User talk:Chabuk/Archive 2

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.

Decent

I think it was very decent of you to apologize to ED209. I'm sure the whole Eyeonvaughan thing has been very frustrating. Hopefully you can find a way to work productively with the other editors on those pages (EoV and VW excepted). Thatcher131 03:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk Page Archiving

• So, my talk page is ginormous and I've been wanting to archive it for a while, but figured with the ongoing RfC, I should probably wait... What do you think (since you seem to know these things better)? Can I just go for it, or should I hang on? And btw, how long do RfC's usually last? Thanks -- pm_shef 17:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you could just go ahead, it is getting pretty long. I'd say, break it off at April 1, so you can put a date on the archive. As long as there's a link at the top of your talk page to the archive, it's all good. RfCs usually last a couple of weeks at least, but I'm not really sure. Mangojuice 17:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

Pm_shef: This is an attempt to resolve the NPOV concerns that relate to your conduct on Wikipedia and the editing of articles that you are personally involved in.

As you know, the official policy of Wikipedia, according to WP:NOT, is that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and that editors should avoid contributing to articles that they are personally involved in. That doesn't mean that your edits have not been neutral; rather, it means that any editing at all of Vaughan Council-related articles is inappropriate, no matter what is written.

Here is the fulltext, from WP:NOT:

Wikipedia is not a soapbox

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not:

1. Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. You can also use Wikinfo which promotes a "sympathetic point of view" for every article.
2. Self-promotion. The arbitration committee ruled on February 17, 2006 that: "Editors should avoid contributing to articles about themselves or subjects in which they are personally involved, as it is difficult to maintain NPOV while doing so." [1] Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles, or to articles in which you have a personal stake, is similarly unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Notability.
3. Advertising. Articles about companies and products are fine if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs. See also WP:CORP for a proposal on corporate notability.

---

I understand that you've written to a user that you will not be involved anymore in Vaughan-related articles. That's a commendable position. I'm sure there are many subjects and articles of interest to you on Wikipedia that do not relate to your father or his opponents. Do I understand your position correctly? And is this approach of abstention one that you permanently take? If so, I again commend that position. I trust, as I'm sure you do, that the administrators and the contributors to Wikipedia will maintain quality articles about worthy and reputable subjects. VaughanWatch 11:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense Vandalism Removed

(Personal attack removed) by Eyeonvaughan 06:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC). The preceding comment was a copy/paste from a slanderous comment that had recently been archived in my Talk Page Archive and there was no reason for it to be re-written here. To see the comment, you can check the diff here. pm_shef 01:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Nonsense vandal tag removed

(Personal attack removed)

I've blocked 64.231.242.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 69.156.148.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for 24 hours. —Guanaco 04:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words

Some articles like University of Ottawa would be reverted if I did that. It was one of my first edit wars here, and it wasn't fun. Ardenn 04:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I did as you suggested, but someone didn't like the change at University of Waterloo. Ardenn 05:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you on that. Renowned by whom? The chimney sweep? It may be renowned by some Canadians, but this is a world-wide encyclopedia. --Ardenn 05:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

And thanks to you...

Thanks for your kind words. As frustrating as the whole affair has been, it really does help to know that the effort's been appreciated. Luigizanasi's comment on DRV that I deserved credit for my patience in this mess also gave me a nice case of the warm fuzzies. Bearcat 07:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

Rod Bruinooge

You quite rightly removed the category Category:Candidates for the Canadian House of Commons from the Rod Bruinooge article, but you did not add the article too Category:Conservative Party of Canada MPs and Category:Members of the Canadian House of Commons from Manitoba, which you should do if you remove any other candidate categorys for people who were/are MPs (with their own corresponding categories). Cheers. Qutezuce 06:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Cat

The correct +cat is Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: McGill University which is the same one being used by every other university. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 19:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Use of fair use images in userboxes

On March 26, you modified a number of userboxes to include official logos of various organizations. These logos are copyrighted and may only be used here on Wikipedia under terms of fair use, as outlined at Wikipedia:Fair_use#Policy item #9. I've removed the images from the templates. Please do not re-add them. Thanks, --Durin 18:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Simon Strelchik deletion

I've decided to nominate Simon Strelchik for deletion again, for all the reasons you stated last time. Please vote! Thanks, Theonlyedge 20:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection of user page

As two IP users in the same range have accused you of sockpuppetry (without evidence) I have semi-protected your user page. This means that new and unregistered users can not edit the page, but established users can. As an established user you should be able to edit the page without any problems. If you can't or you want the protection removed for any other reason just let me know on my talk page or put a note at WP:AN where any administrator will be able to help. Thryduulf 19:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Following your message on my talk page I've now unprotected your user page. Lets hope your optimism is not misplaced! Thryduulf 07:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

64.*

The editor you reported for repeated reversions should probably be reported not at the vandalism page but at the 3rv page. JoshuaZ 03:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned images

Hi, if you look under Wikipedia's image speedy deletion criteria, you'll see that orphaned fairuse images need to go at least seven days before they can be deleted. Next time, you see orphaned images, just use {{subst:orfud}} to mark it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I know what you mean. Believe me, it's harder to remember all this stuff when you have the ability to delete stuff permantently; you really don't want to be wrong. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Primitive Yahwism

Thanks for doing that and letting me know. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

AfD

Thanks for setting up that AfD, Pm. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Apparantly, I am your 'sockpuppet'. See the Strelchik deletion article for the apparent evidence. Just wanted to give you the heads-up in case you didn't know. Theonlyedge 21:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Cedric maximilian

hey there-- just wondering why you edited the Cedric maximilian entry in Wikipedia the way you did... I'm doing some research on him. -ssh —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.162.192.22 (talk • contribs) .

Heads Up

It's your birthday [2]. Thatcher131 01:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• I hope I don't need to adivse you to stay awat from VW and do not under any circumstances do anything that looks like gloating. In the future, if you start get harrassed again, I suggest quietly posting a notice to ANI with a couple of diffs and politely remind the denizens of VaughanWatch/Leotardo. Once a user has been identified as having abused sockpuppets, showing the same behavior by another user is often enough to get a block, without waiting for checkuser. (As the checkuser policy says, CU may be helpful in confirming socks but is not always conclusive so the user's pattern of behavior is the best guide. Good luck in the future. Thatcher131 02:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey... yeah, what Thatcher said. This goes for JohnnyCanuck, too. Others will get them to leave you alone, and it's probably best to just break off contact with them completely. There's probably a measure of trolling in what they're doing, so it's good to ignore them if possible, and alert others in a minimal way if it's not possible. Mangojuice 05:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Frankly, I admire you for keeping cool as much as you do. VaughanWatch is apparently up to over 50 sockpuppets by now, and a good part of all of their time has been spent on harassing you, which makes you one of the most picked-on editors I've ever heard of. Anyway, if you really want to give me a barnstar, you can learn how at Wikipedia:Barnstar. Mangojuice 16:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

BTW - if you would like I can semiprotect this page as well. Then we will know when we missed VaughanWatch socks because they'll be the only ones harassing you through the protection. ;) Let me know if you want me to take you up on this. You can reply here, I have you watched. --Syrthiss 16:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• I think its fine for now. Plus, if its protected, we won't be able to catch any new socks he comes up with. I'll definitely(sp) let you know if I change my mind though. - pm_shef 17:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

ok. --Syrthiss 17:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Also syrthiss, you might want to take a look at AboveToronto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), especially his contribs. It seems pretty clear he's another member of the VaughanWatch family. - pm_shef 17:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Yet another VW sock confirmed by rfcu, and has been blocked as such. --Syrthiss 22:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Take a look at 64.231.173.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), talk page blanking of a VaughanWatch socks' page. Probably another sock - pm_shef 01:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Sandra Racco Redirect

Odd. It works for me - put a note at WP:VPA if it doesn't work for you and you personally don't want to or don't know how to fix it. Thryduulf 07:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Update

Hey there...first things first, I see I missed your birthday, apparently. Hope it was a reasonably good one, and that this whole sordid slice of bullcrap isn't getting you down too much.

Anyway, just to keep you updated, they're getting even sloppier. An anon IP, which has never edited WP before tonight, posted to my talk page to allege that User:70.31.246.119, who got into the most recent revert war at Susan Kadis with User:YoungWebster, was your sockpuppet. Except that, whoops, according to 70.31.246.119's edit history they were previously warned several times not to blank Kadis' talk page. Which means they're trying to wag the dog, basically — staging a war among themselves and blaming you in the hopes that I'll be too stupid to investigate more carefully. So needless to say, they'll be blocked very soon if they do anything else inappropriate or if checkuser confirms what I already suspect.

Thanks again for being pretty calm and patient through all this. Bearcat 04:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

U Alberta

Respond on my talk page. I know what the three revert rule is, you don't have to be a nag. Are you wikistalking me or something? Ardenn 01:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you're right. I have most of the big Uni's on my watch list too. I shouldn't have bitten your head off, thank you for reminding me. I don't really want to edit war or get blocked. Ardenn 01:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for intervening, and don't worry, I had no intention of getting into an edit war. From what I understand, 3RR is a guideline (and not a license to revert three times), so I hadn't planned to even push it that far. My concern, however is still with the earlier issue of the comment, and what sort of impression that creates for users. --Ckatz 01:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Moo

You get a cowstar for being SUPERGREAT!

--217.134.237.125 19:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Grand Rabbi

Redirected to Rebbe. Btw, dicdefs are not really CSD. Thx. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 22:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Scholars for 9/11 Truth

You tagged Scholars for 9/11 Truth as a nn-group but it's a website and it survived AFD before so it doesn't qualify for speedy deletion. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Stop defacing Wikipedia. I don't know who you are but I've got your IP address and I'm being blamed for you actions. It's ridiculous.

I'm being blamed for your actions.

Stop defacing Wikipedia. I don't know who you are but I've got your IP address and I'm being blamed for you actions. It's ridiculous.

Sincerely, Some guy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.158.163.219 (talk • contribs) .

WikiProject Education in Canada

Pm_shef, in regards to the new Education in Canada proposal, please come give your opinon on the talk page for whether or not we can proceed with archiving the old project and putting the new one in place. Thanks! --Stephane Charette 18:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

State debate organizations

Greetings! I think you're right that all the state debate governing bodies you mentioned should have their articles deleted. For ease of typing in future, this may have been a case where it was appropriate to put the articles up for deletion as a group. No worries, I think we'll get where we need to be in the end; I just had to type "delete" a few extra times. —C.Fred (talk) 02:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Disagree

Sir, I respectfully disagree with your decision to delete the pages of state debate organizations. As has been mentioned on several of the pages, the state organizations are not mere chapters, and have their individual differences from the major leagues (NFL, NCFL). Although I do agree some of the information is unencylopedic, let's work together to make the information encyclopedic! Thank you for your time. --Buckaroo54 17:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Birthright.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Birthright.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Un Subst-ing

Hey there, I noticed you Un-subst'd a whole bunch of cleanup and other tags, including those on UBC Debating Society. I was wondering why exactly you did this? Should I not be subst'ing those tags? Thanks. - pm_shef 23:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, subst: should not be used with cleanup tags. There are a few reasons, the most important being that my bot, Pearle, files articles for cleanup by month, by swapping tags. The mess that results from the subst: is harder to parse, especially since it can change whenever anyone changes the source template. Another reason is that we want any cosmetic changes made to the original template to show up on all the pages that use that template. Thanks for noticing this activity, by the way; I didn't have time to leave messages for people letting them know about this convention. -- Beland 21:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Brampton, Ontario Infobox

I messed around a bit with this infobox, and I was just wondering if there's any real reason why the standard Canadian City infobox is not used on this page. OzLawyer 19:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Canadian Federation of Students

• grins evilly* It is POV, according to the policy. Ardenn 00:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Since I can't seem to edit your page.... I know it is, but he hasn't proved it. All the evidence he brings up is barely, if at all, PoV. - pm_shef 00:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with you. His POV claims are more POV pushing, IMHO. Ardenn 00:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

please consider and respond ASAP.

I would like to create an informed, comprehensive, and non-biased/objective article regarding Mario Ferri. I disagree that his, and the other councillor pages have been re-directed to a general page. I have read your discussions with Paul on this subject and I believe that objective articles should be placed here, anything else would be an injustice to wikipedia and its users.

If you, for instance, were not as politcally savvy and/or connected and wished to gain a better understanding of what your choices for the Election of 2006 in Vaughan were, would you not expect Wikipedia to be a valid source of information.

While i do understand that biased articles should not be accepted, we must allow those that are objective. We may even wish to establish ground rules for such articles. I however, cannot side with either of you with your conclusion that no articles are to be posted, moreover, the article regarding Michael DiBiase is completely distastefull and should be deleted.

Back to my reason for submitting this message to you....

I, like yourself, have studied political science for 4 years, which concluded with a Hons.B.A., and I wish to write an article on Mario Ferri, stating only his biography and political achievements/profile. I too believe that the previous article was somewhat biased, and wish to replace it with a well informed article. I am petitioning you to please delete the redirection, as I am not as knowledgeable as you are with wikipedia and to support an unbiased article on all the councillors.

Post Script: I must commend you for arguing with Paul in the discussions, my favourtie part is tha he continues to call you biased while he is running for office himself.

I do not know how you can contact me, so maybe just post your response on this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PolsLaw (talk • contribs)

• Polslaw, first off, I'll respond here, and on your talk page - that's usually how this kind of contact works. First off, let me tell you how happy I am that you're interested in Vaughan politics as well. Also, from the sound of it, your familiar with Mr. Debono and his antics - glad we're on the same page on this. You also may not be aware that he's been banned from Wikipedia for operating a "sockfarm" 50+ sockpuppets!

Anyways, in terms of recreating the Councillor pages, regardless of Paul's own bias, the consensus we came to (to redirect to the Vaughan Council page) was arrived at in discussion with a whole bunch of editors, not just the two of us. As much as the compromise is distasteful, and I, like you, would much rather give each councillor their own page, the community has more or less spoken. That being said, if you were to create a new article, say to start with Mario Ferri as an example, create the article as an unbiased, objective encyclopedia article, we could then have it reviewed by a number of users and administrators who were involved in the original dispute, such as User:Bearcat and User:Mangojuice among others. If they agree that the article is unbiased, we could possibly go from there. But let me warn you in advance. Editors from around the world got pulled into this Vaughan fight. It was not a pretty picture at all and a lot of people were extremely angry, so just be careful about how you approach it. If you do want to create the draft article, you can do it in your userspace at User:PolsLaw/Workbook (or a different word afer the slash, doesn't matter. If you have any questions at all, please don't hesitate to contact me again! - pm_shef 23:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

How do you know that user:VaughanWatch is Paul DeBuono. It would seem as you are just guessing this. Unless you can prove otherwise, please stop referring to him as "Paul." Thank you. ED209 17:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

please see

I have written a rough page for Mario Ferri, please visit the link you gave me and critique it, I would appreciate it if you disccussed any changes with me before efiting yourself. Let me know what you think.

Thanks. 21:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC) PolsLaw

• I have looked it over and it has no chance of getting passed. It reads like a political resume written by either Mario himself or somebody from his campaign office. Wikipedia does not exist as political advertising for Vaughan polticians. It's an encyclopedia. ED209 01:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

IPs

Hello, I am very worried about blocking these users, because I don't want stalking or conflict escalation to spread. I think it's best to put the IPs on checkuser again. If the warnings persist one more time, I'll sprotect the page. To be fair, I recommend discussing the issue on the talkpage of the article to try and gain consensus, which will give me more of a solid and unquestionable reason to remove the warnings. Administrators have to be very careful about how much we assume based on speculation, even if it is somewhat obvious. — Deckiller 22:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, I believe, based on the user's own replies and whatnot, that these two IPs can be blocked with minimal resistence. — Deckiller 22:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

After reviewing the histories of both IPs and those with Vaughan, there is unfortunately not enough for me to block them without resorting to checkuser first, as per WP:SOCK. I'll set up a request. — Deckiller 22:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

They're up on the checkuser page. I think we should develop a WoW-style policy for cases like this, eh? — Deckiller 23:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Willy on Wheels :). Then again, that's always a case of simple vandalism, not edit warring. — Deckiller 23:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandals

I'm familiar with the VaughanWatch situation, and can provide assistance as required. CJCurrie 22:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Vaughan

I think you should stop editing any article related to the City of Vaughan. You should realize that you are in a conflict of interest. I myself really don't want to get involved. I got an email to review the edits and make changes, so I messaged bearcat to reveiw it rather than change them myself. I would be willing to bet that if you stop editing Vaughan related articles then they will also stop. After reviewing all the edits it appears they stopped until you removed info from the mayors article. --JohnnyCanuck 01:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

VaughanWatch socks...

If the socks come back, I'd be glad to semiprotect, though I can't guarantee I'll be around to do it immediately. On the other hand – if you don't mind too much – watching for edits to your page is a dandy way to catch new socks. If you'll pardon the somewhat unfortunate analogy, your page is something like the canary in the coal mine. Anyone involved at all in these issues recognizes that the messages are from a banned editor and that they don't reflect on you. Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Oops—for some reason I thought you were female, and I've been using the wrong set of pronouns. Apologies for any confusion or offense that might have resulted from my faulty memory. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment & Question

You should realize that any edit you make to a Vaughan related article will be scrutinized because of who you are. It has been proven that you (as well as many others) are biased in your edits relating to the City of Vaughan. The removal of some info from the mayor’s article is a current example. I don’t mean to be rude but that are the facts. I think I should mention that I know for a fact that not all the so called “sockpuppets” of vaughanwatch are in fact him. I got an email today to review the changes and I can assure you it was not from vaughanwatch. I hope you realize that I am not for nor against anyone on here including yourself. Since you are here, I would like to ask you something. I myself live downtown Toronto in Ward 27, there is real councillors race going on here, 6 candidates, Rob Bezanson, Susan Gapka, Cam Johnson, Gary Leroux, Kyle Rae and Chris Reid. I don’t have much info on most of them, do you know anything about these candidates? I’m not sure whom I am voting for. I helped with campaigns before but I have made it a policy of mine to not work on campaigns in my area so I do not burn any bridges with anyone.--JohnnyCanuck 02:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Vaughan Councillors

• This is just to remind you that Vaughan Councillors were deemed to be Non-Notable. There may have been some question as to whether this was the case, seeing as you advised PolsLaw to construct a sample page for Councillor Ferri. So, hopefully you are clear on this now. If you have any other questions, please visit my talk page. However, it would be wise if you stayed away from Vaughan politics as you were instructed to do in the past. ED209 02:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Vaughan election article edits

Good afternoon,

Joe Fantauzzi (jfantauzzi@yrng.com) here, reporter with the York Region Newspaper Group — which owns the Vaughan Citizen.

I was wondering if you could help me out.

I'm putting together a story about the online component of the upcoming municipal election in Vaughan.

I noticed the war currently raging over the 'Vaughan municipal election, 2006' Wikipedia article.

There's been some accusations flying about, claiming you're the son of Councillor Shefman and about your edits concerning the importance of corporate donations in the campaign.

I'd love to get your side of the story.

I'm working on a tight deadline, so if you could get back to me ASAP that would be great.

If e-mail is the best way to reach you, that's fine too.

If so, could you take a minute and answer a couple of questions? I'd appreciate it.

1. What's your real name and are you related to Councillor Shefman?

2. Why, in your opinion, is the issue of corporate donations not relevant to the campaign? And if I've got the premise of your opinion wrong, please let me know.

3. Are you working on Councillor Shefman's campaign?

Thanks in advance,

Let me give you some contact info for me.

Joe Fantauzzi Reporter York Region Newspaper Group Tel: 905-294-2200 ext. 272 jfantauzzi@yrng.com yorkregion.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.207.103.173 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 19 July 2006.

This IP is registered to Metroland Printing and does publish the Vaughan Citizen. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Pm_shef is Corey Shefman, the son of Alan Shefman. Click on "user page" then click on "history", and then click on "Earliest". Or click here- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Pm_shef&dir=prev&action=history and then on a date, such as "31 October 2005". This is the archive of his userpage.

Since then he has not only removed corporate donations from the list of election issues in Vaughan in this edit [3], but also removed compromising information about Michael Di Biase, including those 3 traffic tickets that mysteriously disappeared a few years ago [4], his $164,074 salary that is one of the highest for a politician in the country [5], his being appointed without an election upon the death of Lorna Jackson [6] [7] and the fact that he, along with father Alan Shefman, is being investigated for corruption and receiving.... corporate donations [8] . Energyblue 18:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Note:Energyblue's first and only edit is the one above - pm_shef 22:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Councillor Shefman is not under investigation for anything. Please provide a source for this allegation if you are intent on making it - pm_shef 22:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• I will gladly fill you in on this whole issue Mr. Fantauzzi. I have battled with pm_shef (Corey Shefman) for the last several months. There is a few twists as well, Shefman believes that user:VaughanWatch is Paul Debuono. However, I have reason to believe this isn't the case. I will contact your email shortly. ED209 19:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• ED, CheckUser has proven and he himself admitted, that VaughanWatch is in fact Paul Debuono. If you choose to ignore the facts, do so somewhere other than on my talk page. - pm_shef 22:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• I have know for a fact that he is not Paul Debuono. You have accused me of being a sockpuppet before, so your "prove" doesn't mean too much. Also, not that an admission would entirely prove anything (often times people pretend to be people they are not over the Internet) please indicate where user:VaughanWatch made this admission. ED209 22:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Bias

• You openly admit in the Vaughan Citizen story that your father, Councillor Alan Shefman, has advised you to patrol Vaughan-related sites. Please cease any and all edits on Vaughan sites, because your objectivity as been brought into question with this admission. 69.198.125.96 22:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

  How about No? The story explains that I patrol Vaughan sites to ensure their accuracy, verifiability and neutral point of view - all of which are Wikipedia policies. Perhaps if you abided by them, we wouldn't have this problem. Not to mention that you do not have the authority, moral or technical to tell me to cease editing anything. - pm_shef 00:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• The story explains you were DIRECTED to patrol these articles by YOUR father. It also states that YOU are working for YOUR father's campaign. I put these two facts together and come to my conclusion. If you believe in wikipedia as much as you profess. You would avoid any edits on Vaughan-related sites. ED209 17:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• What? Did you think I wasn't working on his campaign? He's my father. That, however is not the point at all. What matters is the actual content of my edits. Thus far, the only people to accuse me of bias are yourself, JohnnyCanuck, and VW (who's opinion is hardly valid at this point) - everyone else acknowledges that my edits continue to be neutral. - pm_shef 17:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair-use image removed from your user page

Hello, Pm shef. I've removed Image:Us-ma-bo.png from your user page, as it is a copyrighted image that is being used under a claim of fair use. Unfortunately, by Wikipedia policies, no fair-use images can be used on user pages; please see Wikipedia:Removal of fair use images. This image has not been deleted from any articles. If you have any questions, please let me know. —Bkell (talk) 23:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Vaughan Election "Controversy"

Take a look at the article/history - I removed the "Controversies" section, along with an appropriate note in the edit summary. As I noted before, the article is worthy of reference, since it is relevant to the campaign. However, for some bizarre reason, i thought I was only restoring the link - I didn't notice your edit to the "Controversies" section was in there as well. Cheers! --Ckatz 01:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Pm shef: Just so you're not caught by surprise, I'm letting you know that, in the process of replying to ED209 (on both his and my talk pages), I've included a mild rebuke of your behaviour as well. My reply to ED209, to summarize, expresses my frustration with this edit war, especially since I'm not sure why this article even warrants inclusion on Wikipedia (since it is about a local election). The portion pertaining to you is as follows:

"Pm shef obviously has an agenda too, he really should clearly state his personal and professional connections to the Vaughan political process, and he's certainly not without fault in this matter. However, and this is an important point, he at least appears to be doing something on Wikipedia other than arguing endlessly about a municipal election."

I think it's a fair comment - if you're editing articles about a political process, you really should identify your connections to that same process somewhere on your user page, or perhaps on the talk page of the articles in question. I'm not suggesting you are trying to hide your connections at all - please don't think that. It's more a matter of how things appear to a third party. If I see that you're editing Vaughan article, and I check your user page and learn of your connections, then I can take that into consideration when assessing the information. If, instead, I see you're editing a political story, and then find out from someone else that you have these connections, it creates the appearance of something "hidden". Just my two cents. Anyways, that aside, I wish you luck in resolving this, as ED209 doesnt seem to want to listen to anyone's advice. --Ckatz 05:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

ED

Right now? Seek mediation. I wouldn't push off completely the possibility that ED is Vaughwatch in some incarnation, but I am not familiar enough witheitehr users' editing pattern to make any more comments on it. Really, get mediation, and maybe input form the people at the canadian notice board. Circeus 04:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• I was accused of that and cleared of all charges. More than one user has a problem with user:pm_shef actions here on wikipedia. I know that may seem hard to believe. ED209 05:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This whole edit war thing

Hey Pm_shef. I saw your post on the admin noticeboard and thought I'd come here to help defuse the situation. I'd like to ask you to do a couple things differently from now on, I think they will help. When dealing with ED209, please just don't leave warning messages at all. I'm asking the same of him. You two have been around on WP for long enough to know the rules; those warning messages are just a way of attacking each other now, and they serve no purpose. Also, don't refer to ED's edits as vandalism even if you think they are; vandalism is something different from edits you disagree with, and it's a form of attack. Finally, when you find yourself starting to get into a conversation in edit summaries, stop, and get into a real conversation on the talk page.

I have some comments on Talk:Michael Di Biase on the actual subject of the edit conflict. I'll add them in a few minutes. Mangojuice^talk 05:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Vaughan Mediation

why did you put my name in the Vaughan mediation? --JohnnyCanuck 05:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Vaughan municipal election, 2006

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia for violating the three-revert rule on Vaughan municipal election, 2006.  Your block will expire in 24 hours. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. AmiDaniel (talk) 23:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind this is not an attack against your edits (which I believe are correct). It's just that we can't have edit wars and there is a rule against them. I will keep an eye on both articles while you're blocked, don't worry. --mboverload@ 23:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

And yes, the ED guy was blocked, too. You can still talk freely on your talk page. --mboverload@ 23:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, okay, I didn't know that. Well, I guess there's not much I can say at this point, MangoJuice added a helpful perspective on the situation, and hopefully the mediation will help. Regarding Michael Di Biase, would you consider making the changes MangoJuice suggested? I'd have done it, but obviously can't... - pm_shef 23:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

actually I'm not quite sure what he suggested =D --mboverload@ 23:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• On th Di Biase talk page, he suggested a one liner that would neutrall encompass the traffic tickets thing, and suggested a couple revisions for the "accomplishments" paragraph I'd been attempting to add. - pm_shef 00:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Anon block

I blocked the anon editing House of Yahweh for one week. The average time between vandalisms of the article was shortening, I think I one week block will disrupt his pattern enough to get him to go away. If he continues to disrupt the article, or any other, after his block expires, I'll extend it. Regards, RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 04:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

VaughanWatch Sockpuppets

• Out of curiosity, where are you getting 52 sockpuppets for user:VaughanWatch? I only see 19 confirmed. Even if you unjustifiably add the 11 suspected sockpuppets, this still only equals 30. Please clear this up and enlighten me, because you keep throwing around the number 52. ED209 05:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope you like controversy

Thank you for the generous guidance. I think I will make my first major contribution to the birthright page's new "criticism" section.

b'shalom —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.57.109.220 (talk • contribs) .

Unspecified source for Image:Billygilman.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Billygilman.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 14:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

{{promotional}} would be more appropriate, since it obviously is not a magazine cover. Also, please add a link to the website you got the image from to the image's discription page, so that other users can verify the copyright status. --Fritz S. (Talk) 16:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Signpost draft

Just so you know, you're named in an article for the next issue of The Wikipedia Signpost, as a result of the recent news coverage about the Vaughan disputes on Wikipedia. You can look at the draft version if you want to check that it's accurate. --Michael Snow 06:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

VaughanWatch socks

Feel free to add any additional users to the evidence page noted. If there are any other confirmed socks that have not yet been blocked indefinitely, please let me know. I'll block them. I don't think that it would be a good use of my time to go through all of the suspected socks if they are not currently causing a disturbance. A general guidline is to not report a suspected sock if it has not been active for a week. I have a feeling that we'll notice if they reappear. -- JamesTeterenko 00:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Israel: Thanks

Thank you for helping me keep that horrendous POV section out of the Israel article. Feels lonely sometimes. Schrodingers Mongoose 04:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

about my addition to Israel article

Why are my addition to Israel removed. This have happend several times the last 3-4 days

This is what have been removed - several times:

Many have later claimed (among them the Israeli historian Benny Morris) that Israel was created with the use of ethnic cleansing and to a degree genocide of the Palestinians. Tension between the two groups accelerated through the 1930's and 1940's because of massive jewish immigration to Palestine, and especially after the arab population discovered that the jews intended to create a jewish homeland on their land where they have lived for generations.

My contribution creats more balance to this the section of Israeli history. Without it the article would be too biased —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paragon.NORG.06 (talk • contribs)

Personal attacks against you

I'll see what I can do. It's shameful. --mboverload@ 08:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

VaughanWatch

Hi Pm shef, you're a good contributor, hope everything's OK. What's this VaughanWatch/Eyeonvaughn thing about?? I'm confused. I know it's some sort of dispute, but about what??

Anyhow... hope you're OK, keep the good work up. --TheM62Manchester 19:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, would you help me work on editing some Canadian-related articles?? --TheM62Manchester 20:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

TheM62Manchester has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

--TheM62Manchester 20:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

VaughanWatch socks/abusiveness etc.

If you have any problems, leave evidence here: User:TheM62Manchester/VaughanWatch evidence

and I'll help you! --TheM62Manchester 20:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

VaughanWatch etc.

Pm_shef, are you going to use User:TheM62Manchester/VaughanWatch evidence if they do any more POV edits??

hope this helps... --TheM62Manchester 20:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, I'm not an admin, but use it anyway and let people on WP:ANI know about it. --TheM62Manchester 20:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• I think that TheM62Manchester wikiloves user:pm_shef a bit too much. There is already an official checkuser or whatever it is going on. I suggest we post evidence there. ED209 00:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• rolls eyes CheckUser all you want bud, the guy has been editing on here since before I even started, and edits things I don't have the slightest clue about. Keep trying though. -- pm_shef 00:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• A little testy today are we. I'm not saying you guys are one of the same. I just highlighted the fact that he gave you wikilove eariler on and that he created a pointless page for you to complain about user:VaughanWatch. I think you may affliated with those users which had "edge" in there name and always supported you a few months back. However, I don't care about this stuff like you do so I'm not going to complain about it. ED209 00:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandals

No problem. Trolls like that are just trying to get under you skin; I have had one or two or thirty myself. My advise is to take it as a compliment, because you must be doing something right if the vandals take notice of you. See you around. -- Psy guy ^Talk 22:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

VaughanWatch etc

I have responded on the SSP page; apologies for the delay. It seems likely that he is a sock, but there is not firm technical evidence, but thereis a little. Do you have any further evidence to suspect this? Thanks and regards, Iolakana|^T 15:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Further to Vaughan

I assume you've discovered User:Pm watch. What do you make of this? CJCurrie 21:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Ah -- never mind, I hadn't seen your last post. CJCurrie 21:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

RE: Israel article

Was the edit i added remove because of the wording? Am i allowed to add the info about the Deir Yassin massacre as its been left out of the article and its a very important event, a factual even. It's dicussed elsewhere on Wikipedia yet in the Israel article it's left out.

If its my wording, how can i add info about this event without it being remove? Any advice? Or am i and other people not allowed to mention the event on that page and pretend like it never happened?

Puppets & puppeteers

I don't have too much to add to the latest allegation. We'll let the RCU take it's course, and hopefully it will show us which accounts are which. -- JamesTeterenko 01:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Godiva's Hymn deletion

I have been the main contributor for Godiva's Hymn. I looked at the AFD header, and I'm not sure I understand the lingo you use for the reasons. Could you elaborate?

Sveiki 22:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Godiva's Hymn Deletion (edits)

When I first noticed the proposition for deletion, I looked into the Wikipedia policies. I found that I do agree with the idea that this is not the place for a store of lyrics (especially considering that the lyrics are available from the external links). I have removed the only claim that is not verifiable (that the song begain in 1921) until I can find a citation for it. As for the notability of the article, that I do question and have commented on in Talk:Godiva's Hymn. I am not offended by your deletion proposal, hopefully you find me to be one of those people in the Wikipedia community who is actually involved for the benefit of others and not himself. Sveiki 04:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

ACJC

The article actually *was* deleted a while ago, when no-one objected to the notice. I only became aware of the article's history today, and made the decision to undelete it.

My view is that the ACJC is significant enough to warrant an separate article. My decision to undelete it was made in accordance with Wikipedia policy, unless I've misunderstood the rules for situations like this (for this particular type of deletion, I believe it's sufficient for an admin to judge the subject as notable).

Please let me know if you disagree with this decision. CJCurrie 04:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps it would make sense to deal with the matter in a standard afd. CJCurrie 04:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Canada-Israel Committee

I started an article on the Canada-Israel Committee. You probably know more about it and its staff than I do. Would you care to expand it? TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

ACJC

No one is saying the ACJC is "as notable" as the CJC or B'nai Brith but it does exist, we do have an article on it so a link is called for and the article should not suggest that Jews are a monolith. If your RFD succeeds we can talk about removing the reference but until then the reference should stay. Ex-Homey 21:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Context - the sentence in the Canadian Jewish history article (which goes up to the present day as there is no seperate article on Jewish Canadians today) refers to the political organization of the Jewish community and mentions Bnai brith as a right of centre group and the CJC as centrist - it's fair then to mention the ACJC as at least an example of a left wing group (arguably the largest one since the United Jewish People's Order is made up mostly of people in their 70s and 80s). In the CJC article it's fair to mention who opposes them, the BB (arguably they do oppose the CJC though formally they do not) on the right and ACJC as a small group on the left. Saying they are a small group makes it clear they are not "as notable" as the other two but if we don't mention them it's implied that either the CJC is a left wing group or there is no one to the left of them. As we have an article on the ACJC there's no reason not to link to them. If you prefer, we can change it to "they are opposed on the left by small groups such as the Alliance of Concerned Jewish Canadians" but there's no reason to omit a link.Ex-Homey 22:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, much of the ACJC's material directly criticises the CJC - it is standard in wikipedia as per NPOV to include references to critics.Ex-Homey 22:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Vaughan lawsuits section

I appreciate the changes you made to this section, as I was in a rush when I wrote it up. I don't mean to break any wikipedia laws or anything like that, but what is your personal thoughts on all these lawsuits? And even more generally, about all this anti-Vaughan related material coming from the Star and by certain users on wikipedia. As a man in your position (I won't reveal any personal details) can you offer any insight into this? ED209 01:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• I am glad we finally see eye-to-eye on a few things. Also, I assure you I am not affliated with user:Mangerno. This user looks like user:VaughanWatch. ED209 01:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

ED209

The only interactions I've had with him have been over his legal threats. I don't have any input to the Vaughn nonsense. Sorry. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd support an RFC. -- JamesTeterenko 01:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

RoyalFrush

I agree, there are reasons to be suspicious, but I just don't like blocking accounts for sockpuppetry when the evidence isn't clear. Nothing sucks more for a legit newcomer than being mistaken for a sockpuppet. The one edit RF made wasn't abusive. Mangojuice^talk 00:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello

--Get-the-F-out-of-here 23:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

William Southgate

hi,

um, why did you leave a canned message on my talk page when that pages shows that I'm clearly not a new wikipedian and when I was following the instructions on [[9]] to the letter. (save bio template, edit it, comment out sections which don't have info yet)?? It would be better to wait at least half an hour brfore taking such action when a template is used. dramatic 02:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

=REMEMBER ME==

hey, it's Bob Santanos from '96! You know, respond on m y page, id love to talk again talk

Michael Chabon

I didn't add him, per se — I just revised a category that had already been placed there by someone else. For what it's worth, I think the article does address why the category's there; it made me do a double-take at first, too. Bearcat 07:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Canadian food articles

Hi, would you help me get some Canadian food articles to good article status?? --TheM62Manchester 15:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Page on Rabbi Steven Greenberg

I've been trying to remove libelous content from the page on Rabbi Greenberg. I'm new to Wikipedia, and not sure how to go about this. Can you help? It's in the "controversy" section. Unreferenced personal accounts being used as fact to make claims that aren't true. Thanks.Steviegee 16:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

sock puppets

I'm not sure how to do it, but since you just tagged User:Opli‎ look also at User:Pire (which currently contains VaughanWatch) and the edit history of User talk:The real Foohee --ArmadilloFromHell 04:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that was fast --ArmadilloFromHell 04:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know...

Your wikistress meter has exploded and gotten red on everything. I will send you the dry cleaning bill when it comes :) Teke ^(talk) 04:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

A stress cure

Perfectly percolated Esperanza blend coffee, just for you!

Everyone at Esperanza hopes this coffee will help lower your wikistress. Jam01 10:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Philo-Semitic

Hey there, I understand by your talk page that you seem very philo-semitic, i am jewish myself, and if you want me to help with your jewish studies id be more than happy to oblige Ahadland 23:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

York University

Thanks for removing the recent news item. I'd tried removing it myself but it got stuck back in and I did not know what to quote as a good reson for removal. --ArmadilloFromHell 16:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Question about Vaughan article

Hello Pm shef,

We met when you reported User:2Legit2Quit as a possible VW sockpuppet. I've been keeping an eye and he seemed to have quit editing on Sept 2. Interestingly, today User:ToLegitToQuit registered....

After seeing this, I again checked the Vaughan article. I noticed that you had reverted an edit by an anonIP — the edit was to the ethnicity table and you reverted it back to a table with entries on religious affiliation, not ethnicities. I'm a bit confused — the heading doesn't fit the table information. The section is "Demographics" and the accompanying text seems to be about ethnicity, not religion. Perhaps somewhere along the way, there was a mistaken revert?

— ERcheck (talk) 22:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The ref link in the Vaughan ethnicity table (currently ref #10) goes to 2001 Community Profile page for Vaughan. On that page, to the right, there is a box for Vaughan with three boxes to click on. If you click on the bottom box, "Additional data", a popup page comes up with a list of tables. Select table #8, "Ethnic Origins". This pops up a box that seems to have the exact information that the anonIP added. So, the ref link is ok for both the religion and the ethnicity. Seems then that both tables can be added. I think the reason that the editor didn't add a different ref is that the popup boxes don't come up with nav boxes with a URL. — ERcheck (talk) 01:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Election

• How is the election campaign going thus far? ED209 02:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Many Thanks

I've always found redirecting a bit tricky. --Pussy Galore 02:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

your old username

I've done this, though it probably isn't necessary, as you are the only person who knows the password -- but never mind; you're quite welcome etc. — Dan | talk 02:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)