User talk:Skeezix1000/Archives/2005/December

Mindmatrix scam adminship
As fellow residents of this land, I feel it is my duty to employ my newly-granted priviliges to ensure that this politically unstable land may one day achieve a level of stability and functional governance that we all desire. To that end, please use the attached funds with the strictest confidence to accomplish this goal. (Yes, you're right, functional governance and Canadian politics is an oxymoron.) Thank you for your support. Mindmatrix 21:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Eaton Centre
That's fair enough. Toronto City itself lists the CN Tower as the top tourist attraction, but yes more tourists probably go through the Eaton Centre than anywhere else in the city (other than Pearson). Not sure it means the Eaton Centre is necessarily a tourist attraction though, but they do visit it. Ben W Bell 15:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Election candidates
Please stop listing election candidates on AfD. This issue is being discussed at Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates, which is a much better method than listing candidates one at a time. - SimonP 15:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I was unaware of Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates, as it does not appear to be mentioned in any of the other recent AfD's for Canadian federal candidates that I have seen. I welcome your advice, but do feel that the curt/lecturing tone of your post could have been avoided. Frankly, I don't care whether non-notable candidates are deleted or not.  I do believe that it's essential that there be some consistency, however.  I got beat up over at Articles for deletion/Michael Swanson for suggesting that candidate articles be kept, and that article looks like it's about to be deleted.  As for listing candidates one at a time, it doesn't appear as though any consensus has been reached at Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates, so I do not think that I have committed any error or breached any guideline in listing some non-notable candidates for deletion.  Each candidate is different, and their articles should be assessed separately (until such time as consensus has been reached that all "credible" candidates merit an article).  I note that the Siobhán Coady article has already been edited, and it looks like she is notable above and beyond her candidacy; that might not be the case for all of the articles I have nominated.  I just want to be helpful, but I am really concerned about this haphazard approach to deletions, where some articles are kept and others are not.  If Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates results in a new guideline, that's great.  Skeezix1000 15:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't mean to offend. The only reason Michael Swanson was deleted was becuase that article was a copyright violation. There have been a long series of Canadian candidates placed on AfD, and almost all of them have been kept. See for instance Articles for deletion/Niki Ashton, Articles for deletion/Barbara Warner, Votes for deletion/David Watters. Also see WikiProject Electoral districts in Canada/Neutrality, where there is some Canada specific discussion of these issues. - SimonP 16:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No offence taken. You're right that Michael Swanson was deleted because of copyright, but Uncle G disagreed strongly with the opinion that credible candidates merit an article, and took me to task for suggesting that we not delete the articles.  Then you took me to task for doing the opposite (so I apologize if I came across as easily offended).  All I believe is that we should do one or the other.  I don't want to get involved in some big battle over this, so I think I will just wash my hands of it.  But thanks again for the advice.  Skeezix1000 22:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I couldn't help but notice this little discussion and I would like to make a comment or two. I started the WikiProject Electoral districts in Canada/Neutrality but let it die down once Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates began. I strongly urge you to participate in the centralized discussion. It will take several months to complete but it will be worth it. Perhaps I can influence you a little...as you have noticed WP:BIO has not proved to be a panacea and has lead to contradicting afds. Eventually, every election will have hundreds of articles created for candidates that are famous for 15 mins then disappear. Anyone can create an article on Wikipedia, it is free and becoming more and more popular - it is free advertisement. We need a comprehensive solution. The one I like best is the mergist's solution which creates one article per party which lists a little bio on each candidate and redirects for the candidate's name to their place in the list. If they try to create an article then revert to the redirect, which avoids clogging afd. The list is much easier to monitor for vandalism and NPOV-fluff than hundreds of pages. For example, Green Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election. --maclean25 05:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will take a close look at the discussion in Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates, because I agree that there has to be a comprehensive solution. Skeezix1000 15:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality in dispute - A Response
I have wrote a response for your concerns related to certain sections of the RP article. Let me know your feedback, and I will change the sections accordingly. I would like to get the NPOV issue settled. Thanks. --Natkeeran 20:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for a thoughtful and detail response. I was perhaps too eager to expand the content that I did not put sufficient effort into crafting verifiable content. I will take your input, and try to rewrite the sections to be more objective. As you noted, some statements that are self evident to me, come across as very opinionated to a person not familiar with RP. Also, as you noted the items discussed are important to understanding RP, thus I would not agree to “nuke” the section as suggested by Nfitz. It will take some time for me to rewrite the section. If you want you can move that section to the discussion page until then. Or, you can modify the sections as you see fit, and I can add or modify it later. Once again, thanks for the feedback. --Natkeeran 20:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)