User talk:EncyclopediaUpdaticus/Archive 1

Scarborough, Ontario

For the references that you are adding to Scarborough, Ontario, where are you finding them from? I'm interested because then I can help out and add more useful references to where they are needed. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 03:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you are aware or not, but the article is currently undergoing a Good Article Nomination. The review is at Talk:Scarborough,_Ontario#Good_article_nomination_on_hold. If you wouldn't mind, I'd appreciate it if you could look at 3. Broad in coverage?: (I've covered everything else), and address the issues that the reviewer has brought up. Here are what they are basically, in point form:

Create (and populate) the following sections (guidelines found here—very useful!): Education, Sports, Shopping, Healthcare, the Golden Mile, Toronto

If you can't do them, then I'll get to them tomorrow when I wake up, anyways. Cheers. Gary King (talk) 04:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are one of the major contributors to the article, if you have time, could you take a look at Talk:Scarborough, Ontario#Issues remain and address those concerns? I will do what I can, but my time is split among several other articles that are not tended to as well as this article. Thanks in advance! Gary King (talk) 05:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Starting tomorrow, Ill have more time to look at these. I plan to tackle history and geography as these are my forte. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of formatting the references, but I wasn't sure how to format reference #48 (Fenco MacLaren Inc. et al. Integrated Shoreline Management Plan, Tommy Thompson Park To Frenchman’s Bay. Toronto. December 1996.) Is it a court case (those would use {{cite court}}? Other templates can be found at WP:CIT. Gary King (talk) 23:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are active in editing the article, have you given any thought to bringing it to Featured Article status soon? I'd be glad to help out; I will take an active role again in improving the article. I'll give it a nice copyedit probably later today. Gary King (talk) 04:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, a Good Article requires only one reviewer to pass it; a Featured Article requires consensus among several reviewers to pass it. It is more difficult to pass. Gary King (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

E. (your damned name is too long and complicated to spell), fantastic editing job, you have taken this from amateur hour to very professional. Sincere appreciation and congratulations on a job very well done. Your editorial skills shine through.

If you google 'heritage scarborough + toronto' you will glean valuable historical information. I will attempt to add in the future. There is a gentleman by the name of Rich Schofield who is a living historian of the city.

Regards, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Idyllic (talk • contribs) 21:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ned Hanlan

Thanks for your message. A couple of citations now added - thanks for reminding me!--hydeblake (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hey

thanks for cleaning up after my mess here. =) — Nova Dog — (contribs) 19:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John McKay

Oh, I completely agree with you. I just wasn't feeling up to getting into an edit war with an anonymous IP editor (who's quite obviously at least on McKay's staff) over it. I'll completely back you or anybody else who wants to fix the article up — I just didn't feel like being the heavy on this one. Bearcat (talk) 00:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain further...

Could you please explain why you redirected Iroquois Shoreline? Geo Swan (talk) 05:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE:defaultsort

Hey! Thanks for letting me know. Why do you think that the listing from last name to first name is better? Bejinhan Talk 11:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: David William Warner

I found the style in two separate ways. First was on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_officeholder/Archive_1#Multiple_terms.

The second was by searching wikipedia for 'non-consecutive terms'. I found that in an office that was traditionally numbered, such as governors and presidents of the USA, the tradition was generally two separate headers starting with the number. But for non-numbered offices, such as congressmen or senators, the tradition more often the single header followed by dates for each consecutive period, such as in Barry Goldwater's entry.

I couldn't think of any Canadian politicians to check, however, so this may only be convention for US Politician articles. If the multi-header format is standard with Canadian Politicians, however, I can't see why it is needed. I feel the office is sufficiently clear without the repetition and the single-header format reduces visual clutter. Imatoronto (talk) 03:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello EncyclopedediaUpdaticus

First of all, great user name EncyclopedediaUpdaticus. Love that comic and the word-play in your name.

In any case, I would like to introduce myself to you. I am a crusading defender of the wiki core tenet of NPOV and find the re-appearance of The Rosedale Gang in the Rocco Rossi article bordering on political slander (because we all the know the political socio-economic implication that is trying to be made, not even very overtly, by including this association in his biography).

I am going to be 100% upfront about my involvement in this project. I am a toronto-area resident: tax-paying, politically informed, etc. I am doing an intentionally non-partisan (rather: pan-partisan) event in Toronto on Feb 28th to introduce all the mayoral candidates to Toronto voters through a venue hall and the media. We are directly in touch with the three front-runners campaign offices and will be extending the invitation out to all candidates that can make the event, as this week unfolds. The reason I supply this background here is for complete public disclosure of my involvement with all mayoral candidates and my parallel mission here on wikipedia.

As a wiki editor I have been obsessively non-partisan, neutral and academic in every single syllable I contribute or edit to this project. Until the day I die, I will never stray from this philosophical commitment. I have found that the other front-runner mayoral candidates have very honest and (for the most part) encyclopedic entries but Rocco Rossi's seems to be poorly written, stubby as well as the victim of non-NPOV insertions. For this reason alone, I feel it is the duty of every single honest member of the wikipedia community (including the senior Guardians and Chief Editors) to make sure we improve on Rocco Rossi's article and keep it free from from vandalism.

The discussion page on Rocco Rossi's article has a pretty clear explanation of why the phrasing, "the rosedale gang" is not acceptable according to the stated mandate of this site. (see -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rocco_Rossi). Before anyone re-inserts it for a third time, I would love to have a healthy and theoretical debate about the merits + demerits of including this information. May the truth prevail. I have been wrong in the past. And most importantly, you should know that I would (and probably will over the coming months) protect the integrity of your preferred candidate (i am assuming you are working with a different candidate's campaign, perhaps?) article with the same vigor and crusading intelligence that I maintain towards all public documents on this site. I take the wikipedia mission very seriously, and so should we all. Please engage me here, or on the Rocco Rossi discussion page, or on my user talk page. I look forward to a clever and wordy dialogue. Sincerely: -- SKY _child 08:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EncyclopedediaUpdaticus, I noticed you made 1 edit to the Rossi article. I have re-inserted the reference to the Rosedale Gang which you quite correctly inserted. I disagree with Skychild and find his argument strange and quite wrong. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 00:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re; Ralph Cowan and Judy LaMarsh

As stated in both entries my additions to the rather slight bios for these two long dead political figures came directly from the memoirs of Peter C. Newman and LaMarsh herself and have never been challenged and can hardly be considered "controversial" at this point, perhaps you should read them yourself before deciding otherwise,. At any rate there are few other references to Cowan available anywhere other than a few yellowing newspaper stories not online, so where else exactly am I supposed to refer to to satisfy you? What are we supposed to do with figures who while not really important anymore, certainly deserved to be fleshed a bit more. User:DiamondDaibhidJames (User talk:DiamondDaibhidJames —Preceding undated comment added 23:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

If you are so concerned about "controversy" then why allow the posting of a cheap shot at J.S. Woodsworth (specifically claiming that he supported eugenics) without any context or explanation (this stayed up for months), however when I provided some such context (ie. that this was during his youth and was common during the Victorian and Edwardian eras and that he renounced these views and became a champion against racism, all of which is well known and none of which can be disputed) then it suddenly became "controversial"? This is the sort of thing I expect to see on conservapedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DiamondDaibhidJames (talk • contribs) 21:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think DiamondDaibhidJames is quite wrong here. Better resources are available – for free – from the Toronto Public Library system, through the ProQuest database system. ProQuest contains every issue of the Toronto Star(1892–2007) and The Globe and Mail (1844–2007) in a digital format that can be stored as a PDF. I didn't check the Cowan or Woodsworth articles, but the LaMarsh article would have been factually wrong if DiamondDaibhidJames's edits were not reverted. Thank you User:EncyclopediaUpdaticus for reverting this information for the correct reasons: unsourced information, especially newly added information, should be reverted until it has the proper citations to verify it.--Abebenjoe (talk) 04:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rossi

Thanks for rewriting the Lead; I think it looks real good now. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet

What do you think? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for response: Skychildofthesun took out the Rosedale Gang reference. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for tip

I'll be sure to use that resource; thanks for taking the time to tell me about it. I'll look for those T.Star articles re: Ford tomorrow. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Ford

Please read WP:BLP. The 3rr rule does not apply when good faith edits are made to remove inappropriate content in a BLP. Also, your expressed personal opinions on the talk page about the Subject should obviously cause you to not edit his BLP. Please think about leaving his article to more objective Editors. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify

Hi, I really appreciate the info u gave me about retrieval of archived articles; that is only 1 reason why I AGF with you 100%, and for that reason, AGF ,I will never have an edit war with you, I will always back down if u push it. But could you please explain to me why the Smitherman debate walkaway is not notable in your mind whereas the "vague" response to an email by the Ford Campaign is? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 13:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Qwfp (talk) 19:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:EncyclopediaUpdaticus/Vandalism templates

Hello EncyclopediaUpdaticus. You recently created your personal vandalism templates page at EncyclopediaUpdaticus/Vandalism templates. However, you made the small error of omitting the User: namespace prefix; this is necessary, or your page might be mistaken for an article. Don't worry about this one; I have moved it to User:EncyclopediaUpdaticus/Vandalism templates for you, but in the future, please keep this in mind. If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. Cheers, Intelligentsium 22:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Richardson

Hi there, I just noticed that you also had to revert that editor trying to remove sourced content from the Lisa Raitt article and was hoping you might be able to help me out with a similar matter in the Lee Richardson article. A new account is trying to remove most of the content and references from the article for some unknown reason and will not relent. The editor refuses to discuss on the talk page, will not respond to edits I left on his talk page and hasn't left even one edit summary to explain why he is doing this. As far as I can tell, the sources appear legit, and I suspect is most likely being done to remove anything negative about the subject. This seems to happen frequently in political articles, often by editors who appear to be on wikipedia for no other reason but to edit that one article. When you get a chance, will you take a look at the article and see if I'm doing the right thing by reverting the removal? If I'm not, I would like to know before reverting him again to avoid causing problems for myself. However, if I'm on the right track, it would be great to have backup since I'm not having any success getting through to the editor on my own. Thanking you in advance. Cmr08 (talk) 05:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. It looks like as soon as you posted a warning, several other editors took notice and helped out. The editor was banned, but then another new user kept up his edits. (I guess he thought we wouldn't catch on, lol). Maybe if I had posted a warning days ago when leaving him messages, it would have alerted other editors more quickly. I'll know better next time. Thanks again. Cmr08 (talk) 05:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 18:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet

Maybe you like to know this: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Timharper068 Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I concur with the findings of the SPI. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 14:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Hillier (politician)

[Moved this text to Hillier dicussion page]

Misplaced User Subpage

Hello, you misplaced a user subpage into the mainspace at EncyclopediaUpdaticus/Richard Honeyford. I have moved it into your userspace at User:EncyclopediaUpdaticus/Richard Honeyford. In order to create a user subpage, you must have User: in front of the link. Alternatively you can use a slash to create a subpage link direct from your userpage (i.e. /Richard Honeyford). Let me know if you have questions about this or what I did. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, my bad. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 22:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Riverdale, Toronto

It's a historical fact that Paula Fletcher was leader of the Manitoba Communist Party from 1981 to 1986, and this is mentioned elsewhere in Wikipedia, including on her own Wiki entry. Don't hide this again, people have a right to know about her questionable past and it also reflects the leftist slant of this part of Toronto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.69.46.201 (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC) Don't edit this legitimate FACTUAL change on this page again, or every future edit you make will be continually scrutinized and hounded for left-wing bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.7.149.17 (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is an ongoing discussion on the article talk page in case you missed it. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Ontario elections/NOHP

A tag has been placed on Template:Ontario elections/NOHP requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Canadian politics/party colours/NOHP/row

A tag has been placed on Template:Canadian politics/party colours/NOHP/row requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Canadian politics/party colours/NOHP

A tag has been placed on Template:Canadian politics/party colours/NOHP requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 16

Hi. When you recently edited High Park (provincial electoral district), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Baird (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution over Rob Ford article

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Rob Ford". Thank you. --ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And on it goes, to the Jack Layton article too. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 00:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment at Talk:Rob Ford#Addition_of_current_event_to_.22Controversies.22_section.2C_please. I'd like to get full protection removed. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. When you recently edited Albina Guarnieri, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Robert Kaplan and Stuart Smith (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 25

Hi. When you recently edited Scarborough North, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Freedom Party and Family Coalition Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Well, looking at pages for ridings federally and in other provinces, none of them include sources, so it doesn't seem necessary. I can put them back, but it does seem a bit unnescessary. Tholden28 (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, it doesn't matter too much to me, so I'll just put them back. Tholden28 (talk) 15:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for merging of Template:MPLinksCA

Template:MPLinksCA has been nominated for merging with Template:CanParlbio. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. ❤ Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 14:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your fine work on Teresa Piruzza. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 21:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pierre Poilievre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Baird (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abracadabra

Cute user name. I actually thought it was a Harry Potter spell at first. I guess that would put you with the Romans, huh? If I was going to have a Gaulish username, it would be Makeafix. — Hex (❝?!❞) 12:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]