Jump to content

User talk:Ground Zero

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wales (talk | contribs) at 18:15, 10 October 2006 (RE Sir Robert Bell). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

If you post a message on this page, I'll reply on this page to avoid fragmenting the discussion. If I've left you a message on your talk page, I will be watching it, so you're most welcome to reply there rather than here.

See previous discussions at:

Request

GZ,

GoldDragon and I seem to be involved in an intractable dispute at the Howard Moscoe page. I'm wondering if you'd be willing to look it over.

There are three points of dipute:

(i) How should we convey a recent series of personal controversies between Moscoe and other Toronto councillors (specifically, the "Lady Jane" memo and an exchange with Frances Nunziata)? My view is that these events are relatively minor, and that Wikipedia would be hyping them out of proportion by giving them too much space. GD wants to give them a separate section, to be designated as "Controversies".
(ii) How should we convey the controversy regarding Moscoe's role in Rick Ducharme's resignation? I'm attempting to provide a balanced and comprehensive view, although I'm concerned that the text may be skewed too far towards Moscoe (note that I'm still editing the section on and off). GD's version omits a fair bit of salient information.
(iii) GD also wants to change the "police" section. I don't believe his changes are appropriate.

I'm making this request of you for two reasons:

a) As a Red Tory, you may be uniquely positioned to be a neutral arbiter in the discussion (I have no idea where you stand on current city politics, btw).
b) As I mentioned a few months ago, I've reverted GD so many times that I'm worried about losing a sense of proportion. I'll trust you to let me know if I've gone too far. CJCurrie 02:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As the other party in this dispute, I would like the weigh in:
(i)Mel Lastman is similarly well known for his controversial statements, so he has a section for that, even when they are minor. I don't think Moscoe is different, and trivial/minor is a matter of debate.
Speaking of minor, even with a seperate section, it is well outweighed by positive information on Moscoe's career, so that was why I opposed CJCurrie's attempts to marginallize it. Then he did a 360 and expanded it, with info that supported his case, while omiting contrary information.
(iii)That section appears to be a thinly veiled attempt at police bashing. Could someone provide some refutations, otherwise the reader will take it as fact.
GoldDragon 22:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you have time, I would also appreciate an opinion on Norman Gardner. GoldDragon 02:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Travel Cuts

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Ardenn 02:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on my talk page if you feel the need. Ardenn 02:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe that I have attacked you personally. Please explain why uou believe that I have. The issue that I have raised is whether "non-notability" is a grounds for deletion, not you. Ground Zero | t 11:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The term "deletionist" is an attack. Ardenn 11:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess, then, that what I wrote was not as clear as it could have been: let me make it clear that I am not calling you a deletionist. I said that "non-notability" was a term that deletionists bandy about as if it were grounds for deletion. Ground Zero | t 12:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification accepted. :-) Ardenn 20:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Help!

Hi GroundZero, I have problem.

User:Vaquero100 insists that articles relating to Roman Catholicism should not have the word "Roman" in them. He is a Roman Catholic priest, and his POV is that only Roman Catholics are truly "Catholic". To this end, he once moved Talk:Society of Catholic Priests (but not the article) to Talk:Society of Anglo-Catholic Priests. He did this because he was angry that articles on Roman Catholicism had to specify similarly (though not, of course, changing the names of organizations as he had done). I moved several articles like Catholic spirituality to Roman Catholic spirituality but unmoved them calling the moves "illegal". Further, I cannot revert that particular example as there has been text on the page, so that it can't simply be redirected.

I am baffled by the dispute resolution process and don't want to damage my case by misstepping. I need an administrator's advice! Carolynparrishfan 22:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? Carolynparrishfan 22:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. The relevant pages are:

Lots of other articles use "Roman" in the title (e.g. Roman Catholic religious order, Interdict (Roman Catholic Church), Roman Catholic sex abuse cases, Roman Catholic Archbishop/Bishop of X (numerous articles), etc. An acceptable compromise has been found for Roman Catholic sacraments ("Catholic sacraments redirects here, for other uses, see Catholic sacraments (disambiguation)" which links to the RC, Anglican, and Orthodox uses). Evidence of Vaquero's mischevious tendency to move articles on Anglo-Catholic organisations with "Catholic" in their names can be found at Talk:Society of Catholic Priests and Talk:Affirming Catholicism. When I moved the pages listed above to "Roman Catholic" social teaching, spirituality, etc, he sent me a defence of his actions, in which he accuses me of "illegally" unmoving these pages (I am not aware that there is such an offence in Wikipedia). This is at this part of my talk page. What I would like is to see articles that deal with Catholicism in the context of Roman Catholicism (and not Orthodoxy, Old Catholicism, Anglo-Catholicism...) to be identified as such. The article is not about Catholic spirituality in general, it's specifically about Roman Catholic spirituality (hierarchy, ecumenism, whatever). I think it's about accuracy (as just explained), fairness (not trampling on the toes of other Catholic groups) and consistency (viz. the other articles that do say "Roman", not the least of which is Roman Catholic Church, which you would think would set a pretty clear precedent). Having read the instructions on the dispute process it looks like its very easy to make a faux pas, which is why I am contacting you. Carolynparrishfan 05:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Threat" from Bearcat on Howard Moscoe

I have removed the NPOV tags from both of these articles. If you intend to readd them, you will list specific and concrete examples of what you consider to be the bias issues. A general "it's biased because I said so" statement is not acceptable; nobody on Wikipedia has a responsibility to be able to read your mind. Consider yourself warned that I may impose a temporary editblock on you if I ever see you add another NPOV tag to any article without discussing your specific concerns in depth. Bearcat 04:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC) (my Talk Page)

I'm going to have to review this in more depth before I can make really substantive comments, but what I will say at this point is that in every single dispute I've ever seen between the two of you, CJCurrie has been pretty unreproachably neutral and balanced, while GoldDragon has consistently gone for the idea that "bias" means "doesn't conform to my preexisting opinion". Every time, bar none, GoldDragon continually insists on balancing even the slightest criticism of conservative councillors with laudatory media interpretations of the same events, while simultaneously removing even the slightest hint of positive spin from criticism of progressive councillors and refusing to allow anything other than a negative balance of viewpoints in those cases. And what I've seen so far doesn't give me any reason to believe that this time is any different. (Howard Moscoe talk page)

I would like a quick opinion on this, do you think that Bearcat is being too harsh? I am aware that he is an admin, but I feel that he has crossed the line in several aspects.

The statement praising CJCurrie such as "unreprochably neutral and balanced", while the criticism on me constitutes close to defamation, is that a POV assessment? I don't think that such material is appropriate for Talk Pages.
I think that the NPOV threat (on my talk page) is not standard wiki policy unlike 3R.
I've never had edit wars with Bearcat but I recieve heavy-handed treatment from him (even more so than CJCurrie) when ever he intervenes in disputes. It is not "would you please stop doing this", its rather "you have been forewarned".
Bearcat is clearly left-leaning (supports the NDP) as well as CJCurrie. Essentially, he cannot be a neutral party in this dispute.

GoldDragon 00:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to interject: the NPOV rule does not apply to talk pages, and the fact that Bearcat supports the NDP does not prevent him from being a neutral party. GD is free to disagree with his assessment, but Bearcat hasn't behaved in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy. (For the record, I chose to ask him to review the dispute this time because ... well, because the dispute is really a bit tiresome, and bringing in the same person more than once almost seems cruel and unusual.) CJCurrie 01:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My comments

  • "The statement praising CJCurrie such as "unreprochably neutral and balanced", while the criticism on me constitutes close to defamation, is that a POV assessment? I don't think that such material is appropriate for Talk Pages."
    • NPOV applies to articles, not to talk pages. The correct question would be whether Bearcat's commetns constitute a personal attacks, which would be a violation of Wikipedia policy. While his statements are strong and should be tempered in the interets of resolving the dispute, he is commenting on the content changes that you make and your behaviour as opposed to you as a person, so I do not bellieve that these are personal attacks. Another admin may have a different view.
  • "I think that the NPOV threat (on my talk page) is not standard wiki policy unlike 3R."
    • It is standard operating procedure that if you add an NPOV tag, you have to explain why. This explanation should serve as the basis for a discussion on how to fix the article, rather than just a drive-by shooting sort of condemnation. If Bearcat believes that you are persistently abusing the NPOV tags, his threat is a warning about applying an appropriate sanction.
  • "I've never had edit wars with Bearcat but I recieve heavy-handed treatment from him (even more so than CJCurrie) when ever he intervenes in disputes. It is not "would you please stop doing this", its rather "you have been forewarned"."
    • Generally, and without reference to this specific case, it is best for editors and admins to try to resolve disputes on Wikipedia by starting with a request before escalating to a warning. I hope that Bearcat will keep this in mind. This is not to say that warnings are inappropriate as often they are the only way to get someone's attention.
  • Bearcat is clearly left-leaning (supports the NDP) as well as CJCurrie. Essentially, he cannot be a neutral party in this dispute.
    • If the only way to attain neutrality on Wikipedia were to balance the opposing views of partisans, this would be a pointless exercise. All editors should strive for neutrality on their own, regardless of their political perspective. From what I have seen of Bearcat's editing of articles, he generally does not let his political bias show in articles, although he certianly does on talk pages, which is quite acceptable.

I am sorry that you are having a hard time here, because Wikipedia needs people like you with a keen interest in Canadian politics. I have encouraged you and CJC to work out your differences on talk pages before editing, and I encourage both of you again.

I observed a recent revert spat on Moscoe that is indicative of the problem. CJC undertook a massive re-write of the article, involving both changes to the content and a lot of copyediting. You reverted the whole lot because you disagreed with some of the content changes, obliterating his copyediting. That surely was very frustrating for CJC, who had clearly put a lot of work into improving the article. I will advise him to try to separate his content changes from his copyedits when working on contentious articles to avoid that sort of this in the future -- i.e., so that only the content can be reverted, leaving the copyedits intact. I will encourage you to cut and paste paragraphs from a previous version that you think should be restored rather than tkaing the easy way out and reverting the whole thing.

I hope that these comments help. I will alert CJC and Bearcat to my response. Ground Zero | t 06:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is standard operating procedure that if you add an NPOV tag, you have to explain why. This explanation should serve as the basis for a discussion on how to fix the article, rather than just a drive-by shooting sort of condemnation. If Bearcat believes that you are persistently abusing the NPOV tags, his threat is a warning about applying an appropriate sanction.
This is a good metaphor for the issue, certainly better than I came up with on my own. GoldDragon does often apply the NPOV tags in a "drive-by shooting" sort of way, with almost no explanation of what he actually views as the NPOV issue. I've told him that he's more than welcome to put the tags back if he gives a proper explanation for why he's applying them. What I "threatened" to block him for was his practice of throwing an NPOV tag on an article with an explanation that boils down to "this is biased because I say it is".
Generally, and without reference to this specific case, it is best for editors and admins to try to resolve disputes on Wikipedia by starting with a request before escalating to a warning. I hope that Bearcat will keep this in mind. This is not to say that warnings are inappropriate as often they are the only way to get someone's attention.
The thing is, I continually see GD getting into the same scraps over and over again, and only rarely listening to other people's viewpoints. If I use a sharp tone with him, it's because to an extent I have to use a sharp tone to get his attention; otherwise he just ignores me and keeps right on doing the same things that lead him into these disputes in the first place.
If the only way to attain neutrality on Wikipedia were to balance the opposing views of partisans, this would be a pointless exercise. All editors should strive for neutrality on their own, regardless of their political perspective. From what I have seen of Bearcat's editing of articles, he generally does not let his political bias show in articles, although he certianly does on talk pages, which is quite acceptable.
Agreed. Each of us has a responsibility to ensure that we present as balanced a view as possible on our own. NPOV is not simply an issue of letting two editors with opposing views bash at an article until it reads like a debate; each of us is responsible for ensuring that our own contributions are as neutral and unbiased as possible. I, personally, have never seen CJCurrie make a biased edit; he's extremely good at ensuring that he presents a neutral point of view. In fact, I don't even know CJCurrie's political affiliation, because his edits are consistently quite fair and even-handed and he regularly contributes balanced material to articles right across the political spectrum. Whereas in all of the situations I've reviewed between the two of them, GoldDragon's edits have not been neutral. (He's even cited opinion columns as if they were verifiable news sources, for Pete's sake.)
An administrator reviewing an NPOV dispute does not necessarily have an obligation to view both sides as equally valid and find the middle ground; if one side is neutral and the other side has a POV issue, the administrator has to come down pretty squarely on the side of the neutral party. My political views are irrelevant here — in fact, it might come as a bit of a surprise to GD to know that my personal view of Howard Moscoe isn't nearly as far from his as he thinks. But the point is that this is an WP:NPOV encyclopedia, and what I personally think of the guy is irrelevant. Bearcat 08:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CJCurrie comments

I don't have much to add beyond what GroundZero and Bearcat have said (although I don't know if I'd be quite as generous with my own record as Bearcat has been -- I'll readily admit that I've made some mistakes in my time on the project). I'll take GZ's advice to heart, and try to separate copyedit from content disputes in the future. I'll also try to reach an acceptable compromise on the Moscoe page, since I don't think GD and I are as far apart as we used to be.

GoldDragon's contributions have improved from the time when he first arrived on Wikipedia. I hope he'll take further steps in this direction in the future. CJCurrie 01:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't say you'd never made a mistake; I just haven't been involved in any issues where your mistakes were POV in nature. I've made plenty of mistakes myself; that doesn't make me a bad administrator. Bearcat 02:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GoldDragon comments

These are mainly a response to Bearcat's comments.

The NPOV tag was only used twice, in the Howard Moscoe and Norman Gardner articles. I did lose track of them due to the disputes over the rest of the Moscoe sections. For not being able to respond, I did make a mistake, but it isn't something that I abuse. Nonetheless, I will follow proper procedure next time when applying the tag. I realize that though I have my own reservations, it is a slight to the original author of the article.

As an aside, having lots of arguments for one side without effective refutation for the other side does present a POV leaning even though it otherwise is NPOV at face value. As an example, I know that in Daryl Gates, most of his methods have been roundly criticized by activists and politicians, but there is also Gate's own defence and viewpoint on these methods. The latter is definitely missing in most of the Toronto police articles.

Yes, I have used opinion columns, but I do distinguish between the facts and opinions. So as long as you stick to what happened and ignore all the speculation, it is just a news source.

The main complaint about Bearcat's bias on talk pages is that I see it as blatant favouritism without properly scrutinizing the article. That is a way to uphold a favoured editor as a perfect NPOV, while demonizing the other. Even though that is not on the article itself, it could be enough to skew the dispute in one party's direction.

I have to use a sharp tone to get his attention - my complaint is that Bearcat enters disputes between CJCurrie and I by bringing down the hammer. Sometimes, I see it at times like he is the enforcer to CJCurrie's version. I do agree that the hammer is needed for blatant POV bashing. However, I see the Howard Moscoe disputes as over "divergent style preferences". At that stage, it might not be over what facts are right or wrong, its more subtle aspects like their manner and order of presentation. So a scalpal is perhaps more appropriate.

GoldDragon 04:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, having lots of arguments for one side without effective refutation for the other side does present a POV leaning even though it otherwise is NPOV at face value. The thing is, the amount of detail and context you give to controversies varies. Whether it's intended or not, the way your edits in the disputed situations are structured often give the impression of being less about being neutral for its own sake, and more about stacking the balance of commentary in favour of positive portrayals of conservatives and negative portrayals of progressives. Your idea of the appropriate manner and order of presentation of the facts flips based on whether the politician in question is identified with the left or the right — if they're on the left, you insist on an order that spins the article to the negative, giving the person's critics the final word, but if they're on the right, you insist on a presentation that favours their defenders' views and spins the article to the positive. Your version of NPOV, in a nutshell, often appears to have less to do with what's actually the most neutral and objective portrayal of the facts, and more to do with the all-too-common trap of defining neutrality as "agreeing with my preexisting opinion on the matter". Bearcat 03:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've edited Jack Layton and the NDP (are they not left-leaning) without any such controversy. Second, I don't "flip", rather I balance out. I have nothing against progressives, so such sections in the article are not my main target. I rather see conservatives as being portrayed too negatively, so I see a need to even it out and that has been the focus of much of my early work. Lastly, is everyone not guilty of flipping at some point in their wiki careers? Even CJCurrie has admitted that there are some parts in his work that aren't great, such as in Norm Gardner. At the end of Gardner's tenure in December 2004, a Toronto columnist argued that his term as PSB chair had been marked by a laissez-faire approach to police matters, and that much of the board's policy apparatus had "simply withered away" since the hiring of Julian Fantino as police chief in 1999. He also won several wage increases and bonuses for Toronto police officers, at considerable expense to the city's budget. GoldDragon 01:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to interject: I wasn't specifically thinking of that Gardner quote when I admitted to mistakes in the past. I don't think the citation in question was a grotesque violation of POV, though it became superfluous after the same point was expressed in more neutral language. CJCurrie 04:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Malta

Hi. I have noticed your activity at the Malta article over the past months and would like to thank you. Having an administrator with the article on his/her watchlist is a big asset as it (1) provides an experienced and trained POV/contributor; (2) provides technical ability / power for certain actions; and (3) discourages vandalism (believe it or not). Since the departure of Roderick we were in dear need for an administrator "at hand". └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 22:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was Roderick an admin on en: ? He's also an admin on mt: as I am.. which reminds me.. we are running a bit low on admins there. Anyways, I second the opinions above. And, feel free to drop by WP:MALTA any time! ( should I be doing anything more - or less - to promote the Malta-RWNB?) 「ѕʀʟ·✎」 21:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Government of Canada

I'm glad the reaction is good so far. Any big move like that always makes me conerned of upsetting people, but the previous version was just bothering me too much. Cheers! --PullUpYourSocks 03:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Wikiproject!

Hi!

I wanted to invite you to join the new WikiProject Politicial parties and politicians in Canada. The goal is simple. To create a project, to create and maintain high quality articles on Wikipedia related to Canadian politicians, and Canadian political parties. Come on over and check us out at WP:PPAP. Ardenn 21:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bus Route CSD

I believe this falls under the "etc." part of the CSD note. There is no assertion of the importance of the routes. --DarkAudit 00:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbuthnott Commission

Thanks for the edit in Arbuthnott Commission. I had intended to use [[House of Commons (UK)|]]. Not sure about [[Parliament of the United Kingdom|Westminster]] if there is also [[Scottish Parliament Building|Holyrood]]. Laurel Bush 14:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I'm glad to be of assistance. The House of Commons article is British House of Commons. House of Commons (UK) is a redirect page. As far as using Parliament of the United Kingdom as the article for "Westminster", I did so because the sentence is discussing constitutencies. Constituencies are part of the institution of Parliament, rather than the physical structures in which Parliament is located, i.e., the Palace at Westminster. I would make the same comment about the Scottish Parliament and Holyrood -- the constituencies have nothing to do with the Holyrood buildings, but everything to do with the Scottish Parliament. Regards, Ground Zero | t 15:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Yes: I was sort of seeing all that. I do tend to use [[House of Commons (UK)|]], not least because of the way it pipes itself. I have just used 'House of Commons (Parliament of the United Kingdom, at Westminster)'. 'Scottish Parliament (Holyrood)' looks OK to me, Holyrood as the address of the Parliament. Laurel Bush 11:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Adrian Knatchbull-Hugessen

What is your obsession with vandalising links on this page? The link is to Edward Hugessen Knatchbull-Hugessen, 1st Baron Brabourne, so you change it to Edward Hugessen Knatchbull-Hugessen claiming to "fix link" -- a blue link to a red one? — Dunc|☺ 11:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • As the edit history of Edward Hugessen Knatchbull-Hugessen, 1st Baron Brabourne shows, this article was created on July 12, 2006. I changed the link on July 8, 2006 (here), so I did not "vandalise" the page I did not change the blue link to a red link, but one red link to another. I have explained to you how your previous accusation of vandalism was a personal attack and asked for an apology then, which you did not have the decency to provide. Please apologise now for these personal attacks. Ground Zero | t 15:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aah, I see you're right, but given your history and apparent dislike for the page, and willingness to vandalise links from it, you should have been aware of the WP:MOS, and the naming conventions. Tell you what, I'll apologise, as long as you apologise for your original vandalism [1] — Dunc|☺ 15:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I expressed my "dislike" for the page by improving the text? By fixing links? By changing red links to blue links? Yes, I am now aware of the MOS naming convention, which I was not aware of before. I apologise for not knowing that. By improving the article, I 'unquestionably demonstrated good faith. You responded by assuming bad faith and by making personal attacks. You have now renewed your original accusaiton of vandalism even though I have explained to you how removing red links is not vandalism and given you the appropriate link to a Wikipedia guideline. Take a look at the edit history and see how many red links I turned into blue links, and then see if your accusation of vandalism stands up.

As so many editors have told you, your behaviour does not conform to Wikipedia expectations. Your persistent flauting of these codes of behaviour undermines Wikipedia. Please review WP:CIVIL and associated pages, and take them to heart. Ground Zero | t 16:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Ontario provincial ridings

Hi, I think I've finally come to my senses and realized we need to split off all the ridings into their own articles. We should probably form some sort of task force in doing so. We can start with Northern Ontario whose ridings wont be changing to the new ones. What do you think? --curling rock Earl Andrew - talk 22:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sorry -- I thought you had already agreed with that. I may have misinterpreted our discussion at Talk:Ottawa Centre. I apologise if I appeared to be acting unilaterally. I did not mean to, and certainly value all of the work that you've put into the Ottawa and other ridings. As far as branching off other articles, I suggest doing it on a case-by-case basis, i.e., when the combined article becomes too big. I'm still working on getting all of the historical results added to riding articles, so I'm not looking for additioanl projects at this tiem. What do you think about just branching as we go. I would be glad to help out. Ground Zero | t 23:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, a year ago in the riding wikiproject I had said I was against splitting the articles, that's what I was referring to. I know we agreed to it, and I am just saying that it's given me the idea that we should probably start working on it. But if you're busy with the results, that's fine. --curling rock Earl Andrew - talk 04:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, why did you remove the wikilinks from all the dates in Whitley Bay with this edit? If it's WP policy or style that I am not aware of I'd appreciate a pointer. Thanks, Jon Dowland 09:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Da Silva

You might be interested in this page. Let it never be said that running for the Communist Party of Canada is an automatic career-killer. CJCurrie 05:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


BC Stubs

Pls see User talk:Agent 86#RE: another category of stub neededSkookum1 18:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Malta Improvement drive

Please for vote for the Malta improvement drive at [[2]] Maltesedog 19:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irving - historian?

A discussion has started again here about whether or not Irving is a historian; I'd appreciate it if you could add your thoughts. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 16:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Renaming North American Cities

OK, the convention on naming appears to be falling by the wayside. Some cities articles (ie. Toronto, Montreal) are titled as the city's name only while others (Chicago, Winnipeg, Calgary, Vancouver) are burdened with having the state or province following the city in the article title. In response to your omment below:

the "full name" of Toronto is "Toronto, Ontario, Canada", which is unnecessarily long as an article name. Besides, Wikipedia articles use the most common name, not the full name of article subjects, e.g., United States, not "United States of America", and United Kingdom, not "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, not a North American one, so the article title should be what readers around the world will think of first, not just those in North America. Many people outside of Canada have not heard of Ontario, even though they know about Toronto. Let's just leave keep it simple, and keep the existing redirect from "Toronto, Ontario" to "Toronto". Ground Zero | t 16:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

........and seeing that you are administrator..........please re-name the Winnipeg, Manitoba, Calgary, Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, and Vancouver, British Columbia articles to "Winnipeg", "Calgary", "Edmonton", and "Vancouver", respectively. Their full names ie. Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, are unnecessarily long and readers worldwide know of these cities even if they have not heard of Manitoba, Alberta, or British Columbia. As you suggest, let's keep it simple. We should not imply that Toronto, Montreal, and Ottawa (by the way, both Vancouver and Calgary are larger than Ottawa) are in a different league, so let's say that all Canadian cities of over 500,000 should stand on their own; we'll make up our own rules as we go along. Thanks. I hope you are able to do this soon.--142.161.182.225 19:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. There is a discussion underway about changing the policy on this at Wikipedia:Canadian_wikipedians'_notice_board/discussion#City_naming_convention_poll_2. Please feel free to add your comments to that discussion. I think that it makes sense to await the outcome of that discussion before making any further changes one way or t'other. Furthermore, I would never make a possibly contentious change such as renaming articles of major cities without consulting on the articles' talk pages. That sort of thing leads to edit wars, which are something we try to avoid here.

With regards to your comment that "We should not imply that Toronto, Montreal, and Ottawa (by the way, both Vancouver and Calgary are larger than Ottawa) are in a different league....", I think that we shouldn't give the naming of Wikipedia articles so much credit. I don't think that readers will compare the naming of one article to another and jump to conclusions about what a bunch of people creating an on-line encyclopedia think about a city. More importantly, I don't think that readers will change their opinions about a city based on whether its article is called "City", or "City, Province". Ground Zero | t 19:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moscoe again

GZ,

I've responded to your comments on the talk page, and I've corrected an obvious mistake on the article page.

Can you tell me why this was deleted: He withdrew the memo after complaints, and wrote an apology to Pitfield for any offence given.? CJCurrie 00:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching these mistakes. Yes, that sentence was deleted inadvertently. Ground Zero | t 02:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

personal discussion moved from DS entry page

  • you can put this back if you want but now that I am understanding your messaging system it seems more appropriate here
  1. Please do not delete comments made by other editors on a talk page.
  2. Please reveiew Wikipedia:Autobiography to see why I have reverted your changes.

You may well have good reason to disagree with what is written here, but there is a very basic problem with the subject of an article substantially revising an article. See also Wikipedia:Neutrality. As a result, I think that the best way to address your concerns is for you to provide evidence here on this talk page for changes that you think should be made, and allow other editors to make those changes if they agree that they are appropriate. Please understand that this is not "your" article. You will not be allowed to re-write it as you see fit. Wikipedians are, however, generally very reasonable people, and we will work with you to ensure that this article is as accurate an unbiased as possible. Ground Zero | t 12:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have now protected this article against editing from unreigstered and recently registered editors. Please raise your concerns here, and they will be addressed. Ground Zero | t 12:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • again, i would be happy to speak with an unbiased editor. please contact me.

on Wikipedia, issues over articles are normally addressed on the article's talk page. This is most convenient for all involved, and provides the most open and transparent process. Please identify on this page the specific problems that exist in the article, and provide whatever evidence you have that the information is incorrect. Thanks, Ground Zero | t 12:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the article and removed some obvious POV to get us started. Ground Zero | t 12:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • ok. if this is the method lets start ... although doing this by email or phone would be much simpler and more civilised.

firstly i did not make the original post. i have no interest in having an entry at all. this entry has been flagged for bias from the beginning as it had been made a small activist faction of the green party. this is one of hundreds of clients i have dealt with. unfortunately the posting comes up first on google and has been called to my attention as something to be corrected for balance and accuracy if it needs to exist at all. although far from perfect the following information would be significantly more accurate to be locked while this is resolved. please let me know how you would like to proceed. it may also be worth referencing CJCurrie who appears to have done some work on this

Ground Zero's response

  1. Please post at trhe bottom of the page. This is the way it is done in Wikipedia. thanks.
  2. "although doing this by email or phone would be much simpler and more civilised." Please work with me here instead of insulting me. Doing this on a talk page allows any interested editor to participate or to see why changes are being made to the article. This is the way tings are done on Wikipedia.
  3. "firstly i did not make the original post. i have no interest in having an entry at all." Subjects of biographical articles do not get a say in whether an article appears on them in Wikipedia. We are trying to build an encyclopedia of human knowledge here, not a collection of personal web pages.
  4. "this entry has been flagged for bias from the beginning as it had been made a small activist faction of the green party. this is one of hundreds of clients i have dealt with." Fair enough. Let's fix it then. But we do not fix one bias by installing another in its place.
  5. "something to be corrected for balance and accuracy if it needs to exist at all." I don't know whether you have really done enough to warrant an article here, but I believe in improving Wikipedia by adding to it, and by fixing errors/bias, rather than deleting, so I am prepared to work on this.
  6. "although far from perfect the following information would be significantly more accurate to be locked while this is resolved." For the reasons identified at Wikipedia:Autobiography, I am not prepared to replace a biased version of the article with one written by its subject. Also, your version is not consistent with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, especially with respect to capitalization. Let's work to fix the current versio of the article. I have already deleted some obvious NPOV material and incorproated some material from your version.
  7. "it may also be worth referencing CJCurrie who appears to have done some work on this" I'll let him know.

Please identify what, if anything, is wrong with the current version. Ground Zero | t 17:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • ok. i am not trying to be discourteous or to insult you. i have no familiarity with the rather cryptic code of behaviors so apologise for what must appear unseemly to you. i am merely aiming to fix an entry that was conceived out of bias ... and due to its emergence under google at the top of the findings for my name ... has been causing a good deal of grief to my business collegues.
  • it would certainly be nice for Mr Currie to become involved and possibly take this over as he has invested in it previously. as i have no clue how to 'copy him in' on this conversation i will trust you to do so. thank you

it is going to take a while to get through all of this. Please be patient.

  • thank you for your fairness

apologies again for unfamiliarity with your system. when in doubt hack in and the wiki police will straighten you out.  :-) only purpose was to remove bias which has been accomplished. obviously using the press as a source has its downside (sourcing the entry in canada's whos who would have been a better choice for a baseline) but it beats the activist propaganda which was the original motivation for the piece and its former slant. nothing further to add unless it gets slanted again. thanks.

Love Last Night

Was going through all the Canadian administrators, and noticed the Last Night loving. Just thought I'd drop by to say that's also one of my faves (I can't pick just one), along with Sweet Hereafter. Good to see a fellow Canuck so successful!

- Darkhawk (23:33 EST, 20 Aug 2006)

TIFF 2006!

I'll be going to Away From Her, Monkey Warfare, and Unnatural and Accidental. Hopefully, that means I'll see, live, Sarah Polley, Don McKellar & Tracy Wright (Everyone's favourite Canadian celebrity couple), and Callum Keith Rennie. Here's hoping!

- Darkhawk

Talk:Boston Tea Party

Howdy, I noticed that you and I seem to post in one or two articles dealing with progressive issues in political science/sociology. There's currently a debate beginning in Boston Tea Party as to whether the article should include the category [3]. It meets definitions set in the articles Terrorism and Definition of terrorism, however, there are several self-proclaimed patriots who watch BTP who refuse to recognise the fact. The simple criteria for terrorism generally seem to be intimidation or destruction of property in order to change public policy or public opinion while a state of war has not yet been declared. Some users would rather use recent acts of terrorism as a yardstick, rather than using a firm definition, and hence lose their ability to discuss matters calmly. Would you be able to pop in to the Talk page and join in the discussion? Thanks much, samwaltz 05:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dunc's bad behavior

I too ran into Dunc on one page and after going round and round, finally gave up. You know the drill.

I stupidly allowed my true identity to be known. Then Dunc proceeded to seek out and delete/revert every posting of mine he could find under the excuse that, because I had cited some of my own scietific publications, this was a violation of the vanity guidelines. I then pointed out that this was specifically-allowed under Wikipedia:No original research. As usual without discussion, he then proceeded to attempt to change the rule. An edit war ensued and this page has been frozen.

I have placed a poll at Wikipedia talk:No original research under 15)"Expert editors" concerning Dunc's changing the WP:NOR guidelines to make experts check in with the "Vanity Commissar" before citing their published works. I appreciate all support to revert Dunc's changes. Pproctor 16:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KMB

Hi. A fellow colleague pointed out a recent dispute incurred at the article Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici Talk. A fairly simple question: should or should not this Maltese politician's nicknames "KMB" and "iż-Żero" be referred to in this stub article? I am asking for your opinion to avoid getting into a hassle of a wiki-dispute for such a trivial thing, which from experience take too long. P.S. Personally I am neutral to including it or not. └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 14:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. I replied on the relative talk page. No reply from the other party was forthcoming, will re place nicks soon. Maltesedog 19:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for solving the issue. I have a question now :P-- what to do with users who create multiple unwanted (useless, non-notable, whatever) articles and sometimes vote themselves in their AfD! Regards and tc! └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 19:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration?

Hey GZ thanks for the continued work on Western Alienation. Im getting to the end of my wikipedia to-do list, and was wondering if there are any Canadian political related projects you are working on for which I can lend a helping hand. Let me know. --Gregorof 23:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monday Club (again)

In case you missed it: [4]. CJCurrie 22:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User page

Hi, GZ.

I'm a new user and I want to add some items of interest (to me, anyway) to my user page. Specifically, I'd really link to include a link that shows all the articles I've created. I've looked through the help index and I can't seem to find anything, though perhaps I'm just being dense. Could you tell me where I can find the code for this and similar edits, please? Also, are pages like this the place for this sort of discussion or should I be directing my inane enquiries elsewhere?

Thanks,

Gruffle Gaw 15:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS - Sorry, my edit seems to have come out below the box, contrary to your instructions, but I'm not sure how to change this.


Royal Bank of Canada

I am a wikipedian, but I am affiliated to the above company. I think it needs a review and thought you might be a good person to review it. I'll leave my comments below, and if you don't mind, please decide based on them if the article needs updating. Thanks.

  • Canada's largest bank
Isn't it Canada's largest company by almost any measure?
  • Information box: www.rbcroyalbank.com
rbcroyalbank.com is the web line for the Canadian retail division. The main website is www.rbc.com
  • RBC is currently headquartered in downtown Toronto, Ontario at the Royal Bank Plaza RBC ranks number 83 on the Forbes Global 2000 list(2005 edition).
Two sentence run together. "headquartered" is I suppose true in the sense that is where the executives are, although it remains "incorporated" as a Montreal company.
  • Information box: headquarters: Raleigh, NC
Raleigh is just one of many major locations of staff. Raleigh happens to be the "headquarters" (again, actually incorporated in Rocky Mount, NC) of one of many hundreds of subsidiaries. It should not be mentioned there.
  • Information box: Industry: Bank
Although the parent company (Royal Bank of Canada) is a bank, the financial group is really about Financial Services in general (Insurance, custody, brokerage, asset management, ...).
  • Timelines
We purchase things all the time, some of which are more significant than those mentioned there. Assuming we make 4 notable acquisitions a year, this would grow to be quite a list. As Canada's largest company, isn't there other things that can be discussed? First company to support Olympic atheletes; first company to introduce variable rate mortgages into Canada; info from: http://rbc.com/aboutus/index.html ?
RBC Financial Group is managed based on three main divisions:
  1. Canadian Personal and Business
  2. U.S. and International
  3. RBC Capital Markets
  • Logo -- The reason for the change was to appease Americans who historically have had mistrust of Royalty.
I'd be surprised if we said that. Source? And really, it's old news now and the entire section should be deleted. This is the sixth version of the logo, not the second.
  • Problems
Well, I'm biased, but it looks like some Wikipedians are using it as a place for general bank bashing. $9 million dollar error; by my estimation about 1.5 business hours of earnings. Notable? The animal cruelty thing -- I don't even remember the incident.
  • The list of current and past presidents.
I think it's ok.
  • The template at the bottom
It's accurate as far as I can tell

cApItUlisation

Dear Ground zero, I accept your comments on cApItUlisation on Lords Reform but as I started editing I realised that many were as original e.g. "Indirect Appointments/Elections" did you intentionally leave them like this? --Mike 14:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Have now gone back over your edits. Much appreciated. The only one I'm not sure about was the introduction. Everytime I read it I was stumbling over the words, so I changed it "to boldly say". --Mike 15:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: clean up tag Sir Robert Bell (Knight)

Please consult the talk page. I understand why you have placed tha tag, but please read my comments concerning the artcile. Thank you. User:Wales 14:23 10 October 2006 (UTC) ________________________________________________________________________________________________

Please post your comments ABOVE this box. Thank you. If you post a message on this page, I'll reply on this page to avoid fragmenting the discussion. If I've left you a message on your talk page, I will be watching it, so you're most welcome to reply there rather than here.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ground_Zero&oldid=80656531"