User talk:Skol fir/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Pauline Marois

I don't agree with your changing of the wording Assassination attempt to Possible assassination attempt. Where is your justification for changing that? Get real! He was out to get Pauline Marois! Why was he at the Metropolis the night of her victory? I abhor such contempt for a serious criminal act of murder. An innocent person was murdered that night, not enough for you? If not that his semi-automatic weapon jammed, many people, and especially Pauline Marois would have lost their lives. Stop defending this English murdering bastard!--Captain Thor (talk) 02:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The word "possible" is a legal definition, since I have not yet seen any media reports saying unequivocally that Bain meant to kill Marois. That is still pure speculation. I am following the rules of Wikipedia, as in WP:OR, and WP:VERIFY, not your fanatic screaming voice saying "Get real! He was out to get Pauline Marois!". Wikipedia is not based on an individual's hunch. There has to be proof. As this case is currently under investigation, by none other than the Sûreté du Québec, for a possible attempt on Marois' life, please let them do their job before jumping to your own conclusions. --Skol fir (talk) 03:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

My apologies! It was not meant as a fanatical statement, nor was I screaming at you. You have however made a point, and according to the law, no bullet was shot towards Pauline Marois, so that no attempted murder charges have been brought regarding her. The opposite would hold true, if someone shoots at someone just to ward him off, he will be charged with attempted murder even if he had no intention of doing so. In the court of law, only the action is taken into consideration, not the intent. Have a nice day!--Captain Thor (talk) 14:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Captain Thor. I accept the apologies for your strident language. I realize that the immediate assumption of most people on Sept. 4 was that Marois was Bain's ultimate target. However, due to the rifle jamming, and one technician courageously putting himself in the line of fire, possibly to stop the gunman from entering the building, we will never know what could have happened. Also, I agree that Bain's intent is irrelevant in court, although something more may come out of the investigation, regarding the actual motive or intent. We can be sure that Marois and the people inside the Métropolis on that day were extremely fortunate. One technician sadly lost his life, but he is considered a hero for standing in the way of the despicable gunman. --Skol fir (talk) 19:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Intent is normally very relevant in court, particularly with a specific intent offense like murder (Criminal Code section 229). Very concerned about racist remarks regarding "English murdering bastard" [sic]. I thought the man killed was french - or did we intend "murdering English bastard"? Citation concerning his parentage would also be advisable.--70.71.24.87 (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

It was Captain Thor who said "English murdering bastard", and he meant what he said. "English" and "murdering" are both adjectives for "bastard", so I don't see any reason to change that phrase. Citations are not required on a Talk Page, where a person is allowed to make uncited remarks. As for relevance of intent in court, we were discussing the specific intent to kill Marois, which would not be relevant in a case involving the murder of Blanchette. We were just discussing the wording of the title, Possible assassination attempt, and this is no longer relevant anyway, since the section title has since been changed to a neutral version, Metropolis_shooting. --Skol fir (talk) 19:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Commented here because Thor did, and was having a little fun with the notion Bain is a bastard when Ma & Pa might have been married. Intent issue was primarily concerned with Thor's suggestion that the courts only consider actions. More importantly, if one assumed a hypothetical where the premier of BC experienced what Marois did, where the suspect was from quebec, suggesting he was a "quebecois murdering bastard" or "french murdering bastard" would generate hue and cry.

Thanks for the info about no need to cite on talkpages; Bearcat has made it very hard to discuss defeating simsubbing by recording the eastern US TV stations here in the West, three hours early. Perhaps the talk pages can get the word out, but I could still be edited or blocked, even if citation is not required here. Cheers. --70.71.24.87 (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Kalamkaar's interwiki links

I've noticed you seem to be deleting all interwiki links added by User:Kalamkaar, and I am curious why, because I can't see any obvious reason for doing so. -- Dr Greg  talk  02:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

All I can tell you right now is that I am following up on suspicious terrorist activity relating to sites around NYC airports, and potential targets in Canada, UK and another US state, ND. This user, Kalamkaar, is suspiciously interested in neighborhoods in close proximity to both major NYC airports, as well as cities and locations in Canada, ND (USA) and UK. I will be contacting the Homeland Security department on this matter, for further investigation. In the meantime, I am sending a message to the perpetrator that he is being watched, by reverting any and all Inter-language links at articles for locations in foreign countries. I don't understand Urdu, and the article(s) he points to have no text except for one or two lines, which could easily be some sort of code intended for ulterior motives, which I fear could have grave consequences. --Skol fir (talk) 04:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

You realize that you can use one of multiple language translation sites to translate those articles, correct? Additionally, many terrorists will have basic knowledge of English and be able to use the English language Wikipedia to learn about various places. I honestly think you're greatly over-reacting to this. I translated that entire page with Google Chrome and found nothing suspicious, and have found nothing suspicious in other pages made by the user, either. This guy is just trying to expand the Wikipedia for his native language. vıdıoman 14:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I was aware of online translation. My first impulse on seeing this flood of IL links from a single editor was to translate some of the content using Babylon. The Urdu articles cannot even rate as stubs, they are so minimalist. Another editor pointed out to me that some are even identical in content except for the title. Each Urdu article for which this person created a link is a dud, and is merely like creating an index of geographical locations for someone to get more information. IL links are supposed to be linking to nearly-equivalent articles in another language, not childish gibberish. Besides, my main concern is not the content, but the pattern. Why would a person from Pakistan be so interested in naming almost every city in England, all the counties in NY state, almost every neighborhood in Queens, New York? It looks suspicious to me, that's all. Maybe the guy is just obsessive-compulsive...taken to another level, could be obsessed with foreign countries and identifying specific locations within those countries, with the common thread being that they are all allies in the war against terrorism, and partners in ISAF (Afghan Security mission). Take it or leave it, that's my take. --Skol fir (talk) 17:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Skol fir. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Re: Kalamkaar --JimWae (talk) 02:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Pauline Marois

My apologies. However, when an anonymous IP makes an edit which carries the warning "section blanking", with no edit summary to explain why they're doing it, it's entirely reasonable and normal for an administrator to just immediately hit the rollback button without even blinking first. You're correct that such content probably doesn't belong in the article; however, it should only be removed by a logged-in editor with an edit summary which properly explains the reason for removal, and not by an anonymous IP whose method is indistinguishable from vandalism. And for the same reason, while I'm not going to get into a reversion war here, for the sake of transparency you probably should have removed it again manually, with an edit summary that pointed to the talk page for clarification, instead of just hitting the rollback button on my edit. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Mea culpa. :-| I added a dummy edit at the article to correct the mistake. --Skol fir (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Love it when two editors' fairly minor errors cancel each other out :-) Bearcat (talk) 19:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Theresa Spence ANI Discussion

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding the recent Theresa Spence-related disputes. Thank you. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 03:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Theresa Spence. Thank you. [1] [2] --Ronz (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Both references I provided for the nature of Spence's hunger strike were reliable and independent, and included input from medical professionals. I don't see your point, as I took due diligence to back up what I said. You must be mistaken. --Skol fir (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe the sources reliable, as discussed on the article talk page. I look forward to your joining the discussion rather than edit-warring. --Ronz (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for getting us on track. It's nice to be focusing on clear claims with sources that have merit. --Ronz (talk) 23:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad to be of help finding proper sources for controversial claims. I'll keep checking for a more direct source from the WMA. --Skol fir (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just not looking thoroughly enough, but it seems WMA is primary focused on hunger strikes in prisons. It makes sense, since they're the largest population, easiest to study, and have the least flexibility on how they can strike. Interesting reading... --Ronz (talk) 02:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Pauline Marois

Hi, I'm currently fixing up Pauline Marois' biography. Hopefully, I should be done in a couple of days. If you have any comment or suggestion, feel free to edit and/or comment. Regards. Bouchecl (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Morris, Manitoba

I really don't know much about how all of this works, other than when facts are posted here that are verifiable, and not necessarily clearly verified by the actual citation included, the info should still be allowed to stand on its own. StatsCan is a reliable source, and the info taken from it was most certainly fact-checked prior to being posted. It is not original research, it is pointing out facts borne out in the information provided and cited. What is your real problem with the facts as they were presented? Can you advise a better way of putting up this factual information with the citation provided so as to not have it deleted again and again? It doesn't appear to me to be synthesized information to advance a position. It is simply facts placed here to add some truthful context to the full picture of Morris, MB. Finally, if I was to do original research (which I have done) to verify the information I posted, and posted it here, it would be deleted because original research is not allowed. So that being said, why delete it at all in this case if the information is verifiable and can be easily checked by a quick search through the 2011 Census information? If you have a problem with something positive being posted about Morris, MB, that's your own problem, just like it's my problem if people post things that are negative about Morris, MB. I fail to see why this required deletion.

Hello, Skol fir. You have new messages at Clearingtheair's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Clearingtheair, thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. There is a bit of a learning curve involved, when you first start out. If you are serious about it, I would recommend starting with this: Wikipedia:Newcomers -- Here is why I had to revert your particular edit. You cannot synthesize your own conclusions from a raw data table and insert those into an article, to promote your own point of view. If such an analysis and interpretation of data was published in a reliable source, that's allowed, but not for you to draw your own conclusions from the data. Making your own interpretation, however correct or incorrect it may be, is called original research; also, a neutral point of view is encouraged at Wikipedia -- WP:NPOV. If you did not read WP:NOR completely, then at least read this WP:SYNTH.

Also in future, if you leave a comment at a Talk Page, please sign your comment as follows:Wikipedia:Tips/How_to_sign_comments. --Skol fir (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Sola2012

Thank you very much for the star . sola$$$$$$$$ (talk) 18:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Ken Leishman

Don't know if you are still active, but I have done some work on the article as the Canadian Aviation Historical Society is about to do a retrospective on the life and times of Ken Leishman, 7 PM March 31, 2016 at the Royal Aviation Museum of Western Canada, You are invited. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I am still relatively active here on Wiki, not having much time for the internet as I used to, but still watching articles on my watchlist. Yes, I would be interested to attend the event. I am very fond of that museum, and have visited there with my son. I'll try to be there! Skol fir (talk) 01:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Skol fir. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7