Talk:Mike Del Grande

Untitled

Hey

Stop manipulating this page. It was agreed that the page was balanced but it continues to have changes based on political mischief.

Back off- Mike Del Grande —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.130.173.55 (talk) 12:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

<archived>

I find it strange that there is so much energy put into the articles on Wikepedia. Strange that it is necessary to perpetuate an untruth which has angered many people who know me and my work.

It is election year and I can only surmise that the intent is not to inform but to distort. Yea I looked at Kelly's and Ford's and you have gone political on them but not to the extent you have on me. Because it is in the papers does not make it correct.

So the Mayor is not happy with me and perhaps being friends of his friends you have made it your mission to discount my work with children who are 95% from ethnic backgrounds, or my many decades of charitable work or my close relationship with many people from different backgrounds and faiths.

I see nothing good in your characterization of me only mischief and ignorance of who I really am and what I represent. Mike Del Grande

Note: There is a coordinated attack on this article as well as defacing a good man's reputation. The items being added have been unfounded and unfactual allegations from rouge members of the public and media. (unsigned comment)

A quick google shows that these aren't unfounded allegations. I suggest these stay as they are, allegations, at least until it is clear wether they are true or not. --Spook ^{(my talk | my contribs)} 13:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Google is picking up these stories as unfounded. I suggest you read into who wrote these articles and verify against the actual source and actual name you are supporting to tarnish. Wikipedia must represent fact and non partisan efforts to influence election campaigns.

You seem pretty concerned about "fact and non partisan efforts" on Wikipedia for someone who has only editted this article and only to blank a POV. -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 13:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest reviewing other councillor's pages to see what has been written. This one stands out amongst all the rest. I fail to see everyone's interest in this particular councillor.

How about a comprimise where we state in the article that he has been accused of making racist comments, possibly including what he said. So that way it is up to the reader to interpret for themselves? I just think that someone this important having all this fuss made about something they said is noteworthy.

For now, lets leave it as it is, without the allegation. Also, sign your comments! use ~~~~ to sign your name. --Spook ^{(my talk | my contribs)} 13:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I've requested mediation so we can sort this out. Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-02-19 Mike Del Grande --Spook ^{(my talk | my contribs)} 13:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Violation of WP:3RR

Archival of Historical [2006] Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 14:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Original Content (1)

Archival of old out of date discussions. [2006] my contribs) 05:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Original Content (2)

Archival of old out of date discussions. [2006] my contribs) 05:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

An encyclopedia bibliography does not and should not rely on rouge media reports or commentary to decide what facts are listed or not. Media by nature pick on headlines that sell newspapers. A fact finder or bibliographer may write that there were elements of controversy but would not rely on "headline quotes" to state fact. It certainly requires balance and definately not a separate section in of its own.Councillor1 14:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

See, isnt this so much better than a petty revert war? I conceed that it would not have sufficient content to have its own SUB-section. But something like "In feburary 2006 blah blah blah such and such was said causing x response by media" I feel needs to be mentioned. --Spook ^{(my talk | my contribs)} 14:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, a single controversies section is enough, but the bulk of the information should be retained. Also the The Globe and Mail and Toronto Star are hardly disreputable sources. - SimonP 21:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Archived Commentary by Gnangarra 05:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC) Archived Commentary by Gnangarra 14:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC) Archived Commentary by Mediator Neigel von Teighen

Mediated case closed as "withdrawn" --Neigel von Teighen 15:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Archival of old data

August 2006

Proper citation needed for paragraph in "Controvesies" section

The following paragraph needs to be cleaned up and properly cited. The blog cited makes no reference to anything said in the paragraph it is referring to. It would be helpful to provide a link to an actual newspaper article or official report instead of a blog that is focused on editorializing rather than reporting. If a proper citation is not included within a week or two, this paragraph should be removed --

"The worker, from the John Wong Campaign was charged and arrested by Police with three criminal charges being laid. These charges stemmed from the person removing all of Del Grande's campaign material from an appartment building. Police also took a witness statement that confirmed Del Grande's account of the incident. The rival campaign was quick to alert media just prior to the November election hoping for negative publicity in what has become one of many tactics used by rivals to harrass him. see http://blog.canoe.ca/cityvote/ "Filth Central[ citation needed ]"