User talk:Lonewolf BC

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Date delinking
Hi there Lonewolf BC. I was interested in the comment you left on User talk:Hmains. I have replied on User talk:Rebecca and thought you might want to contribute. It would seem to me on quick examination of Hmains' edits that his edits do add some value, quite apart from the reduction of overlinking to year articles which (it would seem to me) add nothing to the articles, at least in some cases. Can you explain your position please? You can answer here or in my user talk, I don't mind. Thanks for your time, --Guinnog 11:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Greetings, Guinnog, and thanks for your message. I'm really glad to get a one, about this de-linking matter, that is more conducive to a reasonable discussion of it -- notwithstanding that at root you disagree with me about the worth of the links concerned. As to the value I see in year-links, in short I think that they give a reader ready access to useful historical context.  This is less so for recent years, for which a reader likely will be familiar with such context already (although we must keep mindful that some of Wikipedia's readers are quite young, and that the past fades from popular memory rather quickly).  For more distant years, however, I think it is most valuable for a reader to see the general state of the world, and the major happenings of the year during which some event took place that is mentioned in the particular article.  Doing so ties the particular event into its times, giving a reader a better understanding of it, and fostering something more than rote memorization of isolated facts, floating in a void of the past. I acknowledge that this is a matter of opinion, though I know that other folk share much the same view as mine, even while others yet again disagree.  The question them becomes how this disagreement ought be handled within Wikipedia.  My beef with Hmains is mainly on that latter point.  I have reviewed his editing history, and he seems to be on a bull-headed mission to de-link all year-only dates in as many articles as he can edit -- and he runs through a great many -- without regard for what anyone else thinks about it.  That he also makes other kinds of edits (mostly likewise niggling) is really beside the point, whereas it does not take away from what he's been doing to date-links.  Given the lack of consensus on the issue, common sense as well as common courtesy suggest that articles be mostly left alone in relation to such links, as against anyone determinedly going about placing them or removing them.  A good parallel case is the use of "British" versus "American" spelling.  Moreover, and although good sense and courtesy should be reason enough, I find that this is also essentially the conclusion that the Wikipedia community has reached. Mr. Mains seemingly sets such considerations at nought and, in their defiance, feels entitled to carry on his search-and-destroy campaign, just because he, personally, holds that the links are worthless clutter.  He's been repeatedly warned against this -- at an early stage, warned merely that it was unwise and liable to provoke edit-wars ; and later on, that it is unacceptable without a consensus to back it.  Yet he stubbornly persists, while wrongly claiming to have policy behind him.  Frankly, his actions seem disingenuous and wilfully disruptive -- though I do not say that disruption must be his real motive. My own discovery of all this is a case in point:  Shortly  after I had carefully put a brief article into good order, Mr. Mains came along and de-linked most of the dates.  Not much bothered, but puzzled and seeing no reason for the edit, I reverted it and put a note to that effect on the talk page, asking that he not do likewise again without our discussing it first.  Some days later, he simply came back and delinked again, without a word to me.  I did as before, this time writing at greater length.  When this got no response, I decided to post on his talk page, also, hoping to get the matter amicably sorted out, and altogether ready to accept his edit if he could justify it.  It was then that I discovered that mine was not an isolated case, but part of a campaign that Mr. Mains was waging in the full knowledge of its contentiousness, despite many warnings to leave off, and despite past wrangles with other opponents.  So my message to him was a bit harder than I had foreseen making it.  Mr. Mains' reply tacitly says that he has no intention of quitting, and attempts to justify that with misrepresentations (whether genuinely believed or not I cannot say) of Wikipedia policy and of earlier discussions. Understand that at the outset I had made no study of these matters, but was simply going by my common sense and my casual observations of Wikipedia custom.  I am heartened to find that these have been confirmed quite nicely by my subsequent delving into guidelines and past discussions.  The core of the matter is that, under the present circumstances, neither Mr. Mains nor anyone else should be making it their business to change articles so as to make them conform to their personal opinion about date-links.  If a concensus is ever reached for de-linking, I will of course respect that (though without agreeing with it).  But really, the issue of the links themselves is secondary to that of Mr. Mains' behavior.  That behavior, along with the loads of similar nonsense I discovered in looking into this whole business, I find quite disheartening.  It must stop. -- Lonewolf BC 04:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Correction
Thanks for that! --Guinnog 16:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Your efforts are commendable for their goals, but I fear they shall not solve the problem unless Mr. Mains becomes willing to allow for opinions beyond his own, and for broad principles of co-operativeness and consideration among editors, as against some guideline explicitly forbidding his reckless de-linking. This, alas, I do not foresee.  On the other hand, if it can be reached, agreement between some of his opponents and some of his (perceived) backers might discourage him, and might be a step toward a guideline he will feel obliged to follow.  So perhaps the exercise is worthwhile. --  Lonewolf BC 17:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)
Hi there. I've posted a cut-down version of the discussion you participated in at the above policy talk page. I hope you'll be able to contribute there. Best wishes, --Guinnog 05:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

McEvedy
Hi lonewolf, my edit was really just to tidy up the slightly over elaborate sentence structure- my only remaining objections are where you say "witty and engaging writing-style, with which he often made reasoned challenges to established opinion", which to me implies its the style with which he is making the objection, as opposed to the substance of his writing, and also to the word revered, which seems like it might need to be supported by a reference, its not that clear that he was admired to that extent. Anyway, rather than just edit, I thought I'd let you know my thoughts... Dek-ko 14:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, we seem to be in quite good agreement, then. I know that my sentences sometimes get overly long and elaborate, but I believe that I've mended that in the case of this article.  I gather that you concur.  (Leaving a draft for a while, and coming back to it later often helps much.)  Turning to our two remaining points of difference, I do mean to suggest that the witty style, besides enlivening McEvedy's writing generally, was used in challenging established opinion.  More than one of the obituaries makes note of this -- "witty digs".  The substantiality of the challenges is, I think, covered by "reasoned" and illustrated by the next sentences, about the standing that McEvedy and his views eventually gained.  So it's both their style and their substance that are notable about the challenges, and my aim was to indicate that.  I believe I have succeeded.  As for "revered" one of the obits uses that very word.  I could add a reference if you like, but the WP article is quite short and the obits are already listed for reference, so I'm not sure a specific reference for "revered" is really needed. Anyhow, I'm not adamant about any of this, so don't hesitate to make further changes if you think they are needed. Best regards, Lonewolf BC 19:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * how about changing from "McEvedy's witty and engaging writing-style, with which he often made reasoned challenges to established opinion among historians and demographers" to "McEvedy's witty and engaging writing-style, which he used on occasion to challenge established opinions among historians and demographers"- I've read everything on the list (except rise of the world cities, which I've never seen on sale) many times over, and I would say "occasionally" is more appropriate then "often" for this- really its just in the population history atlas and the intro to the new atlas of ancient history that he does this. Also, I still don't really like "revered", I just think respected is more than enough Dek-ko 22:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

glad we could agree, if you want to add stuff about medical career thats fine- I get the impression his views on hysteria are still controversial, so it may be opening a can of worms! Dek-ko 12:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

"mcevedy" redirect
re mcevedy redirect- yeah go ahead and delete it I didn't know how to rename the title so I redirected it as you thought. Dek-ko 18:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Candlelight Records
Hiya Lonewolf BC. Why did you put up a lack of notability? The label hosts popular bands that have been reviewed in several major music magazines. Plus every wikipedia album page has links to music labels, so suggesting this link isn't it important would create a lot of deadlinks. I'd consider it notable. Andrzejbanas 05:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

While I respect your concern, Template:Notability is not a tag an editor can apply to all articles that don't satisfy him/her personally, if it is challenged by others. Wikipedia works by building consensus and all other editors are happy with the current claim of notability (a very large number of notable bands). The notability template specifically states that "If notability cannot be established, the article is more likely to be considered for deletion, per Guide to deletion." The next step for you should be either to accept this or nominate the article for deletion. By continuously re-adding the tag you are editing against current consensus. Thanks, Prolog 16:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This is already addressed on the article's talk-page, but a list of bands taken from the company's own website does not, by any stretch of the imagination, establish the company's notability. Neither does the fact that, over a period of months, a handful of editors have deleted the tag without bettering the article, establish that "all other editors" think the tag is misplaced, nor even that such is the editorial consensus.  It does tend to indicate that either the company's notability cannot actually be established, or else that no one can be bothered to put out the effort.  Nice guy that I am, I prefer to hold off on taking direct actions toward deletion, and giving even ampler chance for bettering of the article. -- Lonewolf BC 18:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The band list was added by an administrator. Have you asked him what his source was, or where does this "list of bands taken from the company's own website" come from? Do note that self-published material can be used as a source due to it often being most up-to-date (and thus accurate), as in the case of record label's bands. Also, Afd cases have shown that labels are usually considered notable if they have several notable articts. Naturally, WP:V still has to be satisfied. Anyway, I have now added some multiple non-trivial coverage and references to the article. Prolog 20:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Date-links (Nov '06)
Sir, I see you have been making lots of edits regarding "dates". Just a week back another user removed all the wikilinks I had for dates like 543 CE. He insisted that unless dates have significant meaning it should not be linked. You have put them back. I am not sure where this is headed and I certianly dont want this to become an edit war on "dates" as the article has just come through successfully on FAC review. Please see the WP rules for dates and make sure this matter is put to rest. I like the 9th century kind of links though. Dineshkannambadi 22:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Seleucid origin theory (Sep '07)
Hello Lonewolf BC,

Thank you for your rational position on the Chalukya origin theory (i.e. Chalukyas being descended from the seleucids). It is, as you appropriately put it, a cranky position; unfortunately, it supported by a few hellenism obsessed individuals (i.e. aldux and phg) who insist on noting it inspite of the fact that their own note points out that historians have rejected it. So what is the point of mentioning it at all? Simply to put some seed of doubt in the minds of readers and to lend credence to their theory of a greater hellenistic era in India. Your comments on the discussion page would again be appreciated. Thanks.

Regards,

Devanampriya 03:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Canadianization
Hi. I've noticed you've been changing "World War II" in some articles to the "Second World War" to reflect Canadian usage. I have no problem with this, but I am curious as to why that one might be more Canadian (assuming there's a reason besides Canadian historians preferring it). I've always thought both were acceptable for Canadian history. I think my interest comes from noticing recently that the "dirty thirties" is more of an American name for the Depression, while the "hungry thirties" is the Canadian term. On a related note, I wouldn't be surprised if they get changed back. I've noticed that some Canadian articles on my watchlist were previously changed from the "Second World War" to "World War II," which I assumed was because the article it links to is entitled "World War II." Bobanny 06:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Funny how it is I wound up here too, for very much the same reasons. What's "standard Canadian", and moreso what's a standard Canadian usage, anyway?  I'm Canadian, like it or not, born and raised, and I'll use either, and heard my parents and other veterans use both (I was around a lot of them as the folks ran the local Legion and other community organizations, and I was b.1955); I've never considered either one preferable to the other; the one variation that I do know of is that Canadians may say the Great War where for Americans that seems invariably to come out World War I, unless they're read in history and are in a conversation with Brits or Canucks or whomever.  It's true you may not hear "Second World War" in the US, or in parts of the US, but that doesn't mean that its presence in Canada is linguistic-cultural pollution in any way, which is the subtext here (I'm not meaning to assert that Lonewolf BC is from beyond the mountains, just speaking to the theme).  BC in particular has a very different "dialect" than other parts of the country in all sorts of ways, from pronunciation to lexicon to style and, of course, attitude; and it also has a long history connected with Americans living here, or us coming and going; any "American" traits here are still Canadian, IMO, even if someone from Ontario or the Maritimes think something we say or how we say it is more American.  Or, as someone from T.0. put it once, when I'd said a-tpyical instead of ah-typical, that we sounded rustic or hick or something to that effect, and there were other words he remarked on that we pronounced differently; and in an older version of the Canadian English page there was an edit that there were variations from the supposed Canadian norm in BC that "weren't really Canadian", by implication American; they were meaning the cowboy/redneck way of talking in the Interior and up the Coast and the North, and some of the Valley; a drawl, a twang, or whatever it is, but that's historical and built-in to the place since 1858, and in a big way, right through the 20th Century (a lot of media people, business people, educators, and so on are American expats, d-d's or not).  It's all British Columbian, if not "really Canadian"; if British Columbian accents aren't fully Canadian, but they're totally British Columbian.  That there's places here where people don't talk like Kingston or Ottawa or Yorkville or London ON, it has to do with who settled here and the fusion of accents and peoples that takes place here on a regular basis.  The Prairie provinces have their own range of accents and flavours and fusions that underlays the newer overlay of Newf and mock-Yank and transplanted T.O'er and New Canadians and such; so what the hell is standard Canadian?  There's a thing called Standard American, but it's only used in dialect coaching as a tool to "neutralize" non-American accents before local dialects can be taught; but there's no "standard Canadian" that I know of, except because of the growing homogenization of the media, and the controlled stylebook and pronunciation guidelines built into CBCers. Sorry to ramble; but about this World War II/Second World War thing; Bobanny's right; I almost reversed it but was going to come here and opine on it first; but someone else will reverse it at some point without asking, just as Lonewolf BC changed it in his own right; is there a stylebook emerging at whatever WikiProject Canada there is, and what if it's in conflict with any emerging stylebook, or local linguistic reality, that may exist in the "regions", otherwise known as the provinces.  The frontier here was rich with people from all over the world, just as it is now, and that "all over the world" included a lot of American settlers; American-sounding usages are intrinsic to the space and place that is BC; and as Bobanny and a few other people here know I'm opposed to the homogenization of the Canadian identity, as if that were singular or could ever be. --  Skookum1 08:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not really an expert, but I'm taking the word of some editors who seem to be Canadians with a special interest in military subjects and who have commented that "Second World War" is considered the proper Canadian term by Canadian historians, especially (or at least) Canadian military historians, while "World War II" (or "...Two", or "...2") is considered an Americanism that is sub-standard for scholarly purposes. (I gather that the same holds for other Commonwealth countries.) These are comments that I've run across, made where someone has changed the "Canadian" form to the "American" form in articles on Canadian military history.  Of course in informal usage, either term does just fine in Canada.  However, I figured that, in line with said comments, I'd change to the "proper" Canadian form for these Canadian subjects.  -- Lonewolf BC 10:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If a conflict does arise about which version belongs in Cdn articles, I'm think using Second World War should satisfy both sides. Bobanny 19:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm... I'm sorry to say that I don't think that piped link would help. It would appear in an article as simply "Second World War", so I don't see how that would satisfy anyone who wants to insist on "World War II".  Also, Second World War " redirects to "World War II", so piping the link like that would make no effective difference.  I don't see any need for conflict over this point of terminology, though. -- Lonewolf BC 20:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming that the issue is precision rather than preference and that if your edits get reverted, the motivation would be because the article is named "World War II." I'm also under the impression that there's some technical reason that makes it preferable for wikilinks to link directly to an article rather than via a redirect. But yeah, I can't imagine anyone getting too worked up over this; besides, there's enough actual conflict on Wikipedia without worrying about ones that haven't happened yet! Bobanny 23:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The guidelines given in WP:R are of some worth here, I think. In short, valid redirects are nought to worry about.  Anyway, enough about all that.  Cheers.  -- Lonewolf BC 02:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Trudeau's choice of Bertha Wilson for the Supreme Court
Hello Lonewolf BC. On the page for Pierre Trudeau, I had added a brief comment beside the listing of Madam Justice Bertha Wilson: "the first woman appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada." I added it because this was arguably Mr. Trudeau's most important Supreme Court of Canada appointment. At the very least, the appointment made history. You have seen the need, however, to delete this historical reference to (as you say) "trim needless information." I can't argue with your other edits of this section, but there are many people who would be interested in knowing that the Prime Minister took this (for 1982) unprecedented step to have a woman on the Canadian Supreme Court. I think Mr. Trudeau's made history here. Would you not agree that the phrase "the first woman appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada" could be added back to the Pierre Trudeau article, or do you maintain that it's needless information? Que-Can 15:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that, although it is somewhat of a distinction for Justice Wilson, it is a slight matter with respect to Trudeau. So I would expect it to see it get passing mention in her article (which it does), but no, I don't think this is the place for it.  I don't think this appointment reflects much on Trudeau at all.  I doubt that he chose Wilson for the purpose of appointing a woman, but assume that it was on her qualifications.  The appointment was scarcely a radical step by 1982.  Women in Law were old hat.  Woman judges were old hat. Some had reached the heights where they were considerable for appointment to the Supreme Court.  It so happened that Trudeau picked one.  This has very little to do with Trudeau, who merely happened to be Prime Minister at the time.  So I really think it does not belong in Trudeau's article, and that including it therein has false implications about the appointment. -- Lonewolf BC 20:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC) (P.S. I shall copy this to the article's talk page, as the input of other editors might be helpful.) -- Lonewolf BC 20:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello Lonewolf BC. Thank you for sharing your perspective on how the appointment of Justice Wilson may have been received by the public in 1982.  I recall the appointment, and I thought at the time that it was significant to have a woman on the Supreme Court, but it would be interesting to review the media coverage at the time, and how historians view it now.   Indeed, the decade from the mid-70s to the mid-80s was a time of historic firsts for women in Canadian public life: first woman Speaker in the Senate, first woman Speaker in the House of Commons, first woman on the Supreme Court, first woman Governor General ... and later, first woman Premier (1991, in B.C.) and first woman Prime Minister (1993).  It may not have been a "radical step" by Mr. Trudeau to appoint Justice Wilson, but it was certainly long overdue to have a woman appointed that esteemed position. Que-Can 04:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Sprotect2
Is the Sprotect2 template meant to be invisible? It seems to have content that is meant to appear on the pages it tags, when I look at that by using "edit" (I didn't change anything, or even save, but just looked), but is not visible on any of the pages it tags, at least among the ones I looked at. -- Lonewolf BC 22:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not invisible. See the top right corner where there is a lock Image, it links to the policy page. Tell me if you still don't see it. semper fi — Moe  22:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh. Yeah, I see it now. I guess my monitor is slightly out of adjustment; the lock icon is was half out of view, at the edge of the screen. I think a better place for the icon would be just to the right of the article-title. I don't know whether that is possible. Either that or make the icon bigger. It's too inconspicous as and where it is (even aside for my monitor-adjustment problem). Cheers. -- Lonewolf BC 23:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know if I can adjust to it to where it will reach the article's name or not considering the length of every articles name is different. I will however increase the size a little to make it more noticeable. Cheers! :) semper fi — Moe  23:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Review
Hi. You asked me to review your interaction with Chris. I honestly think you over-reacted to his attempts to discuss the topic on Talk:Mister Rogers. I don't think you have done anything particularly bad, but I think you do sometimes have a tendency to be brusque which will come across as harsh to some. I also think you should remember to distinguish between another user's actions which you may or may not like, and that user's right to do certain actions. In this case, Chris was acting as an admin, and being an admin does lead you of necessity into dealing with conflict. I see that you don't agree with certain warnings he has given you. You should beware of jumping from that to accusing him of being unfit to do his job. As to erasing warnings, it is a contentious area and I believe consensus nowadays is that you have the right to erase or archive warnings after reading them. They remain, of course, in the page's history. However, I think you should either let them stand as written or erase/archive them. Changing the headings in the way you have may look confrontational. Finally, I think you should ask for a second or third opinion on things sooner the next time. You are obviously both very intelligent and talented people, and dealing with your conflict in this way has led to a lot of essentially wasted energy, as it has led to no improvement in the encyclopedia. I suggest you refrain from interacting for a few weeks, cool off, and try to learn something from what has happened, as I'm sure Chris has as well. Best wishes, --Guinnog 04:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Jonestown, Demerara
Hi Lonewolf BC! Thank you for your contibution. -- Electric Eye  ( talk ) 05:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, back at you. It was a WP-novice's honest effort, and predictably flawed in some ways. Nevertheless, it is, I believe, a good example of one sort of thing that Wikipedia should do, which conventional encyclopedias cannot.  That was my thinking in contributing it, at least. I plan to chip away at it some more, eventually. -- Lonewolf BC 01:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Given the ease of possible confusion with the Peoples Temple settlement, do you not feel it best to establish right away, in the lead of this article, that it has nothing to do with that settlement? Mwelch 07:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that is not the best placing for that information, for two reasons. Firstly, the piece is so short that the information is "right there", anyhow.  Secondly, as information about Jonestown, Demerara, it is really just an interesting aside.  Consider, also, the great unlikelihood of someone coming upon this page accidentally while seeking the "Jonestown" article. -- Lonewolf BC 15:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Robert Gray (sea-captain)
First off, thanks for improving the Robert Gray (sea-captain) article. However, your last edit is entirely inappropriate. If you have questions about the content of the article, you need to take them to the talk page and make them there, not in the article itself. The only time HTML comments are to be used are when you are leaving instructions for other editors. I have reverted this edit and encourage you to repeat your questions on the talk page. --Bobblehead 00:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No worries -- although I mean that in two ways: Firstly, I'm not (much) bothered that you reverted the edit, and I see your point. (At least I think I do.  Your objection is to my use of in-text comments that appear to an editor like so: "... article-text, article-text, article-text  article-text, article-text..."; and is not to the substance of those comments.  Right?) Secondly, your calling the edit "entirely inappropriate" seems like rather an overstatement, especially given that it included a number of other things besides the comments.  The comments were mainly just my way of "making notes" to myself on the various content problems I found while I was in the process of making the other edits.  It's a big PITA trying to keep track of such a number of problems of that kind, while going about something else, so I just "marked" them each, the better to take the lot to the talk-page, afterward.  Um... You do understand that those comments are invisible to a reader of the plain article, and only show up in editing-mode, don't you?  Now that I come to think of it, if you didn't realise that were so, then that would very well explain what I take to be somewhat of an over-reaction on your part. Anyhow, I can fetch all that back out of the article-history any time, so all is well -- except for the loss of the other edits I made at the same time, but I can re-instate those without any huge trouble. If I've not rightly understood the nature of your objection, please straighten me out on that. -- Lonewolf BC 01:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I did do a bit of a throwing of the baby out with the bathwater action with reverting in that the revert did undo edits beyond the editorializing. I'm also aware that the comments are not visible to viewers of the page, but they are visible to other editors of the page. However, that being said, a suggestion would be to create a subpage for the article in your userspace and adding your commentary there if you're just using the comments to leave notes for yourself for future changes.  Then once you're done with the rewrite of the article in your userspace, copy and paste it into the existing article.  If you aren't sure how to create a subpage in your user space, just select the following link and create a page.  User:Lonewolf BC/Robert Gray (sea-captain). If you do go that route, you'll want to leave a comment on the talk page saying that's what you're doing. --Bobblehead 08:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Rather much baby for the amount of bathwater, at that. ;-) I'd actually forgotten how much other work I'd included in that same edit.  But that's okay; I rescued it from out of the page-history, without over-much trouble. I'm not going to put back the intercalated remarks, in consideration of your objection to them, but I honestly don't see that they were a problem -- unorthodox, yes, but not unsuitable under the circumstances.  I would not have done likewise in a busy article, but scarcely anyone else is working on this one.  I know that the remarks were visible to other editors (as against readers) of the article, and that was actually part of their purpose, besides as notes to myself.  I figured they should be good aids to any discussion on the talk-page, as points of reference and as in-context statements of the perceived problems.  Therefore, I cordially disagree with the target of your revert (leaving aside the matter of collateral damage).  But I don't propose to fight about it, either, so if you don't see my point (or do see it, but nevertheless still think the comments were a bad idea) then let's forget about them. In any case, thanks for your suggestion of making a user-space sub-page, and for saying how.  I think I might do that, and am glad to know how to create such a page, anyway. -- Lonewolf BC 08:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Invitation to join
Hi Lonewolf BC. Seen your name before but seeing your intensity on the Robert Gray stuff I'd like to invite you to join the BC Wikiproject. Seems like your help/collaboration on early regional history is a valuable resource and has depth; not sure what your other interests are but I'm collaborating with User:NorCalHistory on History of the west coast of North America and (likely) a roster of wrecks for Graveyard of the Pacific (which originally was written only in the USA centric context of the Columbia Bar.Skookum1 04:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for joining!! (and fixing my bad link). Just so you know, the usual discussion page is the talk page for the project is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Columbia; I'm not sure anyone else will see your post on the Members page (you were the first there, as you probably noticed).Skookum1 02:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

BC WikiProject Userbox has been made
Made a stab at a userbox; check 'er out: Template:User WikiProject British Columbia (use ). Fudged around with the colours and borders for a while, tried to use colours taken from the dogwood but wound up blue-adjusting the background, not quite happy with the bkgnd colour but it's better than the grey-transparent on the Vancouver userbox. Trying to think which stubs are needed; I think one for mountain and moutain range stubs (there'll be hundreds of these...), though the dogwood won't do for that; could use it for parks stubs, though, no? There's already a protected area stub that has a thing from the US Southwest on it; might as well replace it with the dogwood (d'ya like the dogwood? It's from Wikimedia Commons...I thumbed it down though). Trying to remember which other stubs are needed....bio-stub I guess for biographies, I'm thinking one for communities/settlements, have to think what else. Suggestions?Skookum1 02:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That looks fine. I guess I'd lean toward using the coat-of-arms, for members of the project, and perhaps use the dogwood for some natural-history topics within it.  Organising this sort of thing is not quite my line, though with all respect for those whose line it is.  So I hope you'll forgive me if I mostly leave you to it. Best regards, Lonewolf BC 07:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Opinion requested - PSAC title
Hi. Please see and  re the best/preferred name for an article on Puget's Sound Agricultural Company (that's my own pref).Skookum1 00:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Ann Coulter wording
I didn't check the history and reverted from your wording of "which latter..." with a comment suggesting that it's an error. I'm sorry. I admit that I'm probably flatly wrong. Your alternative might be grammatically correct. However it looks wrong to a lot of people. The fact that three editors spontaneously revised it should tell you it's awkward. Please leave it alone. Thanks. Cool Hand Luke 07:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

BRD
I notice that you have reverted my attempt to revamp the Ann Coulter argument. I appreciate that you may disagree with the totality of my edit. I welcome you to discuss it on the talk page of the article. Thank you. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 20:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Um... yeah... the article talk-page. That would've been the place for you to begin... What does "BRD" mean? -- Lonewolf BC 20:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:BRD. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 20:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm... Interesting technique. I'd not have bitten off so much at once, were I you. Lonewolf BC 20:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ann Coulter CSPAN source
Thanks for reading the talk page and adding a source. This source can't stand either because it's a blog, but I have no intention of editing the article again. Cool Hand Luke 02:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

More Coulter
I'm sure Kizzle did not want the removal to be a secret (I certainly didn't want to hide it). Kizzle realized that you may have taken my post differently than it was intended, (turns out kizzle was right) and that it may sidetrack the discussion. FTR-- I am not angry with you personally for proposing a change to the text, it is your right as Wikipedian to do so. What annoyed me was that it appeared to me that you were simply trying to edit around consensus, while ignoring the consensus. And since you appear as a red name, I wrongly assumed you were not aware of the ADR procedures, or consensus. BTW-- You may want to create a userpage, so that other's wont assume you are a recent addition to the community. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 23:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Canada and the Vietnam War
Hey, thanks for your work on the article. A thorough copyedit was long overdue. - TheMightyQuill 21:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You're most welcome, and thanks back to you. I'm always glad to contribute, and am never sorry also to I get some appreciation for my trouble. -- Lonewolf BC 05:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Pierre Trudeau
Please do not remove valid tags with odd edit summaries. I hardly think that my adding an unsourced tag qualifies as bias. Frankly that section has become rather contentious over the last few days with an editor adding a lot of OR material. So I don't really see how asking for a source for a section that makes wquite a claim is in fact bias. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Your tag was "by-catch". Sorry for my oversight. On the other hand, you might have guessed, and so avoided writing to me about it with unfitting assumptions and tone. -- Lonewolf BC 17:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the tone. I had received email from that user along with some other users about different things and was in a bad mood. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No worries. Let's both be more careful, but we're only human.  Best regards.  -- Lonewolf BC 21:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep. One of those things. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Halifax
I noticed you reverted my edits replacing the statistics for population, etc. You should be aware that the stats are a Stats Canada conglomeration of the urban core of Halifax and Dartmouth and outlying areas of the former county - they are not representative of the former city of Halifax pre-1996 boundaries.Plasma east 02:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I reverted your edits because they were pushing the point-of-view that "Halifax" now means HRM, and that Halifax, the city, has ceased to be. Specific correction of the population figures for Halifax, without implication that there is no longer such a city, is fine by me, and last time I looked at the article that seemed to have been seen to. -- Lonewolf BC 19:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Page protected
I've protected the article to give you guys some time to cool down. You are both good editors and skirting that close to being blocked for 3RR over what is in the disambiguation header is not cool. Blocking both of you does not allow you to discuss the problem so go to Talk:Halifax, Nova Scotia and sort it out. Don't come to my talk page and try to discuss with me the "correct" version because I don't really care what it says. This identical notice has been posted at User talk:WayeMason. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

RFC
Please review Request_for_comments and write a short argument summarizing your view in the RFC section at the top of Talk:Halifax%2C_Nova_Scotia, so that you can make sure you are adequately represented at this stage of our ongoing dispute. WayeMason 02:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notice. Actually, I your message came while I was composing that, so I read your notice only after I'd already given my comments.  As you'll see if you read them, I think we have merely been misunderstanding one another, and that our seeming disagreement was illusory.  I really hope that is so. -- Lonewolf BC 02:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Good. If you and I can come up with a consensus means to go forward on this issue, then I am sure everyone else will back it.


 * First, a bit of history... reason I chose the name "Halifax (former city)" when I migrated the info to Halifax Regional Municipality was to try and avoid the confusion we are now in.  It seems to have been a mistake, in terms of clarity, though the over-riding concern at that time was that it didn't make sense for the City of Halifax article to disappear, for historic reasons.  However, since then we have made a A+ quality History of Halifax article, so I am less concerned now.


 * I also agree that the urban area of Halifax RM needs to be identified in the whole mess that is HRM, but there are several different ways to do this.   I am not convinced that we need a separate article for this, because as much as it gauls them, HRM basically functions as a city with a rural, er, fiefdom, the rural parts just don't count for much with the municipal govt.  We also have nice articles at Mainland Halifax and Halifax_Peninsula, and the Bedford, Nova Scotia and Dartmouth, Nova Scotia articles were well on the way to becoming good articles about the former city and current area of HRM before I tweaked them the last few weeks.   Clarity is not helped by the Province using the term "Metropolitan Area" for former cities, when Statscan and Wikipedia use the term for the whole urban area!


 * Finally, I do think that legally the capital of Nova Scotia is now HRM, as in all legislation revised or written since 1996 the House refers to the whole area of HRM, not Halifax, or Dartmouth.   Interestingly there is no legislation at all that DECLARES the capital of Nova Scotia one way or the other...


 * So, options. The root of user confusion is Halifax, Nova Scotia vs Halifax Regional Municipality.  Secondary is defining the difference between the urban area and the rural/urban split.   I saw a statscan figure of 270K for urban Halifax.  Unfortunately the Statscan community profiles are down right now.   Anyway, the way I see it is we can create a substantial section on the HRM page discussing the difference between urban and rural, and have both figures in the introduction (380K and 270K) or we can write an article on Halifax Urban Area.   We can strengthen the planning area articles, and especially strengthen the Halifax Peninsula article.  Mainland was not annexed by the "City" until 1969, and Mainland isn't even considered urban by HRM.   I think that in the definition of a city one includes suburbs though, so if we did a map of HRM showing Halifax Urban Area, I think the article needs to talk about the urban core, teh suburban area, and HRM.


 * Anyway, very long winded, I have to go help the wife with easter dinner, but basically, I propose we forward HRM to Halifax, Nova Scotia.  We put the HRM article on the Halifax, NS page.  We take the copy from Halifax, NS that is there now and put it into the HRM, History, Mainland and Peninsula articles as appropriate.  We re-write the intro to the new Halifax formerly HRM page to say something like, Halifax, Nova Scotia, legally known as Halifax Regional Municipality and often referred to as HRM, is the capital of Nova Scotia and we make it so the first or second section of the article is a clear, concise summary of what the RM is, urban, suburban, rural, city, not. Lets hammer out a compromise and giv'er as we say out east. WayeMason 15:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Have you lost interest in resolving this issue? If so please indicate that so we can move on with a consensus solution. WayeMason 09:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Dead links
You recently removed an external link from the Mister Rogers article. Before deleting an external link, see if you can repair it. You might be able to find an archived version. (Note that if a reference link is dead, it is handled differently.) &mdash; User: (talk) 00:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:pnc nominated for deletion
See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:pnc for the discussion, which will certainly spill over into larger issues. Your thoughts would be appreciated. --Kevin Murray 23:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

About talkpage warnings
Generally speaking, you don't have to restore warnings deleted by an editor from their talkpage as you did here. There is no policy at this time that states editors need to keep warnings on their talkpage. Deletion can be seen as confirmation that the editor has read them.--Isotope23 16:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Your userpage
If you don't want a userpage (which is fine) may I suggest redirecting it to your talk page, as mine is? It has the advantage of preventing vandalism, giving you a blue link on talk pages, and easy access to your talk page. You don't have to of course, just a suggestion :) Petros471 16:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a neat idea. Thank you for it, and I might use it at some later time.  I find that staying red-linked has the advantage of making myself easier to pick out in page histories and such, though, so I'll stick with what stands, for now. -- Lonewolf BC 02:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Monarchy in Canada
The source actually shows that one academic finds the designation that everyone else uses (Personal Union) somewhat problematic. The most relevant line is already quoted on the talk page. It was some time ago, when the issue of sourcing the statement first came up. Cheers. Wily D 20:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It would made far better sense for the reference to have been added to the article back when it was found, rather than effectively putting it in the talk-page. But no matter now. -- Lonewolf BC 21:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * On this point I believe you're right. That would be my bad, I suppose.  Cheers, Wily D  21:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Mariam83 talk page
Lonewolf. Please try to avoid any further confrontation w/ this user like reverting back her talk page. She is free to keep her talk page blanked. We are already dealing w/ the situation. Thanks. -- FayssalF  - Wiki me up®  07:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No worries. I intend nothing further.  Frankly, I don't see that there's anything to lose, though, because that person is irrational, impossible and incorrigible, and should have been permanently banned a long time ago -- like around the time she first referred to disagreeing editors as "frustrated niggers", or some such.  (And this is coming from someone who shares her poor opinion of "Afrocentric" ideas.)  Were it up to me, the ordinary right-to-blank would not apply in such an extreme case, either -- certainly not to the sock-puppetry tag.  Anyhow, I leave it to you folks to deal with her.  I just hope you don't let her worm or beg her way out of it. -- Lonewolf BC 07:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Berber people
Hello. Yes I understand now, okey i will not change the Berber people article anymore (: thanks. Nochi 07:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Cranmer
I have been asking for somebody to give it a once over for weeks. Thank you for your help, esp. in light of the article's FAC status. -- SECisek 22:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You're welcome, and thanks for the thanks. -- Lonewolf BC 02:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

List of palaces & Rideau Hall
(In reply to this. -- LW) That's quite alright. I've since did more edits to List of palaces and to Rideau Hall. Hope it helps resolve things. GoodDay 19:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for arbitration
You have been named in a request for arbitration at Requests_for_arbitration. Jonathan David Makepeace 00:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Cunningham
Thanks for clearing it up or attempting to. The whole thing is subjective and as such is down to personal opinion. I will keep the article as it currently is, only years covered by World Wars will be linked. Also is there any current guideline on World War one/World War I or is just personal preference again. I personally don't mind either way i just used the one that is not a redirect. Thanks for your help. Woodym555 18:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Please vote!
Hi, Since you've been involved in the recent discussions at Talk:Commonwealth Realm, your vote would be appreciated on this proposal. Thanks. -- Hux 10:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Passport
If your 'recent' edit (restoring the British monarch section, with modifications) doesn't get reverted, it's acceptable. But, if it gets reverted or changed back to Elizabeth II, then 'delete' (we don't need a 'keg' in the article). GoodDay 16:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was about my thinking when I added back the revised version of the section -- except that I've asked to be asked to self-revert, instead, so as to make any such elimination less edit-warry. -- Lonewolf BC 16:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's cool. GoodDay 18:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Vote on decapitalizing Commonwealth R/realm
A vote has been called on the decapitalization of "r" in "Commonwealth R/realm." Jonathan David Makepeace 01:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

G2bambino & his previous usernames
Now that you've raised the matter, you should know that Gbambino06 is Gbambino; I requested that the latter be changed to the former, and this was done. I'm really at a loss, though, as to why you keep mentioning my previous user name. Are you trying to implicate me in some way? Is it imperative that others know the name by which I used to edit? I did change it for reasons beyond Wikipedia, and I trust that you will respect that now you are aware. --G2bambino 01:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that the whole of your editing history (or anyone's) ought be plain to other users, not hidden. That is all. -- Lonewolf BC 02:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia users can legitimately request that previous account names be altered; I went through this process and it was approved of and completed by admins. Again, I did this for a reason. I'll ask that you not present my previous user name again. --G2bambino 02:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You went through what process, exactly, and when, and with respect to which of your name-shifts? What admins handled it? -- Lonewolf BC 04:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you honestly feel it's necessary for me to answer you on these questions, or that it's even pertinent for you to ask? I'll provide you with this much: WP:CHU. I need not divulge any more than that. --G2bambino 14:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Given that I've asked the questions, plainly I do think it needful that you answer them. Please don't waste my time with evasions.  Your request is, on the face of it, unreasonable.  Unless you can show to me good cause why I should grant it, the answer to it is no.  The purpose of the questions is to allow me to judge that better.  If you prefer to yield no further information, so be it.  I will act in accordance with what I have, and as matters stand I can see no legitimate reason why your full edit-history should be obscured.  Don't bother trying to argue with me that I should do as you ask, based on what you've said so far.  It's not your call. -- Lonewolf BC 22:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Section Edit Buttons
(The below was in response to a post of mine on GoodDay's talkpage.-- LW)

It must be a Wiki glitch, my page has been like that for the last 2 to 3 days. Also, after I sign in, I don't get 'returned' to the page I signed in on (I have to 'click' onto page myself, to 'return' to that page) and After I'm 'settled in' my cache doesn't show I'm signed in (yet it shows I am on other pages, and later show it on the original page). Must be a glitch, I wasn't aware others noticed the 'edit button' problem. GoodDay 22:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I've brougth the 'glitches problems' to the Help Desk. GoodDay 23:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope you get that sorted. Cheers. -- Lonewolf BC 00:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Got the 'edit buttons of section' fixed. It was the HockeyNewsletter that was causing that trouble (I've since 'removed' the Newsletter'). Thanks for pointing out the problem (I didn't know others could see it). GoodDay 01:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Take care, and hope to "see" you around. -- Lonewolf BC 01:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Responding to your 'Rideau Hall' question - I still have the article on my watchlist (watching you guys' progress), I plan to participate in a 'consensus vote' (if one is held). Anway, I'm still watching (just not discussing or editing). GoodDay 21:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Passport II
Hello Lonewolf BC, get you nuke gun ready (just in case). GoodDay 23:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Lightmouse
I see your interaction with Lightmouse as far more problematic than anything he is doing. Your edit summary "rv illicit datelink stripping campaign" is simply ridiculous. Lightmouse, it seems to me, is trying to improve the encyclopedia. In using such an uncivil edit summary, and in making blind reversions (something that is normally reserved for dealing with vandalism), you are in breach of several of our core values. Ask yourself if it is worth it over such a trivial matter, please. --John 18:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * John, I've never questioned Lightmouse's motives, only his methods. The edit-summary is simply descriptive -- it informs of the character of the edit reverted, by way of explaining why it was reverted.  This is neither uncivil nor ridiculous.  Neither was it a "blind revert".  (Myself, I think that your unwarranted uses of "ridiculous", "blind reversions" and "uncivil" are, well, somewhat uncivil.)  With all respect, I think you are wrong on just about every point in what you say above.  You seem to be shielding Lightmouse as he carries out a campaign for which people have been blocked in the past.  This greatly disappoints me in you, for whom I otherwise have a high regard.  I must wonder whether your disfavour for year-links is warping your view of the whole situation. -- Lonewolf BC 18:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. I don't think there is anything wrong in what Lightmouse is doing. The problem with the edit summary is precisely that it does assume bad faith on LM's part. If you believe he is engaged on an "illicit" "campaign" then I suggest you take the matter to a central forum. Personally I think you are reading too much into what he is doing. Whatever one's stylistic preference regarding linking year-only dates, I hope you would agree that they (along with other elements like country names) are way over-linked at present. Your message, with its assumption of bad faith, caught my eye, as I often remove excessive year links which add no value to articles myself as part of a copyedit. So far nobody has ever complained. I really think it might be better if you found another way to contribute than hassling another editor over their good-faith efforts like this. Of course it is entirely up to you. Finally I am sorry if you found my earlier message in any way uncivil, as that was not my intention. --John 18:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, I must differ with you: "Assume good faith" means, here, assuming that the aim is to improve WP. I don't assume otherwise about Lightmouse.  I'm sure that he sincerely, even fervently believes that his year-link stripping is a betterment.  The trouble is that other folk disagree, and he just ignores that and blows off anyone who complains.  He's even been admin-warned about it, but he just lays off for a while, then begins again.  (If you've never gotten similar complaints about removing year-links, that likely goes to show that you are going about things in a quite different way -- or at least on a smaller scale.) Again, there is no assumption, by me, of (WP:AFG-sense) bad faith by Lightmouse. Also, your description of my paying attention to this matter is distorted, not to mention officious. -- Lonewolf BC 19:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you found it officious. I found your message to Lightmouse rather officious too. Maybe we should both get on with something else if we're just going to rub each other up the wrong way like this. I sincerely and fervently believe that this is a collaborative project and trying to impose an individual's aesthetic values on it will be unproductive. This applies to you, me and Lightmouse. --John 20:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

year tags
Thanks for that. I'm glad you reverted Lightmouse's changes. I think he did the same thing to one of my other articles on petroleum history. I'll revert that, too. 23:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Canada
Could you add your two cents on Canada. The user in addition to pushing Tadoussac is making large changes to the lead. Regards, -- Jeff3000 22:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

DAB-page redlinks
You commented out the links in Robert Gray. This is not a standard practice and it is very difficult to fix the pages linked to disambiguation pages if the links are hidden by being commented out. I need to see the links to put the correct names with the pages. Please don't do this on pages I am working on. Stellar 17:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to say that I'm not sure what you are trying to say, beyond that you would rather the redlinks not be commented out. Keeping redlinks on disambiguation pages is against the MOS, and commenting them out, instead of deleting them, was intended by me as an allowance for your work in adding them.  If you're using the redlinks for some temporary purpose, I don't understand what purpose that could be.  How does having the redlink on the disambiguation page help to fix anything elsewhere?  If it's just a matter of seeing the names, as a list, you can see them in edit-mode.  I would gladly accommodate whatever you are doing by keeping the redlinks visible in the short term.  They should not stay permanently, though. Cordially, Lonewolf BC 17:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Just wanted to say thanks for catching the vandalism on my user page and reverting it. :-) Tim Pierce 13:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You're quite welcome. -- Lonewolf BC 16:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Jonestown & "cult", etc.
Hi Lonewolf. Happy to see you're trying to keep english intact in that strange dispute. I wonder if you could take a look at what sfacets has hacked out of the jt article. I put some of it back twice, some with sources and direct quotes, but he hacked it again. What can be done here? This is very annoying, and quite disturbing. He seems to be quite opposed to facts, wanting to reinvent reality (not just language) to be more palatable to himself. I'm new here. Please help.72.220.166.252 04:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

John A. Macdonald
I semi-protected it for 5 days. They might go on to something else. I think you should go ahead with the email as that's the way it's usually done. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Jonestown
Thanks for your message. I've taken a look at the situation and it seems the other user has misunderstood what you are doing as being vandalism. I have corrected their misunderstanding and recommended they take it to talk. I make the same suggestion to you. --John 20:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Wrong foot
It appears we may have gotten off on the wrong foot - largely my fault, I get carried away sometimes, and have been slightly sleep deprived over the past few days. Please accept my apologies for any annoyance - I don't usually over-react to edits. Looking forward to contructive collaborations in future. S facets 01:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Apology accepted. I hope that your foresight bears out. -- Lonewolf BC 01:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Canadian PM infoboxes
Hello, Lonewolf. I respect your objections to adding 'Elizabeth II and the GG'. However, could you please discuss it, instead of simply reverting. We don't need another 'edit war', do we? GoodDay 18:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not as though I haven't stated my case. The trouble is that G disagrees and would bull through the edit without consensus. -- Lonewolf BC 18:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've brought up the 'lack of consensus' at the talk page (comment further if you'd like). I'm just worried about the article getting locked. GoodDay 18:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Stop edit warring over the infobox or be blocked. Point me to the discussion about which type of box to use. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello Lonewolf, a consensus has been reached at Stephen Harper to include Elizabeth II on the Canadian PM bios (where required), as a result it's being applied. If you still object? Please take your objections to an Administrator. -- GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Halifax
I've attempted to make a first draft of a new Halifax, Nova Scotia article, in my userspace here. It's in a very rough-and-ready form, and needs a lot of tidying, sorting, and being made consistent, as well as a proper opening, before it's ready. But it should give an idea as to what I believe that article should contain. Your thoughts would be appreciated! Thanks, --RFBailey 17:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Royal Burial Ground (Gbambino's AN/I complaint)
As a courtesy, I am to inform you that you have been mentioned in a post at Administrators' noticeboard. --G2bambino 22:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Genuine courtesy would have been not to indulge in such devious, hypocritical tattling to begin with. The truth is that you made an edit-war by repeatedly making an edit that lacked consenus (and untimately failed to gain consensus). Then you made a meritless complaint against the two other editors who refused to let you have your way without your gaining the consensus you needed, accusing us of being "disruptive".  Disruption there was, sure enough, but you were its instigator and largest contributor.  Shame on you, for disruption and complaint, both. -- Lonewolf BC 04:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Commonwealth realm monarchies: re-ordering of poll on talk-page
Such changes should be discussed first. Then if it's accepted, your sandbox is preferred for such major changes - that way you don't get caught up in the middle of changes. Not to complain, but you did seem to come out of no-where with your re-organzition plans. They're good plans, but should've been presented first at talk page. I'm not upset, just caught off guard. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * With respect, I disagree. Re-ordering the poll was not a major change; I carefully carried it out so as to ensure both that it was lossless and wholly accurate, and that it could readily be seen to be so, from the diffs; and it was a manifold betterment.  The only thing I ought have done differently was to get the series of edits all lined up ahead of time (it needed to be a series, so that anyone could readily see what was done) and swiftly fire them off in order.  That would have avoided the complication of intercalated edits by others.  Considering all that, I think this was something that it was best just to go ahead with. -- Lonewolf BC 04:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, JK already explained it to me. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Commonwealth realm monarchies
The sections you have added twice to this discussion are unacceptable and certainly not normal. This is not a poll. Take a look at all the other discussions at AfD. None of them have these sections. I am going to revert them again. --Bduke (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Bduke is correct on this one, Lone. GoodDay (talk) 01:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Now that's just silly. Sections like that have certainly been used in the past, and they don't make the business any more or less of a poll. Unless there has been some decision that their use is forbidden, why on earth would you undo the sorting? -- Lonewolf BC 01:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't set the precedent for AfD constructions. GoodDay (talk) 01:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * My remarks were to Bduke. -- Lonewolf BC 02:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You actually put in a header called "Poll". This a discussion. It is not a question of counting "keep" and "delete" comments. I have just checked all day pages of AfD since last Friday. There is not a single one with sections. As an admin, I sometimes close AfD discussions. I have to judge the comments. Having them sorted like a vote does not help that process. --Bduke (talk) 01:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't try to lecture me about the nature of AfD discussions. As to the heading, I just set things up in the format I've seen before, which used subheadings of "Poll" and "Discussion" -- and AfD discussions are polls, to some extent, whether one calls them that or not; they just are not "pure" polls, where the outcome is simply a matter of vote-tally.  That's the same as for discussions in WP, generally: Opinions-tallies count for something; it's just that they are not all that matter.  Okay, you don't find it useful to sort the opinions, and it's not what you're accustomed to seing, but where's the harm?  Why undo the sorting unless it's actually forbidden, or you have reasons why it is positively detrimental (not just needless or unorthodox, in your sight)? Of course this is not terribly important, one way or the other, but you don't really seem to have thought your actions through. -- Lonewolf BC 02:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Excuse me for butting in again Lone, but aren't ya kinda getting into a dispute over nothing? The important thing is you've cast your (Delete/Keep) opinon. I've never heard of an edit war over how a AfD was set up. GoodDay (talk) 01:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Neither have I heard of such a thing. I haven't seen one yet, either.  And no, as I said, this is not terribly important. It is somewhat perplexing, though.  As for butting in, that tends not to be the most diplomatic action, no matter how well meant. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 02:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't want you to get into trouble with an Administrator. Thumbs up - for keeping your cool. GoodDay (talk) 02:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

British monarchy
I don't mind that you reverted my changing of a section heading (cause I'm not interested in a edit war, assuming one might occur), I am curious though, as to why you reversed another editors change (though, that's not my buisness). When the article itself is changed to Monarchy of the United Kingdom (you may have seen the spat with Tharky, quite messy), please don't revert it back to British monarchy. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * At the time of the edit of your concern, the article move-locked and entitled "British monarchy". Given that and the other circumstances the moment, I foresaw the article staying at "British monarchy" at least for some while.  I therefore put the lead back to accord with the title.  Had I known the article would be moved back to "Monarchy of the United Kingdom" so soon, I wouldn't have bothered.  The right form for the lead depends on the title, of course, so I would not dream of making the same edit while the title was, or is, "Monarchy of...", which you have mistakenly assumed that I did -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 17:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarifications. GoodDay (talk) 18:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Commonwealth realm
Please discuss your problems with the article makeup at that article's 'talk page'. Edit Warring is not the answer. GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Survey says?? - sorry, I couldn't help myself, Richard Dawson put me up to it. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Concerning the article Royal Burial Ground, Loner would you take your objections to talk: Commonwealth realm. If the RBG page gets locked again, it will truly be the lamest of the lame. GoodDay 20:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Please. GoodDay 20:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Royal Burial Ground
I've chosen to follow your 'Wallis example. I hid Princess Alice's Duchess of Gloucester title, since we aren't gonna show Duchess of Windsor. GoodDay 17:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Changed my mind, until the article Wallis, Duchess of Windsor is changed to Wallis. GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Politics of Canada
Hello Loner, I think you've breached 3RR. Try using the discussion page when you disagree with G2bambino. - Famous movie line What we have here gentlemen, is a failure to communicate - from the movie Cool Hand Luke. -- GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ann Coulter
Could you be more specific about what you see as "trolling?" RaulTheFool (talk) 15:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

British Royal Family

 * Thanks, but I don't think there it would be any help anyway. I broke 3RR on the 4th edit, the 5th I don't think counts, as its not reverting. But, perhaps its a good idea, if you'll change back. Thanks.--UpDown (talk) 23:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I did revert, but then when Doops, with good faith, made an edit I had to change that, it was very unnecessary. Anyway, there is now a 3-1 consensus on Talk (you, me & Charles), so any further changes should be discussed and agreed on talk first. Thanks.--UpDown (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked
I've blocked you for 24 hours for edit warring on Heterosexuality, when you return, please discuss all edits before further changing the page. I know you made the report, but you were clearly edit warring, and you shouldn't expect to be able to report a user and get them blocked when you have been doing exactly the same thing.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  02:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless I've counted wrong, I've only seen 3-reverts within 24hrs. GoodDay (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It was for edit warring, not just 3RR. He reported another for 3RR, yet had basically done the same thing himself - he was trying to game the system. It takes two to tango as they say. He violated the spirit of the policy.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  18:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I see what ya mean. GoodDay (talk) 18:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jean Chrétien
An editor has nominated Jean Chrétien, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

G2 & MC
I'm hoping to have G2's block shortened. I recommend both G2 and MC be put on a '2-week probation' concerning those Republican articles in question (shouldn't be allowed to edit those articles for 2-weeks). As the editor who reported G2, you're free of course to give your opinon. GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Re-opening debate on prime ministers' bios
A debate in which you took part some months ago has been reopened. The matter relates to whether the PM bios need to have a reference to the monarch reigning at the time the PM held office. You can rejoin the debate at User talk:MC Rufus. Thanks. - MC Rufus (talk) 05:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:Quizimodo
A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Requests for comment/Quizimodo. -- soulscanner (talk) 06:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:G2bambino
A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Requests for comment/G2bambino. -- soulscanner (talk) 11:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Care to co-certify ... you need only sign in the correct area. If there are other issues, you can add your own details to my explanations. --soulscanner (talk) 11:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The "co-certifier" must have been involved in the particular dispute. --G2bambino (talk) 14:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

PM infoboxes content
Seeing as the infoboxes issue has been re-opened at Canadian PM articles? Do you think I'll ever be able to get the Aussie PM infoboxes in sync? GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope. I've thrown in the towel on that idea. GoodDay (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: PM infoboxes
Hi Lonewolf BC,

Just to clarify something, a majority support or opposition is not, I repeat, is not consensus. Consensus is the general agreement of all editors, not just one or a few or even a majority as Wikipedia is not a democracy (even if most of us live in one or another form of it). From what I can see from this situation, there is no consensus to remove the monarch from the infoboxes, yet, at the same time there is no consensus to keep them there. I believe the best thing to do at this point is to maintain whatever was deemed the status quo until consensus is reached. I would also suggest either informal mediation or formal mediation to help reach a consensus.

IMO, for Wikipedia to work (or to get anything done for that matter) we should do what we Canadians (assuming that you are a Canuck, if not, I apologize) know best: compromise. That is the only way this is ever going to be solved. Both informal mediation and/or formal mediation will certainly help us find a compromise and reach consensus.

And btw, assuming a little more good faith than usual will go a long way.

Regards, nat.utoronto 18:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've followed Nat's advice and reverted our (yours and mine) changes. I don't know what the status quo is for Macdonald to Meighen. GoodDay (talk) 20:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Monarchy of Canada
Hello Lonewolf. If you've got a problem with the 'new' image? take it to the articles talk-page. Let's not have another edit war, please. GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Jonestown
It is one thing to dislike or disagree with how another editor has worded something. It is another thing entirely to completely revert to a version of an article over intermediate edits by more than one editor and use the rationale of "better writing." "Better writing" is, as I said in my edit summary, a POV issue and does not address in any way, shape or form what you specifically didn't like about it. Your action was arbitrary and rude in the summary. It then is an entirely different issue to accuse another editor of misuse of an editing tool, posting it forever in an edit summary. I decidedly did not misuse Twinkle or any other editing tool. Had I called your reversion over 3 intermediate edits vandalism, or simply ignored using an edit summary, then maybe you could get away with making unfounded accusations. Instead, it was assumed that your reversion was done in good faith, it was so stated in the edit summary and I explained why you were reverted. That is precisely why the option of reverting an edit with the Twinkle option of AGF is there. An unfounded accusation of misuse of tools is rude, incivil and is a very solid example of contentious behavior. In the future, please bear in mind that you don't own the article and in actions concerning others, remember the tenets of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF to approach things with which you don't agree in a spirit of collaboration instead of contention and confrontation. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "Better writing" was just a brief way of giving the reason for the revert. The full reasons were too many and individually too slight to put into an edit-summary, nor was there any need to go into such detail at that point in time. The edits concerned were merely various minor re-writes in the lead, saying substantially the same things, but in other words. It was perfectly legitimate to make the edits, which were made for reasons that can fairly be epitomised as "better writing". By the same token, it was perfectly legitimate for me to revert them, for the like reason. The proper next step, for anyone taking issue with the revert, would have been discussion on the talkpage, which would have been the fitting place to get into specifics about which ways of saying the same things were best. There was no cause for anyone to get upset about any of that. By contrast, your de-reverting was somewhat troublesome. As said, the right course at that point would have been to take the issues to the talkpage, not to revert the revert. Beyond that (though I might easily be mistaken about your motives), from your edit-summary you seem to have de-reverted not out of actual preference for the edits, but in objection to my reverting the lot of them without giving a more detailed explanation for doing so. With no disrespect to you, I believe that my edit-summary was quite adequate to the circumstances, as explained above. Moreover, whereas I thought (and maintain) that none of the edits concerned made the article better, it was legitimate to revert them all. With more extensive or substantial editing to the article, this might have been questionable, but not given the mere-rewording edits concerned here. For these reasons, I think that your de-revert was a misuse of Twinkle.  That is, because you oughtn't have de-reverted, it was a misuse of Twinkle to perform the de-revert with that tool.  However, I am sorry that my edit-summary to you came across to you as uncivil. It really was not meant that way. -- Lonewolf BC 00:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's unfortunate that you view my actions in that way. However, my summary was fairly explanatory and included my rationale - that your reasoning for changing three edits by two editors was POV, given your summary. That's a legitimate reason for a reversion. In fact, I do think the language in the revision prior to your reversion did flow better, with fewer breaks, however that's not particularly a legitimate reason since it, too, is POV. The accusation of misusing Twinkle is diversionary. As I said, the AGF function of Twinkle is there for precisely such situations. Unless you can point me to a guideline or policy that would indicate I misused it by asserting the assumption of good faith in reverting what I concluded and stated was a POV reversion, then it is an unfounded accusation. Had I used the rollback tool, that would have been a misuse, since your change was not vandalism. In any case, if you had viewed it that way, the proper thing was probably to have approached me via my talk page, as you nicely did in response. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Back up, there! You are totally misunderstanding the "POV" concept in Wikipedia.  "POV" means failure to maintain a neutral point of view -- in other words, bias in the article.  It does not just mean "a matter of opinion" about how best to write the article.  Here, we are considering different wordings to express the same content.  Which would be best is a matter of opinion, of course, but there is no "POV" issue because neither version is biased. You are right insofar as that your using TW to de-revert is not, finally, the point.  As explained above, your de-revert would have been problematic whether you used TW for it or not, and your use of TW was problematic because it was to make a problematic revert. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 06:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Commonwealth realms
Hello Loner. There's a new WikiProject in existance - if you're interested, join up. GoodDay (talk) 21:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Bangalore" vs "Bengaluru", again
Thanks. Have put forth my arguments on the talk page. - Max - You were saying? 21:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply on my talk page about moving the page back again. Regards, Dekimasu よ! 06:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Lonewolf, thank you for your efforts in bringing the page back to status-quo. Quite a few eager beavers we have down there, don't we? :-) - Max - You were saying? 10:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right welcome about that, Max. I was glad to do it -- though not glad it needed doing. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 20:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Canadian passport
Please stop removing credible cited information from the page. Thanks --Cameron (t|p|c) 16:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * First I would have to start. You are, of course, entitled to disagree with my edits to that (or any) article, but please take any such disagreements to the article's talkpage, and do not bring them here, especially not in a way that implies wrong-doing on my part. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

3RR noticeboard
Your dispute does not belong on that page; please take it elsewhere otherwise I will consider blocking both of you for disruption. You should at least agree, if nothing else, on a suitable venue. Thanks. -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 22:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah. Sorry.  Should have broken off earlier.  Being lied about can goad a fellow into responding when it is not the best course. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 23:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, but that board is for reports and "adjudications". If what you say about the other editor is true, appropriate action will occur. Meanwhile, have a cup of tea. -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 23:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I realise that. I should have known better than to respond. What I say about the other editor is true. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 23:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The point of 3RR is to stop edit-warring, and generally it's as hot as vandalism or page protection; however two days later is a little out of date unless the 3RR is still ongoing, in which case new diffs can always be added. All blocks are meant to protect the encyclopedia, not to punish wrongdoers. If it becomes long-term, of course, then a block for general disruption might be in order. You can always report that on WP:AN, or WP:ANI if it's reasonably current. Hope that helps. -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 23:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Vancouver Meetup Invite
Regards, Mkdw talk 21:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Jonestown: See Also
Please stop deleting all "See Also" you don't agree with (especially since most are directly and explicitly related by reference to Jonestown, while reversing all deletions you like. Especially without discussion.

Your extremely tenuous "see also" have been left up since this afternoon (for now), so stop deleting other more relevant (actually explicitly relevant, as well) additions. Mosedschurte (talk) 06:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Please discuss the editorial issue on the talkpage of the article, not here. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 02:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It's nice to be on the same side of the issue with you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm always glad to agree with someone -- though of course in this case doing so entails disagreeing with another one, sadly. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 02:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

MIA
Hello Lonewolf, how are you. Where are you? GoodDay (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Holy Smokers Lonewolf, where have you been (since Sept 1)? GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Rideau Hall & Template:ca-residence
Hiya Lonewolf. How's about taking your disagreements to those articles' talk-pages? By simply reverting, you're only gonna get those reverts 'undone'. GoodDay (talk) 14:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please take your objections to the respective 'talk pages'. Afterall, your reverts are only gonna get reverted back. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

PS: Knowing how eager you are, to discuss your objections to G2 & Roux's edits? I've opened up discussions at those articles for you. We await your input. GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please join the discussions, Loner. GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Your lack of communication there & sporadic reverts with no discussion?, isn't helping matters. In fact, it's becoming annoying (nothing personal). GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you are confusing "lack of communication" with not going round and round with the likes of G2, who refuses to respect his need to gain consensus for his edits. As for me, I've given my reasons, albeit by edit-summary. Kindly do not pretend otherwise. In any case, stop pestering me on my talk-page like this. A single courteous message, asking that I take part in a talk-page discussion, with no finger-pointing, is all that is warranted. This present conversation is now over. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 18:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As that's how you wish it? I'll respect your request. GoodDay (talk) 18:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that you rightly understand "how [I] wish it", nor why, but I will be content with an end to redundant messages from you -- four of them within scarcely more than half an hour was getting well out of hand. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC/U request
A Request for comment/User conduct has been initated here regarding User:Roux (formerly User:PrinceOfCanada). As someone wish past interactions with this user, you are invited to comment. --G2bambino (talk) 16:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Jonestown FfD
In view of your contributions noted here, please consider contributing at. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you know -- Missing Wikipedians
You have been mentioned at Missing Wikipedians. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)