Hello Chabuk/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
Stop pretending you don't have an ulterior motives. It is blantantly obvious that you do. After reading the pages you have contributed I have no doubt that you are a guy with WAY TOO MUCH time on his hands. I also find your name (Prime Minister Shefman) very amusing. the diceman 2 March, 2006
I've closed the debate and resubmitted the nomination for a new discussion, because the anonymous user's partisan attacks were getting out of hand and distracting from the actual issue at hand. (It's almost blatantly obvious at this point that the anon is either Josh Cooper or a key member of his campaign.) This was strictly a procedural decision.
Just to let you know, though, for objectivity's sake it would be best if you didn't cast a vote in the new debate. I'm not trying to stack the vote, because I'm personally in favour of keeping the article and I also explicitly banned unsigned anonymous votes from the new debate. Basically I'm just hoping that whichever way it actually goes, the result comes from a clean, untainted vote. Bearcat09:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
pm_shef and bearcat, first I am not Josh Cooper and was not involved in his campaign infact I am a member of the liberal party and was involved in Mario Racco's campaign and Elinor Caplan's campaign. Even though I am a liberal I support non-biased opinions which both of you have displayed that your opinions are very biased. I am infavour of deleting Josh Cooper's article now as he is no longer a federal candidate. just between us there in no way that Alan Shefman's article is notable enough to stay posted. I could list literaly hundreds of Vaughan people that are more notable than Alan Shefman. Eyeonvaughan 5 November 2005
Hi there! I'd like to invite you to explore Wikimedia Canada, and create a list of people interested in forming a local chapter for our nation. A local chapter will help promote and improve the organization, within our great nation. We'd also like to encourage everyone to suggest projects for our national chapter to participate in. Hope to see you there!--DarkEvil17:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Theonlyedge01:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC) I got your message about Strelchick. When I made an article about him, it was about 2 weeks before the election. It was only 2 sentences long. Then some NDP-er added like 100 paragraphs too it. (Don't worry, Im a staunch liberal) I think it should be shortnened, and then, if nothing at all happens for about six months, deleted. But not yet. Thanks.[reply]
I got a reply from someone about you, and the Strelchick article. I didn't really understand it, but this guy hates you. Take a look at it, and tell me what you want to do about the article. Thanks, Theonlyedge22:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While it's clear that the new editors' behaviour is inappropriate, I'd be remiss if I didn't also suggest to you that you might want to be a bit more careful in the future not to get involved in discussions where you might be perceived as having a personal bias. Whether you do or don't isn't even really the point — sometimes all that's necessary to spark this kind of ruckus is the perception that you have a vested interest. They obviously believe that your nomination was politically motivated rather than based on a neutral assessment of Wikipedia policy.
In future, it might be best to just avoid putting yourself in a situation where your motivations might be questioned in this way. You can always ask other editors, or the Canadian notice board, to review a situation if you think your motivations for proposing a course of action might be questioned. Bearcat02:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I am Arnold (aka Buchanan-Hermit) and I am writing to invite you to join the newly-formed WikiProject Vancouver. It was created really recently and it's in need of new members and those who are willing to spread the word.
Test pages are not approriate for the main Article space, however you can have all the test pages you want that start with User:(yourname)/PageName. I moved the test page Pm Shef's Test Center out of main article space to a subpage of your userpage, User:Pm shef/Pm Shef's Test Center. You can test/edit/develop it all you want there. If you intend to make it in to an article, you can either MOVE it to the article name, or just copy/apste the contents (if you are the only contributor). Hope this answeres your question. xaosfluxTalk/CVU03:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wasn't aware of it, but here's a counterexample: if you look at Boston, MA, there are perhaps two people on the entire City Council that have articles here on WP (they're all listed, but only one or two have blue links). Boston is about 4 times the population of Vaughan, and I would also point out that its politicians get in the papers very often as well for voting if nothing else. It's certainly much more historically notable as a city than Vaughan is (as I see it), and yet there is clearly no consensus on who deserves an article and who doesn't.
I would also note that if there is a group that concerns itself with Vaughan on WP, they've got kind of a vested interest in claiming that everyone in their city deserves an article, and thus you've got a slanted vote. I see very little in the way of content that makes Shefman any more notable than the average town selectman, and if you would like, I would support an RFC on notability for all of the Council as long as there wasn't a skewed vote (as occurred on the first or second Shefman AfD). From that vote, it seems that a lot of the Vaughan people are politically active, which also makes motive regarding political notability questionable. The reasoning you have wrt Vaughan would also have it stand to reason that every SGA president of a sizable college campus would be deserving of an article, and that certainly is not the case by any stretch of the imagination.
Also, if newspaper appearance was notable, every weekly columnist for every paper in any municipality would also be notable. That's not the case. Every athlete would be notable from high school on up, and that's not the case. To take it a little further, I would bet that every single UN delegate does not have an article on WP, and they're much more notable than a councilman, in my view. I see a rigged consensus and some self-promotion involved.
What would in fact best serve this whole process would be a WP policy on political notability, because it gets it out of a single issue (which this is) while achieving the same result, as well as solving the problem in future for everybody. MSJapan05:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RFC I believe is the policy page, but I think we would need to do something bigger than that for purposes of reaching the whole community. An RFC is a "Request for Comment", so you basically ask for other peoples' opinions on something, but invariably, unless someone is interested in the topic, they don't comment. If you are interested in trying to do something community-based rather than on one article, I'll have to look in to how to do that. MSJapan05:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there were to be a City Council level page, you would probably get into a WP:BIO problem if you dealt with each individual separately, on that page, and I still don't think it addresses the Non-Notability issue in your favor - the Hamilton Council page has 15 names, only two of which have articles (one being the mayor, who would be notable, and the other being Ward 6 Councilor Tom Jackson, whose article was up for a deletion vote in the past). So, there's clearly still a notability issue. I could see a council page with the mayor as notable and no one else without remarkable proof, and if that was acceptable to everybody, I would agree to that kind of page, but I don't think others will, precisely because they feel that there is notability for everyone involved, and I don't think there is. Other people have apparently thought so too. Even if the council page is a list, there can still be articles linked, and I or anybody else could still AfD the articles inidividually, which doesn't solve the issue.
You wrote on the AfD: IDEA-- perhaps instead of going through these AfD's every 3 months, we consolidate. We could get rid of the individual Vaughan Councilor pages and create one big Vaughan City Council page similar to Hamilton City Council, we could also expand that format, annotating the members names with short paragraphs detailing their previous career. There's even a Category for it Canadian City Councils. This probably isn't the place to have the discussion... but it could make everyone's lives a lot easier. pm_shef 05:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC). I couldn't agree more: the Vaughan City Council probably deserves its own page anyway, and information on people who are only notable for their connection to it can be included on that page. Then, the individuals' articles can be redirects to that page: this can actually be done without going through AfD. Mangojuice16:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey -- got your reply on my talk page. I think you might as well just create the article. However, while the arguments about how much is on Alan Shefman and how little is on the mayor don't really make sense when they're separate articles, they DO make sense on a page where they're all together. We need more info on the other members so that it's balanced, and the info from the Alan Shefman page needs major trimming in such an article. Mangojuice04:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I was referring to the faculty of science article.
Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. .I noticed you started an article about McGill University and left it midway.Do not do so in future.Finish what you start.Thanks!Prasi9007:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding so quickly.Welcome to Wikipedia and good luck with your article.
I responded to your question, check out my talk page. Also, you could update kadis's page as she is no longer a "backbencher" she is now an "opposition" or do you want me to update it?--Eyeonvaughan06:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and in the future, if you want to warn someone about repeat reverts, you should use {{subst:3rr}} ~~~~ to warn them, it's the official warning template. Mangojuice04:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to delete the articles when you merge the content. Just create a redirect pointing at the merged article under the councillor's name. This preserves the history and authorship information from the article (required under the GFDL if any content from the old article is reused) and also makes it less likely that someone will inadvertently recreate the article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your question--just create the redirects from the other articles to point at your Vaughan City Council page. No need to delete them. See the instructions linked from my comment above. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that you may be blocked for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thanks. UndergroundRailroad08:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the comment left by UndergroundRailroad for pm_shef about personal attacks. UndergroundRailroad may be referring to pm_shef’s “politically motivated” attacks. I also noticed after looking through some of pm_shef’s comments he did make a couple personal attacks on (02:52, 26 February 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Eyeonvaughan) Eyeonvaugahn’s talk page against two people. One against Elliot Frankl calling him a “Nutcase” and another against Mario Racco calling him “useless” “idiot” and “sleazball”. To me, these slanderous comments seemed politcically motivated as Frankl is running against pm_shef’s father in the 2006 municipal election and Racco is not endorsing his father, infact I think he is endoring Frankl.--67.70.150.1302:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPA covers attacks on users and editors, not on the subjects of articles. Thus there is no reason for the warning to be on my page. -- pm_shef02:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware, Racco hasn't endorsed anyone. I'm sure he won't endorse Shefman, because Shefman supported Kadis over Racco in the 2003 Thornhill Liberal Provincial nomination campaign. I doubt he'll endorse Frankl though, since Frankl got 70 votes (1.5%) in the by-election. I don't even know why Frankl and Shahaf are running. It's nearly impossible to defeat an incumbent in Municipal politics - i don't think it's ever happened in Vaughan. pm_shef23:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pm_shef was involved in personal attacks against editors and subjects.
1. Referred to subject Elliot Frankl as a "nutcase".
2. Referred to subject Mario Racco as "useless", "idiot", and "sleazeball."
3. Other inappropriate attacks.
"Meanwhile this "reputable candidate" you keep referring to, Elliot Frankl, is a nutcase"
"Sure maybe she's not as intelligent as someone like Elinor or other MP's, but she's a hell of a lot better than Racco, a sleazeball to the nth degree"
Pm_shef has already received his second warning. He should remove his many personal attacks soon, or otherwise some of these attacks will be removed and he will receive his third and final warning.
UndergroundRailroad01:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, following me calling him that, we resolved that dispute after he had explained to me his motivation for nominating for AfD. I have no malicious intent towards him. pm_shef02:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stong Keep. It is absurd to say a proof on its own is not an encyclopedia article. What about all of the other pages devoted mainly to mathematical proofs? Will you nominate ALL of them for deletion? What about ALL OF THE ARTICLES IN list of pi topics?? Should the ALL get merged into pi? That is absurd! Wikipedia is NOT supposed to be only for beginners. "Night Gyr", may I inquire about your experience with Wikipedia's mathematics articles? "Kiss the Lizard" very clumsily misses the point of this article. 22/7 is of course one of the earliest convergents in the continued fraction expansion of π. By contrast, those decimal expansions are rather arbitrary. "kiss the lizard", what is the nature and degree of your experience with Wikipedia mathematics articles?
Ya, I think the person meant to put it on the AfD page. I've never seen someone get so excited about math though ;-) -- pm_shef02:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I posted it in the right place. I posted it on the delete page, and also here, because I hoped you might address the specific concerns I raised here. It does actually look to me as if the "delete" votes are coming only from non-mathematicians, and they do not see that this article was intended to be enlightening, that the integral has a simple and elegant pattern, that 22/7 is not just some artbitrary number close to π, such as 3.14159..., but a convergent in the continued fraction expansion of π, etc. Michael Hardy02:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ya, elegant or not (i've never heard of an equation being called elegant before), It's nn for an encyclopedia article. If it was some revolutionary new thing that proved that 1 + 1 actually equalled 24, then maybe. -- pm_shef02:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(1) This is not an equation.
(2) It is commonplace and universal to speak of equations, mathematical proofs, theorems, and the like as "elegant".
(3) It is inappopriate to put NEW discoveries on Wikipedia. It is against Wikipedia policy.
I didn't and I don't, unless you were trying to say that it would be appropriate to put this article here if it were a new discovery. Michael Hardy02:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Hardy's right. This proof is utterly charming and full of interest for a mathematician. The way in which the value of pi is approximated is of considerable interest (ever hear of Diophantine approximation?), and this proof concerns precisely that. A mathematician can generalize this proof to get better and better rational approximations of pi with very simple calculations.
Oh, and saying you've never heard an equation called elegant indicates that you are almost completely unaware of mathematics. It's practically a cliché to talk about the elegance of Euler's formula, for the most obvious example. G. H. Hardy said, "beauty is the first test: there is no permanent place in the world for ugly mathematics." Paul Erdős collected the most elegant and beautiful proofs he encountered and described them as being proofs from "The Book" - almost a religious notion. I could go on and on and on.
As for the notability of this proof - you should take the mathematicians' word for it. Why wouldn't we know what's notable or not to mathematicians? -GTBacchus(talk)05:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. I'm excited to start on Monday and am looking forward to working with members of council such as your dad. What a small world. Anyway I took the liberty of editing the city of Vaughan page. You should check out what the advisory has turned into; www.vyc.ca
The Vaughan Youth Cabinet meets regularly and we're planning two great events. I dont't know if you still live in Vaughan but its an exciting time for the city and hopefully other municipalities across the nation will adopt the position of the Youth City Councillor and get back in touch with their young people.
Wow, I have no idea whats going on. I haven't violated 3RR as far as i'm aware. Cambridgebay, if you know whats going on, thanks for stepping up on this one. -- pm_shef00:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But in fact I still do not understand what you could have meant. Unless you meant it would be appropriate to publish a new discovery by making it into a Wikipedia article. Can you clarify? Michael Hardy23:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Some of your other comments seem odd. Never having heard the word "elegant" used to describe a mathematical argument, never having seen someone get so excited about math. The use of the word "elegant" in that context is universal and even stereotypical---virtually a cliche. And that's the most usual reason for studying math (unless you count those who study it because it is required in a curriculum or because they expect to make use of it for some purpose other than mathematics). Michael Hardy23:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see mathematical proofs or equations or something like that having a place in an encyclopedia.
Really? You mean mathematical theorems or proofs or equations or concepts GENERALLY?? You would delete the tens of thousands of Wikipedia articles on mathematical theorems, proofs, equations, etc., as not belonging in an encyclopedia? An encyclopedia is a repository of knowledge. Did you think it had some other purpose? Wikipedia has probably been more successful at gathering together knowledge in the field of mathematics than in any other field; see list of mathematics lists and browse a few of the lists. As far as "changing the way we think", proof that 22 over 7 exceeds π seems far more likely to do that than is any article on a geographical location or the like. It's a very thought-provoking article. That point was made repeatedly in the discussion. Michael Hardy03:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have called me hostile. Apparently this resulted from my pointing out that your commentaries were not good-faith participation with intent to improve Wikipedia. Saying that an encyclopedia article should not be about what you quaintly called a mathematical "equation" demonstrates either lack of good faith, or that you are childishly naive. I would of course presume the latter, but your comments sometimes seem almost to amount to a certain degree of resistance to learning from experts on subjects you do not know.
Tell me what among the above you would delete from Wikipedia. But don't answer until you've looked at these items closely enough to know what you're saying. Michael Hardy22:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You cleaned up some vandalism on the Affirmative Action page and, in your comments, wrote "(rv vandalism to last version by User:Soulful scholar)." I posted something on your talk page about checking the history before you accuse me of vandalism. Then I realized that you hadn't actually accused me of vandalism, so I felt sheepish and changed what I'd posted. . . Now I just feel silly. . . Oh, well. Soulful scholar17:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This and this and this -- it's legally impossible to use the logos you inserted into the templates. Their presence on Wikipedia is covered by fair use provisions, and ornamental use in userboxes does not constitute fair use, I'm afraid. Take care, —Nightstallion(?)Seen this already?12:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you're right, I don't mean you...but I am soooooo close to ripping some heads off, it isn't even funny (*grin*) But unfortunately, as much of a pain in the butt as Skycloud is being, I haven't seen anything bannable yet. Bearcat06:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be angry. Follow the principle of consensus not imposition.
Admins who impose end up like Ohnoitsjamie and Samaratin... discredited.
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.
Pm_shef - you posted this awhile back. Can you elaborate on what you said please. Just out of curiosity, who are the council members that are "perfectly ethical."
"As to Alan, there are all of two, maybe three members of Vaughan Council who could be considered perfectly ethical - I'm not going to name names, I'm sure you have some idea of who they are..."69.198.130.8217:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for changing the picture, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to change it soon (well, whenever I get around to it). There is a rule against using fair-use images in userboxes (see here). I'll see if I can find a small shot of Eddie which doesn't qualifiy as fair-use and change it to that. If you have any pics that don't qualify as fair-use then please feel free to upload them and change it. La Pizza1117:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I have several political pages on my watchlist -- I would have reverted the gazebo reference a while ago, had I noticed it. CJCurrie02:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
user:VaughanWatch has left a couple of messages for you on my talk page (this link is the easiest way to see them). If you want to reply to him, then please don't don't do so on my talk page as I get annoyed by the new messages banner when the messges are for someone else!). Thryduulf00:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Personal attack removed). I looked through all of pm_shefs edits to see how many were personal attacks and unfaithfull edits. I stopped counting once I hit triple digits which was very quickly. How dare he accuse me of personal attacks. But if I am being accused of personal attacks I might as well make some. The only differnece is what I said about pm_shef is the truth. I really can't blame bearcat and some other administartors here as they are missing the big picture. I edit an article it gets reverted within seconds by pm_shef even if I provide a citation. If I write an article it gets delected unless I provide a citation from almost every word of the article.--Eyeonvaughan06:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know I should bite my tongue here, and I hope that pm-shef doesn't mind my buy-in in talk page space, but from following the relevant discussions I must assert that if 'slanderous personal attacks' have been made between the two of you, they have not been made by pm-shef. I suggest a nice hot cup of tea and a sit down. Seriously. Colonel Tom14:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
pm_shef has definitely made personal attacks. He has made them about Frankl, Stelchick, Racco, etc. He does not know the identity of eyeonvaughan so he is limited in the attacks he can direct at him. I would actually like to know what pm_shef knows about (Personal attack removed). Of course, I am not expecting a response. ED20900:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time to read through all the sockpuppet discussion. All I know is that you think eyeonvaughan and I are the same user. Please tell me you are joking? Can't you tell the difference in our writing styles? I make fun of your T-Shirts, he never does stuff like that. I don't care about the electoral race in Thornhill. My edits are most about Vaughan councillors or the mayor. You won't see me editing whether Frankl was part of the Hockey Hall of Fame Board. Please stop this nonsense. Get your head out of the WikiWorld and into the real world. Concentrate on your studies rather than worrying about what is said about (Personal attack removed) 69.198.130.8208:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Politcs, sex and religion. Sheesh. Best avoided, really, by all parties. And I do speak from intimate personal experience. From the discussions I've stumbled across and followed Milhouse style, (specifically, "I can't look, yet I dare not turn away", you've had your patience tested . If you'll permit an observation, however, any future edits should be carried out by uninvolved parties. It seems to me that a few editors following your elections now fall into that category, so you needn't be too worried. Regards, Colonel Tom15:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you're defending yourself, but please take my advice, you're going too far. You need to stop leaving messages on the user talk pages of the others in this dispute; they've been warned about personal attacks and so on, and at this point, responding isn't helping things. Take a break, seriously. I'm going to revert some of the personal attacks you removed, because those comments aren't ALL personal attacks. Have a nice cup of tea and a sit down.Mangojuice15:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
