User talk:CJCurrie/Archive 4

Mark Lemire

I had to stub the article again. I hope you can help with it.--Jimbo Wales 02:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Socialist Party of British Columbia

I don't see your fingerprints on this article, which concerns me. They should be there. I have been trying to clean this dong's breakfast up. Your contributions would help improve this and give me more confidence in the validity of the article. Happy new year. Ground Zero | t 18:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Peter Kouba

Thanks for the heads up on the Kouba article. Incidently, penny for your thoughts regarding the current saga concerning the Marc Lemire article? AnnieHall 06:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Isarig

Have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Incivility, disruptive editing, and stalking-like behavior from Isarig. What do you think? Abu ali 21:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Cheri DiNovo

Just by the way, you put the sprotect notice on the page, but then didn't actually sprotect it...so our anon friend got another one in. Bearcat 05:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Dion

You probably won't be surprised to know that I'm already aware of the issue. And I do share your concerns. I was actually about to say something a day or two ago but didn't because GD posted that a tag was better than a removal, even if it was problematic. I'm not really familiar with WP policies in that regard so I just let it go, waiting for Eric to post some sort of defence. And like I said before, I hate to step in the middle of your disputes with GD. =) --JGGardiner 08:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Church/Peter Murphy

Sorry--didn't mean to assume a lack of knowledge of surrealism. I never caught a reference to Peter Murphy in the song, but if there is a history there (i.e. animosity between Kilbey and Murphy), then maybe it fits. I don't feel particularly strongly about it, and after thinking about it, it really doesn't hurt to be on the list. Freshacconci 17:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Please use the + tab when starting a new conversation on talk pages

When you want to start a new conversation on a talk page or a page like the Village Pump, please use the + tab rather than simply editing the last section. I was thinking that you were replying to a post I made. Using the + tab will create less confusion. Thanks. Will (Talk - contribs) 00:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Michael Prue

While I agree with you, I just did a lookup on the anon's IP number, and guess where it resolves to? APNIC. Which means, in a nutshell, that it's most likely the same person as our beloved DiNovo vandal (especially since the same person has also made edits to Sylvia Watson), and that it's very unlikely that any amount of discussion or reversion is going to make them settle for any version of the article that isn't theirs. I honestly don't know what the best way is to handle this, but we know from experience that editblocks and reversions aren't going to work.

I'd suggest maybe going back to your more thorough wording, but say that the incident "was characterized as a smear campaign" if it can be externally attributed to a viable source. Bearcat 03:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The user has never been blocked; the fact that it's a different IP number almost every time they show up has prevented blocking from being a viable solution. And we're also not allowed to put permanent blocks on dynamic IP numbers anyway; we can at most put a 24-hour or 48-hour block. Bearcat 03:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Stalking

Quit following me around; quit looking for any opportunity to support someone who opposes me no matter how bad an editor it is; and quit e-mailing people asking them to post comments against me. Your support for someone who reverted five times in 50 minutes is astonishing, and for you to chastise any admin for reverting takes the biscuit given you're one of the worst offenders. I'm serious, CJC. I don't want to see you following me around any more. If you continue, I'll begin dispute resolution. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• I obviously disagree with the sentiments of the previous message. For my response, click here. CJCurrie 19:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Rigby/Partington

Well, technically, he served -one- day on Regional Council as a St. Catharines representative, the day they elected the Regional Chair. From that day forward, he was no longer a St. Catharines representative, but rather the chair for the entire region. Almas was filled to replace Partington, and then Rigby replaced Almas as Partington was re-selected as regional chair. So yes, Partington was a regional councillor, but for only one day after the 2003 election, and Almas replaced him for the rest of the 2003-2006 term. Partington was still regional chair up until the election, he was still technically regional chair during the re-selection of him as regional chair this past December.

Basically, to sum it up, it is in fact more correct to refer to Almas as Rigby's predecessor, not Partington. Partington's predecessor would Debbie Zimmerman, who was regional chair before him (and now a regional councillor)

Snickerdo 02:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Green Party candidates, 2003 Manitoba provincial election

I've contributed some comments on the article's talk page that you may wish to review. This is not the first time someone has tried to radically narrow the definition of politician to only those they consider ‘viable’ or whatever. Sigh. —GrantNeufeld 01:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Raymond Samuels

CJ, why did you remove the lawsuit stuff from the Raymond Samuels Page? It was very well sourced and very relevant, I think it met the BLP (is that what it's called?) guidelines. The lawyers were involved and never said to remove it, I think it should go back in, it's relevant. Technicalglitch 04:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

re: your reply just now, I don't agree. I don't think you have the authority to be the last word on this article. Others have disagreed with you on this too. With all due respect, you value internet based research far more than actual court documents, and this is backwards. The lawsuit material is much better sourced than the other stuff in the aticle. Please put it back. I'll do so tomorrow if you don't.

Legislative Assembly of Ontario: new website is in development

Public release: March 2007.--anon-23 January 2007

Joe Volpe

I'll try to wade into this in the next couple of days, but as with other disputes, it is difficult to join in when they've been going on so long. Regards, Ground Zero | t 06:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

New Antisemitism

Hey CJ, quick question: can you give me the long and short of the status of the lead on New Antisemitism? I raised an issue at the bottom of the talk page, to which Slim suggests I'm opening an old can of worms, with a mediation and months of bickering etc. Just curious about your take since I see you were involved -- if you wouldn't mind just letting me know, I don't want to start a fight or anything. Many thanks, Mackan79 19:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I checked it out and fixed it. Thanks for the great work, Mackan79 17:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Harper edit

I tried to add that bit during a meeting and struggled to come up with not too POV wording, which was hard considering how disasterous and episode that whole thing was. You did much better. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Markdsgraham (talk • contribs) 00:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

Define a secondary source

Or even better, point me towards a definition of it as accepted by Wikipedia. Technicalglitch 01:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yisroel Dovid Weiss

There was nothing unfair in the original article on Yisreol Dovid Weiss. Those unflattering facts about Yisreol Dovid Weiss should not be deleted simply because you think its not even handed, just like facts concerning Hitler should not be removed because they are unflattering. Your concerns. provided they are rooted in fact, ought to be discussed. If you don't know the relevant facts, it is advisable that you first learn them and THEM decide to make edits by people who are apparently fluent on the issues. Thank you.

Alert

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manitoba Marijuana Party. thanks. Ground Zero | t 21:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

blacklisted hyperlink on Samuels page

CJ, I was trying to re-edit the Samuels page to reinstate the "other" section, and it won't let me save it as there's a "blacklisted hyperlink" somewhere on the page. I'm guessing it must be one of the sex-related links from your sections that you wrote, can you check it out? I can't figure it out. It's not something I'm introducing as I tried both adding it to the current version and reverting to a previous version, neither work, it's gotta be something forbidden that's already there. Technicalglitch 20:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Jack Layton

Hi CJ. Please see the articles on Stephen Harper and Paul Martin. It seems that party leaders have a small flag next to their date of birth in the infobox - probably to spruce it up. If this isn't the case and it's just PMs that have it, feel free to edit it out. Thanks and have a great evening!Homagetocatalonia 04:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It was the flag when the individual was born. That was the case with the Stephen Harper and Paul Martin articles. I just applied their policy onto those boxes. Homagetocatalonia 13:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Joe Volpe

I am trying to move along the three points of dispute at Talk:Joe Volpe. You and GoldDragon have come to a consensus on the Apotex donation, so I have implemented that change. There remain two outstanding issues. I would appreciate your attention to them so that we can resolve them and move on. Regards, Ground Zero | t 09:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Donald Pennell

In '05, you created the article on Donald Pennell in which you stated that a) he fought in the Second World War, and b) he was 49 in 1987. I think you see the problem, yes? DS 15:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Please reconstruct

You have dleted an article with complete disregard to due process. I was in the middle of working on this article. Please reconstruct it, so I can continue. If you want to put it up for deletion please follow process and get consensus. Thanks. Zeq 16:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Children of the Prime Ministers of Canada

Hi CJCurrie. We really need your help to keep this article. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Children of the Prime Ministers of Canada -- Earl Andrew - talk 01:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, they've put Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parents of the Prime Ministers of Canada on AfD as well. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Rachel Marsden

Hi CJCurrie - You reverted my edit to the Rachel Marsden article, stating that the last edit was not appropriate. I would appreciate it if you can explain in more detail why my edit was not appropriate. Thanks. -- Jreferee 03:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits (copied from Rachel Marsden)

An editor with no prior record of activity on this page (AFAIK) posted the "prohibited" version of the Marsden article a few minutes ago. I will assume that this editor was unfamiliar with the Arbcomm decision, which I have since forwarded to him.

I have reverted his changes, and I plan to delete and recreate the page *in its current form* after sending this post. Given this page's complicated history, removing the "prohibited" version from the documentary record seems to be a sensible precaution.

Please inform me if you disagree with my decision. CJCurrie 03:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Because of my significant involvement with BLPs and experience in writing BLPs, I was asked to review the Marsden situation. After my review of the situation, I rewrote the Marsden article using 45 separate Wikipedia sources without reference to any version of the Marsden article. Your statement that I posted the "prohibited" version factually is not true. The article had a significant amount of information and I am unsure how you could have reviewed each piece of information in the article in the context of the ArbCom decision in the less than two minutes that you took to revert the article. Item 9 of the ArbCom decision cites to a negatively biased version of the Marsden article as an example as to what the Marsden article should not be. Your deletion of the page's complicated history affects the ArbCom decision by deleting the negatively biased version to which ArbCom desired to have editors review as part of improving the Marsden article. Since the "prohibited" version was not posted as you stated, your removing the "prohibited" version from the documentary record seems premature and something ArbCom could have done had they so desired. -- Jreferee 04:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi CJC -- in as friendly a way as possible: I disagree. I've posted a message on the RM talk page -- let's take further discussion over there. Sdedeo (tips) 00:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I support what CJC did here. I've only looked quickly at the version Jreferee put up but what I've seen was problematic. I'm not aware that the ArbCom said any particular version had to be available for general review. They said any admin could reduce the article to a stub or delete it if there were BLP problems, and there clearly were. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi SV -- are you sure you saw Jreferee's version? AFAICT from Jreferee's comments, it was only up for a few minutes. Sdedeo (tips) 00:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I looked at it after it was deleted. I only glanced, but the lead was completely unacceptable. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

NDP Support of Income Trust Tax Changes

I would like to add the following text to the article under the header: Conservative Minority Government.

Jack Layton and the NDP continue to support the new proposed rules for income trusts introduced by the Conservatives October 31, 2006. The immediate result of the change in tax policy was a loss to Canadian investors of $20 Billion, the largest ever loss attributed to a change in government policy . According to the Canadian Association of Income Trust Investors some 2.5 million Canadian investors were effected by the change in Income Trust Policy

My intial attempt to insert this new information was reverted by you. I would like an explanation why. DSatYVR 06:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply at User_talk:DSatYVR#NDP. I understand the requirement to present material in a neutral and objective manner, but all facts need to be presented around an issue. Feel free to add any cited information you think is relevant to the discussion. Is Wikipedia a platform for promoting political parties? No. Its a place to present a 'cited' history around an issue, whether it flatters the individual politician or not. Regards, DSatYVR 06:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional comments on my talk page. I understand your desire not to portray Jack Layton in a unflattering way however the NDP does support the change in Canadian Income Trust Taxation as proposed by the Conservatives and this has resulted in certain effects on 'hard-working' Canadians as I have outlined. I've cited my sources. But here is one more Layton's voting record on Trust Taxation vote. Why should this information be suppressed? I invite you to research the NDP record on this issue and add content that meets wiki guidelines. Suppressing factual information just because you don't like it diminishes your contribution to Wikipedia IMO.DSatYVR 07:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit Summaries

I know the two of us haven't always agreed. :) However, I would appreciate it if you would stop making talk page arguments in your edit summaries. I know that you and GD are having a protracted fight, but you're not doing anything positive by dragging it into the edit summaries. I will make the same remark to GD. Alan.ca 07:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

re david miller-(According to Porter Airlines,as reported by 680 News in Jan/07,Porter has created 225 jobs as well as spinoff jobs and will continue to create further jobs as Porter expands to New York and Chicago)

It is an extension of what Buzz Hargrove is saying in the same paragraph,i am not the one who opened the door on the island airport here but who ever did write it left the door open for additional comment.What is so bad about creating 225 jobs for the city?.I am going to continue to add it to the page,you and others can leave it or delete it.If you don't like it remove any reference to the island airport from the page. In the paragraph Buzz Hargrove says that Porter will create jobs,I am expanding on this.It has nothing to do with my POV.If you are the writer on this page remove what Hargrove says and I will cease to edit this point.If not it is fair to add this to the paragraph.myfro

AfD Progressive Bloggers

You have edited the article Progressive Bloggers. This article is currently being considered for deletion under the wp:afd process. You may contribute to this discussion by commenting here. Thank you.Edivorce 23:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

New Democratic Party candidates, 1990 Manitoba provincial election

An article that you created, New Democratic Party candidates, 1990 Manitoba provincial election, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Democratic Party candidates, 1990 Manitoba provincial election Thank you. SkierRMH 20:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Marsden nomination offer

I'm not sure what that line is supposed to be about. A Conservative party official offers a nomination, then withdraws the offer. Is that supposed to say something about Marsden? Is Wikipedia sure the Conservative official had the right to make the offer? I just don't get why that can be considered an encyclopedic fact. Alaric the Goth

Why is it significant enough to mention? In what way? I just don't get the spin of this. If she's not fit to run for the Conservatives, why did they ask her? It seems more insultiung than anything. You answered my question by stating an opinion. Alaric the Goth

I don't agree it was "scouting". It seems like a rash offer (perhaps, if the person making it was qualified to do so), taken back, and nothing of real substance. It seems like it's supposed to be something negative, since it's listed with her conviction. Alaric the Goth 23:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Antisemitism

Hi CJCurrie,

I was wondering if you have some free time helping with Antisemitism article(in which case I would be thankful). If not, that's perfectly okay.

I have been involved in that article for awhile and I think the Islam section is very POV. I think the section would not become neutral unless several new editors join in. There is a dispute here [1].

Thanks,--Aminz 06:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks --Aminz 03:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Does only part of the edit constitute a 3RR violation?

That is fine, I am always up for third parties and mediators. I would however like to explain something. Saying that it is "not fair" because he has also said that about Christianity does not mean anything, and I know you have been here long enough to know that. The quotation is also sourced by a reliable source, and I also know that you know that. That is a huge part of the opposing argument. Erasing it is not only a violation of NPOV but a vandalism violation since you knowingly remove a sourced quotation. Aside from that, there is a world of difference between a Christian leader saying that Christianity has had a monopoly on whatever, and a Christian leader saying that Jews thought they had a monopoly. Big difference, plus that does not even include the Jesus part, nor does it make the statement removable. Are you saying that the people who were offended should not be because he said something similar about Christianity? If so, fine, but that does not change the fact that *they were* offended about that controversial statement. --Shamir1 04:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Alithien or User:Stevertigo. However, I know that Stevertigo is already involved in a several mediations. I would go with Alithien. --Shamir1 05:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I know, but i was just saying that Stevertigo last I checked was quite busy. I understand its not mediation. --Shamir1 05:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I simply just do not understand any reason not to include sourced material. I've been here for a while, and I know that although the Hartford source would be preferred, it is not necessary so long as another reliable source has published that event. --Shamir1 01:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Response:

• The Hartford material could very easily have been taken completely out of context. It's not appropriate for us to present the quote without having a better idea of what Tutu meant.
  • I edit at Wikipedia and was also involved in collecting quotes from foreign leaders for the Pope Benedict XVI Islam controversy. I, and other editors, used regular news sites. The AP, Sydney Morning Herald, Washington Post, Jerusalem Post.... Quotes are already selected for the news site, and were usually just pasted into the article or shortened even more. Not once did any of us editors have to retrieve the complete speech, not once. And we all used reliable sources. Unless you can find a source that even mentions the idea that that line was taken out of context, then that edit stand. Never working at Wikipedia have I heard such a baseless excuse for removal.
• I'll reiterate that Tutu has used the "monopoly on God" line with reference to Christianity as well. We shouldn't present one quote without also presenting the other.
  • I'll reiterate that he is not Jewish! It is totally and completely and utterly different when a Christian leader says that about Jews. Imagine a Jew telling a Jewish stereotype joke to another Jew, that is no big deal. No imagine a Muslim telling an Jewish stereotyoe joke to a Jew, that probably wouldn't be too funny. Not that any of this is irrelevant but it appears hard for you to understand. Anyway, you will need a something that draws that comparison, otherwise it does not stand.
• I'm not opposed to including the "Jewish arrogance" line per se, but the Holocaust quote could easily have been taken out of context as well. The presentation does not seem at all fair to the subject. CJCurrie 02:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Not only do I not see how these quotes can be taken out of context, but it doesnt matter. I dont see how it is presented badly when almost all in quotations. You can bring something up in specific and that can be handled. Unfortuantely, life is not fair, and it is not good form to simply hide away his controversial comments. --Shamir1 07:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• The problem is that we don't have any quote from Tutu vis-a-vis the Temple, nor even the original newspaper report. Perhaps more importantly, we don't have any evidence that Tutu's comments about the temple were a source of controversy among Hartford's Jewish community. All we have at present is a summary (possibly selective) on the website of someone who hates Tutu, and a passing reference in the Jerusalem Post. There's nothing to indicate that this is important.
  • The JPost article lists it as one of several controversial statements. A website of someone who hates Tutu? Thats a pretty strong allegation. And even if he does, obviously that is his reason. Secondly, if "all" we have is the Post article, then that is all we need anyway. All news articles are references. Stick with the rules.

• I don't need anything that "draws the comparison". Tutu has used the "monopoly on God" line with reference to both Christianity and Judaism, and the comments may be referenced together accordingly. The rest of your comments are, in fact, irrelevant.
  • Yes u do... and more correctly, it was about Jews rather than Judaism. And the fact that he has used that line when referring to Christianity does not excuse any offense. And yes my comments were irrelevant (as I already said) but it was just to explain to you the huge difference between a Christian leader saying that about Christianity, and a Christian leader saying that about Jews. The fact that you do not seem to be able to see that just boggles me.

• Context does matter, and there's little purpose in including a potentially inflammatory statemet that may have been taken out of its proper, etc. I'll have to review the AJC's summary of this matter, but I'm not convinced the entire exchange is significant enough to mention. CJCurrie 08:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Nothing is potentially inflammatory, these are his words. So long as it is relevant, and each statement is already quite brief, then it is fine to mention. --Shamir1 20:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

How do I request a block?

How does someone block this IP: Special:Contributions/70.73.76.185? It seems like a low risk action because it only seems be to used by the same idjiot. Deet 01:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Yisroel Dovid Weiss

hi, just in case yr interested, put in an rfc on the above. ben  ⇒ bsnowball  19:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Attribution#Role of truth

I like your comment in the archives:

If Wikipedia ever reaches the point where "false, but attributable" information is allowed to be presented as a simple matter of fact, then we'll have become the monstrosity our that enemies make us out to be. CJCurrie 06:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly the point I'm trying to make. --Coppertwig 00:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You might (or might not) be interested that I've quoted one of your edits at Wikipedia talk:Attribution#It doesn't look to me as if there was a consensus. in relation to discussion at Wikipedia talk:Attribution#Role of truth. Also, you might find this humourous: [2] --Coppertwig 00:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Pallywood

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors on Pallywood. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

i appreciate your attempts at wikifying and improving the quality of the pallywood article, however, it would seem that both you and ChrisO have "taken the article hostage", not allowing anyone else to adding deeply relevant information. your initial attempts at deleting the article (whiche failed), and your insessant insistance on controlling the material that is inserted as if it's false and unrelated (did you even see the film "jenin jenin"? or the counter film made by pierre rehov?) are being the point of good editing and at the point of "controllism" over the article. i suggest, now that your work with the article is done, that you allow for other people with valid expertieze on the subject to introduce what materials they see as extremely relevant - frontpagemag was simply reporting on the "jenin, jenin" film and while the word 'pallywood' is not mentioned in the frontpage mag, it is (the film) mentioned at the seconddraft and it is also commonly reffered to as pallywood by people who reffer to "pallywood productions". Jaakobou 08:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: jayjg: I'm not entirely sure

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt per WP:AGF. I'll keep an eye of him and see if he does anything else.--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 13:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, seeing as how he's an admin who has semi-protected his talk page (is that allowed?), I'm afraid it may fall on deaf ears [3]. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 14:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

He removed the comment: [4]

Would you mind placing it there? If he removes your notice as well, that will make him elligible for RfC.

"Before requesting community comment, at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem."

I was about to make another section on his talk page saying "your "big yellow box" is not official policy." But it seems pointless.

Thanks. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 15:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This is interesting. Kirbytime objecting to personal attacks? Kirby, could you explain the "GTFO" comment you left me here. GTFO means "Get the Fuck out", as I discovered from the Internet. Also, you said to Noogster "you dont own the fucking template", while leaving a heading of WP:DICK in the Title of your message. Thats why I was surprised to see you complaining of Personal attacks. Please refrain from further personal attacks and remain civil.--Matt57 15:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Matt, you are entirely unrelated to the issue. Also, your allegations that I may have done a personal attack are totally irrelevant to whether or not jayjg has done personal attacks.--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 16:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Kirbytime, if I see you engaging in personal attacks again, please beware that I will report that and perhaps you may be blocked for a certain time, so please remain civil to other users. --Matt57 17:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Your comments

I'd like to draw your attention to these comments: [5] When an editor insists that the Holocaust is merely an "allegation" or a "political epithet", and I merely note that, do you really think that could in any way possibly amount to a violation of WP:NPA? Please quote the section you think applies, if you do. Or, if you weren't aware of those edits, perhaps you should retract your question. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• For my response, click here. CJCurrie 21:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Repeating his comments really isn't stating anything about him, is it? If his own comments give you a bad impression of him, well... Also, it's hardly clear he was using a reductio ad absurdum argument, and his later comments tend to compound the problem. See, for example, User_talk:Quadell#Re:_jayjg. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I know no such thing, and I didn't "summarize" his remarks. It's almost unbelievable to me that you would make that accusation. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Read this. Is Quadell "unbelievable" as well? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• For my response, click here. CJCurrie 22:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Moved section

I notcied you were trying to post a comment at the WP:RM page. Jayjg moved the entry out of the section where I had originally listed it, into the section where it now sits. Is this right? I ask only because I'm unfamiliar with the process and considering his deep partisan involvement against a name change, I'm wondering if his actions were appropriate. Thanks. Tiamut 21:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC

Thanks for explaining, I just wanted to be sure. I didn't notice it was you that made the change and don't know the policies so I thought I'd ask, since you seem to be a more experienced editor. I appreciate your clarification of procedure there. Tiamut 21:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Your note

Notwithstanding that I may vandalize it myself one day, you're welcome. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Your reverting

Could you please read source material before beginning another of your series of reverts? You're changing what the source says, and the reverting is pointless and time-consuming. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That's why it's there! That's what the article is about, for goodness sake! And you keep changing what the Toronto person said. She wasn't talking about Concordia, at least not according to Gerstenfeld. CJC, you MUST stop this extreme POV editing. Every single article or edit that draws attention to left-wing antisemitism has you trying to whitewash it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Tell me where the source says this: "In the aftermath of the Globe and Mail advertisement, the communications director of the University of Toronto stated that some incidents at the Concordia protest "could be viewed as anti-Semitic." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• • For my response, click here. CJCurrie 04:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, calmly of course, but could you answer the question, please? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• • For my response, click here. CJCurrie 04:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Jews can be antisemitic just like anyone else. The point is whether the source includes it as an example of antisemitism, and he clearly does, given that's what his article is about. Whether you agree is not relevant. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• • For my response, click here and here. CJCurrie 04:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Sarah

Hey CJ Currie, whatever happened to Sarah Ewart? Has her account been deleted? - Finnegans wake 01:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I can explain. Finnegans, I'll email you. Kla'quot 05:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Grant Devine

Greetings. As an experienced Wikipedian and someone obviously heavily involved in Canadian politics pages, I'd like your advice as to how to handle an edit dispute I'm currently involved in concerning the Grant Devine article. A look at the second-last section of the talk page will show you what I'm dealing with. Thanks! --Hiddekel 03:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think many of the disputes could be resolved if we had some consistency in what is and what isn't to be said about politicians, and that is, more than anything, a structural issue with Wikipedia that probably has also been dealt with extensively in other wikis, concerning, perhaps, George Bush. Perhaps we can should be looking there for guidance as to how the community has dealt with the issue.

Basically what we have is one camp who wants to tar Grant Devine/Brad Wall with (sourced and referenced) bad stuff, but goes and eliminates the (sourced and referenced) bad stuff written about Lorne Calvert and other figures in NDP administrations. And we have another camp that does the opposite, and an edit war is the ultimate result. 70.73.4.197 21:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think many of the disputes could be resolved if ...

if 70.73.4.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 70.64.4.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) were permanently blocked for long-term disruptive editing. The articles would be fine if neither took part. The two have been warned repeatedly over feuding - via hostile edit summaries, unexplained reverts, etc - and then just carry on doing the same. As others have said, it ought to be long since obvious to both that their approach is ineffective in achieving their aim (unless that aim is continuing timewasting mayhem). Tearlach 17:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The articles would not be 'fine' if those users were blocked. Stop trying to impose your own biased POV Tearlach, its one thing to be sympathetic to the NDP, its quite another to make veiled administrative threats simply because there are others with whom you disagree. Now lets look at how this stuff is resolved for other controversial politicians and proceed along a similar path. 70.73.4.197 19:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I've no bias one way or the other on the political content. But any article stands a better chance of stability without editors who ignore repeated conduct warnings. Tearlach 21:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The only issues with conduct have been with respect to those individuals who were reverting edits that weren't even in controversy. The 'conduct warnings' are more of an intimidation tactic from certain NDP supporters. An ingenious use of them, but I'm not too intimidated. 70.73.4.197 15:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Stephane Dion

Yikes. So the Dion article is a going concern? Watchsmart 12:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

List of issues

Hey CJ -- maybe based on my suggestions, you could compile a list? The OR issues generally being your initiative, you may better be able to characterize them. I'm also not sure if the attribution issues, etc., in the "Responses" section require mediation. They should probably go on the list either way. If I started one, it would be 1.) The lead, 2.) The history section and OR issues, 3.) The responses section and attribution/NPOV issues. At the same time, I'm encouraged by Jay's comment that we may be able to resolve the lead without mediation. Mackan79 19:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Block request

Another winner: Special:Contributions/206.12.150.8

Thanks. Deet 22:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Guille and the CHA

I noticed that Guille's article had been subed yesterday but hadn't realized the whole thing would be removed (as was the Canadian Heritage Alliance). I have to say this is a little frustrating. There was good information there that was well sourced. AnnieHall 02:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

How do I email you? AnnieHall 21:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You'll have to forgive me for venting my frustration, but it appears that no document, save mass media reports, are going to satisfy those opposed to the information in the article. Not just the articles written mt Matthew Lauder being objected to, but Canadian Human Rights Tribunal documents are being called "original research' and not acceptable as well. As it is I'm not sure that it's possible to re-write the article in any form since the bar for legitimate sources has been set so high as to not even include government and legal documents. AnnieHall 20:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

New Democratic Party

Dear Sir,

   I realized after putting my edits that they were indeed dry and technichal and didn't flow with the last scentence in the section.

However: (1) according to the party constitution 'affilaited members' are scaled 25 percent of the vote, the rest is individual party members, and (2) affiliated membership is open to all the groups listed(which is in quotes because it is a quote). To revert the edits to '25 percent' would be an over simplication(which is perhaps appropriate), to revert it to 45 percent is plain wrong. I have set it to 25, but have ommitted the details. Whether you wish to change it back or not I would appreciate a note back explaining what specifically about my edits was innapropriate, thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jethro 82 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Conservative Party of Canada - Right vs. Centre-Right

The labelling of the party as “right-leaning” as opposed to “centre-right” is based purely on amateur speculation toward future policy or the isolated remarks of individual party members. The party should be assigned a label based on actual official policy and legislation that they introduced and/or supported in the House. Speculation on what the Conservatives would do with a majority government based on their much trumpeted “hidden agenda” is not a valid basis for assigning political alignment, since it is not factually verifiable, nor is speculation on the motivation of policy. Equally invalid are the isolated remarks of individual members, since they are not likely representative of the party as a whole. All mainstream federal parties have members who have been out-of-step with official stance. Former Liberal Carolyn Parrish and former New Democrat Bev Desjarlais are obvious examples, since few would label the Liberal Party as an inherently anti-American party, nor the NDP as against same-sex marriage. The recent federal budget, while arguably a product of political compromise, should serve as clear evidence that the Conservatives are a centre-right party. –Anon, 3 April 2007

Subst

Please remember to subst user messages. Thanks. Picaroon 01:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Socred split article

My notes indicate that I got this from the "Creditiste MPs Outweight Socreds" article (Globe, 11 Sept 1963, p. 41). Is it possible that I made this note to myself as opposed to noting it from the article? Yes. I am sure, however, that the 12-member rule pre-dates Mulroney. I am quite certain that Trudeau bent the rule in 1974 to give Caouette's 11-man band official party status on the basis that it was a party that had been around a while and fell just one short. In 1979, Roy asked Clark to bend the rule again to allow the 6-man Socred caucus to be a party, and Clark refused. Next time I have access to the microfilm, I will try to check again, but that is unlikely to happen for quite a while. Without some evidence that the 12-member rule didn't exist at the time, I am not inclined to change it.

How does the article read? It could probably do with a critical eye. Ground Zero | t 22:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

See Social_Credit_Party_of_Canada#Decline:_1973.E2.80.931980 and Social_Credit_Party_of_Canada#Clark_minority_government. It is possible, though, that I wrote those parts. Ground Zero | t 23:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is the Parliamentary site's (click on the detailed article under "Political parties") take on "official party". I will need some time on this issue. Please stand by. Ground Zero | t 05:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It turns out the issue is a bit more complex. According to the Globe and Gazette articles I've cited in this article, in the summer of 1963, a $4000 allowance was introduced in for leaders of "any recognized group of 12 or more members in the House". This could be the start of the official party status, or could be another step along the way. Ground Zero | t 12:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Soulscanner

I can't prove it, obviously, but I'm starting to get the sneaking suspicion that User:Soulscanner of the tendentious Quebec-related edits is the same person as User:DW/User:Angelique/User:JillandJack/User:A. Lafontaine of past tendentious Quebec-related edits. But I don't know if I have enough of a case to go to checkuser without being accused of fishing. Any input? Bearcat 05:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not. --Soulscanner 07:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

How to undue a ton of linkspam

CJ, do you know how to undo a whole bunch of linkspam created by the same user: Special:Contributions/Smobri ? He is trying to get links to a single site. I'll undo a few, but there must be a way to negate all of his entries more easily. Deet 00:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I should have looked more closely at his contributions. Deet 00:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Melissa Guille and the Canadian Heritage Alliance

Could you offer your input on this?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Canadian_Heritage_Alliance AnnieHall 03:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Québécois

Hello, I am contacting all non-anonymous editors who participated in the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Québécois. It has been very difficult achieving consensus on the appropriate scope of the article, and the use of the word Québécois in a series of articles proposed by one editor. I am requesting input at Talk:Québécois. Joeldl 23:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Review of English-speaking Quebecer

I'm requesting a peer review of English-speaking Quebecer. In particular, what is the most appropriate way of defining the population? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soulscanner (talk • contribs) 07:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

Neturei Karta

What's the point of this slow-cooking edit war? Is there a reason you're reverting other people's good faith edits? -- Y not? 03:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Your hunch as to the Sun is not a sufficiently good reason to undo someone's reasonable good-faith edit. If you don't like it, propose it on talk and get consensus. I asked someone neutral to come and review. -- Y not? 03:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I asked user:Jersyko. -- Y not? 03:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Sabeel

Would you mind taking a look at the lead for this article? Thanks.--G-Dett 15:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Colin Cameron died in the summer of 1968

CCF/NDP MP Colin Cameron died of a heart attack in the summer of 1968, 1968.07.28 to be precise. A few days later, the NDP riding association offered the nomination to T.C. Douglas. He accepted the riding's nomination and ran in the 1969 by-election. Check the parliament MP site at Cameron, Colin Or if you have access to the Walter Stewart book on Douglas, see pages 275-6. Abebenjoe 07:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

John Baird

• I have now reviewed three points of contention that remain between you and Gold Dragon and made recommendations. Please review. Thanks. Ground Zero | t 21:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Mackenzie Institute

Thanks for the note about 3RR, but I still don't see how their "signs to watch out for" is notable. Looks like a bog-standard profile to me. The additional info you've just added doesn't clarify its notability. <<-armon->> 00:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 05:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Shane Ruttle Martinez

Could you vote on this issue?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shane_Ruttle_Martinez#Protection

Thanks. AnnieHall 20:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Neturei Karta edit

Why did you change back the edit. The homophobia of Neturei Karta is a very serious issue and should be prominently discussed. It is unusual in 2007 for religious leaders to openly call homosexuality a perversion and to fire and brimstone all who practice it.

For my response, click here. CJCurrie 02:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Brandon West

Care to elaborate? I see nothing odd, Borotsik won the riding. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

205.193.82.252

I've sent him another warning for his 3rr violation/edit war. If he persists for another week or two, I will file a report about him at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. It's been at least 2 months he's been doing that, so probably a 24h or 48h block may stop him one day. Also, this account is from the Public Works Government and Services Canada, although I doubt they will do something, if we contact hem about the abuse. Thanks!--JForget 21:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

NAS unprotect request

Please see this thread. I plan to wait with the unprotect until there is some clarification on the issues raised. Crum375 22:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Jack Layton May 26 00:01

Hello CJCurrie. I am not sure why you reversed my change to Jack Layton that I did on May 25 at 07:42. I reversed what looked to me like vandalism by 172.144.242.130, but on May 26 at 00:01 you reversed my change, so the vandalism is back. Is there something I don't understand, or was this an error? The article looks very strange as it is...Que-Can 01:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops! JForget has just reversed your entry. All's well...?~~

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wyatt McIntyre

I just closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wyatt McIntyre as a merge. You indicated some int erst in the AfD discussion in doing the merge. Do you plan to? As the closer, I feel some responsibility for doing some sort of merge if no one else does, but an editor who knows the subject area could probably do a better job. DES ^(talk) 17:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. DES ^(talk) 19:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ottawa City Councillor on AfD

Hey, wondering if you could help vote to keep an article. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eli El-Chantiry -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Barbara Kay controversy and other articles

I think we have one of the clearest cases of anonymous sockpuppetry ever. What do we do to stop all that vandalism and those personal attacks?--Boffob 00:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Reverts and ignore will only go so far... His personal attacks on talk pages are getting annoying. His IP's had temporary blocks because of this. I think we should seriously consider putting a notice on the admin boards, otherwise he'll just keep coming back again and again.--Boffob 02:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

3rr

the 3RR applies to everyone, however, the 3RR relates to reverts/contributions that are against edits of other users - it does not apply to changing/upgrading your own edits. to make things clear, i have no idea on who anon. editor is and i have no problem with an IP check being made if you feel i'm not being honest.

i am a bit concerned with the lack of respect i am receiving from both non anon. editors as a fellow editor by what could be regarded as a POV attempt to push reviews (in a non consensus way) that are against the film to lead the article. please help make the work on this article less confrontational so that we can get it over with and move on to other projects. Jaakobou 05:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

please help make the work on this article less confrontational^{you can't be serious} so that we can get it over with and move on to other projects. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Al Leach

I tried finding a reference for this quote "We have a number of passengers who would be offended by this. And I’m one of them." but couldn't find one. I found a reference to the subject at this link [6] but it doesn't include the quote. I think the quote deserves a reputable reference or it should be removed. Atrian 22:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Unexplaned reversion of my edits to Neturei Karta

Please explain your reversion of my edits to Neturei Karta. I explained my edits in its edit summary; I expect the same from you. Itzse 23:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Your new edit removing the title kanahim is fine with me, although I disagree with you. The Neturei Karta would be proud to be called kanahim. Its synonymy with fanaticism is what they would object to; but its not up to them to decide that; its their actions which will decide that.

In reality Satmar and the Edah HaChareidis are also kanahim and it wouldn't bother them to be called so. Itzse 20:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Explain the editwarring

What is your definition of whitewashing? MaxForce 03:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

And why is it so important that it demands inclusion, while the highest office expenses do not? MaxForce 04:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop distruption at Lehi page

Read the article and see that it is alleged. Amoruso 08:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi CJ

I'm wondering if you might have a look at this when you have a minute. Thanks.--G-Dett 16:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Hugh Moran

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Hugh Moran, by Addd wiki (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Hugh Moran seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Hugh Moran, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 19:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I changed it from a speedy to a prod on the basis that it was at least not obvious (and reminded the person who put on the speedy to check WP:CSD). Anyone may remove a prod, and doing so is perfectly reasonable in this case. (I often replace the speedy with a prod when I decline to delete unless the placement of the speedy seems like malice) If the deletor wants to press the issue, afd will decide. I'm not sure what the actual consensus will be there, but I personally have usually supported the notability of such articles. Good luck with it. -- and some more references would help, as they always do. DGG (talk) 23:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

"Occupied territories"

"Occupied territories" refers to all sorts of things, including the Golan Heights. It's not a synonym for West Bank and Gaza Strip. Please use correct terminology, and avoid duplication verbiage in leads. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

That's right, you just inserted grammatical errors and POV instead. When they change the name of the article to Occupied West Bank please let me know. Until then, West Bank doesn't need any modifiers. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

"so many of your edits"

please consider WP:CIV when addressing other wikipedia editors' work. i've raised an issue on the articles' talk page, but you have not yet taken the time to respond. quite frankly, you cannot expect people to just waiver their position and problems with a version just because you will revert them without discussing the issue which they object to. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 05:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

User:CJCurrie, continuing to ignore the dispute and reinserting the material is no way to resolve content dispute. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove information from articles. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed even if some believe it to be contentious. Thank you.

your reverts on Battle of Jenin (at 7:45am) and Muhammad al Dura (at 7:48am) three minutes later, resulted in the blanketing of well referenced information.

1. please read the material and raise your concerns on talk pages.
2. please stick to WP:CIV and avoid using the edit box for statements such as "No, you're not hallucinating ...".

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my decision in each case. No apology is necessary, and none will be given. CJCurrie 00:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

disruptive

please note that the talk page exists and removal of well referenced information without addressing your reservations on talk page^{static link 10:52, 7 August} could be construed as disruptive behavior. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note that Jaakobou's interpretation of these events is rather impressionistic in nature. CJCurrie 22:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove information from articles. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed even if some believe it to be contentious. Thank you.

your revert on Battle of Jenin resulted in the blanketing of well referenced information from the article's introduction without reasoning or discussion. considering that you are not new to this article i request you note the following:

1. please note that the information has been removed 4(!) times before by the same editor (in the span of 24hrs) who did this as his first contribution to the page^(1)(2)(3)(4), and the information was reinserted under the notification that it was considered as information blanking.
2. this issue has been discussed before on talk and it was just recently reopened also, so please read the material and raise your concerns, if you still have them, on the talk page rather than engage in drive by reverting. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note that Jaakobou's interpretation of these events is still rather impressionistic in nature. CJCurrie 22:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

if you feel strongly about removing the material, you can always use the talk page or at the very least, make some use of the edit summary box. whichever course you take, drive by reverting should be avoided. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

My view regarding Jaakobou's interpretation of events is unchanged. CJCurrie 01:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

blind mass reverts

please don't [7][8]. even if the word "Muslim" could be a content dispute regarding how to present idi amin - your half done/cryptic edit summaries and blind reverts (removing david duke, reverting intro changes, removing see also addition to idi amin statement) have been [[9]]. i suggest you should try the talk page instead of treating the encyclopedia like a battleground. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Robin Faye

A tag has been placed on Robin Faye, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. GreenJoe 20:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of Christine Bennet-Clark

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Christine Bennet-Clark, by Brianga (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Christine Bennet-Clark is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Christine Bennet-Clark, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 03:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Admin3

A template you created, Template:Admin3, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Cheers. --MZMcBride 20:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Toronto Meetup

TORONTO MEETUP NOTICE
	Hello CJCurrie/Archive 4, I saw that you have listed yourself as a Toronto-area resident and I would like to inform you about a proposed Wiki Meetup. If you are interested, feel free to add your input on the Toronto Meetup talk page. Regards, Nat Tang ta | co | em

Canadian succession boxes

The succession boxes for the current ministers of the Canadian parliament are currently not following the proper standards of WP:SBS. If you give me a little time, I am standardizing ALL of them but can only work one template at a time. I am trying to do the conversion without any loss of data, but at the same time, some of the information on some of these ministry titles are not appropriate for succession boxes. Give me a little while before you do another revert. I am trying to fix them all at once so they remain consistent.
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 21:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

172.170.205.93 indefblock?

Why indefblock 172.170.205.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? I blocked one of these last night and he just went to a different IP. Are they open proxies or something? —Wknight94 (talk) 02:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

But blocking them for 24 hours would accomplish the exact same thing - except with no risk of collateral damage. It doesn't appear that he re-uses any of them, correct? It may be advisable to contact the office and/or start a WP:ABUSE report to get to the bottom of this. A bot might be able to assist in the reverting and blocking in the meantime. Any of these would be better than permanently blocking IPs that are only used once. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe start w/agreement on basic procedure

Thanks for your kindly worded opposition. I've cancelled the straw poll, with the idea of trying to lay out the basic procedural premises from which we might move forward. So, I'm wondering if you would be so kind as to reply to the policy (G1-2) and the new procedural (P1-3) principles I've floated. This may be better than getting bogged down in Name options, though I would point out that you used the phrase "(an overview of the) 'Israeli apartheid' analogy", which itself might satisfy P1-3. I'd respect your feedback. Thanks. HG | Talk 10:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Just culled together and classified a list of new Title candidates. While some are more awkward etc as you mentioned, aren't stylistic weaknesses trumped by the need to move to a more neutral name? Anyway, your major concern was "This article should provide an overview of the "Israeli apartheid" analogy, not directly compare Israeli policies with those of apartheid-era South Africa." I'd like to hear how you arrived at your opinion. Wouldn't this overview need to consider both support and critique of the analogy, which would come out of scholarship on the comparison of Isr and S.A.? Thanks. HG | Talk 07:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,Newyorkbrad 18:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Rosemary Sexton

A tag has been placed on Rosemary Sexton, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. SamBC(talk) 00:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:Disembargate

I suppose it isn't a word. Thanks for pointing that out. Samuel 23:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Robert Cruise

There is also a Robert Cruise who was an MP from Manitoba from 1911 to 1921[10]. Type 40 01:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Belinda redux

I'm suddenly struck with the crazy idea that maybe our friend insists on characterizing Belinda Stronach as a social democrat because he misunderstands the term as being the opposite of social conservative. You don't suppose that could be the root of all this? Bearcat 01:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hafrada

Your recent edits (over something you state you have no strong opinion over) have reintroduced a broken link to the article. Please reverse it. Isarig 04:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For your comments on Isarig's 3RR report against me. Regarding some of the points you raised, I thought you might find this essay (which needs some work on language) interesting. Making 3RR apply to the edit in question rather than just individuals editors would solve some of the pile-on edit wars we see occurring regularly. Tiamat 14:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Robert Ghiz

Could you keep an eye on that article? I reverted vandalism on it twice recently. And if I get to them, it means the usual vandal hunters aren't looking at it. I only noticed because the first was MichaelM and there seems to a persistent problem there. Thanks. --JGGardiner 00:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of Israeli apartheid

I undid your reversion of my recent edit to this article. You provided no reason for your reversion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skaraoke (talk • contribs) 21:58, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Allegations of Israeli apartheid. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors.

Please note that this message was added by User:Skaraoke, who has repeatedly made inaccurate statements about Norman Finkelstein at the Allegations of Israeli apartheid page. I stand by my actions. CJCurrie 22:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You are the only one who is performing reversions. My most-recent revision is not a "reversion," as it does not replace the current version of an article with a previous one. It adds indisputable facts about Norman Finkelstein that call his credibility into question. Of course, people who hate Israel for its own sake have every reason to deflect legitimate charges of antisemitism. - Skaraoke 23:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you might want to read WP:3RR more carefully. CJCurrie 03:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The whole article should be deleted. It's an inflamatory issue that was created by people who hate Israel (e.g. Islamic governments and militant pro-Arab partisans) or who have taken money from those people (e.g. Jimmy Carter). It has no place in an encyclopedia at all, so you should be a little tolerant of people who are trying to deal with the moral damage that is caused by its inappropriate presence here. - Skaraoke 04:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Others have expressed this opinion, although the consensus appears to be running against them. It's not relevant for our purposes if the analogy is valid or invalid; what's important is that it has been discussed by several prominent public figures. (None of this, btw, has anything to do with your violation of the 3RR). CJCurrie 04:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Bringing up the 3RR...nice way to duck the issue. Because this article and others like it are patrolled by a group of dedicated Israel haters, the "consensus" is obviously going to be skewed in favor of the Israel haters. Besides, these "prominent public figures" include discredited self-loathing Jewish crackpots like Normal Finkelstein and failed U.S. Presidents like Jimmy Carter. - Skaraoke 04:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I responded to your concerns and then brought up the 3RR. I'm not particularly concerned with your views on the subject matter, and have no interest in debating the matter with you. CJCurrie 04:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Most invocations of 3RR are for the purpose of silencing people with opposing political views, and I assume your use of it is no exception. -Skaraoke 04:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

What an odd thing to say. CJCurrie 04:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Joe Volpe

I'd be pleased to comment on the dispute you're having. Could you direct me to the compromise to which you referred? Sarcasticidealist 20:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I've provided my comments. I must ask, purely out of personal curiosity, what caused you to ask me for my thoughts? I see from your contributions history that this wasn't part of a broader informal RfC campaign, and as far as I can tell the only thing that would suggest that my opinion would be useful is that I have a history of editing Canadian politics-related articles (me and a few thousand other users). Sarcasticidealist 15:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Rick Fuschi

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Rick Fuschi, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. B. Wolterding 15:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Global Islamic Insurgency

Hi CJC. The above article relates, like NAS, to a contested concept. Except that it doesn't even tell you which authors promote the concept or find it useful. Created by an editor who registered, and made 27 edits, all either to this article or creating links to this article, then edited no more. If you had time to have a glance at it, would be appreciated. Best wishes. Itsmejudith 16:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi CJ

I wonder if you might look at this? Piperdown's been perma-banned as a "Wordbomb sock." Apparently no checkuser was performed, but David Gerard has said to me that there's evidence I can't see as a non-admin. Candidly, the idea that Piperdown is WordBomb seems surprising to me, to say the least. I know the Judd Bagley – Gary Weiss situation on Wikipedia is an intractable mess, and I don't frankly much care about it or naked shorting or any of all that BS. My only concern is that Piperdown may have been mistakenly identified as a WB puppet; he struck me as a serious and established editor with integrity. I asked David Gerard if I could see the evidence, and am taking silence for a no. I wonder if you could have a look at it, and say if it seems compelling? Your word would be all I'd need.--G-Dett 23:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

why did you undo the edit to belinda stronach's page that i did? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chillin841 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Western Canada For Us

The article was nominated for deletion. I'd appreciate your input. AnnieHall 02:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Volpe

Sorry, I've been away from here for a while. I think that I'm a little late for the Volpe discussion, at least that last round. I have actually had a little involvement with that article for a while which you probably saw from the talk page. I had noticed the dispute and I didn't get involved because I wasn't especially familiar with the details. I also kind of hate to walk into the disputes that you and GoldDragon have. =) --JGGardiner 21:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I had actually meant to comment on the Cullen part. I completely agree with your last edit summary. Riding take-overs are pretty standard fare and this one is merely alleged anyway. --JGGardiner 06:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Jocelyn Coulon

• Since i've saw a being of editing dispute between you and GoldDragon on the Thomas Mulcairarticle on elements related to Jocelyn Coulon, I'm currently in the process of launching his article. Seems that in addition to be a Liberal star candidate, he also published several books related to the Canadian Military and the War in Iraq and the United Nations. Since the books are about major issues. It should pass WP:BIO despite its failed candidacy. [11]JForget 00:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I've clarified this in his article that it was mostly coming from B'Nai Birth Canada (based on a Francophone article). --JForget 01:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

note

i'm aware that there's a great temptation to revert when you see something you dislike, however, you have missed that the cited ref only notes that the independent considers the cartoon as criticism and the term "others" in that regard is a weasel term that should be avoided.^[12] Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Readers should take Jaakobou's comments with more than a grain of salt. CJCurrie 02:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

September 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bob Rae. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. I know you're a sysop but potential edit warring merits a friendly warning. And yes, I've warned the other guy as well. nat^tang 03:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Youtube references

Regarding this, what is WP:POLICY regarding linking to youtube? I can't see a problem, except for reasons such as a) we have reason to think (not necessarily an RS) that the footage is falsified or b) YouTube qualifies as an "attack site" or c) dunno?. PR^talk 10:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that Youtube links were discouraged in the past, although it's possible that they've become more accepted in recent months. Knowing how this place works, I strongly doubt there's any agreed-upon policy on the matter. CJCurrie 18:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I had the impression they'd been discouraged in the past. But I'd encourage defenders of Israel to use them, because this is not a technology that suits their purpose. See this or this if you have a strong stomach. PR^talk 19:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

John K. Downes

I saw the nice article you wrote 2 years ago about John K. Downes. Unfortunately, I've been unable to find any references about him. Did you write it from memory or after consulting a source. If a source, it would be nice for the source to be cited. Mrs.EasterBunny 21:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Indian-Canadian

You can change it back and I won't change it again if it makes you feel better. It's just kind of sad that the misnomer "Indo-Canadian" is used to describe Indian-Canadians. I mean you have Arab-Canadians (Egyptian-Canadians, Lebanese-Canadians, Palestinian-Canadians, Syrian-Canadians etc.) Bangladeshi-Canadians, British-Canadians (English-Canadians, Scottish-Canadians and Welsh-Canadians), Chinese-Canadians, French-Canadians, German-Canadians, Greek-Canadians, Iranian-Canadians, Irish-Canadians, Italian-Canadians, Japanese-Canadians, Korean-Canadians, Latino-Canadians (Chilean-Canadians, Dominican-Canadians, Mexican-Canadians etc.) Native Canadians/Aboriginals (Cree, Inuit, Iroquois, Metis etc.) Pakistani-Canadians, Portuguese-Canadians, Russian-Canadians, Somali-Canadians, Thai-Canadians, Ukrainian-Canadians and so on and so forth. "Indo-Canadian" is a vacant term that means nothing. But again if you want to change it back I won't change it again so knock yourself out.

God bless.

Desmond Tutu - Israel, etc.

Hey. Name's BCSWowbagger. I haven't been around WP for a while and I don't check my Talk page every day like I used to, so I'm willing to defer, but I thought it worth bringing this up: When I read the Israel-Palestine section of the Desmond Tutu article, I see some of it as not being very encylopedic--certainly not up to FA snuff. These are mainly little things--for example, I don't see how what Melanie Phillips' opinion on the matter is is relevant any more than Ann Coulter or Tom Hanks' opinions would be. She is not a Jew, she is not close to the archbishop in any way, and she is basically just a pundit. Secondly, the extended quote from the professor of Justice and Peace studies seems unnecessary--it's giving additional space to a particular subtopic simply because it's of recent impact. Again, it's just an example of some random irrelevant guy having an opinion. Good for him. Shouldn't be in the encylopedia. Lastly, I don't understand why you reverted the citation to the City Pages' article--the Star Tribune is a far more reputable and well-respected source, being a newspaper of national standing, whereas the City Pages is basically a sensationalistic rag.

Otherwise, you've obviously done a lot of good for article, adding additional specifics where there were none before (where I said "Jewish groups," you expanded to, "some Jewish groups, including the ADL and the Simon Wiesenthal Institute..."), so I'm not complaining about your work in general. These are just some things I think could be improved by using my version.

Write me on my Talk page; I promise I'll check this week. Thanks! --BCSWowbagger 07:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

template

A template you have created or significantly contributed to, {{user12}}, is the subject of a discussion I have started on the village pump. —Random832 17:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Ric Dagenais

In case it's not on your watchlist, I thought I'd let you know that User:JForget has proposed merging this article into the candidate articles. My first reaction is to be in favour of the proposal, but I have a high enough regard for your opinion that I'd like to hear why you created it as a separate article before I commit one way or another. Sarcasticidealist 23:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Greg Felton

Please do not delete documented things, or go against the original research policy which you did with Greg Felton. It is against the rules. Canada.com has said he wrote for the National Vanguard, of course Felton's interest is to say he didn't authorize them but this is against original research and a breach of the wikipedia rules. He is on JDL's web site as a jew hater, does that make him one? No, it says he is one. Not sure why you edited the exact same way as he had it without making a discussion of who is in favor of writing it the way you wish, but you have to put this in talk before deleted everything and attempting to delete a very worthy person off wikipedia.

--Eternalsleeper 03:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Cjcurrie, can we please come to consensus on what you and I agree on leaving in regards to Greg Felton? I do not doubt with you, the JDL has been labeled an extremist organization, but is that relevant to it being noted he appears on their site under the "Jew haters" section? Should the wikipedia community and those who read not be able to make their own conclusion about the Jewish Defense League? As for Ezra Levant, this article appeared in Canada's largest newspaper so I do not suggest removing it. I would just like to see if we agree on anything about Mr. Felton. Thank you.

--Eternalsleeper 05:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you, CJCurrie, but eternalsleeper is feeding you a lot of ^#@$^%. He earlier acknowledged that I was not responsible for the National Vangaurd reprint, yet here he is again demanding that it be included. I think you and I both know that JDL-champion eternalsleeper has little or no interest in objective research. Earlier comments by you and another editor about the dubious credibility of Ezra Levant and the JDL are spot on. Too bad eternalsleeper doesn't respect them, just as he refuses to respect the rules of Wikipedia.

Here are two samples from his talk page from other editors. I put Eternalsleeper's comments into italics for purposes of clarity:

April 2007 Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Jewish Defense League, you will be blocked from editing. —DerHexer (Talk) 18:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• DerHexer, you and Denis are the vandals. You have no proof that JDL is a terrorist group, in fact, I called the FBI and asked them personally and they are not a terrorist group. So stop your nonsense bias, please...

I don't see myself as a vandal at all :) Unfortunately, it's not enough that some unnamed person at the FBI tells you that they don't regard the JDL as a terrorist group. It has to do with verifiability, a fundamental Wikipedia policy. You need to find some published official statement by the FBI, or else ask them to clarify their position in a public statement. Please note that we are not saying that the FBI lists the JDL as a terrorist group in 2007, because we don't have any evidence for that. We say that they used the label "right-wing terrorist group" in their report for 2000/2001 (which is the latest available).--Denis Diderot 02:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You have no official proof JDL is listed as a terror group. I will say though, it humors me that the two or three people have contributed to strictly anti-Zionist articles in the past. ~~eternalsleeper~~

Your edit [2] and the edits above look like they fail to assume the good faith of the other editors when you start throwing around accusations of "anti-Zionist" and "anti-Semetic" (actually it's anti-Semitic) but spelling errors aside it's still not civil. Ttiotsw 04:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Multiple accounts Please see my note on User talk:208.124.136.98. You are apparently violating out policy on sock puppets. Please also be aware of the WP:3RR policy, which limits editors to no more than three "reverts' of an article. If you make another revert you may be blocked temporarily. Please discuss this on the talk page rather than engaging in an edit war. -Will Beback · † · 19:41

* Will Beback, I don't know what a sock puppet is. I like how you try to accuse your opposition with deviancies in order to gain credibility., 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, eternalsleeper has worn out his welcome. Voxveritatis 05:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Merle Terlesky

AFD nomination: Please vote at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Merle_Terlesky --Mista-X 20:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

AoIA renaming

Hi CJ, just wanted to let you know off-stage that I do appreciate your effort in this regard. BTW, I found the link to our previous brief exchange on this. Back then, you didn't sound like you would have supported your suggested title, so I commend you if this is a sign of flexibility and rethinking. (And I empathize even more if it's merely Lethe!) By any chance, were you inspired to move the issue due to the ArbCom case? In any case, take care and thanks for your constructive effort(s). HG | Talk 04:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply. I'm glad I mentioned this, though, because I jumped to the wrong conclusion in interpreting the proposed title. If you don't mind my saying so, the title "Comparisons between Israel and apartheid-era South Africa" could be understood to make space for a "compendium of similarities and differences between Israel and apartheid-era" (i.e., what you don't want) -- indeed, the first part of the restructured article seems headed in that direction. But maybe I misunderstanding the distinction you made at the time of my straw poll, you said: "This article should provide an overview of the "Israeli apartheid" analogy, not directly compare Israeli policies with those of apartheid-era South Africa" (emphasis added). So in what way does the title help you avoid this direct comparison? Well, do you see why I'm a bit confused? Thanks muchly. Take care, HG | Talk 12:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yet another edit war

Mr. Currie:

Please ban eternalsleeper from maliciously editing the page "Greg Felton" In the past I had to ask that the page be taken down because of his misconduct. If you cannot or will not do as I ask than please pull the page.

Thanks

Voxveritatis 07:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Joe Volpe

Sorry for not turning my attention to this article sooner. I do find it so tiresome. If Czechoslovakia proves not to be enough, I will draw the line at Poland. Regards, Ground Zero | t 21:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Gideon Levi - content removal

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Gideon Levi. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Thank you.

per your edit here, marked as 'minor', where you've removed links to,

• an article by gideon levi (hosted on iransolidarity.endofempire.org).
• a bio page of Gideon Levi, (hosted by hamartzim.co.il).

and also removed some well cited info (some related to these refrences) as well as the structure of the article. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Stop sending these bogus warnings, please. CJCurrie 03:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

CJCurrie, Jaakobou came on IRC asking about this incident, and while on the one hand your edits are probably justified, an examination of the history and talk does show that you have:

1. Used admin revert in a content dispute - please don't do this, it's very bad form unless you're reverting clear vandalism/personal information/BLP et cetera. Instead, please use the undo function, provide a clear rationale for the revert, and do not mark the edit as minor. It may be more annoying, but it's also more civil - it's frustrating to be reverted as a minor change, and Jaakobou's complaints about this are valid.
2. Not discussed the issue on the talk page - having reverted the article twice, it's looking like the start of an edit war. Past 1 revert, it's probably a good idea to discuss the issue and raise clear and well-reasoned reasons for actions to be taken. I trust that you have some reasons, so please go and explain them! :)

I don't endorse Jaakobou's templating you, and I've told him so, but please be sure that you act maturely in regards to this conflict - especially as an admin, it is your responsibility to act maturely even if you're convinced that something's completely off the wall. Thanks, Nihiltres^(t.l) 04:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

George Smitherman

Listen Buddy your encouragement would be appreciated if there were a proper venue to discuss Minister Smithermans "unavailability." Becuse there is not I will use any means necessary to get the message through to him. By the way don't you have any thing better to do than protect a hypocrite? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DookieDukes (talk • contribs) 21:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

And I appreciate what you are trying to do by mainting some semblance of order on this amazing website. Yet, I can no longer sit idly by while a hypocrite of his proportion sits on his ass while people are dying on the streets...right before my eyes. I have no problem with you... I guess all I can say is stay on your toes when it comes to this entry because I have no other recourse.

Sincerley,

Mark Dukes Addictions Advocate —Preceding unsigned comment added by DookieDukes (talk • contribs) 21:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

John Baird

Hello CJCurrie. I'm currently doing some fixes on his article for trying to make it a GA-rating, but there are a few areas that needs sources that I cannot find, and I'm wondering if you may have some of those elements such as Energy Minister bit as well as details about his early life, like from who he is born. See the talk page for the elements that needs to be fixed/added so it can passed, I think there's only the weekend left (yeah I know I should alert earlier) I've did most of the changes suggested/demanded so there isn't a whole lot left.Thanks.JForget 00:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikimania 2009

Toronto Candidate City for Wikimania 2009
Support TORONTO in its bid to become the host city of WIKIMANIA 2009 Visit m:Wikimania 2009/Toronto for TORONTO's MetaWiki page and help build a strong bid.

Tri-City Skins and the Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team Nominated for Deletion

I've know that you have an interest in the Canadian far right. Perhaps you would want to provide your input on whether these two articles should be kept as they are, modified, or deleted as per the nomination? AnnieHall 05:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

John Tory

you have reverted twice my adition to the article and then blaming me for vandalizing the article please tell me whats the problem maybe we could fix it together don't just tell me "i will block you", why? and why are you righting that its a minor here read this [Minor_edit][13] this is minor? here is the piece:

"Its interesting to note that Dalton McGuinty is a Roman Catholic himself which could explain why he has nothing against status quo of Ontario education inequality. Canada's approach to religious education has sometimes been criticized as inconsistent. Catholic education public funding is mandated by various sections of the Constitution Act, 1867 and reaffirmed by Section Twenty-nine of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The United Nations Human Rights Commission declared in 1999 that Ontario was in violation of the international covenant on civil and political rights by only funding Catholic schools and not other faith-based schools. Newfoundland withdrew Catholic funding in 1996, via legislation that required approval from the Canadian House of Commons. Quebec abolished religious education funded by the state through the Education Act, 1998 which took effect on July 1st of that same year.

If such a act of Antisemitism and discrimination, against any other religion, is permissible for Dalton McGuinty the premier of the most populous province of Canada, how could Canada condemn other countries like Russia or China about human rights or religious freedom??? How could we force someone to listen to United Nations if we don’t listen??? Is Canada a good example??? There is no other western democratic country which violates the rights of its citizens just because they are minority and are not big percentage of electorate! John Tory was the only leader who maid a point to do something right and not just something that will help him to win an elections!"

waiting for you reply!!! Ntb613 03:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Butting in here, but I've responded to this issue, explaining why Ntb's edits were removed, on the Editor's assistance page. Cheers! Ariel♥Gold 04:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism of Shane Ruttle Martinez article

Hey, can you keep an eye on the SRM article? A user by the name of Cheap Laffs has been causing problems there as of late, and seems to be a fascist vying to twist things to his / her viewpoint. Thanks! Frank Pais 06:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

As Frank pointed out, "Cheap Laffs" is up to his usually tricks. I came across this today:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Shane_Ruttle_Martinez

Please sound off on it when you get a chance, and counter the crap being spewed. Thanks! UnionPride 19:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Aikins, MacAulay & Thorvaldson

A Proposed Deletion template has been added to the article Aikins, MacAulay & Thorvaldson, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of the page. Oo7565 05:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Steve Gilchrist

Thanks for your comments on the talk page. I've been back & forth on this for awhile, but this is the first time the IP editor has commented. Appreciate any help in monitoring the situation - I'll post a reply on the talk page as well. Blotto adrift 00:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. What do you think is the best way to handle this? Blotto adrift 00:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Blotto adrift 00:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No response thus far, so I'm going to add the section to this article again. Appreciate your assistance in monitoring the situation. Thanks. Blotto adrift 18:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

There were some additional edits by the same editor. S/he has rewritten the passage instead of merely deleting it, but thought I would refer it to you for a look. Per the comments on talk page, the original CP release doesn't appear to have been replaced or retracted as inferred previously, but s/he posted another announcing Gilchrist VP of Hydrogen Hybrid Technologies. My main concern is that the article doesn't veer into hagiography, esp. considering that Gilchrist is running in the next federal election (all while trying to adhere to WP:good faith). Thanks. Blotto adrift (talk) 14:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The editor has indicated that there was a retraction. I've asked for dates. I've also proposed a replacement paragraph, appreciate it if you could take a look. Blotto adrift (talk) 03:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Constituency results for 1977 and 1981 Ontario elections

Hi. Where did you find out what the constituency results for the Ontario general elections in 1981 and 1977? It would be a very useful source if I knew what it was. --FreshFruitsRule 02:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Monarch/GG on Canadian PM articles

In case you are not watching the situation, G2bambino got one editor's agreement to include the material in the infobox of the Harper article, then began making the change to all the Canadian PM articles. I'm ensuring that you know, on the thought that you may wish to take further part in resolving the issue. There's a discussion of sorts begun at the Harper article.
-- Lonewolf BC 19:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Ariel Sharon cartoon

Hi. I was just about to make an entry on the discussion page. Please wait a moment. ← Michael Safyan 20:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:BIO

Hugh Montgomerie (Canadian politician) is a redirect of a non-notable person who does not meet WP:BIO. Nor do many other pages you have created or provided links to, which relate to runners-up in provincial elections. They merit a mass speedy cfd. - Kittybrewster ☎ 15:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what they could be tagged with apart from a generic cleanup tag, which isn't very informative. They all seem to have been the work of yourself.

The names should not be linked unless there are specific articles on those people, because the names nearly all relate to local councillors, who have no presumption of notability in WP:BIO. You may not be aware of this. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

In Remembrance...

--nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 23:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Bat Ye'or

Please refrain from deleting sourced material from the article. References from legitimate published sources take precedence over your own personal opinions on this topic.--CltFn 05:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Blanking out material that meets Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Citing sources raises questions about your agenda in this article. Please clarify.--CltFn 05:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Responses:

• Please desist with your insinuations.
• My edits regarding Yeor's departure from Egypt have to do with a prior discussion as to the most neutral way in which to present the material.
• The last thing this article needs is to have Yeor's scholarly credentials "proven" by assorted neo-conservative sources. She's an historian; that should suffice. CJCurrie 06:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

1) This prior discussion you cite had nothing to do with Bat Ye'or's scholarship.

2) Your use of the phrase "assorted neo-conservative sources" raises further questions about a pre-existing agenda editing the article. Its not an insinuation , its you own words.

3) The citations provided meet Wikipedia standards as for Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Citing sources , thus irregardless of your opinion, her scholarship is a supported by published , verifiable and reliable sources. --CltFn 12:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous friend

What does one do about this? Page protection? Or just keep reverting? --Slp1 20:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

due to this [14] edit, i'm reminding you to go over WP:NPOV. currently, there is no Palestine to build in; and even Levi calls it "private palestinian land" and not Palestine. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Your disruptive edits at Lehi page

You can't revert with popups without even participating in talk. Like I've explained to Nishidani, There's only one unsigned article. In fact, Shamir has written specifically that their acts can not be called terroristic, therefore it's also contradictory to fact. Stop reverting, and have a good day. Thanks, Amoruso (talk) 15:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yitzhak Shamir has denied Lehi were terrorists? Well, obviously that settles it ... CJCurrie (talk) 04:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It settles that they didn't call themselves terrorists, which is what the debate was about... Amoruso (talk) 04:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I think there may be a certain flaw in your logic: can you tell me when Shamir denied Lehi were terrorists? CJCurrie (talk) 04:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously not at the time Lehi was active, since he didn't identify or give interviews to. But you can't possibly say that it matters, it's an example. The very article itself denies that they're terrorists: "the true terrorist is...." Amoruso (talk) 04:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the timing of Shamir's statement does matter. If Lehi justified acts of terror during their existence, then Shamir's self-serving denial years later is meaningless. CJCurrie (talk) 04:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't matter, because (a) they always justified it and still do (b) they just never called it "terrorism" and still don't. Amoruso (talk) 04:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

If it makes you feel better, we can reword the article to read "Lehi justified acts of terror against their enemies" or somesuch, without specifically using the word "terrorism" in this context. (Btw, I'm puzzled as to how a defunct organization can still justify acts of terror.) CJCurrie (talk) 04:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Winnipeg Green Party

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you. GJ 01:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

talk page

there is a talk subsection opened regarding the disputed paragraph - [15]. it would be helpful for resolving the dispute if you engage in conversation. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

reminding you again to participate on talk. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Prohibitionists in Manitoba (provincial candidates)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Prohibitionists in Manitoba (provincial candidates), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Prohibitionists in Manitoba (provincial candidates). Cheers, CP 02:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Prohibitionists in Manitoba (provincial candidates)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Prohibitionists in Manitoba (provincial candidates), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prohibitionists in Manitoba (provincial candidates). Thank you. Cheers, CP 02:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Ross Sutherland

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Ross Sutherland, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Ross Sutherland seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Ross Sutherland, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot 18:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Prohibitionists in Manitoba (provincial candidates)

Hey CJCurrie - as you may or may not be aware, the above article (which you created) has been nominated for deletion. Among other things, the nominator is claiming that the article is original research, a claim that as far as I can tell he's making based solely on the lack of sources in the article. Anyway, debate's here, and we'd appreciate your presence if you can spare the time. Sarcasticidealist 05:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Per the debate discussion, that's not why I'm making the claim (although I'm aware I hadn't made myself clear before) and have modified my concern accordingly. Having said that, however, some sources would really qualm my original research fears and might even move me to withdraw the nom. Cheers, CP 06:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Your changes to Allegations of Israeli apartheid

Your edits were mostly POV-pushing:

• Instead of "Allegations of Israeli Apartheid" you leave the emphasis out of the "allegations" and put it only on the "Israeli Apartheid".
• You cut out the claim that describes human rights in Israel, including its Arab citizens.
• You changed "terrorists" to "militants" when the correct term in this case is the former. The fence was built primarily to deter terrorist attacks.
• And another couple of similar changes to round things off.

So my reverts are definitely "restoring the balance to the article".

-- Gabi S. (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Controversy regarding Zafar Bangash

If you look closely, you'll notice I did not perform any reverts. Rather, I simply conducted additional edits after you repeatly removed or altered my material to whitewash Bangash's views. I have added a note to the end the statement in which he wrote called for the explusion of "zionists" "from all of Palestine" but since he has never clarifed his statement, people are free to interpret it.

One more thing, don't threaten me with being blocked. I am well aware of Wikipedia's rules. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC))

I've removed the sentence that speculated about the meaning of Bangash's statement. Instead, I've simply written that Bangash has never clarified the statement. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC))

White people quote

For your edit here, the white people quote is obviously important because there's a whole newspaper article written on it. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Reverting

Please stop reverting me. [16] You do it instinctively, even when there's no need or reason. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if SlimVirgin is aware that I provided a reason for this particular revert. CJCurrie (talk) 00:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Greg Felton

An editor has nominated Greg Felton, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Felton and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 21:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)