Ground Zero
See previous discussions at User talk:Ground Zero/Archive 2 and User talk:Ground Zero/Archive 1. Thanks.
I apologize
About the Prince Edward Island Draft Beer Party. - Stancel 17:15, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Michaelm
Those are pretty much my feelings as well. Thankfully, the period of conflict I've had w/ him over social democracy has come to a close, and frankly, I really don't want to get involved in another ArbCom case. I will of course offer you moral support, but I think the Canadian editors are best positioned to thrash out a solution. Oh, and you're welcome - thanks for your support, as well. Cheers, Slac speak up! 23:43, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Moderate Party
It was change because in the Sweden's wikipedia it was labeled as a conservative party (Konservativa partier) under Categories and thay stared to privatiz health care under that government in sweden and its International alignment is the IDU hear is some links [1][2] [3]
co-operative
I will be co-operative and reasonable and I just log on at 03:55 and I will work with you to billed a stronger encyclopedia with research. And I should not be so unilateral. I don't think Mediation or Arbitration is needed because I will be more then willing to help. If Mediation is need I will do it.Michaelm 04:48, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have responded at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Michaelm. Ground Zero 16:23, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In response to your comments on my talk page: I don't think nominations can be withdrawn. But I did say in my original nomination that it should be kept if re-written and all the voters have agreed, so its not going to get deleted. I guess the VfD just needs to be left to run. David Johnson [T|C] 21:59, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Queen's University, Canada article
Thank you for doing the edit to the article. I have since restored some points that you removed with clear attributation of opinions to the correct parties. I have not re-added the "reduced possible representation" point, although I am not sure that the point is obvious from the current article. I concede that the previous edit implied that the AMS decided to hold the vote to reduce representation; however, it is a fact that, by statistics, the possible representation of the population of students at the AGM is less than that of a school-wide referendum. Regarding "opt-outable"—I believe it is a fee category proper of the Office of the University Registrar.
I have no objections to moving the article to [[Queen's University at Kingston]]; however, I believe that is used to be there and was moved to [[Queen's University]] based on a policy that requires the most commonly associated meaning of a title be given the main title (and relegates the other articles to a dab page). —UTSRelativity 16:40, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments, UTSR. I had removed some points completely becuase they were clearly POV and I don't know enough about the situation to NPOV them. I had invited Arctic.gnome to revise the article, since s/he seemed to know about the situation, but got no response. I think there probably is way too much information on this incident that is realteively minor in the history of the institution, so I figured there was little harm in trimming it down. While "opt-outable" may be a word at Queen's, we're writing for a broader audience here, so we should try to avoid language that is obscure. To know what "opt-outable" means, you would have to understand that AMS members can opt out of certain fees. That is not something that everyone is going to know about, other than Queen's students and alumni.
- As far as the name goes, I don't want to revisit old issues. But the article is not called "Queen's University", it is "Queen's University, Canada". The first one, oddly, is a redirect to the second. I think tht it would make more sense to have "QU" as a dismbiguation page, and the "QU, C" article remnamed to "QU at K", since no-one ever calls it "Queen's University, Canada". To me, it makes more sense given the presence of two institutions of the same name to use their full names for clarity. Ground Zero 19:43, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I actually didn't notice the name. I agree that "QU, C" should be renamed to "QU at K", but I think "QU" should stay a redirect (to either "QU at K" or the dab page). I can't remember where the policy about dab pages is. As for the amount of material regarding the Queen's Centre, I think the information is relevant (we all know the "Wikipedia is not paper" argument). Perhaps as the Centre develops, it will warrant a separate article. —UTSRelativity 20:12, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I'd agree that the centre should get its own article, at least so that it doesn't unbalance the main article. I am not, by nature, a deletionist. Only when it comes to POV stuff. Ground Zero 20:48, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Chart
Hello, thanks for the props. I made the chart based on my knowledge of the parties that I have accumulated. I only know the Liberals for sure are correct, because that's where Paul Martin is located on the chart at the political compass site. [4] If you disagree with any of the locations please let me know on the image's discussion page. I have already made some changes based on what User:Liberlogos had said. I created primarily for the debate factor in actual fact, and hoped that we could come up with a concensus over where each party belongs on the chart. -- 
Earl Andrew - talk 22:04, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I see you points. It would involve some squishing of the images, but I think I could change it a bit. I didn't want the PCP out that far, but that's where I had room for it. --
Earl Andrew - talk 22:34, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
User page edit
Opps, I'm just used to seeing user pages with invitations to edit. Sorry. — Flag of Scarborough, ON, Canada UTSRelativity (Talk) 22:23, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- But if we can't edit your user page, how can we borrow some of those commas? ;) -Joshuapaquin 01:21, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Ummm... you've got me there. Jeez -- do you expect me to be consistent and everything? Ground Zero 13:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
BCDM
No personal attacks. I an offended that you would charge that this would be Spinboyopedia. --Spinboy 17:31, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I will withdraw that remark. Will you stop accusing me of using Wikipedia as a soapbox for a defunct political party? Ground Zero 17:32, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. An edit war occurs when two or more users begin repeatedly changing content—in a back-and-forth fashion—back to how they think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree with their changes. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. The best practice at this stage is to discuss the disagreements, issues, and concerns at-hand, not to engage in edit-warring. Wikipedia provides a page that details how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
![[4]](http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/images/internationalchart.gif){kind=link}
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Spinboy 17:34, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- See the article's talk page. --Spinboy 17:34, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I note that I did not violate the 3RR. The other editor in this dispute was removing content repeatedly without explanation. Ground Zero 18:09, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
And no, Spinboy never did apologize for his accusation, or for his repeated violations of Wikipedia etiquette. Ground Zero 19:56, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Rochdale College
Its a drag that you put the NPOV tag on the page but it probably needed it since one or more no-name editors are indeed trying to revise history, epsecially the Drug Culture section. Thanks for keeping an eye on the page and just wanted to let you know I revised the Drug Culture section once again but this time I used quotations from media sources and cited the sources so hopefully this will lead to the end of the disputes.
extreme article editing action!
GZ,
Thanks for for the good edits you've made to the Canadian Extreme Wrestling Party page -- I had planned on going back later and trying to make something of its atrocious grammar and mechanics later, but you beat me to it! -- — I. Neschek | talk 15:45, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What to make of this? Samaritan 16:38, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I'll try to tidy it up later today. Samaritan 18:28, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
- ...by the way (sort of), somebody seemed to be trying to put Prince Edward Island Draft Beer Party up on vfd the other day but were not following the procedure to do so or leaving any explanation, so I pulled it. Samaritan 18:30, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Bloc and such
Hello again. Thanks for your last message. First, on the sovereigntism thing. The question about the question(s) is a big debate... I will certainly not try to solve it with you now, since many have tried for many years, but I would point out that while the "association" after a Yes is uncertain, a "distinct society" reform after a No is at least as much uncertain and history has shown that it has twice been promised with little results and, for a *part* of the federalist side, with little true intention (Trudeau and Chrétien). Polls show that between status quo and sovereignty, people choose sovereignty, so there may be something blurry that the federalist side uses also. You bring about the example of the 1967 Tory debate on the Quebec nation subject. Thanks for bringing it to my attention; I will check on the article. I am aware of the fact that, in *that* time, the idea was less controversial. I believe Tommy Douglas, Robert Stanfield and Lester B. Pearson all recognized it (Pearson spoke of a "nation within a nation") but Canada seems to have become, since "Trudeauism", more weary about it. ...which is the opposite route of the United Kingdom, for example, that is less and less shy of recognizing Scotland as a nation.
So, about the vision of Canada of the said sovereignty movement, I will rephrase the question. Is it difficult (or has it been rarely considered) for Canadians to imagine that sovereigntists might not be motivated *first* by the idea that something went or goes wrong, or that they "hate" Canada (I certainly don't), but by the simple fact that it is normal and even necessary, to their eyes, for a human group with a "national conciousness" to have the national tool of a sovereign state to be better heard and recognized and appreciated by the peoples of the world, *including, first and foremost*, by their Canadian neighbour and (as fellow nation of the Americas) brother? ...and to be spoken to as equals? Canadians, who know about the hurt of identity crisis (I'm refering especially about Canadian identity vs. USA), can they not imagine how even harder it can be for a young Quebecer to be born in a nation for which her name and flag, even her very existence, is ignored (or held in contempt) by so many in the world; how it can breed the inferiority complex generation after generation? Fourty years after "French Canadian" has become obsolete (and even sometimes a term of insult), people in Canada, the US, or others, still use it, showing this rift between a non-sovereign nation and the world the lack of sovereignty brings about. As bad as Canada is unfairly misunderstood in the world, could we imagine a massive load of people still talking about Canada as, let's say, British North America? People like René Lévesque, who loved the English-speaking world, often presented his project as actually a *better* way for Quebec and Canada to eventually get along and respect each other, like, for example, the Scandinavian nations have better understood and respected each other after they were interdependent, but free. ...to *bridge* this rift I spoke of. I think the way many sovereigntists see things is this... Canada surely loves... Germany, for example. Does that obligate them to want to become the next German länder? I think many souverainistes see sovereignty not (to come back on the "marriage" imagery) as a divorce, but as a marriage to the world (and the current situation as the separation). In that way, sovereigntists are as much "separatists" (another word never used in Quebec but used profusely in Canada) as the feminists and suffragettes were, wanting to have "separate" votes and wanting to become "separate" individuals. That was not done in hate of the other (men, in this case), but in self-respect and hope of a better, equal relationship with this said other. What I'm trying to say with this is: I feel the source of the misunderstanding (and the horror story status sovereignty seems to have in Canada) is that Canada and Quebec think they are talking about the same thing but, unbeknownst to them, are not.
So now! About the small parties. No, I meant all parties really, past or present. About the créditistes, I think the expression "trials and tribulations" is right and it made me laugh at first read. When I think about it, their history is not that well known by younger people today, in Quebec. When they are spoken of, really, it tends to be to have a bit of fun about their questionable beliefs ("Don't have enough money? Print some more!") or about the illustrious and ineffable Réal Caouette and Camil Samson, and their singular public speech abilities. Now, have you seen or heard of the brilliant, brilliant documentary Le Confort et l'indéférence by Denys Arcand? It is a sharp analysis of the 1980 referendum campaign through the theories of Machiavelli. I suggest you rent it (subtitled, not dubbed!), if only to see Camil Samson show his speech (and screaming) talents. "It reminds me of the time when I was young and we used cheese in mouse traps!!!"... such are the allegories of the master poet. If I find more info on them, I will directly tell you but now, I don't see what I could teach you that you wouldn't know. If you have even more specific questions (like "when did this party disband"), I have a big dictionnary-like Quebec history book here that has lots of such information. *I* would ask you a question on the subject, though. Every time I try to read about the Social Credit ideology, I try to understand and end up shaking my head in incomprehension ans disbelief... ;) Can you explain how the Social Credit system is supposed to work? ...Regards. --Liberlogos 22:00, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
- Hahaha... Yes, yes, yes, I heard of the quote you speak of before; a simple marvel. I heard a Quebecois actor on a great talk show say once that, as a kid, their dad brought them to Samson's public speeches, but as if they were going to a humorist's show... About the rest of my message, I did not want to start an argument and if it seems so, I did not intend to... Let's not get into anything bitter. ;) I was only wondering if Canada can see the movement as something else than reactionary. And, on the other hand, I am not saying that the past should be whitewashed and forgot, but that it's not the main, base issue for a great number. With my respects, Liberlogos 03:23, 5 May 2005 (UTC).
Harp'd
I did laugh! But not reverting would just mean more work for someone else...
(Speaking of which, uh... if you're looking for work, there's still more to be done to improve Dalton McGuinty, I think.) Samaritan 21:54, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
United Farmers colour
Hey GZ... Well aware of the colour master list (I have it watchlisted)--you caught me a split second after I changed it while I was still editing the list. Quick off the mark, you are... =) -The Tom 19:46, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Manitoba election, 1999
My responses:
(i) I have no problem with your proposed approach. (ii) I've never seen the need for "% seat change" columns, to be honest. I have no opinion on how these should be managed. (iii) There was a mistake in your numbers -- the correct totals were 32, 24, 1.
Federal elections
Thanks for giving me the heads up and the kick forward. I've put in pulses of time on other stuff, but not the elections tables. I see you're working on them backwards. Excellent, I'll see how many of these I can do now. --Deathphoenix 01:29, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
- ... or maybe not. I'll see what I can do working backwards. --Deathphoenix 01:30, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Got your note too... funny coincidence I actually went to convert some today but they were already done. No worries, I got caught up and didn't get a chance anyway. - Jord 01:43, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Freedom Party
CJ, you're basing your arguments on things you found in the Freedom Flyer? I'm not sure that that counts as a reliable source. ;-)
- I probably shouldn't have laughed out loud, being in a public area and all ... CJCurrie 21:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
MPP not MLA in Ontario
I noticed that in several articles in Ontario politics you changed references from MPP to MLA. The acronym MLA is not used in Ontario politics. As far as I know it's never been used. The correct and legal term is Member of Provincial Parliament or MPP despite the fact that the provincial legislature is officially the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. This may not be consistent or logical but it is a fact;) AndyL 20:28, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Whoops, seems the term MLA was used until 1938. This still means J.B. Salsberg was an MPP, not an MLA, as he didn't enter the legislature until 1943. AndyL 20:38, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Quebec elections
Congratulations for boldness, and also for wise, well-applied boldness. Impressive work! --Liberlogos 02:56, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks very much, B. I'm glad that you like it. I am still planning to respond to your earlier comments about the National Question, but I really must take a wikibreak for a week and a half. I have been spending way too much time on this. Ground Zero 13:07, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Barnstar of National Merit
Thanks for your work on the elections tables and for picking up the slack when I got lazy. I've also noticed that you've contributed an amazing amount of material on Canadian politics, so I figured it is fitting that you be the first Canadian recipient of this award. Feel free to put this up on your user page (or not). --Deathphoenix 18:01, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you so much! It is so nice to be recognized! (I am officially on wikibreak right now, so I shouldn't be here, but I had to respond.) Thanks to you, too, for your work. Ground Zero 13:51, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
- You're welcome. You definitely deserve it. --Deathphoenix 21:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
National party
Is there a reason that the National Party's colour is green on Template:Canadian politics/party colours? I seem to remember black being their primary colour. Also there are already a bunch of parties using various shades of green, which doesn't look too great. See the 1993 resutls at Nepean—Carleton, for isntance. - SimonP 19:07, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
- I have pretty clear memories of green and white and black NP signs in Ottawa Centre in 1993, butu maybe that was just that candidate. I agree that the cluster of green doesn't help matters. I will post this discussion at question at Talk:National Party of Canada to see what others remember. Ground Zero 13:51, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
The United Federation of ...
Greetings! Thanks for your note; I'm seeking clarification about the best way to characterise Canadian political subdivisions in a summative way. The overview paragraph (and the entire article) are too long and verbose already due to such ... elaborations already. Your statement, as well, seems to imply that, although federally administered, the territories do not form part of the federation which is of course incorrect. It might be wise to state it as follows:
Canada is a federation comprised of 10 provinces and 3 territories
with details about their adminstration left for places where it is more appropriate. Moreover, consult pages concerning Australia, with a similar structure. Thoughts?
---
Hello again! I think any of the following will suffice for now:
Canada is a federation comprised of 10 provinces and 3 territories. (preferred) OR Canada is a federation divided into ten provinces and three territories. OR Canada is a federation comprised of 10 provinces and 3 federal(ly-administered) territories.
The territories should be noted, however it comes out in the wash. Thoughts?
---
Done!
The proper place to discuss this is Talk:Canada. Canada is NOT divided into 10 provinces, as though the provinces existed at the pleasure of and after the fact of Canada. --JimWae 20:53, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
Manitoba/Saskatchewan
If it's any consolation, you're in good company. Sort of.
Canadian Hansard, May 6, 2003:
Hon. Marlene Jennings:
<snip>
More to the point, the member also talked about how all the provincial
governments were opposed to the firearm registry program and gun control program. Why did he not mention the fact that the Alberta government actually challenged the Firearms Act? It went before the Supreme Court of Canada. All the other provincial governments, and I am not sure about the territorial governments, joined in, including his own provincial government of Manitoba. The Supreme Court in 2000 unanimously concluded that both the licensing and registration were tightly linked to Parliament's goal of enhancing public safety by reducing the misuse of firearms and by keeping firearms out of the hands of those who should not have them. <snip>
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where she was when I was speaking but I did talk about the fact this was challenged by the Alberta government and that legal action was taken. She can look at the record on this. By the way, Regina happens to be in Saskatchewan and not Manitoba. She said that I was from Manitoba.
Santa Cruz, Bolivia
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=santa+cruz+bolivia&btnG=Search+News —Cantus…☎ 20:54, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for the formatting change, that is much, much less cumbersome. - Jord 13:50, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks alot for your praise; I appreciate it. My goal is to reduce the length of the overview article to 32 kb without sacrificing anything; I've already reduced it by 2 kb, so I'm halfway there! As noted, the stuff I've removed is--or should be--in relevant subarticles. I think there's more to cull in the geography and politics sections of the overview article too.
On a similar note, the 'federally administered territories' was changed; why not just say 'federal territories'? This can still be better tweeked. Thoughts!?
Thanks again!
User:E Pluribus Anthony 12:30, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
i.e., "Canada is a federation of ten provinces, with three federal territories"? It works for me. Ground Zero 16:21, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
---
Thanks for your prompt reply; I didn't expect it so soon! I'm gonna go with the following: "Canada is a federation, comprised of 10 provinces and 3 territories." with links to the appropriate definitions. Remember: mentions of territorial administration appear again in the overview, and no doubt in the subarticles. I will change it and see what happens. Thanks! User:E Pluribus Anthony 13:45, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Comprised of" sounds awful. I much prefer the version I nopted above. I'll leave it for now, and see what others think. Ground Zero 17:07, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Senatorial divisions
I'm running to the biggest political geography nuts I know of for a hand here. I'm rather displeased with the article at Canadian Senate Divisions which strongly seems to imply Senate divisions are anything more than political ephemera that dance in the minds of Senators. It was anonymously assembled, and on further examination it seems someone called Cloveious is now putting together articles like Calgary Senate division which perpetuate the mistake on the first article and treat senate tags as if they were ridings--"created from" older divisions on certain dates, and so on. That definately seems VfDish. Just wondering if you had any commentary for the Talk page -The Tom 18:47, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Northern Alliance
Thanks for the compliments. I'd been thinking about writing an article on the group for a while, after the controversy on the Freedom Party talk page (if you haven't read my dialogue with Paul McKeever yet, consider it highly recommended).
On a separate point: Do you think it's appropriate to have a link to the actual Northern Alliance website? I don't believe it's formally banned under Canadian law (yet), but as a general policy I'm not certain that having links to de facto hate sites is a good idea. (Of course, the other side of the argument would be: how are people to confirm the information if they can't check the source?) Thoughts? CJCurrie 19:54, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think it's necessary to have the link. If people want to confirm your work, it won't be hard for them to find the NA site. I would be inclined to leave it out. I was wathcing your exchange with PMcK. I gather he's finally given up. You presented pretty solid evidence, and I think he's just embarassed. Ground Zero 19:58, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I think he was hoping for a quick victory by intimidation, and backed off gradually when he realized that wasn't going to work. I have to wonder if he even did his research on the party's history before taking it over. CJCurrie 20:19, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Capitalization of Headings
Hi GZ. You left me a message about cpzn of headings. I did edit the catergory, but those were not the changes I made. Why would it show edits under my name if I didn't make them? --handisnak 20:35, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks!
For providing the enlightening which vs. that explication that I stumbled across just now, which was illuminating. -- Seth Ilys 02:02, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I'm glad you found it useful. Fell free to copy it ot other places to spread the gospel of "that". Ground Zero 16:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for you compliment. I am also quite pleased with how Liberal Party of Canada leadership convention, 1968 is coming along and I'm thinking that I might try to get it up to featured article quality. Did you notice any areas that are still lacking? - SimonP 15:53, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
- I think you are well on your way. Citing the sources show the integrity of the text. I would suggest getting another regular editor or two to copyedit it to tighten the text a bit. User:Sunray might be one suggestion. User:CJCurrie does a lot of work on Canadian political history, and maybe another person to ask. Regards, Ground Zero 16:12, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- It also occurred to me that the article did not quite capture the phenomenon of Trudeau's popularity at the time, so I have added a comment about and link to "Trudeaumania". Ground Zero 16:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for your copyedits to the article. I have listed the article on Peer Review and any other comments you might have would be much appreciated. - SimonP 14:07, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
Decima
I've added a bit which I hope is satisfactory. Let me know if they are still complaining and it needs more work. - Jord 01:15, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
CFS/CASA
Can you consider intervening in the dispute between myself and Spinboy on the Canadian Federation of Students and Canadian Alliance of Student Associations articles? I think it's wrong to have an NPOV label indefinitely and it would be good to have a resolution and I'd rather not take Spinboy to Arbcomm if possible as otherwise he's a good editor, he just seems to have a fixation when it comes to these two groups.AndyL 15:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I would love to help because I believe that having a third-party mediator can be very useful. I am afraid that I can't be that person, though. I am not able to deal with Spinboy without my blood pressure going to a dangerous place (even though I do not typically have high blood pressure), and I do not believe that Spinboy would accept me as a mediator. I don't think that I would be any use in intervening on your behalf, either, because Spinboy repeatedly ignored anything I had to say on a particular issue. If interested, you can read about the set-to I had with him at the links below. This information may be of use to you if you lodge a complaint against him, and perhaps I could help you there. It would, of course, be better to resolve it between the two of you. User:Samaritan is, from my experience, a very calm and level-headed mediator.
- Talk:British Columbia Moderate Democratic Movement
- User_talk:Spinboy/Archive_2
- Wikipedia:General_complaints#British_Columbia_Moderate_Democratic_Movement
Sorry I can't help you more on this one at this point, Andy. Ground Zero 15:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Senate divisions
Thank you, thank you! :) - Jord 15:37, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- LOL I enjoyed your comment. You should note that I flagged Talk:Canadian Senate Division/Temp for a speedy delete, I hope that is ok. I am not much of a deletionist either, but sometimes it is necessary. Definately a pleasure to work with you to, feel free to call on me again if something like this comes up and I'll be sure to do the same :) - Jord 19:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I restored the links because the Grandville article is there and one could write an article laying out what their boundaries are. If you think we should keep it to the list article that you've created then I would suggest delinking Grandville as well as the others and nominating it for deletion arguing duplication with the List article. - Jord 17:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The Revert
I don't think our anonymous friend was (necessarily) upset with your name -- to judge from his other posts, he's a vandal, pure and simple. CJCurrie 20:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Trinidad and Tobago/Hedy Fry
I wasn't born in Tobago either, but I was born a a country called Trinidad and Tobago. It's more accurate to use the proper name of the country. Guettarda 18:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Hmmm.... you're right on this. Ground Zero 19:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
lots of edits, not an admin
Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list, although there is certainly no guarantee anyone will ever look at it. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:07, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Nicholas Bachynsky VfD
Just a minor bit of technical info for you: when you just want to provide a link to a category page, you should actually format it as [[:Category:Whatever]] (with an extra colon before the word "Category"). Otherwise it files the page in the category; your vote was actually causing the Nicholas Bachynsky VfD to file in the Buffy, Star Wars, Star Trek and LOTR categories. (I fixed it already.) Bearcat 21:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property
Please explain how this article is "notable" w.r.t. Inappropriate Uses of Wikipedia? Ariele 03:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ariele, you did not identify what part of "Inappropriate uses" applies to this article, so I am not able to address your question properly. I reviewed that, and did not find anything that I think applies. With respect to this article being "notable", you should be aware that the word "notable" and the concept of "notability" do not appear in Inappropriate Uses of Wikipedia. Furthermore, there is no consensus that "notability" should be a criterion for inclusion. See Jimbo Wales' view on notability, as expressed in the poll where notability failed to become an accepted reason for deletion. I hope this helps. Ground Zero 11:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Good grief. I hope you're not thinking that I'm using reverse psychology here. I'll repeat this again. I don't think the organization is notable at all. I disagree with MOST of their politics and ideology. And from what I'm seeing here, this organization has personally attacked everyone - including me. As I have pointed out to Android79, I know all that I would ever want to know about this organization, which pre-dates my time here at Wikipedia. And I've known of its existence for several years and cringed when I saw it here on Wikipedia. But you all want to KEEP it around. That is your choice. Ariele 00:36, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- You have an interesting and unusual perspective on what should not be in this encyclopedia. Should the articles on Nazism, the Ku Klux Klan, Fox News and the Monsanto Corporation be deleted because we abhor what those organizations stand for? As far as notability, I think that you didn't read my comments above. Please do so. Notability is not an accepted reason for deletion. Ground Zero 03:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________