AVD's. 18:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I see that you've re-sectioned the comments; thanks. 142.150.134.55 18:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

David Miller
Sorry about that. That was friendly fire from the revert. However, I felt that the poll, plus the CTF was necessary in that section. GoldDragon 21:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Mel Sembler
Hi, I've noticed a bit of an edit war going on at Mel Sembler. I've reverted changes there and I see you have too. The edit war seems to be going on between two anon users. I was thinking of posting it to WP:RFC, but since I see you are an admin I thought I'd seek your advice since you have taken an interest in the article. Any advice would be welcome. Thanks Trugster | Talk 23:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Smile


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

AfD: Geoffrey Sampson
I have proposed the Geoffrey Sampson article, which I created a few weeks ago, for deletion. As you have edited it, I thought you might like to know. You may wish to comment here:. Regards, ElectricRay 21:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Tom Chase
Recently you removed a speedy delete nom for this article with the summary: meets WP:PORNBIO criterion 3 ... niche genre. Niche Genre? - what is that, and where is it mentioned? I don't think this article asserts his notability at all: a guy works for a bunch of studios and is "notorious" (unsourced) as a top -- that's notable? Please revisit and speedy delete. Thank you. 72.76.7.128 11:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Belinda Stronach editing
The one that remove was this user (24.150.21.178) I don't now him/her back on Nov 14. 2006 It was not me that remove it back then. If I notes I would of put it back in. However I should not of go as far as remove it recenty. sorry. The reson I was angery the fact this part was added "but subsequently stated that she's against its decriminalization" but I went to far. Can you please leave this part out "but subsequently stated that she's against its decriminalization" The reason it may not be vald. Reporters don't always tell the turth. Besides if thay wont to know bad enuth then thay can clack on the link. hear is the proof. Specking about this part "While she has sat as both a Liberal and a Conservative, Ms.Stronach's personal political views lean social democratic in nature. In fact Belinda Stronach is best classified as a Social Democrat." I did not add that it was user Frelancedave and I don't know him what info he added was also not vald. Hear is the proof on that as well. I may agree with Frelancedave but that dous not make it vald info. Michaelm

Nantes
Thanks for taking appropriate action for this article. I tried in vain to encourage the anonymous user to justify his/her edits and follow procedure, but they simply kept reverting. Michellecrisp 11:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As above, thanks. Schcambo 14:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, any chance you could deal with this incident (again). I posted it a few days ago but for some reason it got dropped off into the archives without being resolved. Thanks. Schcambo 10:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Affiliation Quebec
I apologize for reverting your edits there. I guess we both were editing at the same time when I caught the afd tag removal. Thank you for your help with the article. GreenJoe 15:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It worked out for the best, that's all that matters. :) GreenJoe 15:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Julian, New Brunswick
I think that some of the others the user has created are fake as well. Look at CJCX-FM and google search. I'd do more checking but I have to go for about an hour. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's the contributions list. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I know there are plenty of unsourced articles for small places everywhere, so until you nominated it I didn't think twice about its existence. Thanks for looking carefully!  Nyttend 02:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Franklin (historic U.S. state)
Why was this deleted? The discussion should IMO be retained. I'm happy to fix it up if you are happy for me to do this. Andrewa 17:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

There's no copy of the talk page at Talk:State of Franklin, not even in its history. Andrewa 18:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

He's violated 3RR on Slice (TV channel), and he's doing that reverting of external links stuff on many, many articles. Check out his contribus. GreenJoe 02:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. GreenJoe 03:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression for a long time that anon IP's also had to follow 3RR. When did that change? GreenJoe 16:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * He doesn't seem to be changing IP addresses too readily right now. GreenJoe 03:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Belinda Stronach:
I have no idea who Belinda is nor do I care...Mantion 04:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I did not revert nor would I revert something for the hell of it.. Though the line is poorly written it is clearly justified. I can't for the life of me figure out why she ever joined the conservative party and the statement of her own party members such as "If Ms. Stronach is elected as leader of the Conservative Party, social conservatives will no longer have a voice in Canada." In addition she is currently a member of the Liberal party, she appears to have no conservative views and many, many Liberal views. She supports "She supports abortion rights, gun control and same-sex marriage". The article in 3 places mentions that "Stronach confirmed that she was interested in seeking the Liberal leadership". I read this article in passing found it very interesting that she ever considered herself a conservative for 4 months. I assume she choose that party because it would be easier for her to be elected as she would appeal to conservative voters because of party affiliation and appeal to liberals because she is clearly a liberal. The same thing has happened in the states, for example Mayor Blomberg of New York City, was a life long liberal and Democrat He switched parties to republican to ride on the popularity of the previous Republican Mayor Giuliani and funded his own election (as he could get no donations). It is actually a very common theme through out history and a dis-honest but sadly effective way to get elected. The theory is to spend all your money to win your parties seat with out discussing the issues, then you will seem like a moderate and better the the opposition party.

Anyways I don't need to explain my actions to you, Though I don't know what a "social democrat" as I am not Canadian, the term did not appear to be up for debate and as I said though the contribution was poorly worded I found it to be accurate based on what I read. I have a habit of checking discussion pages and history when ever I read an article as confusing as this one.

It appears you, cj and simonp have a great deal of control over the article and can with out any justification delete contributions you don't agree with. And though I am only a passer-by it is clear that Freelance who I don't know is getting beat up by your montle crew, and could use the aid of stranger.

SO now that you have wasted my time, I expect an apology, as claiming that I am a Vandal is at best rude and immature and most definitely insulting. You should have control of your emotions. I merely said I had no idea who she was and didn't care. I read the article saw the history and the discussion and saw what this was. I have seen it before in Wikipedia and it is disgusting. You should let others contribute and discuss changes before you make them. You could ask for a citation or have a discussion before teaming up to delete valid contributions.Mantion 05:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of Belinda beyond what I read in the article. It is true many people should site contributions but I see no discussion on the topic. I am currently reading up on the various parties of Canada. My problem is you should discuss things more and ask for citations instead of just deleting contributions you disagree with. There are almost no citations in the entire article and many other "opinions" go un-questions. Through co-operations we make Wikipedia, more balanced and thus more accurate. Please explain in the discussion why you "disagree" with freelance. Clearly he feel strongly about his views so maybe he knows something you and your friends don't know.Mantion 05:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

A request for your assessment

 * Hello, Ground Zero. It's apparent that you are one of the best copy-editors we have here at Wikipedia. You simply have great style when it comes to formatting articles. You don't know me, of course, but I've glanced over your talk page twice now and I truly could not stop myself from asking for your thoughts and or assistance on an article I created, the Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone artice. I'm more than certain that this article is not Start-Class anymore, for sure, and that it wasn't Start-Class at its beginning either, based on a lot of other articles that I've seen on Wikipedia. I'm very close to nominating this article for Good Article (GA) status or Featured Article (FA) status, although I'm leaning more towards FA, because I read statements that going through the GA process isn't too much worth it, if the article is just as good to be nominated for FA, or will make FA a little after making GA, and that an editor should most likely go all out and nominate an article that they feel is good or really good or great for FA, since its chance of making FA may be of the same level.

Before I nominate the Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone article for GA or FA, I want an expert eye more so than mine, such as yourself to take a look over it and tell me what you think of this article, your feeling on anything that needs to be improved. If you will do this, it will be much appreciated by me, of course. Hope to talk with you later. Flyer22 14:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Belinda redux
I'm suddenly struck with the crazy idea that maybe our friend insists on characterizing Belinda Stronach as a social democrat because he misunderstands the term as being the opposite of social conservative. You don't suppose that could be the root of all this? Bearcat 01:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for helping on my user and talk pages. Spigot Map  16:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please do protect my pages. Thanks! Spigot  Map  16:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks from me as well - much appreciated ;) TheIslander 16:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI
I semi-protected all of your Talk archives after that vandal discovered that you had not protected all of them. I set it to no expiration like you did with your own semi-protects. -- Gogo Dodo 19:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Magnet
Ok, Ground Zero, I hope I'm doing this correctly. You told me how to get here, but was I correct in selecting the 'edit this page' option in order to talk to you?

Also, I've always hit the four tildes (is that what they're called?), but I guess I'm supposed to actually type them in at the end of my entry. I'm trying that below, I'll see how it works. Magnet For Knowledge 05:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is how it works -- edit this page, and type the four tildes at the end. Thanks. Ground Zero | t 05:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.

Now all I need to know is how do I properly respond to someone, or how do I create a new heading here? I've intruded on Gogo Dodo's entry. Magnet For Knowledge 05:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Sub-headings
Quite simple: two equal signs at the beginning and end make a first level heading (large bold text). Three make a second level heading (smaller bold text), and four make a third level headings (ordinary sized bold text), like this:

First level heading
===Second level heading===

====Third level heading==== Ground Zero | t 05:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Which v. that
Hi Ground Zero, thanks for your well written explanation distinguishing use of the two. CApitol3 11:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Acronyms in Political positions of Ron Paul
Sorry, I didn't mean to trash your improvements, and thought I was carefully keeping all of them -- you made a whole lot. My fault for not seeing that your improvements also included some in the paragraph I was reverting. &larr;BenB4 15:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Lack of Good faith

 * Hello Ground zero,

As you might have noticed, I provided several links, citations abt Collor de Mello artcile an fixed a lot of text´s misleadings.
 * As Dalilama said all conclusions should percolate to related artciles, such as Plano Collor, History of Brasil, and son.
 * That´s not wht he is doing.
 * I found a lot of problems with his editions: they are explained on the talk page of thsi article. I have enough reasons to ask you to consider a block from Wikipedia, for as long as you find reasonable.
 * If you allow me, I´d like to move forward with that. I could provide links to confirm his reqiremtn.
 * Ludovicapipa yes? 20:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Again

 * Hello Ground Zero,
 * If you may take a look at tis:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fernando_Collor_de_Mello&diff=152333782&oldid=152333599
 * This edition sets aside the very fact that Collor just had his political rights restored, could be elected for the Senate, it provides how many votes (44%) and details on the corruption charges lifted. Dali´s edition again deleted, reverted to something called Post Presidency: "In 2006, 14 years after his resignation and with political rights restored, Collor was elected to the Brazilian senate with 44,03% of the vote, representing his state, Alagoas [15]."
 * It´s very imporatnte to rememeber charges were lifted and he was released. Ludovicapipa yes? 23:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:date in Andrew Saul
Question with regard to WP:Date (specifically in Andrew Saul). Should every instance of a date be wikilinked? Or do only need to wikilink each year once? It might just be that I've stayed up too late and consumed too much coffee, but I'm slightly confused by the guidance in the MoS. Mrprada911 05:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)