User talk:Ground Zero/Archive 2

NCC

Glad to help. It was a fairly obvious case. The same editor created Ontarians for Responsible Government and pasted a copyrighted platform statement into it, so I'm afraid it is now blanked for copyvio. Cheers, -Willmcw 17:10, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

FYI, the copyright holder has given permission to use the material, so the article will someday revert to the original unencyclopedic content. I don't have the time, interest, or knowledge to write a reasonable stub, but someone is going to have to do so, or put it up for VfD. See the talk page. I really can't help, so this is just a heads-up. -Willmcw 00:46, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hello Kevin

I also hail from toronto. There is no doubt the bloc quebocois are on the right wing of the spectrum. Take a look at their platform to make sure. But I am certain that they are for lower taxes, less government interference, etc.

Reform Party edits, other matters

Kevin: Thanks. I've noticed that the frequency of bad/biased edits on Canadian political pages seems to be increasing in recent days -- which could be a sign that the parties are entering full spin mode with the new year, but could just mean that a few assorted hacks and dabblers have some extra hours at their disposal. (If you've seen the edits that I made to the Dalton McGuinty page yesterday, you'll know what I'm talking about -- this is what I meant when I was talking about my hypersensitivity toward bias on these pages.)

I imagine I'll have to spend at least another hour of my time adjusting these edits before the month is over ... CJCurrie 23:08, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Alberta elections

Hey, no worries...I just figured you'd used a Canadian federal election article as a copy and paste template, and forgotten to remove the federal category. I've done similar myself before. Bearcat 19:06, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Canada 1896 vs 1996 Liberals

Why 1996 instead of the original 1896? The Liberals took power in 1896; up to 2004 that is about 108 years. The Conservatives have been in power about 32 years of those 108 - Borden 1911-20 (9 years), Meighen (1 year 8 months), Bennett 1930-35 (5 years), Diefenbaker 1957-63 (6 years), Clark 1979/80 (9 months), Mulroney 1984-93 (9 years), Campbel 1993 (5 months) (see www.parl.gc.ca website). The date 1996 has no significance whatsoever. What was your reasoning, Kevin? --BrentS 22:47, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Alexander Graham Bell, Public School

Now it's really about the school in Ajax. (Though if deletionism doesn't drive out "* Public Schools," it would surely disambiguate others in the future...) Samaritan 06:50, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

BC Unity

Hey Kevin, just wondering where you saw that Delaney resigned as head of BC Unity. I don't see it on the Unity site or on the wire. - Jord 23:46, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That was a fair question. I had to search for a bit to find the source,and it is not the best source available, but it seems to be alright: letter from delaney I would prefer something more concrete, but it seems that these BC fringe parties are really slack about updating their websites.Kevintoronto 15:46, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hey no problem. Just curious where it was so I could see the details. I guess I am not too surprised, it was a pretty big flop for that merger to not go through. The Conservatives, one of the smallest parties in the province, would get to keep their name and absorb the 4th largest party... super deal for them and it didn't pass! Who would've thunk it!? - Jord 16:19, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Interesting point. They are ideologically comparable though. The problem in BC is that it is so easy to register a party that as soon as there is a little tiff in a party, people take their toys and start there own. Unity itself started as a merger of all the hard right parties (including the Conservatives) but they all quit pretty quickly. Oh well. - Jord 21:12, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dem Soc/Soc Dem

Hmm ... I hadn't realized the nature of this situation. My only concern was to purge what struck me as rather bad writing from the active page files (not quite as bad as "conservative-reform-populist", mind you, but bad all the same).

Perhaps both terms could be worked into these articles in a different way ... CJCurrie 22:42, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hopefully my recent spate of edits will have resolved the matter (for the moment, at least). CJCurrie 23:29, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A bit more on the DS/SD controversy ...

When I adjusted michaelm's edits yesterday, I was working from the assumption that the terms are more-or-less interchangeable in the Canadian context. While "ds" might be associated with the left-wing of the party and "sd" with its centre/right, this difference has always struck me as one of presentation and rhetoric, rather than of ideology or policy directives.

While I still hold this position vis-a-vis the Canadian context, I can also see how the larger meanings of the terms might necessitate some clarification.

For this reason, I would no longer object to rephrasing the intros for the provincial NDP pages to include both "sd" and "ds" links, should there be a general consensus that this is necessary/appropriate/helpful/whatever. (And providing the phrasing is better than "x is a soc-dem dem-soc party".)

Of course, I'd be equally content to let the matter drop. CJCurrie 23:19, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

DSers would, of course, be the left of SDers, but could you tell the difference if you met them at a party?

Not at a party, but possibly at a faction. <rimshot>

(And on that note, we can let the matter drop.) CJCurrie 19:17, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Occasional as it may be, my sense is that there's still enough implicit difference in ideology and policy directives. "Social democrat" has become comfortable enough garb for the moderately progressive centre-left – remember Ujjal Dosanjh insisting he was a social democrat as he filed for the Martin Liberals in Vancouver South? – where "democratic socialist" implies a continuing interest in public and/or worker ownership... Samaritan 18:55, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Kevin, I appreciate your note. You and I have both known michaelm's *abilities* and tendencies for a while now, having worked out with him on the Stronach article. First of all, let me say that I cannot abide seeing the two terms together in an article unless there is some explicit reason for it. The difference between their meanings is subtle enough to elude most Wikipedia readers. So having them together in an article scans poorly and is just plain cumbersome.

I figured out what michaelm was up to with his edits and then gradually pieced together what you, CJ and Samaritan had been telling him. I liked the way that CJ was working both terms into some of the articles, where appropriate. I decided that another approach would also be helpful. michaelm sometimes listens to me, so I made sure to tell him what I was doing. In some cases, a party would use one or other term in its constitution or on its website, so I would tell him that in the edit note. In other cases I simply said that use of both terms was unnecessary. Of course, I left the articles that CJ or Samaritan had already altered.

Good work, all, on this. I hope that it works. Sunray 16:23, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

Less backroom boys, more...

But remember when Mel Lastman tried to reunite the Spice Girls? :p Samaritan 00:34, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Re:1968 Liberal leadership thingy

The main reason I reverted your action was because of how you did it. You simply copied and pasted the text to the other name, this violates the GFDL as it breaks the article from its history. It is poor etiquette as it seemed as though you were claiming to be the sole author of the article. I don't care too much about the name, but I do think race is better than convention because the article covers far more than just the final event. - SimonP 19:39, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

I have moved the page to your suggested title, on reflection it is more accurate. - SimonP 20:17, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

OPC Convention Pages

Kevin: Just to let you know (in case you haven't been following the drama on the leadership conventions talk page), I've fixed the error. CJCurrie 01:10, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

2005 New Brunswick New Democratic Party leadership race

I have no problem moving the 2005 to the end of the article name, that was my preference in the beginning due to consistency with the election articles, however, I chose the above name because that was the name used by other articles on leadership. If you've changed the other leaderships, then I am all for it - so long as it is consistent across the board.

I struggled myself when naming the article as, I agree, "race" is not the most encyclopedic term. I prefer not to use convention as the article will describe the run up to the convention (which will be over a year as the NDP has recently announced the convention won't be help until fall) and, it is unclear whether or not there will be a convention. The NDP constitution allows quite a bit of leniency in determining the procedure, they may have a leadership "event" where the results are tabulated but it does seem they will be going with some form of OMOV as opposed to a delegated convention. What about "New Brunswick New Democratic Party leadership contest, 2005"? - Jord 18:25, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ok, go ahead and make it "New Brunswick New Democratic Party leadership election, 2005" - Jord 22:16, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

thumbs up* - Jord 17:01, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Members of the 38th Canadian Parliament and same-sex marriage

Thanks for the feedback, but I'm afraid I didn't change what you're asking me to change back. I only changed the text colour, not the background colour. Before, on my screen, the background was a lightish red and the text was a slightly less light red, making it unreadable. I changed the text to a dark red, making it contrast. The trouble with unlinked links not contrasting very much with the background was an existing problem that I didn't try to correct.

However, I agree that the unlinked links are very hard to read. I'll see what I can do to change that now. — Saxifrage | ☎ 23:06, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

My apologies, on reviewing the existing page I see that I did change the background, though inadvertently. I was experimenting with previews of several different colour schemes to try for the greatest contrast, and it looks like I save the wrong version. Still, on my screen the old background colour didn't contrast with the unlinked links enough to make it readable, so I'm still going to try to find a good lighter colour that should work on everyone's screens. — Saxifrage | ☎ 23:13, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

I've changed the backgound colour of the No votes. Unforunately it is impossible to get a good rich red colour and still have the red links readable, so it's a slightly orangey-pink colour. Not optimal, but I didn't want to change to a completely different colour scheme and any more orange would fail to contrast with the Undecideds. Even so, I had to tweak the Undecideds background colour to make sure it is visibly distinct. Does it work for you on your screen? — Saxifrage | ☎ 23:40, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for catching my inadvertent change and motivating me to do the makeover. Alas, no, I can't do much about the quantity of orangey-pink, as much as I might like to, as my MP is already voting the way she should. — Saxifrage | ☎ 03:35, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Gbambino

Hi Gbambino is new and therefore not familiar with Wikiquette. And, thankfully, he has now found the talk pages. I hope this is a case of Don't Bite the Newcomers, and, who knows, he may become a useful contributor in due course. Could I ask you to treat him with kid gloves on the talk pages - by all means disagree with him - but also guide him on Wikiquette too? All the best and many thanks, jguk 22:02, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

B.J. Eversole

I'm concerned about the VfD for Socialist Party of North Carolina leader B.J. Eversole. I hope I've expanded it into a credible treatment, I'm confident that his role is notable enough on its own, and we can see the threatening precedent a deletion would set for other minor party leaders. I hope you'll review the VfD and vote as you see best. Thanks. :) Samaritan 14:30, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Electoral districts

Hi Kevin, I had a question for you about the listings of MPs in federal electoral districts. Currently to my knowledge if a MP switches parties while still in the same riding we would note it as:

Stephen Harper, Canadian Alliance/Conservative, (2002-present)

Michaelm under the IP 24.222.32.245 has changed that to now read:

Stephen Harper, Canadian Alliance (2002-2003)
Stephen Harper, Conservative (2003-)

I wanted to double-check with you that the standard we've decided to use is the first, more concise way of showing that a MP switched parties. You can see examples of this in the ridings of Central Nova, Calgary Southwest, and Nanaimo—Alberni. Michaelm's way does have some merit, but I find myself on the side of conciseness on this matter. Thanks, Kurieeto 13:51, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Kevin, you made good points about the inclusion of more information. I'll take up the latter way as a standard way to show such changes, thanks! Kurieeto 12:18, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

List of Ontario Premiers

Hi Kevin, my pleasure. :-) --Death phoenix 05:11, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Federal elections charts

Hi Kevin, I'd be happy to weigh in on this issue. I have a couple of comments/questions for the vote first:

Provide a sample link, maybe to the Wikipedia:Sandbox, so we can see what link text looks like against the current and proposed colours.
Can I also provide a few suggestions? For instance, I like the colours provided in List of Ontario premiers, and would like to either look at those, or maybe make my own colours based on the official party colours.

I'm going to look at some other colours, and maybe give my own suggestions for some colours if that will help. Talk to you soon, Death phoenix 17:52, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

BTW, I would also like to propose that the Liberal party colour be changed from

lightcoral link redlink

to

#FFE8E8 link redlink

(this is based on the List of Ontario premiers colours, feel free to change to another colour if it conflicts with any other colours already being used in the federal lists). --Death phoenix 18:07, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi Kevin, I stuck a table in with your proposed colours. Do with the table what you will. :-) --Death phoenix 20:18, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Just a little bit of thanks for voting to keep the articles on Ike Awgu and Donna Upson. :) Earl Andrew 19:12, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well it's nice to see you watch the deletions list! I think the only succesful way that list is going to work is if we come across an article we care about on the votes for deltion list, we should add it. It is too much of a tedious task otherwise. Earl Andrew 19:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

UFP

I did not add nothing to the UFP this time I just makeing it neeter did you read it? The UFP also advocates pacifist[1] I did my reasearch - michaelm

REAL Women of Canada

is a Canadian conservative lobby group with social and economic issues.[2] [3] that whay its not just social conservative.

Hi Kevin, on the slimmest of bright sides at least the REAL Women article is no longer a stub after all of this. =/ Kurieeto 21:20, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

MV Abegweit

I'll clean it up and expand it a bit, just fixing the images would make a HUGE difference. With respect to a vote, no there wasn't. The bridge doesn't really effect New Brunswick but it had a huge cultural effect on PEI. Hardliners argued that "a fixed link to Canada would mean we were a peninsula not an island". Is there an article on that? It'd be worth noting that plans were underway to connect PEI to NB by tunnel in the 1890s but the government changed and cancelled the deal. - Jord 17:02, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ontario 1999 election

Kevin: I am, in fact, planning on writing a page for the Ontario Natural Law Party fairly shortly (though I suspect this will be mostly a rehash of the Ron Parker page and the federal party's page).

Strangely, I can't seem to find the official dates of registration/de-registration for the provincial party ... CJCurrie 21:09, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Concerning the Parker article: I can't think of any other circumstance where the words "was also given a Ph.D" come off quite so dry ... CJCurrie 22:11, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Federal elections charts 2

Hey Kevin, I just wanted drop you a line to let you know that I'd be happy to help you redo the colours for all the elections charts when we reach consensus on the talk pages. Please let me know if you need any help with anything. Cheers, Death phoenix 02:17, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hey Kevin, no need for the thanks yet. I've volunteered for the services, I haven't actually done anything yet. ;-) I've been thinking about doing these changes, and it's going to be a humdinger to replace all the colours on all the tables. I wonder if there's any way of applying a template (similar to CSS style sheets) so we can just apply, say, a variable or name instead of an actual colour. For example, if we decide to change the Conservatives (current) colour to lightskyblue, it would be nice to change the table cell into something like a class="conservatives_current", and keep the colour scheme for conservatives_current in one central file or template. That way, if people want to change the colours again, we can just change the colour in that central file and apply the changes globally. I don't know enough about Wikicode to know if this is actually possible, though. --Death phoenix 16:58, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay, this sounds like a question for the ~~help desk~~ Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). I'll post a question there. --Death phoenix 15:04, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi Kevin, take a look at the following answer from User:Rorro:

You could do it with templates. For instance, have a {{color/Liberal Party of Canada}} template containing

bgcolor="lightcoral"

or only "lightcoral". It might even be a good idea to generalise this to all kinds of organisations or concepts. _R_ 19:33, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In a nutshell, this means I can replace any instance of colour with a template. This still requires tedious manual changes of the code, but it also means we only have to do it once. After that, if we want to change the colours for all the tables, we just change the templates. I think one of our first steps after a clear consensus starts to form (four of us voted, all for B as the first choice), we should agree on a general format of name. I don't think we should confine ourselves to "color", maybe we should use "format" as the base, like {{format/Liberal Party of Canada}} or {{format/Canada/Liberal}} or something similar. What do you think? --Death phoenix 06:16, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Liberal Party

No worries about the harshness, I was wondering where it came from though, and had no intention of editing without knowing what I'm talking about. That was actually pretty big of you to apologise. Thanks Kanadier 2:00 3 Mar 2005

Conservative Party edit

Kevin: Actually, I made a mistake in my reversion -- I didn't realize the previous poster had duplicated some of the sub-headings (background, leaders, etc.), and thought you had accidentally deleted them. The Gallant addition was an afterthought. I realized my mistake immediately after sending the reversion, in any case.

(I'm stunned that our anonymous poster confused Gallant with Davies, btw ...) CJCurrie 20:49, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Chicago aldermen

Hi there! Since the discussion seemed finished, I've closed up the Wikipedia:Deletion_policy/Local_politicians discussion for now. I believe consensus has been established that local politicians deserve mention in Wikipedia, but not in a separate article UNLESS they have done something exceptional. Would you please check if you find this a reasonable conclusion, and leave a short note on that page's talk page? Thanks.

Yours, Radiant! 10:12, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip

Kevin, thanks for letting me know about over-linking. i was linking as many words as i thought would have or should warrant articles, as i envisioned wiki being a good resource for children, or second language users as you mentioned on your user title page. but with the policy in place that one's to keep it to 10% or so as a rule of thumb, i shall duly undo the damage i caused on the canada article and others. very grateful, matthew

VfD on C-38

Possibly, it's the first thing that came to mind for me when you suggested it. --Spinboy 21:11, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with it transwiki, because then it set's a precedent, and will they really transwiki --all-- the election related articles? --Spinboy 16:56, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good point about the Conservatives

Thay were ment to be more right-wing then the CA's However thay got 98 red and blue torys and 1 Social Democrat in the party if the Social Democrat cross the floor to the NDP then the Conservative will go more to the right and the NDP will go sharpley to the left think you for pointing that out Kevintoronto.Michaelm 03:31, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

RfC: Michaelm

I have filed a Request for Comment against User:Michaelm. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Michaelm. Lacrimosus 23:28, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Kudos

Nice work on wheels you're doing, Thue. Thanks, Kevintoronto on wheels.

No problem; I was on a roll :). Thue | talk 23:35, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Elections, sockpuppets, and colours, oh my!

No problems. I would think sockpuppets are more for things like VfDs, but I guess people will resort to sockpuppetry for anything. As for what we use, using the weighted system, they have the same weight, but B has four first choice votes, while C has two first choice votes. I would go with B because of that. It's a shame that B and C can't really be integrated together in the template without including WikiTable code in the template. If we want to make it easy for people to switch between B and C as consensus dictates, I might be able to come up with a template that includes WikiTable code. --Death phoenix 15:36, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

MS123

Dear Mr. KevenToronto Reading your comments was a bit disturbing to me. I apologise if I seem abit too agressive at times. Most of the edits I do are offline (ex.I made most of the seating plans of the Legislative assemblies), and so I am rarely logged on. It may have been when I am logged on that I may have said somethings, that when they stand alone may seem overly agressive. My remarks about the colours require two things explained. First of all, I have no problem with the colours that are being voted on changed. The problem is I don't like the new proposed colours. Sorry! My page was a qiuck edit in order to put something on there (again Im not logged in much). As for the CCF, well no one has found a problem with it, and no one but you responded (thanx by the way) and so I wasn't waiting for someone to respond 3 or 4 months down the road. (Impulsive not agressive)As for the two voters who are said to be sockpuppets, well that disturbs me very much, and I want you to know that I had no hand in it. sincearly, the guy who never signs his name!

Apologies accepted as offered on the comments. Like you, I'm not crazy about the separatist/nationalist parties being purple, but other people didn't like the turquoise I had proposed, so I accepted that as a compromise. Having started the ball rolling on changing colours, I have to accept that the result won't necessarily be that of my choosing. In fact, it looks like we'll end up with Option C, which was my third choice, but I have to accept that as the consensus. The reason I try to be patient about implementing changes like these is that I don't want to come back a couple of days later and find that someone has gone and reverted all of my work. I prefer to make a proposal, and see if someone objects, or if someone can improve upon it.
As far as the sock puppets are concerned, I've set out the evidence on the Talk page, and it seems to point clearly in the direction of someone who wanted to subvert the vote rather than in the direction of people who honestly wanted to participate in the discussion. You seemed to be the most likely candidate, given the timing. If it was someone trying to make you look like an uncollaborative asshole, then I apologize. Kevintoronto 20:59, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding

MS123 21:02, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ontario election stubs

Kevin: As per my comments on the 1867 page, I no longer think that a second vote is needed. (I'd also recommend going with the "single column on the left hand side" option; it's what we voted for, after all, and from my perspective looks more professional). At this point, I'd support creating the early stubs on the template you've proposed. CJCurrie 23:54, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

History of South Africa

Hello, I saw that you recently edited History of South Africa. I'm attempting to completely rewrite the article to deal with the fairly shaky organisation of the current version. I would appreciate all assistance you can offer with edits to my interim version before I post it on the History of South Africa article. The version I am working on can be accessed here. Thank you so much! Páll 09:24, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Elections tables

Re: your comments..

I was experiencing the same problems - errors seemed to be there when the page was displayed, but in an edit preview, it seemed fine. They seem to have gone away altogether now. Do you still see them?

On #2 - certainly add a candidates column. The only reason one is not there is because I had done a cut and paste of the table, I was wondering the other day why that column was missing. - Jord 22:26, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi Kevin,

No worries. I didn't know that 1943 is included in your list. I actually probably won't be doing much these next few days, but I'll try to pitch in when I can. --Death phoenix 03:33, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Italian Social Republic

The image you liked has been moved to the Decima Flottiglia MAS page, where it belongs to; the current image is more strongly related. It would be better inserting a link from ISR to DFM. -Panairjdde 15:13, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The DFM was based in Northen Italy (Venice, I think). When Italy signed the armistice, most of the DFM men and armaments stayed with the North, which become the Italian Social Republic. They were used mainly for anti-partisan actions. --Panairjdde 16:02, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Republik Maluku Selatan

Why did you merge this article into South Molluccas, as opposed to the other way around? siafu 19:19, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ernie Eves

Hey Kevintoronto,

Are you referring to this?

Concerned about returning to the Legislature, Eves' advisors instead hatched a public relations disaster. They convinced the Premier to have Minister of Finance Janet Ecker present the government's 2003 budget at a televised press conference at the headquarters of auto parts maker Magna International (whose CEO was prominent Tory supporter Belinda Stronach) instead of in the legislature. The "Magna Budget" resulted in accusations that the government was trying to avoid the scrutiny of the legislature and was flouting centuries of parliamentary tradition in favour of a PR stunt. Furthermore, the expense of this move was condemned as a waste of money considering that the legislative chamber was already equipped with video equipment for televised coverage. The "Magna Budget" was intended to launch a provincial election campaign, but was so poorly received that the election was delayed until the autumn.

Attacks came from not only the opposition parties and the media but from one of Eves' own MPPs, Gary Carr. As Speaker of the legislature, Carr ruled that the government's actions were prima facie in contempt of the legislature. (Subsequently, a whipped PC majority voted in the Legislature that the government's actions did not, in fact, constitute contempt.) The budget was meant to be the launch of a spring election campaign, but was so poorly received that Eves was forced to delay the election.

I edited it because it sounded repetitive--no significant difference. - {not signed by User:Blueboy96]]}

Got it. Thanks.

Ernie Eves Page

Understood. My apologies. CJCurrie 23:26, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support and editing

Thanks for improving the article I started on myself, and supporting it in the VfD. After my mistake last fall, when I first started to contribute to Wikipedia, I tried to proceed with much caution in approaching the topic again. Now that I think there are valid reasons for it to be included, and that I've become a lot more familiar with the ways of WP, I felt ready to do it properly. So, thanks again for the help - and for your guidance and contributions on WP. - GrantNeufeld 23:55, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Soviet Canuckistan & Amerime

I left a little note on the VfD page, but since you seemed downright bitter I thought I might explain myself. The first thing is that I made up amerime and used Wikipedia to propagate the term. I wasn't supposed to do that, and I haven't been doing that anymore. Really.

So I hold myself to a higher standard now, and I thought about SC for a while before I nominated it, and came to well thought out, if not actually correct, conclusion that it was just another piece of random political administrivia. We're really good at producing that sort of thing here in America (see: Cheese eating surrender monkeys) and I guess I just thought it was something we could do without. I wasn't strickly against it (read my VfD nom again, if you like), but I just wsn't sure if it was worth keeping.

So: I'm not playing 'holier-than-thou'; I don't use the WP to make up words anymore, and I turned all the words I made up over to the VfD a while back anyway.

And my name, ironically, is also Kevin.

Best of luck to you,

-Litefantastic 16:38, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1990 Ontario election

[note taken from the 1990 election talk page]

Kevin,

With respect, I'm going to have to disagree with this judgement call on this one.

I've started to create "list pages" for a number of fringe party candidates in the 2003 Ontario election, and I'm pondering the option of doing the same for earlier cycles as well (and for major parties). Keeping the redlinks active would be useful to this end.

Some of these candidates have campaigned in multiple elections, meaning that their redlinks from earlier cycles can be useful as instant connectors, when the list articles are written [Nunzio Venuto, from this list, provides one such example]. Beyond which, there are a number of major-party candidates who have gone on to successful runs after an initial losing campaign -- keeping the redlinks active is also useful for such people.

Given that the redlinks already exist, it seems more reasonable to keep them than to fill in the blue links individually, as the need emerges.

As to the second point (ie. the possibility of misdirects), there is a solution here as well: I *regularly* go over these pages to correct any such developments. I can vouch that, as of last night, there were *no* misdirects on any of the Ontario pages from 1990 to 2003: every blue link on these pages led exactly where it should lead.

I understand where you're coming from on this, but my view is that the change (i) is unnecessary, and (ii) could be an inconvenience for future plans that I have for these pages.

I'm going to revert the page, as such. No personal disrespect is intended. CJCurrie 20:32, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I might add that I was planning on adding the 1987 candidate list today. CJCurrie 20:43, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Taking it to the discussion board might be useful, though I have a feeling it could skew the result (ie. editors who don't normally follow political edits would might automatically vote to delete anything that seems "borderline".) Perhaps we could seek the opinions of a few other "political regulars" instead. CJCurrie 21:03, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PEI election

Ah, yes. Thanks for your feedback, I'll change the tables to meet the new "standard". Great work so far, by the way. --Death phoenix 18:24, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the feedback, I forgot that we were actually changing the format of the entire table and not merely the templates. --Death phoenix 18:47, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I think leaving in blank data might encourage others to fill it in as appropriate. If I were to look at an article, and didn't see any blank columns, I wouldn't know that it's missing any data. If I see blank columns, I'd be encouraged to find the data and fill it in. --Death phoenix 19:11, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

External links

I wouldn't mind if these links would be transferred to the articles on parties concerned. Election World 21:49, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I deleted most of the links. I couldn't find the last two parties.Election World 22:00, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
deleted another one. Election World 22:01, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Election charts revisions

Allow me to be the first to welcome you under your new name. :-) You've convinced me about bolding the After seats as well. Thank goodness I only actually finished two pages, so it didn't take much backtracking. --Death phoenix 21:34, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I believe it's the same shade as that used for the overall elections result tables. If oyu want the exact shade, it's (pulled from the template) darkgray. --Death phoenix 21:55, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

--Spinboy 22:15, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your Name

Hi Ground Zero. I found this a little funny. Your username is the same as a small news website my dad started, Ground Zero Website. Maybe you can check it out some time? Anyway, good luck with your edits, articles, etc. --Zeerus 15:18, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

RE:templates

Thanks for your message. While I appreciate your viewpoint, you are clearly wrong, the template Commonwealth Realms is for a particular category of country that shares a head of state, and has nothing to do with foriegn affairs, even if the other countries are foriegn states. While I appreciate that you have not aggressively edited the said pages, I am afraid SimonP's actions are. He has changed many different country pages, just so that they fit his own viewpoint on what is important. I too, like to dicuss rather than revert, but SimonP does not share this, and has consistently vandalised pages by removing templates and upsetting many differnet editors other than myself. I am too busy to go back and keep changing his reverts, so I guess they will stand. Although I note that many editors other than myself have reverted his vandalism. Astrotrain 16:18, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

John Baird

The National Post reported today that Baird will run for the federal Tories in Ottawa West-Nepean. Presumably this means he's a candidate for the nomination since there's been no nomination meeting yet. I'm trying to indicate that in the 2005 election article. AndyL 13:20, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I thought italics were people who've announced they are running for a party nomination but haven't been nominated yet (I thought that was how we did it last election but I don't remember). AndyL 13:35, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

I just wanted to drop by and thank you for your support on the Commonwealth realms template issue. - SimonP 02:48, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Major James Coldwell

It was sheer stupidity on my part. As they say, "assume makes an ass of 'U' and me"! I'll move it back. Deb 21:19, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

abusive ?

If you tork me that way then I'm sorry I did not meen it that way

I apologize

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

About the Prince Edward Island Draft Beer Party. - Stancel 17:15, 3 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Michaelm

Those are pretty much my feelings as well. Thankfully, the period of conflict I've had w/ him over social democracy has come to a close, and frankly, I really don't want to get involved in another ArbCom case. I will of course offer you moral support, but I think the Canadian editors are best positioned to thrash out a solution. Oh, and you're welcome - thanks for your support, as well. Cheers, Slac speak up! 23:43, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Moderate Party

It was change because in the Sweden's wikipedia it was labeled as a conservative party (Konservativa partier) under Categories and thay stared to privatiz health care under that government in sweden and its International alignment is the IDU hear is some links [4][5] [6]

co-operative

I will be co-operative and reasonable and I just log on at 03:55 and I will work with you to billed a stronger encyclopedia with research. And I should not be so unilateral. I don't think Mediation or Arbitration is needed because I will be more then willing to help. If Mediation is need I will do it.Michaelm 04:48, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have responded at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Michaelm. Ground Zero 16:23, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

VfD

In response to your comments on my talk page: I don't think nominations can be withdrawn. But I did say in my original nomination that it should be kept if re-written and all the voters have agreed, so its not going to get deleted. I guess the VfD just needs to be left to run. David Johnson [T|C] 21:59, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Queen's University, Canada article

Thank you for doing the edit to the article. I have since restored some points that you removed with clear attributation of opinions to the correct parties. I have not re-added the "reduced possible representation" point, although I am not sure that the point is obvious from the current article. I concede that the previous edit implied that the AMS decided to hold the vote to reduce representation; however, it is a fact that, by statistics, the possible representation of the population of students at the AGM is less than that of a school-wide referendum. Regarding "opt-outable"—I believe it is a fee category proper of the Office of the University Registrar.

I have no objections to moving the article to [[Queen's University at Kingston]]; however, I believe that is used to be there and was moved to [[Queen's University]] based on a policy that requires the most commonly associated meaning of a title be given the main title (and relegates the other articles to a dab page). —UTSRelativity 16:40, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, UTSR. I had removed some points completely becuase they were clearly POV and I don't know enough about the situation to NPOV them. I had invited Arctic.gnome to revise the article, since s/he seemed to know about the situation, but got no response. I think there probably is way too much information on this incident that is realteively minor in the history of the institution, so I figured there was little harm in trimming it down. While "opt-outable" may be a word at Queen's, we're writing for a broader audience here, so we should try to avoid language that is obscure. To know what "opt-outable" means, you would have to understand that AMS members can opt out of certain fees. That is not something that everyone is going to know about, other than Queen's students and alumni.

As far as the name goes, I don't want to revisit old issues. But the article is not called "Queen's University", it is "Queen's University, Canada". The first one, oddly, is a redirect to the second. I think tht it would make more sense to have "QU" as a dismbiguation page, and the "QU, C" article remnamed to "QU at K", since no-one ever calls it "Queen's University, Canada". To me, it makes more sense given the presence of two institutions of the same name to use their full names for clarity. Ground Zero 19:43, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I actually didn't notice the name. I agree that "QU, C" should be renamed to "QU at K", but I think "QU" should stay a redirect (to either "QU at K" or the dab page). I can't remember where the policy about dab pages is. As for the amount of material regarding the Queen's Centre, I think the information is relevant (we all know the "Wikipedia is not paper" argument). Perhaps as the Centre develops, it will warrant a separate article. —UTSRelativity 20:12, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd agree that the centre should get its own article, at least so that it doesn't unbalance the main article. I am not, by nature, a deletionist. Only when it comes to POV stuff. Ground Zero 20:48, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Chart

Hello, thanks for the props. I made the chart based on my knowledge of the parties that I have accumulated. I only know the Liberals for sure are correct, because that's where Paul Martin is located on the chart at the political compass site. [7] If you disagree with any of the locations please let me know on the image's discussion page. I have already made some changes based on what User:Liberlogos had said. I created primarily for the debate factor in actual fact, and hoped that we could come up with a concensus over where each party belongs on the chart. -- Earl Andrew - talk 22:04, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see you points. It would involve some squishing of the images, but I think I could change it a bit. I didn't want the PCP out that far, but that's where I had room for it. --

Earl Andrew - talk 22:34, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User page edit

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Opps, I'm just used to seeing user pages with invitations to edit. Sorry. — Flag of Scarborough, ON, Canada UTSRelativity (Talk) 22:23, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But if we can't edit your user page, how can we borrow some of those commas? ;) -Joshuapaquin 01:21, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Ummm... you've got me there. Jeez -- do you expect me to be consistent and everything? Ground Zero 13:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

BCDM

No personal attacks. I an offended that you would charge that this would be Spinboyopedia. --Spinboy 17:31, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I will withdraw that remark. Will you stop accusing me of using Wikipedia as a soapbox for a defunct political party? Ground Zero 17:32, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --Spinboy 17:34, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See the article's talk page. --Spinboy 17:34, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I note that I did not violate the 3RR. The other editor in this dispute was removing content repeatedly without explanation. Ground Zero 18:09, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And no, Spinboy never did apologize for his accusation, or for his repeated violations of Wikipedia etiquette. Ground Zero 19:56, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rochdale College

Its a drag that you put the NPOV tag on the page but it probably needed it since one or more no-name editors are indeed trying to revise history, epsecially the Drug Culture section. Thanks for keeping an eye on the page and just wanted to let you know I revised the Drug Culture section once again but this time I used quotations from media sources and cited the sources so hopefully this will lead to the end of the disputes.

extreme article editing action!

GZ,

Thanks for for the good edits you've made to the Canadian Extreme Wrestling Party page -- I had planned on going back later and trying to make something of its atrocious grammar and mechanics later, but you beat me to it! -- — I. Neschek | talk 15:45, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Paddy Roberts

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

What to make of this? Samaritan 16:38, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll try to tidy it up later today. Samaritan 18:28, 1 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

...by the way (sort of), somebody seemed to be trying to put Prince Edward Island Draft Beer Party up on vfd the other day but were not following the procedure to do so or leaving any explanation, so I pulled it. Samaritan 18:30, 1 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

templates substituted by a bot as per Wikipedia:Template substitution Pegasusbot 04:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Rhino

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A tag has been placed on Template:Canadian politics/party colours/Rhino requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.