User talk:Ground Zero/Archive 11

Re: Canadian spelling

Ok, I see now where I went wrong in changing the spelling. Thanks for letting me know about it and I'll change back the articles where I made the mistake. MusiMax (talk) 00:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Max. Ground Zero | t 11:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:Canadian elections/UFO

A tag has been placed on Template:Canadian elections/UFO 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 is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WTF?

Did you see this item on Michaelm's talk page?

Michael, I'm glad I found you here. I have been wanting to tell you that I'm no longer angry at you for call me so late at night. You didn't expect to actually get me on the phone, you thought you would get an answering machine. So do you forgive me for saying those bad things to you? BStronach 20:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The hell? Bearcat (talk) 23:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Media

Whoops. You're right. I simply meant to erase the "the" out of "Appearances in the media"...I inadvertently capitalized "media." Changed it. Thanks. --Mass147 (talk) 00:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Election candidate lists

I've been mulling an idea I'd like to run by you, which could potentially provide a workable solution to the current set of flaws in creating merged candidate lists for Canadian elections — specifically, the problem created when people have stood as candidates in multiple elections.

Basically, what I'm thinking about is that instead of creating lists organized by election, perhaps we could organize lists by letter instead. So instead of having to copy-and-paste Gerry McIntaggart, frex, into multiple election articles, instead he'd be in just one list, perhaps named something like "List of New Democratic Party politicians - M" or something to that effect. That way there'd be just one target article, and all the relevant articles would thus link to the same place. This would also have the benefit of eliminating the by-election problem — Rebecca Coad, for example, would go on a C list instead of a by-year list that's technically the wrong place for her.

Do you think this might be a potential solution, or does it just create other problems? Bearcat (talk) 00:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Single words not being linkied properly=

Sometimes I'm in a hurry while editing. I have my finger in about 3 million other Wikipies at any given time.

Consquistador2k6 20:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Legislation sponsored by Ron Paul

An article that you have been involved in editing, Legislation sponsored by Ron Paul, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legislation sponsored by Ron Paul. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

Lurline Champagnie

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Lurline Champagnie, 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.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Terraxos (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 17:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Trevor Lyman

An article that you have been involved in editing, Trevor Lyman, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trevor Lyman. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

Interview

I am trying to find a wikipedia administrator who would readily do an interview for a research project I am conducting from the perspective of a wikipedia insider. If you'd like to do this, please email me at goat77 (AT) gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goat77 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question on Museum at Bethel Woods

this clean-up, I understand most, but why de-wikilink October 2007. I thought that was accepted practice that month+year were OK whereas standalone year was not. Can you explain so I can get this right finally? Thanks! _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 18:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it does clarify although I don't agree with the MOS in that case. Thanks for explaining :) _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 02:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstwind is back

Looks like Firstwind is back, using 195.101.63.39 (contributions). Any chance of a block being placed? Even just for a week or two, it might deter him. I wouldn't like to permanently block it since I believe it's a public IP, and one never knows how many great contributors there may be lurking in Nantes... ;) Thanks. --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 16:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanking you. --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 17:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Times Journal of Cobleskill

I created the Times Journal article and I noticed that you edited it a lot. You did a good job, and I'd like to thank you for your contribution. Dr.orfannkyl (talk) 04:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proper Grammar

It takes a trained eye to see the language corrections that were needed in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Joseph_Cormier. Obviously you have one. Nice job. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 04:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making the 2nd visit corrections. Out of curiosity, do you randomly surf the articles looking for errors to correct? You must have perfected a rapid reading system. Peace.

11:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC) DoDaCanaDa (talk) 11:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For fixing the many errors on the Technocracy movement page. Much appreciated. Regards skip sievert (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A friendly reminder

		Edit summary reminder
		Hello. I noticed that your edit to USS Oriskany (CV-34) did not include an edit summary. Please remember to use one for every edit, even minor ones. You can enable the wiki software to prompt you for one before making an edit by setting your user preferences (under Editing) to "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary". Thanks, -MBK₀₀₄ 01:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of this article - Other User Talk

I'm hoping as a defender of all things Canadian you might have an opinion to register toward a consensus on a dispute of the neutrality of the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Joseph_Cormier. An Administrator speedily deleted the only two images learning of the article only today. The images were posted by another Wikipedia Administrator with the tag he thought appropriate. You're probably one of the few who read the article completely, and your opinion will be a valued contribution and encourage discussion. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 02:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While the images have been removed from the article they can be seen here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2nd_Police_warning_4_God's_Emissary.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2nd_Police_Warning_4_God's_Emissary_1.jpg

Considering the unusual nature of the subject matter in the article the images may very well be historic, but not yet recognized as such. They are scheduled to be deleted Tuesday. There is a Wiki procedure to stop the deletion, but I haven't figured it out yet so I need help. The tag that accompanied the image when the Administrator posted it says: Because the image depicts a non-reproducible historic event, there is almost certainly no free equivalent. Any substitute that is not a derivative work would fail to convey the meaning intended, would tarnish or misrepresent its image, or would fail its purpose of identification or commentary. This seems reasonable. In the 2nd image Emissary_1, the shock can be seen on the faces of the crowd when it was shown them freedom of speech in their assumed democracy is a delusion, unless you own newspapers or TV networks. They have it until they test it. That can not be reproduced no how no way. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 03:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very disappointed to see the article totally destroyed, but I'm no stranger to disappointment. I had hoped to be able to complete it and then find someone to help me to perfect it so it would read encyclopedic. The interaction with Trudeau concurrent to the 3 Popes was factual and prophetic, not fantasy. I have copies obtained under the Access to Information Act of RCMP reports confirming the substance of those facts. The Declaration on Remembrance Day is exactly factual, prophetic and important, referenced and in Court documents. What further verification is required? Since I discovered the article April 19, approximately 2500 views were registered to the page from an average of 60 views a month for the two years previous. According to Wikipedia because they did not object is considered consent to the way it read. This paragraph from the article I consider to be significantly important and prophetic. "In 1981, Cormier hitchhiked from Ottawa to Whitehorse, Yukon to draw attention to Revelation 19:11 [2]. Newspapers across the country chronicled his journey, and twenty years later the world was stunned to witness 9/11 as described in Revelation 18. There was an off site link so a user could read directly 19:11 and 9/11 from Revelation themselves. Deleting this information will not stop what is already in motion. This could have been edited to be more encyclopedic in style. Everyone has a POV. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 01:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revelation 19:11 as it applies to 9/11 twenty years later

Apology accepted with appreciation and goodwill. Discussion is good. I found it strange that you edited out the 1981, 4000 mile hitchhiking trip from Ottawa to Whitehorse,Yukon including the References, but kept the 1986 trip and having to re-arrange the Reference numbers. Does that make the reader see more? I thought Reference was what it is all about. That is a controversial subject for sure, especially if you actually read 19:11 in its implications. No nation is exempt. The direct button to it was on the page. The article as you made it is makes less sense to a first time reader following your POV than the original which did follow the MoS after TenPoundHammer hit me and I revised according to those general guidelines. I was so happy he showed me how to make sections. The Whitehorse Star was referenced, but the way it is now no one would know that. You know most readers don't go to Discussion let alone history. I've learned to go there first. If MoS means it must be easy to read, history is not the easiest, best, fluid way to read, which is what you made it. The Discussion page is.

In 1981 I had never envisioned 9/11. I, like everyone was stunned that day. I was a courier on the job but that day, everywhere I went, all I said to everyone was, "The world as we knew it ended today." I think a lot of people had the same POV. Prophets don't necessarily have fore knowledge of certain events, but acting on their faith, they trust God is able to perform it, if it is of God. Only many years of hindsight reveals this. The funny thing about the Bible is you can know it by heart, and not know the heart of God. There are many advisories about that spread throughout the Book. Within 10 pages, the real treasure may be just a few lines. When people think of Jesus restoring the sight of the blind, after so many centuries, the evolved POV is there is no miracle unless people see the physical sight restored to a blind person. Christ restores sight to the mind's eye. This is spiritual, not physical. Only those with the mind's eye open will see those jewels in the Book, enough for every one.

On my page you state you read 19:11, then you will see why I took took such a long journey for the symbolism. It wasn't too bad. I learned how to talk myself into free motel rooms. This is what it says: And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.(declared on Rememberence Day 1985) And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. This is very interesting. Canada, the United State, Israel, in fact no Nation is exempted. Some would have a POV that it talks about a War of the Worlds, and others another POV. That's acceptable. Opinion leaders are already speculating not too distant wars over declining resources. Most Christians believe when they get to Heaven it will be full of peace and joy. What if they're drafted into the battle? If you accept this, then 9/11 may be bigger than most people see, with more involved than just Islamic terrorists. I planned to end the article with my attendance standing at the Podium of The President of the United States on a Secret Service restricted balcony just before President Ford was expected there to speak to thousands of people in person and ABC, CBS and NBC broadcasting live at the Republican National Convention. My image was exactly the same as the image removed from the article. That must have appeared as a revolutionary contrast. The SS questioned me at length standing there finally asking me, "Are you Jesus Christ?" It was almost surreal being there, but I have no illusions about that and in a nanosecond said, No. The Agent then asked, "Who are you then, a prophet?" I never really thought about it before that place and time. How would you answer? After the convention The Kansas City Times wrote a story on my Vigil at The Liberty Memorial Mall on September 13, 1976 with specific prophecies that hindsight will confirm as being fulfilled in the larger world. This was to come later in the article. One of them was, "the gold dome is the symbol of Babylon" essentially identifying the United States as being the head of the Biblical global system. Babylon was Iraq thousands of years ago. No one imagined 32 years ago the United States would be so entwined with Iraq. At the time of the writing of Revelation, Babylon no longer existed as the model for Imperial power, but is carried over from the Old Testament to the New Testament and the United States wears that mantle in our time. Before Babylon was even in the general public knowledge it is recorded for all time in Kansas City 1976.

My article read: In 1981, Cormier hitchhiked from Ottawa to Whitehorse, Yukon to draw attention to Revelation 19:11 [2]. Newspapers across the country chronicled his journey, and twenty years later the world was stunned to witness 9/11 as described in Revelation 18. When the Book was written, no one could imagine airplanes that we take for granted. It must be accepted that the World Trade Towers symbolized global business in merchandise that is extensively described in Rev 18. The towers came down in one hour burned with fire. "And cried when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying, What city is like unto this great city!" New York was the world banking center with the IMF and the U.N. It was in fact the world center. It is a commonly known fact the smoke of her burning was visible from 9/11 until April the next year. It does fit. If you accept this, then 9/11 may be bigger than most people see with more involved than just Islamic terrorists. The global system is just entering the time when this line from Rev.18 will be seen and believed: And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buys their merchandise any more.

Billy Graham and the Bible

I remember Billy Graham on TV having a crusade in San Diego in the early '70s. It was packed with Christians so enthusiastic and open to everything he said. I just couldn't believe my ears when Billy Graham, revered like the Pope in America said, "And I condemn the trend among the youth toward nudity. My authority is Revelation 3: 18: I counsel you to buy of me white raiment, that you may be clothed, and that the shame of your nakedness do not appear." He left out these words in the line, focusing only on nudity: I counsel you to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that you may be rich. The message is Spiritual and he perverted it, making it carnal, fleshy. A few days later there was a public referendum on whether they should close Black's Beach nearby. It was a nude beach. The Christians voted but the general population didn't. The Beach was closed. I wrote him about his grave mis-interpretation of the Scriptures with no reply. As a matter of fact since I've been developing the article I sent notice to hundreds of religious and political leaders. Only 3 replies with an actual letter not computer generated arrived; The Apostolic Nuncio to Canada (not the one I had lunch with), Premier Jean Charest of Quebec and the President of Iran. Those three, along with Israel, are the only religious States among the Nations. No reply from President Perez yet, but if any of his aides checked the page today they would have to report, 'there's nothing there'." It hurt to see you delete Lunch with the Pope's Ambassador. What is required to verify the words over lunch? Maybe it was recorded, but the Secretary wasn't taking notes, yet I stated the facts about it with no embellishment. Is there no way the discussion could be converted into words acceptable to Wiki? I did not go there to ingratiate myself, but to deliver a message and it was delivered. Likewise with the report of the concurrent events with Pierre Trudeau and the Pope. It was a trilogy of three separate events. I have copies of RCMP reports quoting me saying, "Peter. feed the sheep", and on another occasion when I said "Peter,look at the spirit of the 13. Feed the lambs" with the dates. Pierre is Peter in English. The death of two Popes within a month is public knowledge as is the fact Trudeau lost 13 of the 15 seats. I believed it was citation enough, giving the source RCMP VIP Security, having records verifying the facts of these Public encounters available under the Access to Information Act. What more can be done?

I have read the guidelines about the Discussion page and I cannot see any conflict posting the article as it was there. It would stimulate a real discussion. I wish someone would come forward to help convert the information into acceptable Wiki language and post. I would like to see many contributors take a sentence or paragraph from the article in Discussion and transfer it to the article rephrased so it conforms to encyclopedic language. I would be so happy to recuse myself. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 02:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your post to the article discussion. With no support from others, I conducted my discussion with you and the other Administrators in a spirit of goodwill without prejudice. In developing the article, I followed the MoS of the creator and I saw it was evolving into a mini-novel. I am content now to let others work with the information in the history to restore it to the article, IF anyone comes forward. When I see this begin to happen, I will continue with Resurrection where it now ends in the history. I'm happy consensus has been reached on one of the images, with the other one still in dispute. Aside from that, I hope on a personal level the information on 19:11 and 9/11 above adds to your understanding and maybe expand your POV. I would like to know your opinion on that. The information on Billy Graham above has been expanded in the article discussion. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 22:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You were a participant in removing 95% of the content in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Joseph_Cormier. This was left in "In 1986, to complete his Canada-wide mission, he hitchhiked East to Quebec and the Maritimes.[7][8][9][10]", It may have been an oversight, but that makes no sense without restoring this "In 1981, Cormier hitchhiked from Ottawa to Whitehorse, Yukon to draw attention to Revelation 19:11 [2]. Newspapers across the country chronicled his journey........" I have recused myself from editing the article. Would you please restore this to the article with the newspaper references also removed? DoDaCanaDa (talk) 11:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Peacock

Thanks for picking that up! You're not going to believe this, but, I even went to a grammar website to make sure I used the correct placement of the apostrophe, and then went right ahead and typed it wrong!! Who really is in charge of my fingers?? Again, Thanks.
- CubBC (talk) 20:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LINK Train

Thank you for your recent edits to LINK Train cleaning on the syntax and style formatting. Would you be able to also run over the rest of the "family" of articles. DCC Doppelmayr Cable Car, Cable Liner, AirRail Link and Mandalay Bay Tram? Many appreciations for your work. —Sladen (talk) 13:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!—Sladen (talk) 13:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Graham, Google & You

Searching Billy Graham on Google trying to find video of the 1976 crusade in San Diego discussed above, I was surprised to find your talk page listed on page 4 here: http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=Billy+graham+1976+San+Diego+crusade&start=30&sa=N Looking up Black's Beach your page is listed second. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 11:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: House of Commons

Thanks very much for pointing those out and changing them too. Appreciated. Katie Bogbumper (talk) 07:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Opinion

Ground Zero,

Being among the very very few editors/contributers who have been discussing and editing the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Joseph_Cormier to the point it is now, and how it was before your contributions, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ray_Joseph_Cormier&diff=220975243&oldid=220971714, do you have an opinion on this discussion? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kingturtle#Images_Copyright_and_Free DoDaCanaDa (talk) 12:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of politicians who switched parties

After I created List of politicians who switched parties, I found this article Party switching in the United States which contains a substantive list of people who switched parties, but is unsourced and seems to have a POV it wishes to push. Do you have any suggestions? -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Fromm

Done. You didn't really think there was any chance in hell that I was going to page-protect it on a version that called him an anti-communist patriot and described his opponents as anti-free speech anarchist scum and chronic complainers, I hope... :-) Bearcat (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK

Kapiche Peter Horn 17:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You saw it here first

Ground Zero,

Finding my biography in Wikipedia two years after it existed, was a great and joyous surprise for me. It is in fact my first foray into the Public Domain in 11 years, since my last attempt at elective office. Everything I have contributed to this site, all the discussions with all the Administrators is self published material in a public forum.

The mainline media, CNN in particular, is portraying the current economic crisis in Apocalyptic terms and totally unexpected. The record bares witness that on July 3 I made this statement in your talk:

The global system is just entering the time when this line from Rev.18 will be seen and believed: And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buys their merchandise any more.

This is the financial crisis.

Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 20:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]