User talk:JGGardiner/Archive 1

Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, JGGardiner/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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 06:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Liberal article

I prefer the term "cannabis" over "marijuana", but I won't object if the consensus is to change it. CJCurrie 20:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Bill Graham

Thanks for your helpful comment on the Bill Graham talk page; it sums up the issue in a way that anyone can understand. Would you mind if I asked for one small amendment? Is there a way that you could make it clear to whom you are addressing the comment? Your comment follows directly after mine, and I wouldn't want anyone to think that you are responding to me. HistoryBA 13:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Minor religious groups and their articles

Personally I'd like to delete articles like this. However, I have seen a great many comparable articles on Wikipedia. There seems to be a great tolerance to include places of worship without any substantial information. Just a few examples from across demoninations and places: Church of St. Andrew and St. Paul, Montreal, First Church of Christ, Scientist (Ottawa), Sri Guru Singh Sabha, Hare Krishna Temple (Toronto), Adath Israel Congregation (Toronto). Are there some criteria for these? I'm going to vote delete, and hope that there is a more general cleanup to follow. --JGGardiner 19:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely with your sentiment as expressed in the AFD. I can start nominating some of these to AFD- As far as I know, they mostly fail the notability criteria for inclusion as a social group. I was going to offer to introduce you to the process of deletion when I saw that your talk page was so sparse, but it looks like you've been editing for about as long as I have. Just let me know on my talk page how you think we should handle the articles you enumerated and we can see if we can work out a plan for cleaning up. Thanks, Kuzaar 19:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

A*ber

Thought you might enjoy this: I admire the persistence. HistoryBA 15:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Dark Ages

Unbelieveable. Thanks for tracking it down. -- Stbalbach 15:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Igantieff

Just want to say thanks for all the good work on the Ignatieff article. Political articles are a real pain to keep neutral and it's always nice to have an editor who tries to do just that. Kudos, eh? 198.20.40.50 19:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

And you're right - it is like dealing with Snakes on a Plane. Motherf***ing snakes! 198.20.40.50 21:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Heh heh. Oops. The whole reason I put that link in was so I could leave you a message, but I forgot to do it! I didn't know I could use the discussion link to get to a user talk page, but you're absolutely right! Anyway, I meant to leave a note of thanks for your thoughtful comments in the Ignatieff discussion, and to commend your for your admirable restraint in not editing when you can clearly see the weaknesses in the article. It's a quality I apparently lack: I just can't help fixing things that look wrong even when I know it'll all be reverted. Anyway, thanks for sticking with the article — hopefully we'll get it looking respectable soon. Cheers! Joel Bastedo 04:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I reported him

Yeah. So that should block that ip. Geedubber 02:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just hope that whoever shows up tomorrow is at least willing to talk things through. --JGGardiner 03:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you aware that vandalizing IP originate from Ottawa, the National Library, or Ottawa U. How bizare? Pete Peters 02:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Arthur is not a she. Do you seriously not know who he is? Pete Peters 03:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

A lot of the Vandalizing Ips are from Arthur Ellis, who has access to computers at the National Library, and Ottawa U. Pete Peters 03:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an idiot. But suspicions don't get you anywhere on WP. You saw Crzrussian ask an IP and what did it help? The best things is to deal with the problem content not the problem editors (other than engaging them). Usually that does the trick. For a real problem situation, only sdmins can really deal with it anyway. --JGGardiner 03:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh okay, for a second I was worried. This can't go on, I want to do other things on Wiki, but his presistent behaviour is well... persistent. Look at the Rachel Marsden history, this guy can go on forever, you think he would have children to enjoy and watch them grow up. Pete Peters 03:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

That isn't always easy -- I've spent a whole week waiting to see people grow up. --JGGardiner 03:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Discredited

There should be mention at some point about the later discreditation of his thesis. He rarely mentioned it later on in his life and felt horror about how it was being carried out in Germany. jdobbin 20:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Warren Kinsella RFAR

Please be advised that a request for arbitration is being filed over the continued edit war occurring over this page. Please feel free to make a statement on the request page. Geedubber 05:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought that you and HistoryBA were more involved than some of the editors mentioned. I thought both of you tried really hard to resolve the conflict. Besides AE and PP, all the other parties named are admins. I thought it might be good to get some editors who actually worked on the content of the articles to weigh in. The Mark Bourrie page was listed as one of affected articles as well. Geedubber 05:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I think if you looked at the crap I took from Peters -- the sock puppet tags, the non-stop trolling on my talk pafe, the frequent checkuser requests, the vandalization of pages I worked on (I even read Kinsella's crappy book), you might understand why I was not as patient as I would have preferred to be. It's all in the arbitration summary, at least my honest view and perception of it. Look at the link to the first page of the Peters contributions, the links to discussions re: Kinsella and Bourrie Arthur Ellis 17:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Liberal Endorsements

I understand that Jimmy K. has resigned from the Volpe camp. This doesn't mean he has pulled his for him. I see that Jimmy K. has been removed from his endorsement list, perhaps until evidence to suggest that he has pulled his support. We should still be included in the endorsement category. Also, maybe supporter is better suited than endorsement.

Also, people who did once support a candidate, but have since retracted their support for a candidate, should have their retraction sourced. Like that MP from richmond, the successor to Grewal Pete Peters 18:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh... i guess Jimmy K. has pulled his endorsement afterall. [[1]] Pete Peters 03:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 19:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Eugenics

I would just like to recognize your fine work on making sure that this addition to the Tommy Douglas article was balanced and NPOV. What was so important, IMO, was the civil tone you maintained throughout, despite entries and comments that must have been more than a little trying. Good work! Sunray 20:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Advice

I would be interested in getting your views on the role of Tyrenius as a mediator on the Michael Ignatieff talk page. Does he have any status as a mediator? By that, I mean, do the participants on the page accept him as a mediator or is he self appointed. (I'm mindful both these conditions could apply). How effective has he been in a mediation role? What problems have arisen, if any?

The reason I ask is that (as you will have seen) he made a peremptory removal of some text from the page. This is something that is generally frowned on, in my experience. His response to my quoting the guideline on the subject was to remove that too. In the words of the guideline, this is "unacceptable." However, I don't want to jeopardize any good work that may be going on by insisting on a point unless it is germane. If this is not the only instance of his being high handed, it may well be. Comments? Sunray 06:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Ignatieff intro

The intro, officially known as the lead section, has a house format, which is outlined in Wikipedia:Lead section, so the article needs to bear this in mind. Tyrenius 17:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm with you. One thing at a time then. The lead section can be expanded later. Tyrenius 17:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Ignatieff talk page

Your comments were most helpful. Thank you. Sunray 20:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above. Arthur Ellis is banned indefinitely from Warren Kinsella and articles which relate to Canadian politics and its blogosphere. Any article which mentions Warren Kinsella is considered a related article for the purposes of this remedy. This includes all talk pages other than the talk page of Mark Bourrie. Arthur Ellis is required to use one registered account. For the Arbitration Committee. FloNight 03:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

LPC Convention 2006

Quomodo vales? Interesting questions about Ignatieff - I'm not certain either as to how much he's done at U of T. He's officially listed as the Chancellor Jackman Visiting Professor in Human Rights Policy, and was scheduled to teach an undergrad course and supervise grad students [2], but I doubt that's going to happen. Mind you, many profs don't ever teach (mine, for instance) and visiting profs seldom do much but write. Still, it's not a bad point. Any thoughts? -- Gaius Octavius | Talk 00:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Puppies?

I'm sorry, I don't know what you are referring to.

Rae/Nunziata

The information is inaccurate. Newspaper reports from the 1982 by-election indicate that Nunziata hadn't been an NDP member for years. Another source says that he left due to a municipal controversy (which presumably means he didn't get the party's nomination). CJCurrie 23:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Ignatieff article

Hi, my block expired and I really would like to be of some use as I have kept a lot of articles on Ignatieff. Please see my recent edits which I spent hours trying to get right and PLEASE note the credible citations for them. Octavious deleted them en masse so I need to know your opinion as to what part of my edits should be in the article. If you abd others simply do not want the criticisms of Ignatieff by others in the Human Rights community included in the article then I'll just quit wasting my time. Canuckster 19:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Michael Bryant

JG,

I'm probably being overcautious in asking this question, but could you please revert this page? A pit-bull enthusiast seems to have a bit too much time on his hands, and has been adding preposterous edits to the page all day. (His additions may not constitute "simple vandalism" in a strict sense, however, and I'm a bit concerned about putting myself in technical contravention of the 3RR.) CJCurrie 00:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I have a sneaking suspicion he'll be back.

If you have the time, could you look over the discussion on the Joe Volpe page? (Before you ask: I don't particularly like Volpe, but I have an interest in ensuring fairness. The previous edit went into far too much detail concerning the various controversies from his leadership campaign.) CJCurrie 01:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a feeling that several people are avoiding my disputes with GoldDragon. I'd probably do the same, if it were someone else.  ;) CJCurrie 07:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Canuckster etc

Don't be silly, you don't have anything to apologise for. Sarah Ewart 23:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting those badly written and ridiculously POV edits on the Ignatieff, JG. TomBlackstonez is obviously a sock puppet of Canuckster/Ottawaman.[3] This guy really does not have a life. - Finnegans wake 02:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The personal attacks on my talk page and ANI, the Request for Comment, Request for Mediation and Request for Arbitration were a bit exhausting, but I'm fine. I guess you do develop a thick skin when dealing with people like that. He was actually community banned from Wikinews before he started up here, and I've been aware of that for a few months, so I guess I always saw him as knowing exactly what he was doing, rather than being naive to the system etc. But we seem to now be at a point of resolution. Some checkusers were done and a number of his accounts have been blocked. We also have account creation blocks in place on his IP ranges and a community ban has been proposed on ANI. After several days of him trolling ANI to make attacks on me, discussion turned to reporting him to his ISP, at which point he announced his retirement and promised never to return. Hopefully with the IP blocks preventing him from creating new accounts and editing anonymously from his ISP, we will at least have a quiet Christmas. :) Sarah Ewart 10:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

JG - You're right, if he knocked off all the bullying and thuggery for two moments, there was some - stress some - information he was toting that ought or could be incorporated into the article. I've tried to do some of this by adding information about the Gearty critique which, honestly, is a pretty weak one and has received more attention than it deserves - but nonetheless such criticisms should be acknowledged. But I really think you're too kind. We're assuming this guy actually wanted a "balanced" article. I think if you go through the archives, there was a consistent attempt to smear Ignatieff and chop up the article into quotations, often far out of context and badly written. And then there is the constant bullying of other contributers, where a "headline" in the discussion page would be created like this [4] for the purpose of intimidating other editors. I mean, how many times did he accuse other long-time wiki editors - including yourself - of being a "PAID PRO-IGGY STAFFERS" or something along those lines. The only time he took a conciliatory approach, was when an administrator got actively involved (first Tyrenius and then Sarah) and he had no choice. And even then his contributions were completely one-sided. - Finnegans wake 16:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply

Hi; my reply is on Skookum1.Skookum1 10:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Bunster, Shakespeare et al.

Hi. The "source" I have on these guys is J. Morton's In the Sea of Sterile Mountains: The Chinese in British Columbia, from about 1974. It's actually more about the politics and the politicians than the Chinese themselves, and follows the careers of these guys quite closely, including nice character sketches. As for the "anti-Chinese movements" of the time deserving an article, well, as Morton points out, there wasn't a politician who wasn't anti-Chinese, even those who did business with them, and got them to vote for themselves (conundrum; they weren't allowed to vote, but in a show of hands system sometimes the only voters/taxpayers were the Chinese, as in the Lillooet riding, where in the 1870s 60% of property owners were Chinese...something you don't hear about in Chinese-written/biased histories...). I'm a bête noire about all this stuff as I find most current history/journalism on the Chinese in early BC very skewed and prejudiced and out-of-whack, leaving out important bits (e.g. the slaughter of the white foreman at Camp 23 at Lytton by a mob), whether it's stuff in the press or in books like Saltwater City (which mentions Cayoosh/Lillooet only to say whites had driven Chinese off the goldfields, then nothing else; yet from Chinese pulled at least $6-7 million in gold from Cayoosh Creek in a decade when official gold revenues were 1.5 mill; and all academic historiography has to say about Chinese gold mining activity in that period is that they were driven off the Tulameen goldfields, without mentioning Cayoosh or the continuing prosperity/dominance of the Chinese anywhere else in the Interior, esp. Barkerville and the other Cariboo towns but also throughout the Fraser Canyon; they were driven off the Tulameen because they'd frozen whites out of all available claims anywhere else, in fact...). The most famous story about them being driven out of that area was at the hands of the chief of the Lakes Lillooet, Chief Hunter Jack, very definitely not a white; but about the prosperity of Chinese miners, merchants and ranchers in the Lillooet District you hear absolutely ZIP in modern histories, and if I raise it in discussions I'm branded a racist. Go figure. Morton's book is intended to be sympathetic but still covers a lot of ground that's conspicuously absent in more recent tellings; I also find out a lot from the Ghost Towns books and other local histories, i.e. about where Chinatowns were and some stories about them, although that's on a different tack (several towns, such as McDame Post and either Antler or Richfield, were near-entirely Chinese). I made more notes about some of this for Kla'quot, who's Chinese; if you'd like to see them I can post them on a sandbox later today or something, or if your email link is set up I could send them to you that way. But I've got Morton, so what I'm going to do - as I'm bad at cribbing stuff from (I hate having to paraphrase/excerpt well-written stuff) is I'll transcribe the bits about Bunster to a page in my BC and Pacific Northwest History forum, and if you want you can do the work of re-jigging it into Wiki history copy. Oh, I just found Lost Bonanzas of BC or whatever it's called - a "truckstop history" of the kind Barlee, Basque and Rothenburger generate (but not by them) - and it's got a great rundown on ol' Brother XII, which I want to build up to nominate for FA status some day, without doing anything about it for now of course. Sounds like maybe you should stop by the British Columbia WikiProject and sign on, though it's not clear to me if you're in BC or not....gotta go make my coffee, just got up (yeah, I know, I'm a slug but I'm also a night owl).Skookum1 18:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You might want to look over My BC and Pacific NW History Forum/Resource area, but I haven't done much with it for a while, despite grand plans. But when you see User talk:Skookum1/BC&PacificNorthwestHistory/BioResources as a non-redlink you'll know I got some of the stuff about Bunster cribbed; I almost named the sandbox for him but then realized there's other bio resource material that could go there in the long run. I think a previous set of transcribing from selected passages of Morton, re the infamous Joseph Martin, is at User talk:Skookum1/BC&PacificNorthwestHistory/Resources. The idea is to use the forum for transcriptions of out-of-print/public domain material, as well as a large map/image gallery/index of link.Skookum1 19:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Request

Could you look over a dispute on the Stéphane Dion page (Environment Minister section). CJCurrie 06:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply

On my talkpage.Skookum1 08:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

More...Skookum1 09:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:COI - possible recourse?

Please see a note on this to Bobanny on her talk page. Skookum1 00:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Insults and truthfulness

Hi there. Up late again, I see. I'm just about to hit the logs for some sawing, but I saw your comment back at Randy3, "a regular at this page" (all twelve of his edits, and nothing else...he thinks that's a good thing, or some kind of recommendation, I guess). Almost put in a quip which I'll plunk down here as it's out-of-line on the AFD: "I'm surprised he didn't say "truthiness""...and insults are his stock-in-trade, if you go through things he's said on the article's talkpage and inline comments; condescending, if not precisely insulting, as here...right at the top of any Wikipedia intro page it says something to the effect of "you can't own your edits or become attached to them; anyone can edit them" - "they" are behaving like it's their sole property, without comprehending the vastiness that is Wikidom; their change in tone (other than Randy3's outburst) has been noticeable since Bobanny and Agent86 and Mkdw started invoking this and that; I guess they thought I was a loner or something they could scream at enough to drive me away, like they did User:Dom Perignon (look in the EB article's original edits) and others. Whatever; I just wanted to drop by with the "truthiness" quip.....Skookum1 11:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Rock Creek Gold Rush article - brand-spanking new

Also made the redirect for Rock Creek War, since there wasn't a point in two articles (as there is with Fraser Canyon Gold Rush and Fraser Canyon War). Nice to write about something other than, well, you know....enjoy, and please add anything or fix anything that seems fitting. Unlike r.p. and friends, I don't have a problem with other people editing my Wiki contributions....Skookum1 10:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Gary Collins

Hi. A lot of contemporary political bios are not written, and are red-linked all over the place; a stub could be started I suppose, on nearly any of them, but generally contemporary politicians I keep my hands off of (they're icky, by and large ;-) - I feel more comfortable dealing with the dead ones; who often are/were more interesting characters; I just picked up some books on BC's Premiers and some of the juicier older and modern scandals (both by William Rayner, who I hated as a columnist but these histories are passable). One reason I'm hesitating on a lot of historical scandal articles, by the way, is not all of them have names per se, so I'll have to come up with descriptive ones (e.g. Military Lands Appropriation Scandal, in I think, which involved Trutch, Baynes, Moberley, Burnaby etc in the original survey of Vancouver; only one of many that didn't get a "tag"....as for the modern cretins, I mean politicians, a string of stubs is definitely needed; there's an List of NDP politicians somewhere that's nearly all redlinks for example...thte Bornmann article's been quiet as a clam since the dressing-down of the AFD, but I think it may also have had to do with the affair surfacing in blogworld and even in some of the mainstream webzines...(!)...like I told someone onc-upon-a-time, and may have repeated to rascalpatrol or one of the puppets, "if you don't want people saying bad things about you, don't do bad things....". If I could remember how Gary Collins got his start - in Wilson's cabinet/caucus, no? but before that I'm not sure which branch/area of municipal politics or whatever he was in...if that was even it; I know he's a barrister but I think he was in muni politics earlier on....if you feel like writing/starting the bio-stub, please do.Skookum1 09:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW for fun and amusement, see Hollywood North's edit history and talk page.............and its AFD, fresh off the griddle tonight.Skookum1 09:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Minor Edits

Thanks for the tip. Also, I appreciate your insight in the Joe Volpe dispute. GoldDragon 17:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Skookum1's last hurrah

Hi; been meaning to get back to you on various other replies to my page and in other topics but have been trying to function more in meatspace instead of cyberspace lately, and am finding myself spread thin if I do sit down to work on Wikipedia; too many topics, too little time. As I've been alluding to I'll be signing off soon as adventures/career/life are calling me, and I don't get paid for the hours and hours a day I've applied to Wikipedia, and have to deal with, um, paying rent and buying groceries. So that's why I haven't got back with replies before; distracted elsewhere, or just away from the box too much. As for Donteatyellowsnow, I know about the civility thing, but I've gotten to the point with that turkey where it's "call a spade a spade" season, "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition" etc. Being civil and tolerant with somebody who's not is all nice and small-c Christian and all, but it's not very productive in a consensus-based environment. Even today I note responsible editors using terms like "conciliate" and "concession" and "compromise" with DEYS' views - nice idea, but the reality is that if the other side in an argument is not conciliating, conceding or compromising, then the party doing that is being sucked into surrender. You cannot compromise with half-truth, and you cannot conciliate falsehood into truth. That DEYS has swaggered around accusing this or that editor of deletion, vandalism, etc etc while at the same time being one of the worst perpetrators of same I've seen, and there's no recourse - this alone is one reason why I'm giving up the ghost on Wiki. Garbage in, garbage out, and there's always more garbage, and always more sophomoric children (some of whom perhaps work for p.r. agencies, IMO). But overall I'm realizing I could spend the next year writing articles on BC ghost towns, shipwrecks, interesting people and more than one juicy corporate or private scandal/scheme, and make lots and lots of and contributions of images....but to what end? I tend towards "original research" as it is, and do find the citation system of Wikipedia not only constraining, but capable of producing odd results - as in the various poorly-cited efforts to establish Santa Barbara and Seattle etc. as "Hollywood North" - and also because a lot of things aren't citable because, say, a point was made of NOT keeping records (e.g. the Solidarity Crisis of 1983) or the secondary sources (newspapers, journalist-written histories like Rayner's) are all tainted, as is the whole of academia, by ideological and partisan affiliation; so Wikipedia inherently is a slave to that, and also to the arrogance and stupidity of types like Donteatyellowsnow and Hong Qi Gong. I weighed in last night because it was late and I saw the "hey, I found some dirt on Skookum1" bent of DEYS and felt like spewing, knowing the risks but also tired of this mouthy little s**t. Hell, there's way better dirt on me than HQG's whining, and the particularities of the Oregon issue don't fall in the same category at all (any port in a storm for DEYS, though, who obviously finds me a threat....and should....). Anyway, I'm unrepentant about last night's post; you should see the one I didn't send from a couple of nights ago (browser problems)....I'll email it to you if you like....Skookum1 20:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

H. North

JGGardiner, As I want to avoid the whole H. North discussion and try to leave ammunition for either side away, I am writing to you directly. You seem like a nice person and sincerely want people to work out their differences on the Hollywood North page. You also seem to be fair with both sides of the issue. But I must get a few things straight, I never said DEYS was canvasing. What I said was: "some may consider this canvasing" and as other have thought so, my point was made. I do not think that what DEYS did was canvasing, it is borderline, but canvasing requires more than a couple posts. It is a large and disruptive campaign. Similarly, that is why I never filed any complaints against Skookum1 for his similar actions, I didn't think it rose to that level. Maybe 6-10 would do it, but I am only aware of DEYS posts on mine and NorCalHistory's pages. Aditionally, the guidline against canvasing is meant to protect the people canvassed, not those being canvassed against. In this case it is meant to protect me and NorCalHistory from being dragged into something we don't want to get involved with. Anyway, two is not canvasing, or three like I found on Skookum1. In both cases it is bad faith and poor behavior. Please note I am not defending DEYS, as his/her actions are completely out of line, but so are some others like the Langora College person. I would have expected an apology from them to DEYS once someone verfied the user guide source, but no incivility reigns. Instead an excuse, which is not in anyway an appology. But this is neither here nor there for me, as I do not get involved with things just to spout my opinion or defend America, I only take on innaccuracies, and the bullies. I cannot defend someone who has acted just as poorly as the rest, that's why my one original post to the H. North talk page only made a comment on the content (and I believe it was a fair assesment), not about the actions of the editors. It's not my fight. For fairness they should make the whole article a redirect to an article civility. Again, I'm not attacking you or anyone, I just want to clear up the canvassing issue. Aboutmovies 17:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I read your response to Aboutmovies and I'm not sure you were referring to me, but I just wanted to add that I contacted DEYS about e-mailing me first (about a related matter). After seeing what's been going on, I thought better of it, but s/he hasn't e-mailed me nor has s/he attempted to drag me into the fray, except to point out the ANI discussion, which is what s/he assumed I wanted to talk to him/her about. So no foul on DEYS's part, at least as far as I am concerned. Thanks. Katr67 22:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Happy editing! Katr67 22:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Mostly happy. Sorta like mostly harmless... Katr67 23:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I know you are not trying to attack me or my behaviour. As as you said, you didn't want to make DEYS think his actions were OK, nor did I want others to think I am condoning or condeming their actions. These editors do not deserve our efforts, IMO. In a way I'm trying to be Swiss on this issue. So good luck, and happy editing, you are going to need it. Aboutmovies 23:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

John Baird

JGG, acting on GoldDragon's comment about the "Provincial politics" section of this article being biased, I have reviewed the section and made seven suggestions for deletions and revisions to make it more balanced. Your comments would be appreciated. CJCurrie has already provided some comments, and I think that we should be able to get consensus on improving the article. Thanks. Ground Zero | t 13:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Kinsella edit

I think the one citation is enough, anyway. Linking to the Kinsella "Top Ten Jerks" page will only start the edit warring again. The page looks fine to me. It captures Kinsella's litigiousness while being fair to both Kinsella and his "enemies". People can either see the blog suits as a string of successes for Kinsella or a pattern of harassment of bloggers. The truth is likely in the middle somewhere. The other litigation belongs there: the issues with his book; and the loss of a lawsuit re: his own blog posting puts things in perspective. Glad you appreciated my sarcasm. This place could use a bit more levity. Retilian Kitten Eater 22:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Update: Kinsella sock "Average Guy" seems insistent the link to the Top Ten Jerks page is a source that's up to Wikipedia's standards. Retilian Kitten Eater 00:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That's totally uncalled for, RKE. AverageGuy 01:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: the Top Ten Jerks. The whole Kinsella "enemies list" thing is too shabby for Wikipedia. Retilian Kitten Eater 22:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. But that doesn't justify calling me a "Kinsella sock." AverageGuy 23:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI, Retillian Kitten Eater is a confirmed sockpuppet of banned user Arthur Ellis. Kla'quot 16:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

YOUR BEHAVIOR

Actually, Mr Gardiner, it was a reference to when Michael Campbell as editor of a magazine, (and the brother of Gordon Campbell), when he had a front page picture of NDP insiders/MLAs photoshopped so they were wearing brownshirts uniforms.

Mein Gott.

And to be sure that I do not offend thee and thine, which is the problem, the reference to a brown shirt liberal, or the salute? Or both together? Because if I had wanted to reference him as a nazi, I would have, and plainly spoke it, and did not. I did reference him as a brown shirt liberal, which, I do not consider to be a nazi. I want that to be very clear. I do not call people a 'nazi', thank you.

I do know the difference between a liberal brown shirt, which I consider a person who uses their power to bulldoze their personal opinion, viewpoint, policy, whatever, to get their way, versus say, a political system that espouses the murder and brutal domination of others by physical means, including genocide.

I do consider a person who removes every single 'non-glowingly positive' article about Campbell a brownshirt liberal, esp. when it seems they are not even trying to see the point I am trying to make, esp. when they are not bothering to see which, if any are reasonable and should stay, and are just removing every single article, by rote. As apposed to a nazi, who would have removed the articles by rote, then shown up at my door, kicked it in, raped my wife, then killed me and my family.

I do, however, find the salute rather enjoyable, esp. as sarcasm towards those who order me about. So which is unacceptable? The 'brown shirt liberal' or the salute? Or is it both together?

I am not trying to be annoying, or funny. I would really like to know. For example, if someone tells me, "I don't want you to post on such and such an article, your just too biased and partisan", is it allowed for me to say "zig heil mein xxxx, btw, this is sarcasm is _not_ to imply you are a nazi"? Because that is the way and reason I use that salute.

Thankyou —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Miked789 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

NDP senator

I put the justification of Lillian Dyck on Talk:New Democratic Party. GreenJoe 22:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Gordon Campbell edit dispute

Hello, I'm a member of the Association for Members' Advocates who's been assigned to this dispute in response to this request by Miked789 (talk · contribs). Please see my comment on Talk:Gordon Campbell#Preventing Edit War for details. Best, --Shirahadasha 18:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

reply

At first I wrote a rather lengthly reply about insults and bias, but it all comes down to this:

You are blaming me for everything, including the actions of other editors. You are in effect saying that the other editor is being biased and will be until I apologise to him. From almost the beginning I was told that I am biased and partisan and should not do any edits. You insult me directly and in roundabout fashion AFTER dressing me down for insulting someone else and pointing me to a policy on civility.

So that begs the question, who is the pot, and who is the kettle?

Just to be sure you understand where I am coming from, you can call me anything you want, I really don't care what you say or think about me. Sticks and stones, and all that. But please, don't be a hypocrite towards me, come off high and mighty to the rescue, avenging an insult, then turn around and insult me repeatedly and then try to come off as "Mr. Professional lets be adult about this, your such a horrible person, but I'm such a decent person I can still work with you", and still asking for me to apologize to someone else.

It simply doesn't fly.

Miked789 18:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)miked789

Edits from a banned user

Hi JG, you had some comments from a banned user Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Arthur_Ellis on this talk page. I've removed most of them, as this guy is going to keep setting up socks if we let him use Wikipedia as a soapbox. I wouldn't object if you reverted me though - it's your talk page. Cheers, Kla'quot 16:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Warren Kinsella

Looks like a Kinsella sock has started "sanitizing" the page, restoring the false claim he ran the Liberal war room, etc. Check the diffs. Telephon 12:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Ms. Gardiner:

       Perhaps it was your phrase "lack of human decency” that led me to believe you considered me to be a horrible person. One generaly equates a "lack of human decency" with, hmmm, people who rape then bury children alive, or suicide bombers, or fill in the blank.

You also accused me of accusing others of being biased and partisan, and that you can not do that if you want to be honest discourse, yet it was wikimart who accused me of being biased and partisan. So again, you are being a hypocrite when you don't call him on it.

Don't blame me if you don't like the label when you make yourself a suite.

BTW, when a person calls himself reptiliankittineater, I tend to think it's for the purpose of baiting, and I tend not to care what he/she thinks.

Also, it's not hostility, but if you are going to step up and say what you think, then you are going to get a reply when you are being a hypocrite. You call me to task for something, then you go and do it, or don't call someone else to task when they do it to me, then what do you expect?

You can go off crying to someone saying I am so hostile. But I'm not. I'm standing up for myself against a person who insulted me. Whether you disguise your insults or say them straight out they are still insults. And if you don't want to deal with me, then don't. Isn't that easy?

As for the poor admins or editors such as wikimart, since he has from the start told me I am biased and partisan, and allowed all the negative articles on campbell to be removed (or removed them), then I can only say that he too, is a hypocrite, and I will apologize when hell freezes over.

BTW, if you think that anything I have said on wikipedia equates to a 'lack of human decency' then you need to get out more and take a look at whats going on the world.

Miked789 22:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)miked789

Deletion review of an AfD decision you commented on

This AfD you commented on is currently on deletion review. ~ trialsanderrors 19:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Architectural Proportions

Thank you for your friendly advice. As a registered architect, architectural proportions are of interest to me and I do have a lot of references to them which I noted the article lacked. Proportions differ from measurements or standards of measure. They are architectural relationships of elements which don't necessarily use measures but often as not are composed as the irrational diagonals and circumferences of components of a design. The decision of 2005 would not apply to this topic.

I used the template for citing references and then to make them more specific added keynotes to where they apply in the article. My expectation would be that much more could be added to the article especially as regards the section on mats as an element of proportion. Rktect 14:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I added a comment on the discussion page regarding proportion vs panelization and would appreciate your adding any thoughts you may have. Rktect 15:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

AverageGuy's Talk Page

Hey JGG, I was wondering if you would agree to remove your comments from AverageGuy's talk page about the article relating to me. ThanksAnber 19:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Read your comment. My take is that AverageGuy is okay with the removal. One of his big beefs with me was editing other people's comments. Also, with respect to the subject on his talk page, he removed his comments and allowed me to remove my comments, he deliberately left your comments suggesting that he's staying consistent to the "don't edit others' comments". So I think you can just go ahead and remove it. Thanks for your being fair minded about all of this and as you can see, I do like to make little edits here and there. Regards. Anber 18:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Robert Ghiz

I've added it to my watchlist. One hopes that the 172. vandal isn't now being supplemented by a 142. vandal. CJCurrie 01:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Request

Could you please look over the situation that I've described here? 02:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I know. These GoldDragon scenarios often become intractable, simply because no-one else wants to wade into the messiness therein. CJCurrie 01:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

All the same, I'd appreciate it if you could try to end this cycle. CJCurrie 21:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

On another matter, I trust that you're actively following events on the Stéphane Dion page? CJCurrie 21:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

(NTB613) John Tory and Dalton McGuinty on inclusive education

could you help me rephrasing it in a away that it should be neutral?

because the UN decision is a fact not a personal opinion it should be written that Dalton McGuinty chose not to obey while john Tory did want to obey the UN decision.

--Ntb613 16:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Harper

Hello JG, I'd recommend you give an opinon on weither or not Elizabeth II should be added. If you agree to inclusion (thus making it 4 to 1), we'd have a consensus OR if you agree to exclusion (thus making it 3 to 2), then the dispute would thus end. Just a thought, not a request. GoodDay 20:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Marsden

Basically, I'll be happy when it's a simple bio of her education, her jobs, and a link to the Simon Fraser harassment controversy. Everything else is just innuendo rooted in the idea that she's a stalker and a psycho. Maybe she is. Maybe she isn't. Wikipedia's not the place to debate it. Mike Bate (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I doubt they'll kill the article. It was actually just about alright until a few days ago. I agree that there should be something in there linking to the SFU controversy (I say so above) but this version goes way, way too far.

Read what I write in the Arbcomm application, especially the stuff about reporting in Wikipedia when people are "investigated". Could there be anything more Stalinistic? I do regret being a pain. I just feel I have been treated pretty shabbilly, perhaps as collateral damage to Marsden. She does generate serious hostility. Mike Bate (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Georgina Bencsik

I've deleted once again the article as a re-creation of a deleted article since it was not sent to deletion review, nor if it was really improved nor does it meets WP:N, that is until she succeeds officially John Godfrey as MP of Don Valley West, presuming if the Liberals keeps this seat in the next elections or by-election (although the first being the more likely scenario). I've sent him links to guide him for improving and creating articles and warned him about possible salting and blocking if this continues.Thanks for alerting me on this issue.--JForget 16:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:CONCISE

Did you really mean to direct me to that? I hadn't seen that project page for years. I remember people were excited about it a few years ago. Perhaps you meant an essay about a more concise style? Relata refero (talk) 12:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand. As far as I can tell, the attitude is a combination of WP:NOT#PAPER, which encourages people to put stuff in, and WP:SUMMARY, which encourages people to spin off into new articles when too much is put in. Relata refero (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Well what I was trying to say is it isn't just in the policies. We have to be able to step back and see an encyclopedia article when it is all done. Hmm, I wonder if there is a WP:GESTALT? =) --JGGardiner (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

NAS mediation

Although im not sure how to use this atm i think that it could be extremely helpful and im very grateful for you providing it. Are you absolutely sure its the same artist? ŠξÞÞøΛ ^talk 23:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Al-Durrah mediation

Very good idea, JGG. Might I suggest that you also notify the fringe theories noticeboard, whose contributors have a good deal of expertise in dealing with undue weight issues? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-17 Muhammad al-Durrah

Hello. I'm going to take over this MedCab case and try to work this stuff out. I posted in the talk page what I would like all participants to do to start. Hopefully this all works out well, I have zero intention of leaning towards any one side in this dispute, and I only care about getting it taken care of. Wizardman 18:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi howya doin'?

Haven't crossed wiki-paths with y'all in a while since "the Bornmann Affair". Howzit? Thanks for dropping by the "2008 Kerfuffle" page, more political experience/acumen is much-needed there....Skookum1 (talk) 14:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks..

for the message...I´m glad it wasn´t intentional! Around my parts of the world we call it "finger-trouble"... (happens to the best of us!) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict

Never got a response from you about what we were talking about in the talk about arabic title before it got archived, would be interested in what you think about what i said (its in archive 10 now). Peace, Nableezy (talk) 07:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Id like to think we are all reasonable, though some of the discussion on the lead page and some of the archives have dissuaded me from that assumption. But, when I see somebody rationally arguing their point like you were, I gain a little bit more hope :). But more to the point, here is the [current english translation of a google news search for the exact arabic phrase ("مجزرة غزة" ) over the past month: 481 articles just from arabic news sources google crawls. And from all arabic websites the count is now 782,000 in the past month. I think the characterization of the term being used in much of the Arab world is valid beyond it being the name of used by one of the main belligerents. But I would be interested in any countervailing views you may have. Nableezy (talk) 03:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts, and when people make rational arguments I cannot help but smile. I try to make it a point to not argue against reason, and you sir have used reason where others, you mentioned one of the names, use nothing but irrationality. Again, I appreciate your efforts, and as Nishidani said, if only all the discussions were so intelligent. Peace and happiness, and I hope our wikipaths cross again. Nableezy (talk) 00:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

And if you could make your views known at Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict#new_lead it might help put this to rest. Thanks, Nableezy (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I had hoped that most people would see this as reasonable, maybe as more people get a chance to look at it. I keep forgetting that at GMT-6, I am working on a different time frame from many other editors of this article. My hope is that it will get enough of a consensus so that this and this and this wont happen without any discussion. I guess I can hope, but until this happens I am pessimistic that it will be. Anyways, I just wanted to say thanks for your help, and again I really appreciate how you handled it, no dramatics, no emotional propaganda, just what you thought in a well reasoned manner. And your comment on my talk page about why I was behaving the way I have been in talk page made me laugh and laugh and laugh, and it has been hard for me to laugh recently. For that I say thanks. Peace and happiness, Nableezy (talk) 05:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate your work

I have just voted for the status quo. I did say I would support Nableezy's modification of your proposal. Indeed I have. But what happened since has made me modify my call. Not because I doubt the intelligence of your work, to the contrary, but because, in proposing it, we have now got ourselves into voting, rqather partisanly, on 5 different modifications, which are submerging the points you raised. Actually I foresaw that your collaborative work with Nableezy would in all probability just reopen a battlefront we were all relieved to have thought abandoned. It's a pity. But the attentive examination you undertook, and the collaborative negotiations over it with Nableezy, was exemplary. I hope we can refer back to this when, in the not too distant future, things have quietened down, there is less scurrying rather dazedly around to check and rein in bad editing, and one can revise this, perhaps indeed along the lines you proposed. Regards Nishidani (talk) 17:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I would have to agree, what has happened since has made me reflect on what contribution reason can have to this 'encyclopedia'. It is a pity too, because as you said in the lead page, I gave something up, as did you to arrive at something we both felt was accurate, properly sourced and NPOV. But to some, that was just not enough. Nishidani, you should have warned me this was going to happen, I wouldn't have even tried. Nableezy (talk) 22:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Go Hawks!

Not like I can enjoy the Bulls :(, maybe I'll try to get back into hockey, but as a long-time Detroit hater, I'd rather just pretend it is not a real sport, or else I cannot say "Detroit sucks!" as freely ;). Thanks for the suggestion, and I think I'll take it up for a few days. Peace, Nableezy (talk) 03:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

yo

I hope I haven't disappointed with my declining behavior, probably have. Im trying, perhaps I should try harder. But anyways, thought you might enjoy what I think may be the coolest singing of maybe the best national anthem in the world [5]. Peace, Nableezy (talk) 06:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

hahahahahaha, I had passed out for a while and woke up to all that. The funniest thing is that I think I have gone out of my way to try to reach agreement with some Israeli editors like Rabend and Omrim, but I guess that wasn't enough for some. And if people keep putting Iranian connections in the first sentence, I am going to blame Canada with a cite to the South Park movie ;) Nableezy (talk) 10:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Hows this:
The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, part of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, or also part of the ongoing Iranian quest to reestablish the Persian Empire, or also part of the American quest to begin a new English Empire, or also part of Canada's quest to unleash pottymouths such as Terrence and Phillip on the world, or also part of Derkaderkastan's continued push to be recognized as the major power in the Middle East and achieve UN representation, started on 27 December 2008 (11:30 a.m. local time; 9:30 a.m. UTC)[31] when Israel launched a military campaign codenamed Operation Cast Lead (Hebrew: מבצע עופרת יצוקה‎), with the stated intent of stopping Hamas rocket attacks and targeting the members and infrastructure of Hamas.[32][33][34] The conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre (Arabic: مجزرة غزة‎) in parts of the Arab World.[35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44]
That should satisfy everybody right? Nableezy (talk) 20:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Dont we also need to say that the tunnel was destroyed by an atomic weapon detonated in the Atlantic, potentially annihilating 13 species of fish and whales and sea unicorns, and PETA protested this indiscriminate use of such a weapon where so many innocent sea creatures would be harmed? I mean NPOV and all. Nableezy (talk) 03:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Wait, why dont the American nationalists defenders of the truth get that article deleted? Truly non-notable, a few bogus rumors reported by such salacious sources as (list of the 'propaganda outlets' controlled by the enemy, the UN, and every human rights organization). Nableezy (talk) 03:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think the problem is we dont know which one of the tubes to push our defense of the truth out onto the internets. I mean, clearly we know how to push our own interests, or else The Glorious Liberation of Iraq (requested move coming) couldnt have happened. Nableezy (talk) 06:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

But now, YES WE CAN change recorded history Nableezy (talk) 06:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Who cares what WP:NOT says, this is funny as hell. And it must be scary with Alaska, I mean with her having authority over 4000+ storm troopers Id be worried. I mean, its not like Canada is real country anyway, and they might actually blame Canada for not having the second highest office in the land be held by secessionist. Nableezy (talk) 07:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

But I might be worried if I were you, exchanging jokes with someone who is clearly a Hamas operative might not be the best way to maintain your aura of neutrality. Just saying you might want to delete all this and request oversight immediately. Nableezy (talk) 07:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope I dont turn into this Nableezy (talk) 19:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

question

All right, o wise man with the answers, if you could kindly explain how one should deal with others who edit in such a way. Who provide such reasons for rejection of material on the basis that enough people hate Israel already, no need to make it worse. Who are unwilling to budge on including things that are referenced to the max on one side but demands inclusion of material referenced to editorials of the, shall I say nicely, biased. Who are unwilling to even consider compromise, instead favoring to see any offer at a compromise as an invitation to demand more. How do you deal with that? I have gone through all the archives of all the A/I articles and there are two constants that I have seen: persistence pays off, and different standards are used on each 'sides' material. I do not want to have to go to the extreme to try to reflect balance, I would rather just go straight to the middle. But when people demand to 'compromise' when one side starts at the very far end, and the other much closer to the middle, how can that possibly end up near the middle? I have an admittedly pro-Palestinian viewpoint in the world, but I try pretty hard to keep it out of my edits. I can't say completely because I don't even pay attention to Israeli media, except for a few favorite writers. But what is the proper response to such behavior? Because honestly, the only thing that really pisses me off about any of this is the irrationality. I don't care if somebody is the most hardcore Zionist in the world, if they can provide some sort of rationality I would actually listen and pay attention, but when all is presented is bs, what is the proper response? Nothing? Nableezy (talk) 23:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC) (and no sarcasm in the first sentence)

Wise words. And I do not think I am in the center the way I edit is in the center (I am actually so far from the center in my actual thoughts, but you may have figured that out already, but I try to keep it out of my actual edits, maybe not always the talk page), but I do think I am much closer than those we speak of (though I obviously think I am right, I just dont think right=center). And yeah it obviously is on both sides. Nableezy (talk) 01:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I actually think it very well may be a RS, havent seen anything to say otherwise. But because he was a dick and couldn't put it in a way that didn't piss me off, I ain't gonna say that. And as far as 'maybe' he went too far, here is what I had to say to Sean.hoyland as to what I think about that: that type of shit can not be allowed to stand. antisemitism, where it really does exist in this encyclopedia, should be systematically rooted out just as any other type of racism, but the accusation, even if in the most indirect of ways, without basis serves only one purpose: to chill debate and discussion. those who make such accusations so easily should also be systematically rooted out, that type of behavior has no place in what claims to be a discussion among editors of an encyclopedia. Maybe 'fuck that' wasn't the best way, but even after we said dont do that he did it again and then swears he didnt really do anything. Perhaps I went too far, but 'fuck that' I dont want to deal with that nonsense. Nableezy (talk) 15:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the note

Thanks for the note on my talk page. To respond to it in some fashion. I am not angry about the way I have been treated. I see myself as a representative of a POV on that article, as others do. It is also a minority POV so being banned further unbalances the already unbalanced article. Granted I don't think the banning was fair and quite backhanded. Be that as it may, the subject must be treated fairly and honestly on both sides of the fence, and it is sometimes difficult to AGF. It would have been better to have taken the issue(s) to dispute resolution rather than to try to get people off of the article by banning them. I am not comfortable with all those wiki processes yet, unlike some of the other editors there. I may be abrasive at times, but I try to be fair and civil.

Re tundrabuggy-- I have not been in one though I have been to Churchill and points further north, such as Arviat, Baker Lake, Whale Cove, Gjoa Haven & other points north by canoe. There are a couple of possible double entendres in the name. I've never been in one, I am one. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

yo part2

now this is a joke, please take it as a joke, didnt want to put it in the article talk: I havent actually ever been in a mediation, but you know how somebody tries to rob you when they dont have a gun? They say very loudly put your hands up and turn around I have a gun. thats what this feels like, people saying this is unsourced, a lie, synth, whatever to take out something they dont like. The only person who hasnt made a ridiculous argument like the WHO and HRW are not RSs is cptnono, and i think he has a valid point. but i see your point and could even concede on that (even though, stubborn man that i am i think im right). Nableezy (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I dont know how it feels to actually have been held at gun point but I do know a hustler when I see one. It aint that bad, i was just kidding on that. Matter fact I wanted to ask you, we just had what the meteorologists are calling an arctic front from Canada, so first I want to say keep that cold air up there I hate dealing with this shit, and second how the hell do you survive when it is like this everyday? This is madness! If I were you Id want Canada to take over the British Virgin Islands and move down there. Least they could do, you all stayed loyal to the Queen they should give you some sun. Nableezy (talk) 01:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

That made me laugh like 3 separate times. Ah Vancouver, been there once; prettiest city outside of Chicago I have ever seen ;) Nableezy (talk) 01:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

There was a frech fries/chips debate? It didnt include freedom fries? Systematic bias in action, the American view never gets its proper representation! Nableezy (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The ghosts of Christmas past. I have taken your advice but I think this will end with the same result as my last collaborative effort. Nableezy (talk) 04:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Saying 'adequete' to a man is usually quite an insult, luckily your the first to say it to me or else I might have to cry as I order enlargement pills (i hope they have those commercials in Canada, they are funny as hell). Nableezy (talk) 17:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Re your comments about Pro-Israel editors

Hi there, These type of ad hominem semi-attacks are generally discouraged at Wikipedia. We don't want to turn this into a battleground. Also, if you would like the input of blocked "pro-Israel" editors, you might want to take it up with the trigger-happy admins. After all, nobody blocks themselves :-) Thanks,--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

ugghhhh is all that should be said to that Nableezy (talk) 01:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Technically it would be ad hominems. But I don't get it. What's the attack? Saying I welcomed their input? That they got themselves blocked? --JGGardiner (talk) 07:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

We can be cute from today until tomorrow. At the end of the day, you're implying that "pro-Israel editors" have a tendency to get blocked. Stereotyping, especially when aimed a group that have historically suffered a lot because of stereotyping, is discouraged. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree pro-Israeli editors have historically suffered a lot of stereotyping. and your comment represents the neverending persecution of pro-Israeli editors. You should be banned for being an anti-pro-Israeli-editor-editor!--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 04:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict]::My friend brewcrewer, I think I disagree with you here. The other side of the coin: it could be a fact that pro-Israel editors have a tendency to get blocked. It does not necessarily stereotype the blockee. I have noticed that some editors are quite adept at wiki-lawyering to get some of us removed, and there even seem to be some admins around who some believe are quicker to block us than the other side. It is my thinking lately that we should take a page from their side and start complaining to the higher ups whenever we believe there has been a violation. I think I would start with this diff. [6] frankly. Can you imagine the response if we had said the same - say about Electronic Intifada or International Solidarity Movement for example? ps I did take JC's comments in a positive way, hope I was not being vain. As for the comment above, I wouldn't dignify that with a response. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Everybody here is so out of line. Falastine, there was no point at all to that and putting it here was just retarded. brewcrewer you are off base with the accusation. Tundrabuggy, do whatever you want to do but I ask you on behalf of one person who values this editors input to help himself see his own bias that you not exacerbate this here, take it up in the proper channels. Anybody who wants to throw a tantrum do it on their own user page. Please do not drive a voice of reason away through this type of bickering. Nableezy (talk) 05:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy, take it up on Cerejota's page. He has made some 3 attempts to get me blocked or banned and the last one was successful. Not sure whom else he might have gone after, successfully or not. The CAMERA allegation is a poisonous one, very hard to WP:AGF, and is meant to intimidate other editors from pursuing a line of thought because it may be the same as one pursued by CAMERA, or some other organisation. This does not lead to a good collaborative atmosphere, and it not bickering. Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

JGG: If I'm truly mistaken in my assessment of your comment, I apologize. I saw that one line and it jumped out at me. I didn't really analyze the whole give and take. Tbuggy: You are 100% right, and I did take Cerejota's comments to arbcom (although this time he was notified by someone else). FFQ: I have no idea what in the world you meant and I'm afraid to ask.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Bit late, apologies. Busy elsewhere

I'm two days late in getting back to you, but have now responded provisorily re the mosques number. All this needs rechecking, not only because the 'Viennese Friends of Humanity' appears to be just a personal webpage. We obviously need stronger sources for the claims, but I've printed the list because it still looks pretty well-informed. Regards Nishidani (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been a bit busy elsewhere and haven't followed the article as much as I would like. yes of course, by all means, if you could do the edit, and cite Haaretz and 20, I'd be in your debt. One should not fuss in hurry about the precise figure, since most reliable stuff on what actually occurred will trickle out over the coming years, and I think in writing these articles we do well to think of the long-term quality. Regards Nishidani (talk) 09:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

uh oh

worrisome, maybe i should stop stinking, hmmm Nableezy (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
this makes up for it in just the first line though. Nableezy (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
[7] starts off talking about a scene from a good movie, at least those of my ilk think so, then delves into the history of its use. Nableezy (talk) 03:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

nba all-star game

They had Tamia Hill sing O Canada, sick as hell did it in French then English. Man, I didnt know Canada made hotties. Nableezy (talk) 01:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

guess ill have to turn in my operative card, ah well, they are apparently handing out propagandists cards on the talk page, guess that one suits me better anyway. bout steve nash, he has this commercial that has the coolest soccer move where he spins with both feet on the ball. Nableezy (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Missed it.

Missed the vile scum attack, thankfully. Poor wikifan has been attacked mercilessly and taken to ANI so much! He wants to edit and so he is trying to stay out of court these days! Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The IP conflict has a long way to go if the Hummus and Falafel article have to be tagged for neutrality! Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

talk page edit summaries

yo, when you make a comment in the talk page do you delete the /* Section Title */ in the edit summary? just asking because it makes it harder to find your comments in the page. Nableezy (talk) 00:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Check if you have Enable section editing via [edit] links enabled in the editing, if you are just editing the page and manually going to the section then it will be blank. But if you edit just the section it should start with /* Section Title */ at the beginning of the summary. And if you want to be really cool, you could turn on edit section 0 which lets you edit the first section of an article like that and use a script I modified that lets you edit the section inline (works for almost all pages, ones with an ' wont but there is an easy workaround, let me know if you use it. Completely does not work on arb enforcement page because of that template they have at the top with all the edit links.)
btw, i just had you vote to change the title of the article to the gaza massacre, and replace all mention of Hamas with 'the resistance' and all mention of the IDF as 'the occupying force'. Hope you dont mind :D Nableezy (talk) 00:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

sickest man, now I can actually find it without going to the diffs. If you want to use the secedit script let me know and ill give you some pointers, it is pretty slick. Nableezy (talk) 08:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

no worries, i set my server up as a mirror, thats how i get away with not paying membership dues. Nableezy (talk) 09:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

sorry, but it was funny eh? (i should have put that too, but wasnt sure many people would know what i was talking aboot) Nableezy (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

3rd definition Nableezy (talk) 23:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The one that gets me the most is the new england accent, specifically that Boston accent. It annoys me to no end. And depending on how its used, that Southern drawl can get on my nerves. British English, yeah, some of it is weird, but they got some tight words like bullocks and wanker. But I cannot support the imperialism seen in its expansion and conquering of other native languages. We are both victims of an imperial plan to destroy better languages. We are forced to adapt to these strange rules governing sentence structure, where case and commas matter. No I say, we will not accept such an injustice. Speakers of the world, unite! Reject such foolishness as capital letters, irregular past participles, and punctuation. I hereby declare my allegiance to the resistance to the unlawful expansion of English. The road will be rough, but the destination glorious. Nableezy (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

But the single 'word' used by English speakers that pisses me off more than any other is irregardless. Somebody I used to work for said that and I was left thinking why is this person my boss? Do they know that what they just said shows they are a moron? I propose, subject to community consensus, that if a user ever places that word anywhere in wikipedia, article space, user space, whatever, they should be permanently banned from wikipedia. Or at the very least, any other user should be allowed to call that other user a moron without any accusation of violating NPA, as the statement would be verifiable. Nableezy (talk) 00:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I can understand goverment, thats just missing a letter, some of my posts I forget entire words, like I was thinking a couple of words ahead and forgot to type one (usually when Im high, but I am not willing to blame it on that), but artical would piss me off, same with capitle or any word where you just put random letters together, all it says is hooked on phonics didnt work for you. Far as my friends, we dont worry about real words, we just make them up. Like stagulate meaning the act of wasting time doing nothing, the verb stagging is acceptable for the more formal stagulating, the adjective is stag, most often used in 'get your stag ass outta here' meaning hurry up. That is the measure of true genius, recognizing that the language that you use is too limited to properly explain your meaning. Nableezy (talk) 02:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I cant stop laughing. Not sure why, part of it is that you actually went looking for that. Nableezy (talk) 07:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Still laughing, but to be fair I am also laughing at the fact that I clicked the link as much as you 'innocently finding' it. Needless to say, I will not be using stag ass again, as I will either be disgusted or will not be able to stop laughing every time I say it. Ill just have to be more precise and use stagulatin ass. But at least I have another picture to use in censorship debates. You better hope that conversation doesnt come up again, because I will throw that up on the talk page so fast . . . Nableezy (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You should check out the conservapedia article, it reminds me of one editors wet dream. Nableezy (talk) 05:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

But that aint even too bad, just look at the Obama article. Insanity. I cant believe they actually think they are right about anything. Look at the article on Obama's religion. Its like all the crazy people got together in one place. Man, and I thought Wikipedia was fucked up. Nableezy (talk) 17:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

C'mon, I gave you a perfect opportunity to put the picture up. You going soft? Nableezy (talk) 01:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm

Looks to me like Nableezy has reported Agada to PhilKnight who gave him the big I-P warning. How too bad, when Agada has been the epitome of civility. In fact, Darwish, one of the more partisan editors, even gave Agada a civility barnstar. I have not seen any edits from Agada since his response on PhilKnight's page. Funny how it is invariably the partisans on one side that insist on pumping it over to the "courts." It is too bad, because essentially they win on a technicality; and when they do, the article becomes more unbalanced, and the atmosphere bitter and unproductive. Nableezy himself "makes a better door than a window" when it comes to allowing particular changes in the article. In fact, to my mind, he seems to have a problem with WP:OWN. Why, for example, is he dead-set against differeniating the Palestinian Ministry of Health in Gaza from the Palestinian Ministry of Health in Ramallah? It is a simple matter of naming Palestinian Ministry of Health (Gaza) or some such. He seems to stick to this POV and inaccurate version like proverbial glue. That's his story and he's stickin' to it... Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

~~You are joking about his willingness to compromise regarding "Gaza Massacre," no? In this archive [8] you will see reasoned argument about translating "Gaza Massacre" based on the sources and English interpretation. Responses by Nableezy? (My bolds)

• sabr ya khoui :), I dont think we even need all this, we have multiple sources that call it 'the gaza massacre' in the arab media, and as this is a proper noun it would then be translated in English 'The Gaza Massacre'. This shouldnt even be a debate, it is beyond ridiculous that we are even talking about this. Nableezy (talk) 06:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• And as you can see there are several among us proficient in Arabic to be able to tell you how to translate 'The Gaza Massacre.' Beyond that, the English title to this conflict is given '2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict,' followed by the English translation of the names given by each side, for the Israeli title 'Operation Cast Lead' and 'The Gaza Massacre' for the Arabic title. All you seem to want here is that the English and translated Israeli names be used, with no reference to what it is called by Arabs. The capitalization point you argued is incorrect as explained by Darwish07 and me, so there is really no need to continue this unless your point is that we should not be including what Arabs are calling the conflict. This is the practice in every single article that deals with international conflict, the English name then the translations of the names given by each side in bold. There really is no point in arguing this further, unless you flat out say you want to censor the Arab name out of the article. If you want to say that then say it, dont come up with these bullshit arguments to try to say it. Nableezy (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Had to laugh where Nableezy explains the rules of capitalization to me, an English teacher. Anyway, if you can demonstrate that he actually did compromise on that position, I will immediately apologize to both you and him. Further I will take another week off from editing the article as penance!  ;) Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the Thule and the Dorset people had no written language to hand down, so we may never know how well they cooperated with each other, if at all. Certainly common-culture people will often cooperate, particularly in stressful situations or environments. However, the relationship between the Canadian Cree and the Inuit might be more analogous to the I-P conflict, and we know how much they have cooperated with each in other, now and in the past. There must be a way that wiki can handle these highly 'sensitive' areas without augmenting the anger and bitterness that already exists between the parties. At least, as they say, if the parties are talking, they aren't (usually) fighting. By "offing" one of the parties via technicalities, the other side unilaterally withdraws from dialogue and resorts to more "drastic" action. Certainly there is sometimes cause, but I think it is generally unproductive. Just my thinking on it. Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1