User talk:74.115.97.241

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Hey 74.115.97.241 !

I don't disagree with including John Tory in the Red Tory artcile (he was in earlier drafts) but, your edit disrputed the flow of the piece. I am a long-time Red Tory with active participation in the PC Party at a relatively high level between 1979 and 1988 - at which point I left the Party over Free Trade with the USA. If you could work John Tory into the article so that it flows nicely and is relevant to the piece (other than intervention in the eonomy commentary, which is over-simplifying Red Tory approaches to political economy btw ...) than those of us who watch the article like a Hawk would be happy to let the edit stand. As well, why not choose a nom de plum for your time here? TrulyTory 12:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to United North America

As you can see, I've rolled back a bunch of your edits to this article. As I just said on the talk page for the article, it's an encyclopedia article, not an extension of the UNA fora. The article should discuss the website and the movement, such as it is, without getting bogged down in the philosophical pros and cons of the idea. Such speculation and pontification is in the purview of the UNA website and its discussion pages, but not in line with the encyclopædic purpose of Wikipedia. Just thought I'd better drop you a note to let you know that it's not because of any big disagreement I have with you, just that the article is increasingly dominated by coverage of the feasibility and un/desirability of the proposed union, when that is not at all what it's supposed to cover. Tomertalk 04:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

the wording is not nonbiased, it is VERY biased. For example reading it you may think that the U.S. has higher living standards than Canada. you may think that if the U.S. Congress offered Canadian provinces than same rights over natural resources as Texas, well than we Canadians would be all for discarding our identity and sovereignty. you may think that Canada would benefit trade focused only with the U.S., or that Canadian and U.S. history and culture are the same, OR that 32 million Canadians could somehow find a voice in international affairs amongst 300 million Americans who view the world very differantly than we do! Thats all, I'm sorry but basically I see this article as propaganda! but before i change anything I will wait for a response to my concerns from you for the sake of fairness. - chris gilmore

I see that you have changed the wording and I thank you for that. the original wording was biased and it was POV/propaganda. Perhaps my arguments against were a little on the long side, but maybe they could be shortened? Many articles have equal space given to pros and cons of differant ideas! - Chris Gilmore

The point is, the article is not supposed to be about who believes what, or especially about how right or wrong they might be to believe it. An encyclopedia article is supposed to impartially report the facts, nothing more, and certainly not a place for forwarding or refuting arguments! All speculation about what Congress might decide to offer prospective Canadian provinces looking to join the Union is irrelevant to the article, as is any speculation about how those hypothetical terms might impact the sentiment of Canadian voters. Sure, it makes great fodder for discussion over on the UNA forum pages, but it's not encyclopedic--it's speculation...even worse, it's speculation on the part of wikipedia editors! This is a direct violation not only of WP:NPOV but also of WP:NOR. Shore up or tear down arguments on whichever side of the [relatively unimportant, politically, at least at this juncture] issue all you like, but the WP article is not the place for it [nor, for that matter, is the article's talkpage, although a lot of it seems to have been coöpted by people doing exactly that--I have half a mind to "archive" most of the discussion there]... Sorry if I sound like I'm being a dick or a policy wonk, but there's really no other way of clarifying that the edits I reverted, as well as much of the text that still remains there, is wholly unencyclopædic, and needs to go, or at the very least, needs to be presented differently. That's aboot it for now. Cheers, Tomertalk 06:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Here are some other hints and tips:

  • I would recommend that you get a username. You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and there are many benefits of having a username. (If you edit without a username, your IP address is used to identify you instead.)
  • When using talk pages, please sign your name at the end of your messages by typing four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username (or IP address) and the date.

If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my Talk page, or type {{helpme}} on this talk page and a user will help you as soon as possible. I will answer your questions as far as I can. Again, welcome!

Thank you again for contributing to Wikipedia. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. Yuser31415 04:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)