User talk:JohnnyCanuck

Welcome to my talk page. Feel free to add your messages below. Messages that are not stamped by registered users will be deleted --JohnnyCanuck 20:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attacks

With regards to your comments on User Talk:Bearcat#Question: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users." Please keep this in mind while editing. Thanks. - pm_shef 01:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Making no comment on the content of the edits, I'll simply note that my reversions were intended to prevent a blocked user from working the system to violate 3RR. CJCurrie 01:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responses: (i) It's possible that further relevant information could be added to the MdB page, but that doesn't justify the sort of anonymous sockpuppetry we saw today, (ii) I'm not a member of any political party. CJCurrie 02:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate it...

...if you wouldn't refer to my polite request as "non-sense". You're welcome to remove messages from your talk page once you've read them, but there's no need to be rude. Thanks again, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most people consider it rude to have their comments described as "non-sense". If you're unfamiliar with the user Pm_shef, you must have left a message warning her not to edit certain pages by mistake.

Oops; my bad. I was under the impression that Pm_shef was female. Still, I think that using the name Pm_shef might have been a dead giveaway I was referring to Pm_shef. Regardless, the two of you have had run-ins before, and you're not the best person to be issuing such 'advice'. Pm_shef was reverting edits by a banned editor, which is both permitted and encouraged.

If you have a dispute with Pm_shef over content, talk it over—but don't give unsolicited advice, and don't be rude to any other editors. A piece of friendly advice to you: don't take email suggestions from banned editors. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response

While I appreciate your opinion, as long as Mr. Debuono (sp?) continues to violate Wikipedia policy through his sockfarm, I will continue to ensure that articles related to Vaughan are truthful. I'll remind you that the only people to ever accuse me of bias are VaughanWatch and his socks (well, and you) - and none of them have ever been able to give an example. Until someone can show that I'm biased (which no one to this point has been able to do) I will continue to edit. Thanks again. - pm_shef 02:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be interested to know how you interpret my edits to MdB's page as biased. They were removing information which violated NPOV and was NN in and of itself, as other editors agreed to. My biggest problem with you lot is your nonstop claims that I'm biased, yet your inability to show us how! Anyways, regarding the race in your ward, unfortunately I don't have the patience for Toronto city politics beyond the Mayoral race (and even that tires me out). I haven't heard of any of the candidates personally, is the incumbent not running? - pm_shef 03:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:VaughanWatch has been banned for repeatedly violating Wikipedia's policies regarding verifiability, neutral point of view and sockpuppets. As a consequence, no edit which can be proven to have been made by that user is permitted to stay in a Wikipedia article. It's already been quite clearly established that VW and his minions aren't interested in the neutral presentation of information; they're interested in using Wikipedia as a campaign tool to portray the political figures they personally disapprove of in the most negative possible light.

So, in a nutshell, I certainly won't be making any reversions that involve putting VW-related edits back into articles. An invalid edit is an invalid edit no matter who removes it. And I'm certainly not about to second-guess or overrule User:CJCurrie in this matter, either. Bearcat 03:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for the Toronto election, the best advice I can give you is that media coverage and campaign materials should pick up in the fall. Summer's always a bit of a slow time in municipal politics — believe it or not, at this time in 2003 David Miller was still considered a minor also-ran candidate with approximately a snowball's chance in hell; he didn't really start surging in the polls until September. I don't live in Ward 27, either, so I couldn't tell you a thing about most of the candidates, except that Kyle Rae is seen by some people as a former progressive who's gone establishment, and is criticized sometimes on that basis — but I can't and won't assume that your political views are the same as theirs. Bearcat 03:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Rae is the incumbent in my area, I only moved into this area about a year ago and don't know him. The other candidates I don't know anything about. --JohnnyCanuck 19:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in Pam McConnell's ward, albeit that I could almost literally throw a stone from my building and have it land in Rae's. My prediction would be that Rae's going to win; his primary voter base these days is the wealthier parts of the riding, like Rosedale, and he's not in any danger there. He's not going to win the more politically radical segment of the gay community in Church and Wellesley; those votes are going to go to Susan Gapka because of her activist cred. But Rae didn't have their votes in 2003, either (they went to Enza Anderson), so I really doubt he's going to lose anybody he hasn't already lost. He pretty much has a lock on the socially progressive but fiscally conservative moderates who are more or less the majority in the area (or at least the majority of likely voters). Think of him as basically the municipal version of Bill Graham. If you'd rather someone more radical, go with Gapka; if you'd rather someone more conservative, take a look at some of the other candidates when their campaign materials start showing up and see if any of them sound good to you. I don't know anything about them, either, so I couldn't really speculate. Bearcat 22:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I live in the Yorkville area of the Ward, a stone's throw away from Ward 20 where Adam Vaughan is running. In my condo, Kyle Rae doesn't seem to be to strong here, could just be my building though. I don't know to many people in the area other than a few in my building. I thought in fact his primary voter base was the gay community by the Church and Wellesley area, isn't he gay himself? Do you know if Kyle Rae is related to Bob Rae? --JohnnyCanuck 04:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Di Biase

Please help me out against CJCurrie over at the Michael DiBiase page. He obviously doesn't know the history of this debate. He keeps deleting relevant material. ED209 01:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) The information about the traffic tickets in Michael Di Biase’s article originally posted many months a go by a user authorized to make edits and the consensus at that time was to keep it therefore it should stay posted. It has been determined that it is very relevant (infact it is somewhat very interesting and ironic) was up for many months until it was removed by pm_shef (who on a side note has a personal connection with the subject of the article). It was then reverted by an unidentified user, who pm_shef and CJCurrie claimed to be a banned user (VaughanWatch) (although it has not been proven that it was him and I am confident that it isn’t him). Pm_shef and CJCurrie proceeded to revert these changes based on that it was made by a banned user making it an invalid edit. (the reverts were NOT made by pm_shef and CJCurrie because the info. was not relevant) Therefore if a user permitted to conduct edits reverted this to keep the info. Posted then it would have been all right. As this is very relevant to the article and very interesting and ironic it should stay up, therefore I am making the change and patrolling it to make sure it stays up. Pm_shef and CJCurrie you have to explain why this should be removed, not just remove it.

2) The corporate donations issue on the Vaughan election page was originally posted by an unidentified user, who pm_shef and CJCurrie claimed to be a banned user (VaughanWatch) (although it has not been proven that it was him and I am confident that it isn’t him). Pm_shef and CJCurrie proceeded to revert these changes based on that it was made by a banned user making it an invalid edit. Therefore if a user permitted to conduct edits posted this then it would have been alright. The corporate donations to members of council is a major issue in Vaughan (I personally know and spoke with many people living in Vaughan although I don’t live there myself) As this is major issue it should be put in the article as an issue and as a user that is permitted to conduct edits I will post this as an issue with two sources one from the Toronto Star and one from York Region. --JohnnyCanuck 10:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping me out with this issue. ED209 17:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

Not at all maliciously. I added your name simply because I have, since it all began, come into conflict with you a number of times. My goal with the mediation is to attempt to resolve the conflict, included in that is resolving disagreements I have had with you. Please understand its simply a matter of being thorough, it's not an attack or anything. - pm_shef 23:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/VaughanWatch for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. JamesTeterenko 00:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note I have removed the suspected sock tag from your UserPage Johnny. Forgive James, he wasn't around for the original Request for Comment and CheckUser case where your name was cleared. - pm_shef 00:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. It seems my revert was a tad hasty. I double checked the earlier CheckUser and it seems you were deemed a "likely" sock by CheckUser [1]. My mistake, I've put the tag back up. - pm_shef 00:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sockpuppet tag

Please do not remove the sockpuppet tag from your userpage. See Wikipedia:Sock puppetry/Notes for the suspect for your options. Feel free to comment on this accusation on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/VaughanWatch. Further removal of this tag will be considered Vandalism for improper use of dispute tags and you will be blocked. -- JamesTeterenko 18:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked you for 3 hours for removing it again. I have kept is short to give you a moment to cool down. Please do not remove it again. See the links above. If you have evidence that you are not a sockpuppet, then please comment on the dispute page noted. -- JamesTeterenko 19:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your threat

Might I remind you that while you continue to hurl baseless accusations at me, it was you not me, that was labelled a "likely sockpuppet" by CheckUser while none of you have been able to provide even a shred of evidence or proof to back up any of your numerous accusations against me - pm_shef 23:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have read your comment on your user page. Again, if you feel you have been wrongfully accused, please comment on it here: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/VaughanWatch. If you are innocent, please be calm, and everything should be cleared up in due time. I have personally not seen any evidence that pm_shef has done anything to warrant an indefinite block. On the contrary, I believe he has been handling himself very well given the serious activity of the proven and suspected sock puppets. -- JamesTeterenko 23:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support user:JohnnyCanuck. This will probably get me labelled a sockpuppet. user:pm_shef must have the record for accusing people of being sockpuppets. Luckily, I beat his charges of sockpuppetry in the past. He actually admitted he was wrong and apolgized. This is something I would never do for him. His constant crying has given everybody headaches. He should be banned indefinitely from posting about anything Vaughan-related. He has taken a break from it in the last few days, however, as soon as I make another edit, he will certainly resurface. I have long suspected he had a few sockpuppets. user:theonlyedge is certainly a suspect. The thing is, I don't have time to press charges and pursue like Shefman does. ED209 01:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser has confirmed that I do not have any sockpuppets. Do not make accusations that you cannot back up. - pm_shef 01:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are in the business of making accusations you don't back up as it concerns these sockpuppets. ED209 17:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreements are not vandalism

Please stop referring to other people's edits as vandalism just because you disagree with them. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is not a sockpuppet. user:pm_shef should be banned for his baseless accusation of this guy. ED209 00:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser disagrees with you. And ya know, they're a tad more credible. -- pm_shef 00:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, to clear this up. Post exactly where CHECKUSER agrees that this guy IS a sockpuppet. Please show me, because I'm new to things like this. Assume good faith and show me. ED209 00:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the VaughanWatch case page at CheckUser Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/VaughanWatch, at the very bottom, Mackensen lists him as a Likely sock. -- pm_shef 00:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Likely does not mean confirmed. ED209 00:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but it means there's a better chance that he is one than not. I never said he was confirmed. Either way, we probably shouldn't be having this discussion on someone's talk page other than our own... -- pm_shef 01:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

user:JohnnyCanuck does not mind. He asked me to help him out so I am. ED209 01:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be calm

After you are proven not to be a sockpuppet, user:pm_shef will lose a good deal of credibility. He has already unsuccessfully accussed me of sockpuppetry. From what I've read, he doesn't have any more evidence that you are a sockpuppet. Admins are saying that it appears you could be based on what you write, but that doesn't hold any water. They can't fully say you are a sockpuppet and you will have your name cleared. ED209 18:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked

Please read this message carefully. I am nonplussed that you should tell me on my talkpage that you cannot understand a message that says "Don't place unwarranted warning templates. If you're not sure of the difference, simply don't place warning templates at all. Stay completely away from pm_shef's page. This is an official warning: don't do any of that stuff or you will be blocked." I really don't know how to put it any more clearly. Which part was hard? You have continued to edit war on pm_shef's page, re-placed the "vandalism" template, and removed my explicit warning that you will be blocked if you do that as "nonsense". You have been blocked for 24 hours. If you continue this behavior after the block expires you will be blocked for longer. I hope this message is clear. Don't remove it. If you do, I will protect this page so only admins can edit it.Bishonen | talk 18:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Blanking

Please don't spam your talk page with the same message over and over again. You are welcome to write such things, but there is no need to add it again and again. Doing so will have your talk page protected. Iola k ana|^T 12:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Statue of Responsibility for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Statue of Responsibility is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Statue of Responsibility (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Tophtucker (talk) 19:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]