User talk:Skeezix1000/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia

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 such as yourself:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 01:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bilingualism

I moved the bilingualism stuff from City of Ottawa Act to Bilingualism in Ottawa as I felt it was detracting from the article itself, but worthly of it's own article due to the extreme length of what was written. Great job! --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 16:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian?

I've noticed that you've edited numerous articles dealing with Canadiana of some sort, so I thought I'd let you know about a few ongoing and developing projects that may (or may not) interest you:

We'd certainly welcome your participation in any of these. Mindmatrix 01:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Carlu

Pure unintentional accident.

I would note that having an Art Deco category that contains every individual example of art deco architecture in the world isn't at all consistent with the way categories are supposed to work, but that's a bigger discussion than I'm personally willing to take on. Bearcat 22:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mindmatrix scam adminship

Image:CAD1000 Front.png

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Election candidates

Please stop listing election candidates on AfD. This issue is being discussed at Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates results in a new guideline, that's great. Skeezix1000 15:38, 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 Wikipedia:WikiProject Electoral districts in Canada/Neutrality but let it die down once Wikipedia: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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Corel Centre

Thanks for the comment about the Corel Centre. I would appreciate it enormously if you could incorporate this information into the article itself. (Which had incidentally been vandalized in recent weeks without being recognized). Cheers, Peregrine981 01:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] St Andrews

Well, according to StatsCan it is Saint Andrews. The Parish is as well. [1] -- Earl Andrew - talk 22:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Montréal vs Montreal

Hey oh. Was having a last look at my watchlist before going offline for a few weeks and I saw that you changed the spelling of the Montréal region in the Quebec template. I have no opinion how English-speaking people spell the name of the region, but just wanted to make sure: have you considered that the "Montréal" used in the template is not the name of a city, but the name of an administrative region of the province of Quebec? From there on I let you do what you think is best and turn off my computer. ;-) --Valmi ✒ 16:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey oh.  :) Of course I considered that. The template contains links to both the region (Montréal) and to the city (Montreal). I only changed the spelling of the city link. Now both the region and the city references within the template reflect the spellings of their respective articles. I hope that explanation helps. Skeezix1000 18:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Melbourne

You are seeking a change. You should seek consensus. Tied for first is exactly the same as ranked first. Xtra 02:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Not really, but fine. Skeezix1000 02:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ottawa

Hi,I am from Ottawa, and in my first few weeks of trying to contribute to Wikipedia. Thank you for your messages. As I indicated in the discussion page, I believe that if the opening paragraph is going to include the statement that Ottawa does is not a national capital district, it might be helpful for readers to be aware that the government has nonetheless taken steps to give Ottawa the amenities and activities one expects in a capital city, such as designating Ottawa-Gatineau as the National Capital Region and having the National Capital Commission. As far as characterizing what the NCC does, here is the NCC's own take: The NCC is a Crown corporation that was created by Parliament in 1959 as the steward of federal lands and buildings in the National Capital Region, with a mandate and mission to build the Capital region into a source of pride and unity for Canadians. I tried to give a more "plain English" version of "steward of federal lands and buildings" by saying that the NCC "manages federal lands and monuments. Nathan NatMor 02:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi,Thank you for your comments. The PR firm point was funny, and helpful!! (LOL)... I agree that the NCC does have a major and wide-ranging influence, going far beyond managing federal buildings. I am still trying to get the hang of the talk pages and the collaborative editing process. Nathan NatMor 03:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scarborough Nicknames

While I don't really want to expand on this section, there are in fact some web references to Scompton:

There is also a wikipedia page called Canadian slang which references Scompton as well as a couple of other nicknames not mentioned in the Scarborough article. I used Clusty search engine to find these references. Up to you whether you want to put this reference back. I don't care one way or the other.

Regards, Atrian 16:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

  • You're absolutely correct. Serves me right for editing before my first cup of coffee in the morning. I found nothing relevant for Scompton, but when I redid the search later, I did get results thru a search for Scompton AND Scarborough. I ought not to have deleted the entry based on a Google search turning up nothing.

    Personally, I generally don't see any value in having a section for nicknames for the municipality. But there is obviously precedent for having it (e.g. Toronto). The problem I have with these sections is that they end up including obvious entries (like "Hogtown" for Toronto), but then also up end up including nicknames that may be used in some circles but don't have particularly wide usage. The particular problem here in the Scarborough article is that so many of the nicknames have such a negative connotation -- perhaps that's just a reflection of public perception, but I do believe that it does, to a degree, give the reader the wrong impression of the place. Frankly, I am just waiting for someone to add "Scandahar" to the list.

    I'm not from Scarborough, so I will leave the list in the hands of folks who have a better sense of whether its inclusion is justified. Given your edits to the article, you are probably better placed to make that call than I.

    Cheers, Skeezix1000 20:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I changed the paragraph around to limit people adding to it ad nauseum. On a related topic what's the story on the person who keeps vandalizing the news section at IP address 199.212.26.244. I saw your block warning on his talk page but he is still doing it. Atrian 00:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Good edit. As for our friend the vandal, I reported him yesterday and he appears to have been blocked for 48 hours. If he returns, presumably the next block would be permanent. Skeezix1000 15:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Toronto Twinnings

Hi Skeezix1000,

You congratulated me a few weeks back for FINALLY getting the Twinned cities updated...guess what...it was STILL wrong! The city 'approved' the list in Dec 2005 but it didn't pass council?? (I guess they run Toronto with a lower and upper house!)...anyway, I got the confirmed ones today and have changed it again! KsprayDad 23:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC) (BTW I'm in Ottawa! Go Sens!)

[edit] John Labatt Centre

Your edit regarding the JLC that "Not unique -- it is very common for it take years for a demolished property to officially cease to be designated -- the Talbot Inn by no means the first" is 100 per cent incorrect.

The standard procedure for demolishing a designated heritage property is to repeal the designating by-law and to issue a demoltion permit. At the JLC, the City of London did neither. What the City did obtain was a "heritage alteration permit" to demolish the Talbot Inn -- totally contrary to the Ontario Heritage Act and a total abuse of process.

The Talbot Inn remained a designated heritage property in London for approximately 17 months after it was demolished and the building materials trucked to Try Recycling on Highbury Avenue.

According to officials that I spoke with at the Ontario Heritage Foundation (I did a story on the matter in SCENE magazine, plus I sat on the London advisory Committee on Heritage for three years), it is a first for Ontario and likely Canada. It is also a first for London, Ontario.

I will be editing the article accordingly. Barry Wells 23:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Although I am pleased to know that you take such an interest in heritage matters, and am very happy to discuss such matters with you at length, I am afraid that you are incorrect. I am a lawyer that handles heritage matters on a regular basis. Under the Ontario Heritage Act (an article I wrote, by the way), as it existed prior to the 2005 amendments, a landowner could demolish a designated building 180 days after a municipality refused permission to demolish. Where the municipality was opposed to the demolition, it was incredibly rare for it to repeal the designation by-law prior to the demolition. In fact, it wouldn't make any sense for the municipality to do so, given that the intent of the 180 day period was for the municipality to try and negotiate some level of heritage preservation (if it was able).

And although the statute required the municipality to repeal the by-law after the demolition, it was very common for a municipality to take quite awhile to pass the housekeeping by-law to repeal the earlier designation by-law. It was not rare whatsoever in Ontario, therefore, for a building to technically remain designated for quite some time after the demolition. The only time that it was standard practice for a municipality to repeal the designation by-law prior to demolition was where the municipality approved the demolition.

Under the Act currently, a landowner must apply to the Ontario Municipal Board to demolish a building where the municipality refuses a permit to demolish. Presumably, where the Board grants permission to demolish, in the face of municipal opposition, the designating by-law will still end up usually being repealed post-demolition, depending on how quickly a landowner acts on the Board order. I can only speculate, as the first appeals under these new provisions are still working their way through the system.

The City of London may have demolished the Inn contrary to the provisions of the Act. That does not change the fact that the fact that it was not unusual for the City to take 17 months to repeal the designation by-law. There may have been many matters unique to the demolition of the Inn, but this was not one of them.

And although the Foundation is established pursuant to a section of the Ontario Heritage Act, it does not administer the municipal designation provisions in section 29 or the alteration/demolition provisions in sections 33 and 34 of the statute.

So unless I have completely misunderstood what you are attempting to convey by the phrase "a first in Ontario's history and perhaps Canada's, according to officials with the Ontario Heritage Foundation", I'd have to say on its plain reading that it is wrong at law. I have amended the article accordingly. Skeezix1000 03:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

First things first. The current version is incorrect as no one from the Ontario Heritage Foundation made comment on the precise number of months between the unlawful demolition on Sunday, June 3, 2001 and the actual repeal date of the designating by-law -- that is a matter of public record on file in the clerk's office in London, Ontario.

To wit, Planning Committee supported the London Advisory Committee on Heritage's (LACH) recommendation to de-designate the property in September of 2002 (http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:yvBzVR8PNQ0J:council.london.ca/oldarchive/Planning%2520Archives/Archived%2520Planning%2520Committee%2520Reports%2520-%25202002/Report%2520September%252030,%25202002.pdf+Talbot+Inn+demolition&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=4) so 17 months is the approximate time elapsed after the Planning Committee's recommendation went to City Council a week later, then public notice requirements were carried out.

Translation: the wording in the current version "according to the Ontario Heritage Foundation" should be deleted.

Regarding the other business, User:Skeezix1000 maintains that it is not unusual for a demolished heritage property to remain designated by-law under the Ontario Heritage Act and that he is a lawyer who regularly deals with heritage matters, even though his scenario runs contrary to the provisions of the Act, which he admits with the line, "And although the statute required the municipality to repeal the by-law after the demolition ..." (actually prior to the demolition.)

I believe that is incumbent on him to provide specific examples (other than the Talbot Inn example -- a first in London, Ontario's history) where a designated heritage property has been demolished without the prior or prompt repeal of the designating by-law.

For clarity, what occurred in London is that the council had approved a "heritage alteration permit" for the Talbot Inn (owned by the municipality) several months before the building was demolished with heavy equipment on the morning of Sunday, June 3, 2001.

This is also contrary to the Ontario Heritage Act as an alteration permit approved by a municipal council cannot be used to demolish a designated heritage property. Since the municipality is the body that often initiates charges under the Act, no charges were laid as no citizen stepped forward to initiate them, nor did the province. Barry Wells 23:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC) (copied from John Labatt Centre's discussion page) Barry Wells 00:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The Act does not require that a designation by-law be repealed prior to demolition. Subsection 34.3(1) requires that the municipality enact the repeal by-law if the owner has applied to demolish and the Council consents to the application or the Board (on appeal) orders the municipality to consent. There is no timing requirement that necessitates passage of the repeal by-law pre-demolition; the statute simply requires that certain pre-conditions be met. In fact, municipalities will often enact the housekeeping measure after the demolition. The example that comes to mind right now is a building down the road from where I live, where the City of Toronto enacted the repeal by-law after the building had been demolished to make way for condos (see the repeal by-law at [2], and note the fifth recital which acknowledges that the building had already been demolished).

In 2001, when the Inn in London was demolished, the Act (as it read then) similarly contained no requirement that the repeal by-law be enacted prior to demolition. In fact, (then) subsection 34(5) required passage of the repeal by-law where Council had consented to the demolition application OR the 180 day period had expired (as had the extension periods, if any) and "the demolition or removal of the building or structure on the property has been completed". The text of (then) s. 34(5) had been in the statute for years, and acknowledged on its face that the repeal by-law would, in many circumstances, be enacted post-demolition. The example (from around the same time as the Talbot Inn demolition, based on the same version of the statute) that comes to mind at this moment is the controversial demolition of the Union Carbide building on Eglinton. I'll dig up that repeal by-law when I have the chance.

I have no comments on any of the other issues. Skeezix1000 12:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The Union Carbide repeal by-law, as mentioned above, is at [3]. That wasn't too hard to find. Skeezix1000 12:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Hoteldevilledequebec.jpg

Hum, I taked this picture myself, and it's my name on this picture, and I'll not erase my name. MaThQc 06:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for disputing JLC page

Thanks for disputing the stuff about the demolition of the Talbot Inn on the John Labatt Centre page. Your input helped clarify the situation. Barry Wells 00:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

  • My pleasure. I enjoyed debating it with you, and am always pleased to see heritage issues get discussed. Thanks for your help with that section -- it is now far better than my original edit way back when. Skeezix1000 20:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: NAmE

Hi! No prob—the question is, I'm kind of crusading against the phrase "Commonwealth English," trying to erase references to it whenever they are unnecessary. The Caribbean thing is a tricky one, it's arguably harder to picture Caribbean English in the same backdrop as U.S. and Canadian—and should it be North America, Northern America, or...? Anyways, thanks for stopping in. Best, JackLumber 11:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for Keeping an Eye on "Beach" vs "Beaches"

I too had noticed 142.240.200.10's wholesale and very POV edits to The Beaches article, and you beat me to it. Thanks for keeping an eye on that one.

I live in the area and I try to keep my postings on the subject as non-POV as possible, and providing references where possible just so that I can back up what's said (I've been rightly dinged on that point before). But 142.240.200.10 went truly overboard this time, even changing a statement in one of my references willy-nilly.

For the record, I am for "Beaches", and have voted thusly. But I recognize that Wikipedia is not a place for POV-ism, and am just interested in providing facts on the issue where possible, rather than conjecture.

Cheers! Captmondo 19:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian articles

I have had problems with spelling changes. I was reverting edits I had done yesterday in American articles and I must have put the Toronto category into the list. I will change these edits back to what they should be and I am sorry to cause any problems - Erebus555 16:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted all edits back to the correct spelling as requested. - Erebus555 16:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Hoteldevilledequebec.jpg

This is somewhat of a curious case. I suppose, realistically, the image should be taken to Images and media for deletion and the uploader discouraged from uploading any more images with copyright watermarks. The uploader clearly did not intend to license the image under the GFDL but instead under an attribution license, and probably under something like CC-BY-ND. Under the GFDL the copyright watermark could simply be removed in the next revision so long as the history was accurately perserved. I think that the best way not to be jerks is to gently suggest to the uploader that if he or she would like to share watermarked images that cannot be altered that they should use Flickr, or some other media-sharing service that is respectful of copyrights, but that Wikimedia projects can't be used to host such images and that all original contributions must follow our policies. Once the uploader understands that they incorrectly licensed their image they will probably want it deleted themselves; let me know and I will speedy it. Jkelly 18:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

In Canada, where you live, you can be put in jail for doing it. There is a law about copyrighted things and the syndic of journalist of Quebec and Canada can do a complaint about the Wikipedia. Just a little word it, I Will check it what I do later with my syndic. MaThQc 12:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what you are talking about. First, I was not the one who cropped the image -- please check the image history before you go make accusations. Second, you licensed the image as GFDL when you uploaded it -- which grants permission to others to modify it. Third, as mentioned above, it is Wikipedia's image use policy that images NOT have credits in the image itself. If you disagree with the policy, and prefer to have credits within the image, then do not upload it to Wikipedia. --Skeezix1000 13:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: "Historically" Beach vs Beaches

No, I do not mind, and I agree with your point. We don't want to have a section where every business in the area is listed willy-nilly. I thought "institution" would take care of it, but "historically" just drives thr point home. Cheers! Captmondo 18:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Master Jay's RfA

Hey Skeezix1000, we kicked the Sens you know what just this weekend ;). Anyways, thanks bud for your support at my recent RfA. Since a certain team will be absent from a certain playoffs :(, you can leave me a message here, and I should get back to you, given the fact that I won't be watching much TV nowadays. Regards, --Jay(Reply) 02:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SD vs RM for Beach

If you feel a Requested Move is best considering the article's history, feel free to change that. I'm just coming in and finding a bad page move; I didn't realize the degree of history behind it all... Radagast 20:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Hortons

Hi, Skeezix -- I see you reverted my changes to Tim Hortons with the explanation "The comments in that section of the talk page have been responded to first -- please respond to those before blanking an entire section, esp. sourced material)". I assume some words got omitted. If you're saying I shouldn't change it till the comments in the talk section have been responded to, how long am I supposed to wait? As for the section being sourced, I think the section would be more to the point if it actually discussed what those sources claim about Tim's supposed iconic status (and, like, soon). As I've said elsewhere on the talk page, Tim's deserves a serious article, and the cultural fixture section is not serious.

Anyway, after removing the footnotes I reverted to your last version and won't touch the article till I get some advice from you. John FitzGerald 11:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I replied on the talk page to your recently posted comment, which answers my question above. As for my answers, my position on Tim's cultural status is clearly and fully described in the section caled "Remove or improve the cultural icon section." How about someone responding to my points for a change? John FitzGerald 11:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Skeez. thanks for the prompt reply. I think the problem is we're of different minds about how to go about dealing with this section. The two approaches can probably be combined. I'll have to get back to you about this later, though. I'm recovering from an operation and I think I've used up my energy for today. At any rate, I think if this article is to stay in it should be expanded and include some definitive evidence. More later -- I'm going to go now and put a similar comment on the Tim's talk page. John FitzGerald 14:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Skeezix. I'm a little preoccupied this week, too (for one thing, income tax and GST return preparation has been neglected during my recovery), so a little delay won't hurt me. John FitzGerald 11:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Skeezix. It looks as if you and I are the only two interested in working on this section. It occurred to me it might be good for me to start by doing some research on how the term cultural icon is used. I think there's a chance you and I have different opinions about this section because we have different conceptions of cultural icons, so it might be an idea to see if we can find out if there's a generally accepted use of this term. Incidentally, I didn't mean to insult Pierre Berton. His columns in the Star influenced me greatly when I was young (I'm talking about long long ago here), and I still consider his journalism of the 50s and 60s to be some of the finest Canadian journalism. And his opinion about Tims is important, just not authoritative. John FitzGerald 23:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence of Tim's iconic status

Now this seems like definite evidence of iconic status to me. John FitzGerald 12:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Although the article no longer claims Tim's is an icon, if it is an icon the article would be better if it acknowledged this status. The problem with calling it a cultural fixture (my idea, I admit) is that any chain with thousands of outlets is obviously a cultural fixture. I think I'll see if I can find Pierre Berton's remark in context. There probably is some place for it in the article, but it needs some evidence to support it. I'm quite sure Mr. B would not have made this remark without having a good reason for it.
Another sign of Tim's iconic status might be the widespread belief that it serves good coffee, although I guess we'd need the results of taste tests and culinary competitions before we could assert that. That's half a feeble joke and half a serious comment. John FitzGerald 13:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I posted my final thoughts on this matter at Talk:Tim Hortons#Specific criticisms of the "A Canadian cultural fixture" section. Thanks for taking this issue seriously. The discussion has changed my views a bit. Now I'm off to see if I can find out anything more about that important cultural figure Scotty Holt (well, he's an important cultural figure to me). John FitzGerald 01:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian city naming convention

Thought you might be interested in joining the discussion: Wikipedia talk:Canadian wikipedians' notice board#Canadian city naming convention. -- Usgnus 23:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gretzky

Okay, well, I'm not convinced it isn't fair use, but I double-checked and Wikipedia does have a public licence image of Gretzky, so I swapped it for that. When I cam across the article, the image was busted, which is why I changed it. WilyD 21:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, both the Cherry and Gretzky images (which are otherwise identical in usage) are licensed as fair use promotional materials - so I'm not clear on the overall point. WilyD 21:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Who knows. I just wanted to let you know about a recent edit summary. I have now found the policy reference I referred to earlier, which says: "Fair use images may never be included as part of a photo montage, as their status as being "fair use" depends on their proper use in the context of an article (as part of criticism or analysis)". It's up to you to decide if you agree with Thivierr's interpretation or not. --Skeezix1000 21:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I think Thivierr didn't go after the Don Cherry image because its fair use source information was added after Thivierr made his edit to The Greatest Canadian (according to the article history). --Skeezix1000 21:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you're right, but I'm not really sure that the article has a photo montage per se, rather than merely arranging several photos in a table - the critical commentary level on the page for anyone buy Fox/Douglas is pretty weak, but I do believe you may be able to at least argue it's non-zero, given the talk about the contest as a whole, their involvement in it, their representation and so on ... anyways, I'm not a lawyer, so don't take my opinion too seriously. WilyD 16:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Hortons

Hi. I appreciate your comment you left on my user page, but Yes I do know "Tim Hortons iconic and cultural status has been the subject of lengthy discussion going back months", as I've read it. I was in a rush and had no time to add any more information to the reason for the edit. I personally don't see it as a big deal. But technically if I feel that information shouldn't be there, I can remove it as I wish as Wikipedia is 'The Free Encyclopedia' That any one can edit. I apologize from the bottom of my heart that I asked "Do we have proof that most Canadians view Tim Hortons as a notable part of Canadian culture? ". I find people are far too "nit-picky" on this website ... including yourself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Decimal10 (talk • contribs) .

Hello. Sorry for the delay in responding, but I did want to reply.

First, of course I am "nit-picky". That's the whole point of an encyclopedia -- to contain well-written, verfiable and correct information. In order to achieve that we all need to be picky, not careless, with our edits. By no means is perfection required, but you should not criticize other editors who are concerned about the details that you do not think are a big deal.

Second, Wikipedia is the Free Encyclopedia, that anyone is welcome to edit. In fact, Wikipedia:Be Bold is a tremendously important guideline for editors. But if someone disagrees with one of your edits, then the applicable guideline is Wikipedia:Consensus. As stated in WP:BOLD, "editing boldly should not be confused with reverting boldly" (see also Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle). It is not as simple as "I can remove it as I wish".Skeezix1000 21:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jackp

I know pointing this out isn't really in the spirit of wikipedia, but i thought you might appreciate a laugh: Jackp would like to become an administrator: [4]. Merbabu 14:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Starbucks

Thanks for your comments and concern. I've replied to you on my talk page. Cheers Mr Christopher 15:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JPD's RfA

Thanks, Skeezix, for your support at my RfA, which finished with a tally of 94/1/0. I am glad you have found my comments helpfulin the past, and hope I live up to the confidence you have shown in me in my activities as an administrator. JPD (talk) 15:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Train Station (OC Transpo) overpass paragraph

Hello Skeezix1000.

I've put that paragraph since the article about both the Transit Station and the Train Station are merged together.

The Transportation Master Plan says about that overpass that it will:"Provides (d) enhanced transit accessibility to the stadium (Lynx) and adjacent employment area (Coventry Road)" [5]. That paragraph was related to the Transitway Station and transit accessibilty to the baseball stadium and the growing employment area on Coventry Road and also Overbrook residents.

I'm wondering if de-merging the article would be better, so we would put the Transit stop's info and the overpass paragraph in a separate article --JForget 02:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biased Tim Hortons edits.

Hello skeezix1000. This is my second comment on your talk page about Tim Hortons. It seems your a "regular" editor of the article. Almost every time I add someting to the Tim Hortons article, or change something . . . you seem to remove it. I find you are very biased towards Tim Hortons and Canada, you can't seem to accept the fact that Tim Hortons is also in the United States. I find many Canadian owned companies, that have Wikipedia articles are over done with the whole Canadian thing. Take The Canadian Home Hardware for example. Several months ago it has some very anti American comments on it, and it was compared to other American comanies like Home Depot, which apprantly "invaded" Canada. I find the same thing with the Tim Hortons article. Canadians that edit the article (not all, but some) are trying as best they can to get any comments about The United States "out of the article". The thing is, Tim Hortons is still currently affiliated with one of the largest U.S. fast food chains. Wendy's. You need to realise just because a company is Canadian . . . it isn't perfect. Tim Hortons is no different then any other fast food company, they don't care how Iconic they are in Canada ... there in the business for the money. It's as simple as that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Decimal10 (talk • contribs) .

No, I am not trying to remove any reference to the U.S. in the article. As my edit summaries indicated, I simply removed the inaccurate reference to TH being "plentiful" in the northeastern U.S. -- in Canada, TH has practically saturated the market in many regions (there is a TH outlet for approximately every 12,500 persons in Canada), but no state in the U.S. has more than 50 outlets, except New York which has under 100. TH is in the U.S., as it says many times in the article, but it is not ubiquitous the way it is in Canada. If you have a source that states that TH is plentiful in Buffalo or Detroit, then amend the sentence accordingly by all means -- but it is an exageration to extend the concentration of outlets in those two cities to the entire N.E. U.S. Perhaps if you took more time to read the edit summaries and the substance of the sentences you are editing, you would not jump to conclusions of anti-Americanism. Skeezix1000 11:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cold war template discussions - thanks!

Just wanted to express appreciation for your contribution to Template talk:Cold War. As someone who edits articles on El Salvador and tries not to be disproportionate, I liked having someone point out so articulately why the decisions over figures and countries to include is so problematic. Everyone who specializes in a given country that is relevant to Cold War discussion naturally has a tendency not to want to see that country's significance underplayed, even though few countries will be as CLEARLY important to that discussion as the US and USSR. After all, the idea of these templates seems to be to pull together articles that the novice may not realize relate, and if we serve that function, it's not going to matter whether we do it via a template, a category, a list, or whatever we end up using. Thanks for your well-reasoned and well-written comments. Lawikitejana 19:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Update: Did some category replace the older ones named something like Category:Cold warriors and Category:Cold War people? Or is there now a list? It seems odd to have nothing in the template referring the user to any grouped listing of Cold War figures.Lawikitejana 02:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] and vs. or...

I sense we're very close to a stable version of {{Ottawa-stub}}, since we're now only differing by one word. :) But I don't really understand your thinking on that: why would "or" be read exclusively here? The trouble is, that if this is applied to an article in the NCR, but not in Ottawa, then the article isn't about both, but is only about the NCR, strictly speaking. (Granted that those seem to be very much the minority, and the statement is true as written about topics within Ottawa proper.) But this isn't a big deal, and I'm no hurry to change it back if you disagree. Alai 02:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TA Sekhar

A minor problem. T. A. Sekhar is the naming convention followed (space between initials) but the article is now at T.A. Sekhar. I'll get an admin to do the switch. Tintin (talk) 05:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks

Hey Skeezix1000, thank you for supporting my recent RfA. It finished with an amazing final tally of 160/4/1. I really appreciate your support. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Moving an article

The big asterisk (you may know this already, but just in case) is that IF the target article is ONLY a redirect, you can do the move anyway (overwrite the redirect). And such was the case with Frank Clair Stadium. So you DID see something there - it was a redirect. If the edit history had anything more than that - it did not, in this case - the move would have required admin assistance. John Broughton 19:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I did not realize that at all, but figured it out when I saw your comment at WP:RM. I'm glad to have learned something new. Thanks for your help. Skeezix1000 21:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timbit of Dreams

I've posted to his talk page, as politely as possible asking him to explain why he views it as necessary to give it a separate subheading. Don't know if or when he'll answer, though. Bearcat 20:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Hortons Criticism

Thanks for your help in ensuring I get the citiations necessary for the item I added today. I have now updated the page with proper citations. KsprayDad 23:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yorkville, Toronto

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

[edit] Image:MontrealWindsorHotel.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:MontrealWindsorHotel.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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#McDonald's Vs 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#Biased Tim Hortons edits. 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 Wikipedia: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#Tim Hotons does NOT recycle?). 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#Tim Hortons). Skeezix1000 00:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re Tim Hortons

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

[edit] Re History of Poland

It is a good suggestion. You may also want to check how I treated Reagan and Gorbi in my newer History of Solidarity.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Hortons references

When making edits like this (scroll to the bottom) please take a couple of minutes to check the page out. the use of 2 ref tags with one closing tag is what busted that. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of Quebec template

My friend, I still haven't seen a response from your part at Template talk:History of Quebec. --Liberlogos 01:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Westboro Baptist Church entry on the Westboro dab page

Hi! Sorry if the reason for the revert was unclear. I noticed that you reinstated those changes, and rather than reverting the entire edit this time, I removed only the words "hate group" per WP:NPOV. The issue here is that the term "hate group" isn't an objective fact, it's an opinion or value judgment. The article includes cited references to the effect that it's classified as a hate group by specific organizations. Those citations are completely legitimate. It's not acceptable for Wikipedia to state editorially that it's a hate group, as you did with that edit, so I have again removed the words "hate group" in compliance with core Wikipedia policies. If you have any further questions about this, feel free to ask me about it. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 20:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Holt Renfrew

I took a look at the dispute over at Holt Renfrew. I'm hoping that your reply to the anon on the talk page will be enough to put an end to it; if not, I'll help out. The material was really about as blatant POV as you can get. -Joshuapaquin 15:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

HI

Could you help me regarding the PATH article? I am not sure what I am doing? phillip@torontopath.com

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:United Way Centraide of Ottawa.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:United Way Centraide of Ottawa.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 03:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Centraide United Way logo.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Centraide United Way logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 04:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] STTWbot

Thanks for informing, could you let me know the exact category or article and I will revert the edits. STTW (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:TorontoEatonCentreHolgerWerschnik.jpg

An image that you uploaded from stock.xchng or altered, Image:TorontoEatonCentreHolgerWerschnik.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images#SXC_images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. OrphanBot 03:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

03:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quebec Nordiques

Hello, Skeezix1000. I've invited other editors to drop in the Nordiques talk page (concerning the article's title). I disagree with your views that the 'Nordiques' French version name, has a right to be on the page. Continuing discussion at Nordiques page. GoodDay 18:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Currently my opinon is in the minority (concerning the Infobox title). Therefore, I've restored the Bilingual title, in respect to the majority opinon. Hope my views & actions, didn't come across as Anti-French. GoodDay 00:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lukas Ridgeston

Thanks for chiming in, your comments were particularly helpful in keeping the discussion on track. I was looking to see if there is a "Wikiproject Porn" but there doesn't seem to be. Surprising, as there certainly are enough porn articles and apparent porn nerds roundabouts. Cheers, Cleduc 04:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Advice

Thanks for the pointers, I'll remember that. Now, is this the right place to respond? (writes with trepidation...) Mr random 18:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orleans

I'm not entirely sure whether Orleans is quite as clear-cut a case as Montreal or Quebec, as I'm pretty sure I have seen the accent used in English spelling sometimes. Generally, our rule is to go with the non-accented spelling only in cases where English usage has an absolutely unequivocal and unmistakable preference for the unaccented spelling — if English usage isn't clear-cut, then we leave the accents on. The move is fine if it can be confirmed that English usage clearly favours "Orleans" over "Orléans" or "Montreal" over "Montréal", but we leave the accents on in cases like Trois-Rivières where English usage is more ambiguous. Are you able to confirm whether "Orleans" is a clear standard in English? If so, then yeah, it should be moved.

And the anon's "English spelling doesn't have accents" is definitely invalid reasoning; that's not how we decide these things. Bearcat 02:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

A few weeks ago you made a comment at WP:NCGN regarding Cracow, (May 4, 2007), and you suggested that Cracow was a dated version of the city's name in English. Can you help me by explaining this more clearly? Around what time did this phenomenon occur? I ask this seriously and respecfully. Dr. Dan 17:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Toronto Eaton Centre

I don't mind clearing up the date inaccuracies, etc. but to describe them as serious is overstating them. I feel your version has too little detail. There is nothing wrong about mentioning these unsual features such as the Metro Toronto Police, the parking garage, etc. I'm not going to bother about whether the Police office is a precinct or division, though we could simply call it an office if we don't known exactly.

The garage was one of the larger changes so this is not overstating it. It did have a distinctive style (the photo can be purchased from an urbanists' association). The old entrances opened on Dundas, the new exit/entrances I've seen them on Yonge and Bay, and this isn't useless trivia.

Lastly, the Timothy Eaton statue was moved to the Dundas entrance when the new mall opened in the 1970s according to that article.

GoldDragon 21:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

In the sense of development, now your objections are clearer, and I have no major problems with your wording. Anyway, speaking of the Club Monaco, it had a large space near the entrace unlike most of the smaller stores, and it was considered a sub-anchor (like Holts at Yorkdale), so it should deserve some mention in the article. It may not necessarily be considered part of the 2000s redevelopment, if another chain occupied that area before it was all imploded for H&M. GoldDragon 17:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal warning

Jeez for a minute there I thought you were tagging me. I looked at the page difference and the summary. Usually I let them make a couple (if they ain't too bad) and then tag with the BV. After that I just block. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Hortons

Hi, please see WP:OWN. You reverted the last edit apparently without even considering what the actual content of the edit was. I don't know how to persuade you to recognize that having a footnote two words into an article, to a piece of trivia, is non-sequitur. Do you have some actual objection to the statement being elsewhere in the article? Is there some reason it must be a footnote? Really at a loss for words here... Justen 20:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I am well aware of WP:OWN. Personally, I do not typically believe that anyone that disagrees with me is guilty of offending WP:OWN, but it seems you have a different view. To each their own.

I was well aware of the content of your previous edit. I simply disagreed with it, as all of the concerns you had raised could be dealt with through a fact tag. You claim the content is trivia, but then you have edited the article (twice) to elevate it to its own paragraph in the introductory section of the article. Whereas I believe it is valuable content, I don't share your apparent view that it needs to be more prominent, with its own paragraph (in the introduction no less).

I believe that footnotes are very well suited to this type of content, and specifically for this situation. It isn't isn't that it "must" be a footnote, as you put it, but rather that it is a far preferable treatment than your two solutions (first, to delete the content entirely, or your second solution to add it to the article introduction). It is a snippet of information that would fit awkwardly elsewhere in the article, and it really relates best to the company name, which is introduced in the lead paragraph and the infobox (really, the footnote could go in either place).

You say "Really at a loss for words here... ", but that's really unfair. You have not pointed to any policy, guideline or precedent which would suggest that the use of a footnote here is inappropriate, so I am unsure as to why you are so perplexed that someone might actually have the temerity to disagree with you. In fact, Wikipedia guidelines suggest that this is an appropriate use of a footnote. WP:FOOT states: "Footnotes are sometimes useful for relevant text that would distract from the main point if embedded in the main text, yet are helpful in explaining a point in greater detail. Footnotes are also often used to cite references that are relevant to a text."

You disagree with the use of the footnote. Fine. But since it has been in the article for some time (it wasn't me who added it), another editor disagrees with your edit and you have no policy or guideline that suggests the use of the footnote is inappropriate, WP:CON suggests that your next step is to seek consensus for the change on the talk page. If other editors agree with you, great - make the change. But in the meantime, please refrain from suggesting that anyone who disagrees with you must have a nut loose. Skeezix1000 20:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe you "must have a nut loose," and I don't believe I ever insinuated that. I do, however, believe that you pretty clearly feel as if you own the article, made clear by your repeated reverts of a formatting edit, and edit that endured, without revert, for weeks while you were away. Many company articles have "trivia" relating to the styling of their name, and it is appropriate for that to be in the body of the article, not as a footnote. Please take a step back for a minute, and remember that you do not own the article. Justen 22:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
You need to read WP:OWN, because you appear not to understand its purpose or intent. It isn't intended to browbeat other editors who disagree with your views. It is particularly ironic that you seem intent on making this accusation against another editor, when you are the one who is insisting on a change to the article, despite having no policies or guidelines in supoport of that change (in fact, the one guideline that has been raises suggests the opposite), and you seem to have little regard for the comments I have made. The last thing I will say in response to WP:OWN is "people who live in glass houses...".

You need to step back, understand that other editors can have valid reasons for disagreeing with you, and focus your comments on the content, rather than on baseless accusations of misconduct. I would be happy to discuss this with you once you are able to engage in a discussion on the merits, rather than throwing around warnings and other nonsense. Skeezix1000 11:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Montreal Expos Merge Tag

Fair enough. It strikes me that after two years of constant opposition to a merge, that one user attempting an end-run around that consensus with an AfD, only have nodobdy support his merge effort when the AfD was speedily closed suggested to me that the template was not needed. However, if you wish to leave it up, I accept that. Cheers, Resolute 18:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, true. Personally, I think that the other sports Wikiprojects should go the other way and separate out other teams into their own articles - even the Seattle Pilots. Too much history is lost when a team's existance is condensed into two or three paragraphs. I know that WP:HOCKEY would crush any merge/delete attempt in a second. Its rather interesting how other projects have treated relocated franchises in the past, and I wonder how much of a "well, it worked in 2005 so we might as well leave it" sentiment exists today, as opposed to really fleshing out the history of many organizations. Unfortunately, I doubt the Montreal Expos problem will go away, despite the fact that it is extremely logical to have a separate article for a team with 35 years of history. Resolute 19:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Just to add, the AfD I was referring to was one he launched last week, that was closed by an admin before a single vote was registered, not to the one from 2005. Resolute 19:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I could have anyone from WP:HOCKEY do it. Many are general sports fans, but most have stayed out of that debate. Resolute 13:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Previous merge discussions on Montreal Expos

Hi. I'm a little surprised that you believe chronological order takes supreme precedence over the spirit and letter of WP:TALK and WP:REFACTOR.

To quoth from the latter, '(b)oth refactoring and archiving promote productive discussion by improving clarity and accessibility.' I don't think there's any doubt that the former and current setup of the page with the merge argument scattered in something like 8 separate sections interrupted by various other discussions makes accessing the topic neither clear nor accessible.

You're right. WP:TALK does give clear guidelines on content editing, and you shouldn't be deleting someone else's contribution. Except for one thing - I didn't. Not a single character of the other topics was deleted. Instead, I followed a good faith practice of WP:TALK, centralized discussion. To quoth the relevant section of why it was good practice to combine the topic, "This fragments discussion of the idea, creating discussions in separate places with no interchange of ideas. This is rarely desirable, and leads to redundant effort where an idea that has already been adequately addressed has to be considered all over again. Instead, solicit discussion in only one location...." The same topic addressed in 13 different places is what WP:TALK suggests you don't do. I grant you that this is mostly intended for a talk topic across various pages rather than a single talk page, but the concept is identical.

In fact, the only reference to chronological order I see on talk pages is in starting a new topic at the bottom of the talk page. I didn't do so (since it wasn't a new topic) and that may have been confusing. Probably better to have the whole thing at the bottom of the page.

And finally, let me finish with this. "If you find a fragmented discussion, it may be desirable to move all posts to one of the locations, removing them from the other locations and adding a link." Your links are a valuable contribution, but WP:REFACTOR suggests that rather than leaving all the links scattered you should consider refactoring and archiving if there are '(s)eparate discussions of similar or identical topics.' Might consider creating a separate archival discussion page using your links. I may do so myself when I have a few minutes, although I'd rather be adding content like the Molson Girls doing the 7th inning stretch to explain why French-Canadian baseball was a bit different than that south of the border. Old64mb 20:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstood my comments, and I apologize if they were unclear. I did not suggest that chronological order takes "supreme precedence" over everything else. The spirit and intent of WP:TALK is that one does not screw around with the comments of other editors unless absolutely necessary. So, yes, sometimes it is necessary to add headings or indents to the comments of other editors, to make the page legible, and occasionally the comment of an inexperienced editor has to be moved when (s)he obviously places it inadvertently in the wrong place on the page. But no matter how well-meaning the intent might have been, one should not be revising comments, whether it involves deletions or not, by moving them around and removing them from chronological order and the context in which they were made, unless there is a very important reason to do so. And here there was not. The ongoing comments on the merger do not represent an evolving analysis of the issue, but almost entirely represent new editors every once in awhile raising the same question as before (shouldn't the articles be merges?), generating generally the same responses as before. There are far less disruptive ways of consolidating these repetitive comments than by wholsale reorganizations of the talk page, either by reproducing the links to the discussions (and including links to discussions elsewhere) as I did, or your great suggestion of creating an archive page which simply reproduces the comments in one place. And just to add: I think you are reading far too much into the guideline discussions on "centralized discussions". The guidelines urge us to avoid situations like the one WalterWalrus3 created last week, where he started the same merger discussions in two separate places -- on the Washington Nationals talk page, and on the Expos talk page. The guidelines are not giving other editors free license to cut and paste the comments of others, whenever we feel that one comment might more logically be placed elsewhere.

The goal is to interfere as little as possible with the talk page comments of other editors. Although your reorganization was generally well done, it creates a bad precedent. If other editors feel that they have free license to reorganize talk pages to fit their determination of what constitutes a more logical order, they may not do so as carefully as you did. Skeezix1000 13:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ownership issues

First, please see Template:Notyours. Your selective deletion of my comments go above and beyond grammatical corrections, but the principle is similar. Just because you disagree with someone else's concerns doesn't mean you should delete them. My asking that you take note of WP:OWN through a standard template was not "nonsense," as you put it.

Secondly, again: while you were away for several weeks, I, and other editors made changes to the Tim Hortons article. The information regarding the styling of the company's name remained in the article for weeks, until you returned and resumed your revert war. See Apple Inc., Aflac, even Yahoo! to see that the historical and current styling of a company is normally properly sketched out and mentioned in the article itself.

There is no guideline supporting burying any actual content in the footnotes. I made a change to the article. You disagreed with that change and reverted it on the spot. Using your edit summary as guidance, I attempted to modify the change to appease you. You reverted again. I had never edited the article prior to that change. You have, extensively. Without discussion, you reverted, and then, again, without even looking at my revised edits, you reverted again. That's where and why I believe WP:OWN applies to your reverts here. Justen 12:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

One last thing. I think we both could re-read: WP:ROWN (different from WP:OWN). Justen 12:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I can't debate this anymore with you. I don't have the energy to deal with an editor who is incapable of having an adult discussion over the content of the article, but seems intent on making baseless accusations ("ownership issues", "revert war", etc) and posting condescending tags on the talk pages of other users. I eliminated the tag because you had already made the accusation, and the tag simply went beyond the bounds of WP:ASSUME GOOD FAITH and WP:CIVIL. And, please, stop telling me that I have not looked at your revised edits. I will say it one more time: just because someone disagrees with you, it does not mean that they have not read your edits, nor does it mean that they are in violation of WP:OWN. It is rich that you are citing WP:OWN, given that you seem intent on bulldozing anyone who disagrees with your view.

I have explained why the use of the footnote is appropriate. I believe that the articles you have cited represent a different situation entirely, and I do not believe that the use of the footnote represents burying content (the guideline states otherwise). However, I just don't have the patience to go into any further detail, and to discuss the merits of our two positions, because you are clearly not interested in having that discussion. You win, I give up. This has been tiresome and thoroughly disagreeable. Skeezix1000 13:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Łachwa

You're welcome. I hope there will be more - after rebuilding articles about Polish towns on en.wiki I hope I'll be back in articles about Belarussian villages. Regards, --Hiuppo 08:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Senslogo1mgs.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Senslogo1mgs.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. fuzzy510 22:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian Internal Waters

Sorry I didn't go back far enough to see your original remark. Your version looks better. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you look at Onepointfive2.0 and 63.117.55.131? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] gallery

Your judgment was better than mine--I agree that It can wait, and there's no point in pushing people too hard.DGG (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think it's a case of my judgment being better than yours. I just didn't want to appear as though I was challenging everything that had been done. I'm glad that someone else raised the image issue, so I was pleased to see your comment. I don't know that there is any benefit to waiting to raise it. Skeezix1000 21:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dartmouth Crossing

Hi. If you have the stomach/patience for it, could use your help on this article. A couple of editors seem to think that an article made up almost entirely of tenant lists is appropriate because "it's useful". Skeezix1000 22:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I've added it to my watchlist, and I'll tell you one thing... that gallery has GOT to go. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Ha, ha. Yes. DGG said the same thing. I just did not want to ruffle too many feathers by removing the tenant lists and the photos at the same time. Skeezix1000 11:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eatons Royal Family

As a stopgap, rather than have the citation tag in the intro, we could just either attribute the nickname directly to the author, or remove the entire sentence altogether. GoldDragon 21:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Subway PopCulture

Hello, I disagree with your assessment of the Subway in Popular Culture section as trivia and have left an explanation as to why on Talk:Subway (restaurant). I would be very interested in knowing what you think. Dekkanar 16:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'll take a look and post a reply on the talk page. Skeezix1000 19:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kelowna, Kamloops, etc.

If you haven't seen it yet, I'm compiling a list of Canadian cities (cities only, not towns yet) for which "City" currently exists as a redirect to "City, Province", so that they can be systematically reviewed as to whether the plain titles should become the article titles or be converted to dab pages instead. I'm not entirely done the section for Quebec yet, since the whole ville problem makes that one a vastly longer and more daunting list of cities to plow through, but the list is at Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/Cities if you have any input or want to help review which ones should be nominated for moves. Bearcat 23:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit]  ?

Please provide some context wrt your question? >Radiant< 11:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Ah yes, I was confusing you with Schuminweb. The thing is, there's some problem on Wikipedia with people who want to label everything as "policy" "guideline" or "essay", with the latter category being used as a dumping ground for everything that doesn't fit in the former two groups. However, this isn't really a useful approach, considering that over 90% of pages in Wikipedia namespace are none of the three. Wikiproject pages are one of them. Most Wikiprojects have several or even dozens of subpages that are helpful to that project, or show conventions, or layout, or members, or whatever. Nearly every wikiproject leaves those pages untagged because it's perfectly clear what they are; for some reason, your wikiproject insists on calling their subpage an essay, and I'm wondering why. In general, wikiproject pages aren't essays (nor anything else), and actionable pages (such as this one!) aren't essays either. >Radiant< 11:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree that not everything is a policy, guideline or essay, but that doesn't change the fact that WP:ANC is an essay. I'm not sure why it's relation to a Wikiproject is relevant at all. You seem to be splitting hairs, and it's not even clear on what basis you are attempting to do so. It need not be Wikiproject or essay - it can be both. And I am still perplexed as to what you mean by actionable. Skeezix1000 12:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Proof by assertion isn't. The page explains how articles should be written, like the Manual of Style (none of which are essays) and the page is similar to the instructive/howto pages of wikiprojects (none of which are essays either). In other words, for reasons you have not explained so far, you insist on doing things differently than just about everyone else. That, frankly, is a little baffling. >Radiant< 12:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Your logic is a bit off. The manuals of style are not essays because they are guidelines, not because pages that explain how articles should be written are not essays. In fact, many many essays advise how articles should be written. As for "Proof by assertion isn't", you still have not provided any substantive reason, beyond your unsupported and bald assertion that "Wikiproject page can't be an essay". I wouldn't be baffled by us doing things differently, since you you've removed a number of essay tags off other Wikiproject pages. Skeezix1000 12:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Incorrect. "Pages that explain how articles should be written" are by definition not essays. >Radiant< 12:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Again, much like your earlier comments, it would be great if you could explain on what basis you are making this claim. Skeezix1000 13:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Because that's what "actionable" means. Likewise, on what basis are you making the claim that "this is an essay" (despite the facts that Wikipedia has literally hundreds of similar paegs that in fact aren't)? >Radiant< 13:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. Where do you get this stuff? Point me to the page that sets all this out, and explains what you mean by actionable, and shows that this "actionable" standard you keep referring to is somehow relevant. I've pointed out to you in the edit summary that the page meets the definition of essay -- it's up to you to point something out to us that shows us to be mistaken. And as long as you're doing inventory, there are "literally hundreds of similar pages" that are essays. So far, all this seems to be is a very unclear distinction that you appear to have come up with yourself. Skeezix1000 13:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Please point out the "definition of essay" you're using, and the "hundreds of similar pages" that are essays? >Radiant< 13:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
For the second time, essays are described at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#The differences between policies, guidelines, essays, etc.. As for essays, please peruse Category:Wikipedia essays.Skeezix1000 13:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Precisely my point. As you have yourself admitted, you do not know what "actionable" means. This page does in fact not meet the definition you point to. Furthermore, the category contains only one other wikiproject page, so your assertion that it has "hundreds of similar pages" is simply incorrect. >Radiant< 14:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
(a) "Precisely my point". Huh? That's a bit of a non-sequitur.

(b) I speak English. I know what "actionable" means. What I don't know is why you think it's relevant, what you mean by it, and where you are getting this supposed criteria. I've asked several times, and you have yet to provide an answer. Let me put this simply -- where does it say an essay cannot be actionable? Why can't an essay be actionable? Who says?

(c)Reread the definition. An essay is "a page representing the opinions of one or more editors". It's not enough to claim "This page does in fact not meet the definition you point to", but then not to even suggest why it does not.

(d)You have recently been removing essay tags from Wikiproject pages, so I am surprised that you can say "the category contains only one other wikiproject page" with a straight face. In any event, as I have said above, you have yet to explain why being a Wikiproject subpage has any relevance, or to cite the prohibition on Wikiproject subpages from being essays. There are plenty of essays that recommend how articles should be written, just as this one does.

Let's recap. You have not pointed to any authority, discussion or anything else in support of your claim that a Wikiproject page cannot be an essay. Similarly, you have also not provided any support of your claim that an essay does not recommend how articles should be written. You simply keep repeating these bald claims. I am more than happy to have this discussion with you, but you're going to have to back up your position with something more than "This is not an essay. Why? Because it isn't". Skeezix1000 14:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Aha, that is the problem: WP:POL has recently been reworded (older version), and the new wording makes the term "essay" semantically meaningless, because nearly every page in the Wikipedia namespace "represents the opinion of one or more editors". By that definition, almost everything in Wikispace would be an essay - yet by comparing CAT:E to Special:Allpages, we find that this is not even remotely true. From reductio ad absurdum, it follows that the definition is incorrect. >Radiant< 14:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the reason for the "aha" since the policy was changed this past July and you participated in that discussion. There was no consensus on whether actionable was an appropriate standard or not, or even on what actionable means. You don't like the new definition (which is fine, but that hardly compels our Wikiproject to be governed by your personal views). Your issue is clearly one you should take up again over at WP:POL before you do another round of tag deletions. Skeezix1000 14:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The "aha" was because I finally realized why we weren't on the same wavelength. >Radiant< 06:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thumbnails

I'm deleting Commons:Image:650px-Beaches Gazebo.jpg. You uploaded the thumbnail version. You need to click Full resolution on Image:Beaches Gazebo.jpg and upload that (bigger) image. Thanks. Platonides 11:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ottawa Senators

I re-added the mention of the 1884-1934 Senators, while making it 'clearer', that the franchise were seperate. GoodDay 19:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Now, that's an accurate section title. PS- I rethought some of my edits earlier (just before you contacted me). GoodDay 19:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Well it lasted for a 'little while'; Al2k seems persistant in trying to make the 'impression' those teams are connected (1884-1934 & 1992-present clubs). When in fact, they're seperate franchises. However, your idea is on the 'second sub-section title'. GoodDay 21:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Senslogo1mgs.PNG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Senslogo1mgs.PNG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image source problem with Image:CanadaCentennialLogo1967.jpg

Image Copyright problem

This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:CanadaCentennialLogo1967.jpg. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. OsamaKBOT 21:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I must have missed it when reviewing Category:Images with unknown source as of 16 September 2007. It's restored now.-- John Reaves 17:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:HeavenJai.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:HeavenJai.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Image talk:1918eatonssantaclausparade.jpg

Wasn't a mistake. I was tagging it for speedy deletion because talk pages aren't for discussing the article or image insofar as the discussions don't improve them. That talk page was a 'maybe'; since I didn't think the question was being asked to improve anything (just idle curiosity, it seemed), I tagged it. Hope this helps in explaining. Octane [improve me] 25.11.07 2059 (UTC)

Given that that discussion in question was the only thing on that page, CSD G8 doesn't really apply. It's meant to stop people from nuking a talk page upon which there is valid discussion of an image, but where the image file itself isn't hosted on Wikipedia's servers. Now perhaps I've assumed bad faith, but I suppose I like to err on the side of caution (i.e. following the game theory way of thinking). :/ Octane [improve me] 25.11.07 2120 (UTC)

[edit] PD-Canada

If you want to try it out here, go for it. Be warned, though, that part of the reason I think it is doable on Commons is the low number of images using the template - which isn't the true of en-wp.--Padraic 20:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Image:A Thanksgiving Service Attended by Canadian Troops Being Held in the Cambrai Cathedral.jpg

Thanks, I've transfered it to Commons - CamsterE 14:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Coordinates from Agincourt, Toronto article

Your recent edit to this article removed the coordinate information completely from the article. This is is because the {coord} template used has parameter display=inline,title that allows the coordinate information to be displayed exactly where the template appears in the article ("inline") and also at the top right of the article ("title"). By removing the template, you have accidentally removed the display of the information from both places. If you feel it should not be cited inline, move the coord template to the bottom of the article just above any category information, and make the display parameter "title" only. However, before making this change, comment on it on the discussion page for the article so the reason for the change can be documented, and leave some time for any other participants to comment too. I will revert your change for now, and will add comment to the talk page. You may also wish to view the template:coord page. papageno (talk) 01:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thank you for the Inukshuk, I always wanted one in my yard. Cheers. --Qyd (talk) 02:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brick Works pix

This is the first public domain picture I have added to Wikipedia. To add it to Wikimedia is there a move process or should I add it to Wikimedia and delete it from Wikipedia. Atrian (talk) 19:05, 30 December 2007(UTC)

[edit] Yorkdale Shopping Centre

Hello. Thank-you for your feedback on my edit to Yorkdale Shopping Centre. Instead of criticizing me for my poor edits regarding unreliable sources and reverting my edit, why don't you further edit the article to proper, valid sources? Yes, I am aware that Oxford Properties has a profile page on Yorkdale's anchor stores, and obviously you are too as you pointed out in your post on my wall, so I think taking the easy way out and reverting the article was a poor choice. Having at least some sources (although not as strong as Oxford's profile) is better than having nothing at all (which is what your revert put the article back to). If you go back in the history of the edits, you can probably see that I have spent much time bringing this article to what it is today, adding many sources of information. Instead of reverting, please consider helping to improve the article. Thank-you. Sasquatch4510 (talk) 19:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I will work on sourcing the Oxford profile site later on today or tomorrow when I have a chance to do it properly. If you feel so strongly for this (and well you should as it ensures the articles are reliable) it would be appreciated that you consider doing this yourself before I do. Thank-you. Sasquatch4510 (talk) 19:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I may have said something or other along the lines of that, however, I did not say the exact words you quoted me saying, therefore what you falsely quoted me saying was uncalled for. We are all here together to contribute to this encyclopedia and not try to provoke attacks. I only said these remarks because you informed me that you "must've read a hundred different pieces on Yorkdale over the years", so I therefore thought you would be informed on the shopping centre itself and could perhaps supply this information. Thank-you. Sasquatch4510 (talk) 04:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I found another source for the square footage of the stores. It is a floor plan of the mall and I will be adding it momentarily to the article. The only bad thing is, the floor plan I found is quite dated, and many of the stores on this floor plan are no longer open at the mall (ie. the LCBO), and have been replaced by other more fashionable retailers (but the sq. footage for the anchors is still valid). I was also thinking to perhaps change the name of the subtitle of "subanchors" to "major" retailers. What do you think of this? It is a little less ambiguous than staing "subanchors", because as you can see by the floor plan, the stores currently listed under "subanchors" have a fairly significant square footage, but Oxford did not classify them as anchor tenants on their portfolio of the centre. The floor plan of the centre can also be used to confirm the "subanchor" square footage, but I still won't go that far at this point in time. I do recall there was a hot debate over the Wikipedia Yorkdale Shopping Centre article a few years ago with a user adding stolen images and obscenities about Tim Hortons, and having them removed by many other users. I think it was around this time that this information on "subanchors" was added. Some advice if you are looking for further sources: check out newspapers from the GTA - they are great for sources on old stores that used to be at Yorkdale like Fabric Land and Kresges. Best regards, Sasquatch4510 (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Riverdale

Steven Page isn't notable? Are you kidding me? --Pwnage8 (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the intention is to have only notable (hence the title) people (with wikipedia articles). The verification is in the individual articles themselves, though I see your point about it attracting all sorts of 'crap'. I think the best approach would be to evaluate each addition to the list individually, and get sources if they are available. --Pwnage8 (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image you moved to commons

Hey, I noticed that you moved an image I originally uploaded here to "en" over to "commons". (commons:Image:4TorontoFire.jpg, with attribution - thanks!) I then did the same thing, but I used the original name I applied to the image (commons:Image:Front Street after the Toronto Fire of 1904.jpg) because I didn't find it there. That leads to my request - when you move an image, can you try to use the same title, especially when it has a user-friendly name like the one I applied. It makes it much easier to find. (Aside: I hope this doesn't seem rude, but for this case, I think the name I chose is better than the one you chose. Were you just trying to avoid name conflicts while the "en" image was placed in the deletion queue?) Anyway, my apologies if this seems like a trivial point. Mindmatrix 02:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. By the way, thanks for the info about {{ncd}} - I didn't know it existed, but it's useful to know. Mindmatrix 15:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Commons images

I see you have marked Image:JarvisCarlton1800s.jpg, Image:Front and Church Streets looking SE.jpg and Image:Yonge Street looking north from Front Street.jpg as still needing to be cropped. You have run into the same problem as myself. The full resolution images are cropped. The reduced versions loading in the "image page" are not updating. I think Wiki stores (ie caches) some of these reduced size copies which will update in time. Glad to find someone else intersted in Commons images. Finavon (talk) 08:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NHL

Come on, that vandalism was hilarious! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.74.202.217 (talk) 22:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Toronto CN Tower

Hi, I uploaded Image:Toronto's_CN_Tower_Thin.jpg for you. However, it was still on wikipedia and could have been accessed by clicking the date for that version on the image's page. I was happy to help. Oh and by the way, if you have any image/diagram/svg requests, please feel free to voice your request here Wikipedia:GL/IMPROVE. There are plenty of us there to help! :) XcepticZP (talk) 07:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Toronto Old City Hall at dusk.jpg

Bah, it's an PNG... Currently PNGs fail without error. There is no easy way to fix this for me, but it will be handled in the next version of the software. -- Bryan (talk|commons) 19:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Communities

For what it's worth, this is far from the first time I've seen Earl decide that if an established consensus or a binding Wikipedia policy conflicted with his own preferences, then he could make up his own alternate rules instead of conforming to standard. For instance, he once arbitrarily decided that the inclusion standard for city streets in Ottawa wasn't WP:V or WP:RS, but his own personal assessment of whether the street served an equivalent purpose to a provincial highway. Another time, he decided that "neighbourhood categories must be fully populated" is a binding policy that trumps whether any of the articles actually contain any references or not.

I think probably the best thing to do here would be to poll the articles he disputed. If Earl doesn't feel bound by any consensus that disagrees with his own personal preferences, it's most likely just going to turn into an edit war otherwise. Bearcat (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There's also the option of posting them to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography or WP:PLACES as well, though I generally think of those as second steps to be taken only if CWNB aren't able to sort it out amongst ourselves. Bearcat (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ottawa non-urban communities

I've left a note at WP:OTT regarding this discussion so that the remainder of the project (since the case hits only the Ottawa area) but I agree that based on old maps these were not official towns and thus should not have the name Ontario. In the discussion I've also added mention of Orleans, Stittsville, Manotick, Richmond, North Gower, Carp and many more for the same reason. --JForget 23:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem, we could put Orleans, Ottawa, Ontario(and for the extra communities I've added) for that manner.--JForget 23:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Then never mind for the remainder of the list I've added. Definitely would have been better (to have Orleans (Ottawa) or with the coma) but since CP recognizes it, and that the project prefers that way, never mind. Although I'm surprised that Barrhaven is not even recognized by CP even though it is often heard as Orleans by the media and seen as often on ads flyers, etc. Even some of the older maps it add Barrhaven written in big caps letters, but not Orleans (I think if I remember it was written Orleans Village in small caps letters. --JForget 23:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Street, City?

Hi, would you be tell me if my proposed rename of Parc Avenue to Park Avenue, Montreal is indeed the correct form? I can't rememeber where to find the answer and it isn't addessed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada Roads. I noticed, for example, that Boulevard Saint-Laurent (Gatineau) is using parentheses. thank you, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mistaggings...

Its got to be a problem with the category tree.. Someone else is looking at it for me

I've started the bot removing some of the definate bad category taggings (about 300)

I've also given you rollbacker so if you notice any more of my bots bad taggings, you can revert them easily

Thanks


—Reedy Boy 14:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Problem seems to be related to Category:Great Lakes - Its got some bad intersections and loops, meaning it managed to bring up a lot of subcategories of it, which brough about the bad edits. Rebuilt the list, and dupes removed comes to around 30k articles. —Reedy Boy 15:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Just need to sort it out on wiki now... As looking at the loops.. It'll be the same for a few cases... —Reedy Boy 15:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Fallowfield Road Gang 1880.jpg marked for deletion

So, I noticed the aforementioned image was tagged for deletion. I'm gonna need a bit more info. I thought I'd put the image up with the appropriate tagging but obviously I came up short. Could you explain what concerns you? I also noticed this went over to commons. Is this related? Clearly, I'm confused but I suspect it's ignorance on my part more than anything. HeadSnap (talk) 15:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I saw the images get moved over to commons. I also saw the comment that the image in question wasn't a bit for bit copy but I didn't understand why (nor did I really take any time to look). It all makes sense now. Thanks for laying it out for me and thanks for moving the pictures to the commons. There are so many more that I'd like to put up but time is the scarcest commodity going right now (in my world). A project for a rainy day ..... HeadSnap (talk) 17:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Joedon123

I'm in the middle of trying to clear the backlog at WP:SSP, so thought I'd drop you a note to say that the above case has been dealt with. Thanks. GBT/C 11:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AIV

Hi - I see you've recently reported IP address 69.204.46.65 twice for vandalism. I've removed it as this address has not edited for over 12 hours. WP:AIV is for active vandalism - blocks are preventative not punative. If the vandalism starts again, feel free to report it at the time. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 22:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Image:Vezina.gif

I just noticed that you sent me a message regarding the validity of said image, and have a response for it. It was made before 1925 (the year of Vezina's death), and most likely earlier, and as such the creater is unknown. However, it is in the public domain for Canada and the US, and probably more countries. I don't know how to add any of that, as I don't add many images that aren't made by myself. Hope that clarifies the situation, and if not, let me know, and I should be able to clear anything up. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying one of the most confusing issues here for me. To be honest, I can't remember where I got the image, seeing it was nearly two years ago. However, I do know that it is available on the Hockey Hall of Fame website, specificaly here. That should clarify most of the information regarding most of the information. Furthermore, I would say with near certainty that the image was taken in Canada, seeing how Vezina was a member of the Montreal Canadiens, and the NHL was not very established in the US at the time. Hope this helps. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
And thank you for helping keep this image, one I consider rather important in the history of hockey, alive and working on Wikipedia. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Scarborough,_Ontario#Cliffcrest_and_Cliffside

Talk:Scarborough,_Ontario#Cliffcrest_and_Cliffside I have responded. Gary King (talk) 06:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image at Bryan Lee O'Malley

Hi there. I have uploaded a new image with the appropriate licenses (Image:Bryanleeomalleyportrait.jpg) and added it to my wiki page. If there are any further problems in the details, I am sure you'll take care of them. Radiomaru (talk) 17:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Beverly, Alberta

Thanks for the heads up. I've replied to your comment. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 05:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)