User talk:Skeezix1000/Archives/2006/October

Yorkville, Toronto
Good move in removing that store section. I did some reverts there earlier today, and wondered why they needed to be listed. -- Armadillo From Hell 21:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:MontrealWindsorHotel.png listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:MontrealWindsorHotel.png, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 21:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

U.S. city convention vote
Since you left a comment in the "Not Yet" section of the city convention proposal, it has been revised to no longer merge U.S. with Canada. Please reconsider your vote here. --Serge 20:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

About what you left on my discussion page ...
The Donut and Doughnut thing. I DID read the discussion page. I DID leave a comment about it. Did you not see the comment I left? Perhaps you are the one who didn't take the time to view the discussion page. I saw no consensus on either donut or doughnut.

You continue to remove the criticism sub article. The red Friday part IS criticism. Perhaps the Toronto Star article about the rise of Tim Hortons as a national icon, isn't exactly criticism and I don't care if that part gets removed. But the Red Friday thing is, because it was direct criticism of Tim Hortons. I think the reason you continue to remove the criticism section is because you are obviously a Tim Hortons fanatic. You come on here, every day, watching that article to make sure it's exactly how YOU want it. It seems to irritate you that Tim Hortons is also in the United States, and you seem to enjoy making the article as pro Canadian as possible, and as anti American as possible.

Talk:Tim Hortons). Now as for the Tim Hortons and McDonald's discussion, that was my opinion on the matter, and I don't see the inappropriate sarcasm in that discussion.

User talk:Skeezix1000. That is my opinion on your edits of the Tim Hortons article. Your edits do seem biased.

I do NOT vandalize the article. You think it's vandalizing because it's different from the way YOU want it. As for the Yorkdale images and the comment, okay your right. I won't do anymore personal attacks over edits or upload copyright pictures.

I honestly can't figure out what it is with you. You seem to have a hate of my edits and anything I do on this website. You have even started researching on me and looked for my IP address on Wikipedia. In your view I am vandalizing. In my view, YOU are vandalizing. You are vandalizing the Tim Hortons article by continuing to remove the criticism section over and over again. You left it there for awhile, and then you just decided to dump the whole thing again.

Decimal10 22:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I am well aware that you left a discussion on the article talk page in respect of "doughnut vs. donut". What was inappropriate was that you attempted to circumvent an ongoing attempt to achieve consensus in respect of this issue.  Just because consensus has yet to be achieved, or may not be achieved, does not entitle you to ignore the ongoing discussion. As for your other comments, I again urge you to carefully review Assume good faith.  You seem incapable of having a discussion with any editor who dares disagree with you without engaging in silly accusations.  I am not anti-American, I am not "irritated" by Tim Hortons having American outlets (why would I possibly be iritated?), and I do not "have a hate" for your edits.  I also am not a "fanatic" for Tim Hortons (I don't even drink their coffee, and ironically, I am the one who added the Rudyard Griffiths critique and the current Red Fridays source to the article).  Don't you see the problem?  Even now, you are spending more time making accusations and personal attacks than in actually discussing the substance of the issues.  Please stop. By the way, if another editor disagrees with you, that does not make them "biased".  They simply disagree with you.  Stop looking for ulterior motives, and instead engage in civil discussion and canvass the views of other editors. In respect of the "criticism" heading, I have no problem with creating such a section -- in fact, the one time you proposed content that would be appropriate for such a section, I responded favourably (see Talk:Tim Hortons).  I left the heading in place for some time, on two occasions, to give you the opportunity to respond to the discussion on the talk page or to respond to the subsequent request made on your own talk page by another editor to explain you insistence on having the heading.   You never bothered to respond to either.  I am happy, however, that you now appear to be willing to discuss the issue, and appear to have read some of my earlier comments, or the comments of WilyD (and I notice that Stickguy has proposed a helpful alternative).  As for the new material on Red Fridays belonging in a criticism section, I don't think that I agree with you on that (it isn't ongoing criticsm, but rather a minor controversy that lasted a few hours in Pembroke, Ontario -- arguably, the information belongs higher up in the article, in the subsection on the Canadian military).  However, I don't feel strongly about it, and I will happily leave the issue alone if it will put this issue to rest. As for "researching" you, you should not be surprised when other editors investigate when you use your IP address to make inappropriate edits. Finally, I am happy to work with you as long as you stick to the substance of the issue and engage in civil discussion with the rest of us.  I generally have no problems with most of your edits (in fact, one time I took another editor to task for reverting one of your edits without having first responded to the concerns that you had earlier raised (see User talk:Sherurcij). Skeezix1000 00:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Re Tim Hortons
I'm with you for the most part, and I'll keep an eye on it – as time allows. &mdash; stickguy (:^›)&mdash; || talk || 23:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)