User talk:Noian/Jun2008

This is in Wikipedia user space.

This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Noian/Jun2008.

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archives (by month) @ User talk:Noian/Archives

Howdy

I think we're edit conflicting a bit on Bill C-61 - I'm going to take a step back from it so feel free to edit away on it now. I know it's a hot button topic but we do need to maintain a neutral point of view however granted the extreme criticism that has been expressed towards the bill I don't think it's POV'ish to focus on the criticism. -- Tawker (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries at all, the article will grow organically - it will be a little rough at the start but as more and more people start editing and improving it things get better. I think your edits are perfectly valid and help present a fair situation on the bill and there's no need to remove them -- Tawker (talk) 20:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: move of Bill C-61

It's just a clarification thing. Bills in the House of Commons are just numbered based on the order they're introduced, so there have been plenty of other Bill C-61s (there was another one just last year, in fact). I made a similar move to the article formerly known as Bill C-60 (which of course relates to this and not this more recent bill). Cheers! — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 21:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Public Interest Advocacy Centre

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Public Interest Advocacy Centre, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.piac.ca. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 02:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic

A tag has been placed on Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Public Interest Advocacy Centre

A tag has been placed on Public Interest Advocacy Centre requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a club, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guidelines for people and for organizations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hence too many tabs open is a bad thing

I was making edits in 2 different tabs on the same article. Thanks for catching it.

On a side note, how do we handle the ACTA issue - it's clear that people are confused as all with Prentice sending out the email claiming that C-61 doesn't make border guards check content - that's ACTA with the border guards provision. -- Tawker (talk) 18:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on your talk page....or we could put it as a separate section called confusion with ACTA...Noian (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noian, thanks for finding the source for the 76% of Canadians agree that it's made by US corporate interests. As a survey researcher, I'd be much more comfortable if we said "About three quarters (76%)" rather than "An overwhelming" which sounds like political hype. Bellagio99 (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which I see you've already done;-) Bellagio99 (talk) 22:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The cite's in the CBC one

The pdf cite is for the question / the polling numbers, the CBC is for the criticism -- Tawker (talk) 18:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of ATF-Cleaner

I have nominated ATF-Cleaner, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ATF-Cleaner. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 08:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]