HistoryBA

User talk:HistoryBA/Archive (May to October 2004)

JillandJack

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that JillandJack has been blocked for being a reincarnation of the banned User:DW. Adam Bishop 00:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Governor-General

Sir David Smith, as Private Secretary to five Australian Governors-General, has gained some background knowledge of the office and has been active on the monarchist side of things here. However he has some excellent commentary on the events of 1926-1931, and he takes the trouble to cite his sources. Skyring 00:57, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cnda

Thank you for chopping that down. It needs a regular and ruthless pruning. I do want to point out, though, that Commonwealth Realm and "member of the Commonwealth of Nations" are different things. It won't be long before some granny from the Monarchist League comes back to put that and "Dominion of Canada" back in. Keep up the good work. Ground Zero 01:38, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Conservative Party of Canada

I think it's fair to say that the birth of the right-wing vote split in Canada lies between the 1988 election (Mulroney holds his majority, Reform is a fringe movement) and the 1993 election (Campbell blown out, Reform up 17%). That would make the 1988 election the last time there was a single significant right-of-center opponent for the Liberals, no? -The Tom 04:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pierre Trudeau

Hist, according to the Royal Society of Canada article, "Francophone Fellows use MSRC for Membre de la Société royale du Canada. The postnomial is usually not translated but is kept in the language of the Fellow." Ground Zero 07:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for this explanation, which makes sense to me. Of course, the issue of Trudeau's maternal language is not a simple one. He always refused to say which was his first language. English Canadians always assumed it was French, but many Quebec nationalists thought it was English (the language he used to communicate to his mother, hence his "mother tongue"). HistoryBA 23:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

re Foreign relations of Canada and Trudeau. Sure Dief sold wheat to anybody; he was from Saskatchewan! I doubt though that he would ever have recognized communist China or been chummy with Castro's Cuba. Come on, Pierre Trudeau made big changes in Canada's foreign policy, changes Lester B. Pearson would never have made. Trudeau enjoyed being a contrarian - no other PM has been quite so friendly towards Cuba. China is so big and important, who could dare ignore it, especially after Nixon's initiative. Trudeau wanted to pull out of NATO to the horror of his officials. However, I will leave it to others to expand the post-Pearsonian diplomacy discussion as it does not particulary interest me. There is much to be said. The article is still rather sketchy.--BrentS 01:16, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ou est Ryan Stumpf? John wesley 13:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Lester Pearson

Hello! Judging by your edit summaries, my changes to Pearson's article have somewhat annoyed you. I apologize, as it was not at all my intention to in any way make the article inferior. I've always admired Pearson, and I'm getting some reference works to hopefully bump this article up to FA status. While I wait, I'm extending the article from the Nobel article about him and other reliable sources. If you have any problems, please get a hold of me. Best Wishes --Scimitar 19:36, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Okay, I understand. Absolutely modify my work; my aim is not pushing my own viewpoints but the somewhat higher goal of presenting the best information possible about the person, and I'm as prone to error as anyone else. Thanks for your interest and I welcome any improvements to my edits or to the article that you make. Also, thanks for responding so quickly. --Scimitar 19:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Goods and Services Tax (Canada)

H., I have re-worked this article to add back in the detail that you removed. I don't agree that content should be removed from Wikipedia articles just because not everyone will understand it. This is a major tax -- I think about $15 billion -- and is deserving of a detailed article. Having said that, I agree with you that the article was getting confusing, so I have re-worked it to try to make it easier to follow, while maintaining the detail. By breaking it into sections, it is easier for those who don't want the detail on the structure of the tax to skip forward to the political stuff. It could probably still do with further improvement. Regards, Ground Zero | t 18:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

RfC

Hi. I've noticed your RfC and request for guidance. Not being used to use it myself, I believe you would like to use the common RfC page layout, which you can find at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example user. Nabla 01:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey. Noticed the same. I've moved the RfC you filed back into the "Candidates" section because it hasn't yet met the two-person threshold to continue as a valid RfC. You obviously should certify the basis for the dispute, since you're the one who filed it, so sign that section with ~~~~. At least one other user -- in this case, probably either Saxifrage or HOTR -- should also certify the version of events you've presented. You should let them know you've filed the RfC on their Talk pages, and you can point them to it with a link so they can read through what you've written and endorse it themselves if they so choose.

In the interest of politeness, you should also give the user about whom you've filed the RfC a heads-up on his Talk page, preferably with a link to the RfC. Hope that helps.--chris.lawson 01:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

AVD

I've clashed with AVD before and took him to the ArbComm so I know where you're coming from. However, he seems to think that I am the main instigator behind all his trouble here. I think if he's to be convinced that his behaviour is a problem I can't be involved, otherwise, he'll just dismiss any process as my pursuing some sort of campaign aginst him. Homey 20:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

You might want to ask User:Saxifrage and/or User:Ground Zero if they wish to certify. I'd prefer to stay out of it even though AVD seems determined to draw me in. Homey 00:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

"even though AVD seems determined to draw me in" What? What have you been smoking? You pushed your way in like a bull in a china shop. Don't blame your posts on me.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 05:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I don't think that all the evidence presented is relevant to his current behaviour (though I have been absent the past week and a bit), but I do agree that his handling of disputes is detrimental to himself and Wikipedia and does exhibit a pattern. Even though I can't quite endorse the RfC with the way the evidence is presented, I've added my own two cents and I hope they'll serve the same purpose of bringing Don around.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 03:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

RFAr

I am letting you know that I have filed Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:ArmchairVexillologistDon_-_Reopening. Zach (Sound Off) 08:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Bev Desjarlais

Hi,

When I wrote the original Desjarlais page, the fact that she didn't attend College or University struck me as unusual enough in a modern-day politician to warrant mention. It wasn't meant as POV or a disparaging remark. That said, I can see how it would be taken that way -- and I don't have a problem with your decision to remove it. CJCurrie 00:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Interflop

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! (I deleted the page, in the end.) Andre (talk) 00:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. In this particular case, it wasn't a duplicate, there was no previous legitimate version, I didn't know enough about the subject to substitute appropriate content or to determine whether there was any hope for the page. It was clear, however, that all the content was inappropriate. HistoryBA 00:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

It's fine, but in the future, use {{delete}}. Andre (talk) 01:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Will do. HistoryBA

Blackface "affect"

Hi, HistoryBA! I appreciate your efforts to simplify the excessively academic and (as you say) pompous language that crops up around here. Your edit to Blackface will probably be reverted soon, though. User:deeceevoice is very attached to the word (see the drubbing I received here and the equally unproductive discussion here, as well as the various comments here). I have argued that the word is a detriment to the article because the average reader will not understand it, but to no avail. I'm sure a consensus could change it, but is it worth the effort? —HorsePunchKid→龜 19:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on Blackface. I know nothing about the subject, but do like to bring some common sense to things, even if it takes some effort. HistoryBA 20:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Mock-orange

Hi History - hyphens (or ndashes, if they're easy to type, which they aren't on my keyboard) are correct between figures. The construction " to " is correct with spelled-out numbers, e.g. "two to five", but combining figures with words (either "two-four" or "2 to 4") is grammatically incorrect - MPF 17:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

BTW, there's about 10,000 other articles on wikipedia with the format "2-4" :-) MPF 17:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The rule, as I understand it, is that you use "to" if you have introduced the range with "from." If there is no "from," you can use the en dash. I have already provided you with some evidence on this point and will provide more references here. It would be helpful if you'd provide some evidence to support your case, rather than just saying that your position is "correct" and mine is

References:

"Note that in running text, the en dash or hyphen is not an acceptable substitute for the word to unless the numbers are in parentheses."[1]

"If you’re using an en dash, you don’t need the words from or between."[2]

"... when a number, letter, or date is preceded by the word from, use the word to instead of a hyphen."[3]

HistoryBA 19:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't have any on-line links I can refer you to, but I have dozens of botanical textbooks, and they all use hyphens/ndashes for ranges of numbers. It also follows the same style used on thousands of other wiki pages about plants and animals, etc. PS "gramatically incorrect." is itself gramatically incorrect, it is not "gramatically incorrectfullstop", but "gramatically incorrect" - see the Wiki Manual of Style :-) MPF 20:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

(1) This isn't a botanical textbook; it is encyclopedia. Do you have dozens of encyclopedias that use the en dash to indicate a range of numbers when it is not preceeded by the word from? (2) If I correct those "thousands" of Wikipedia pages that use the en dash incorrectly, will you stop making the claim that this use of the en dash is correct? (3) How does your point about the use of punctuation inside the quotation marks advance this discussion, other than to say that you have caught me an unrelated error? HistoryBA 13:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Canadian English

Hey, no worries...I've done similar silly things myself in the past. I've more than once used "whoops" as an edit summary, put it that way :-) Bearcat 02:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

CPC

I was giving some thought to reverting all of Michaelm's latest edits to the Conservative Party of Canada article. I don't think that they improve it. What do you think? Ground Zero | t 14:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I do agree with one of the edits, which was to remove the Belinda Stronach and Paul Martin picture, which I thought had little to do with the history of the party. As for the rest, I say revert them. HistoryBA

Disambiguating abbreviations

You contributed to the TFD discussion for {{2LCdisambig}}. I am following this with further discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Abbreviations. Susvolans ⇔ 18:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Baghdad Railway

I assume you disagree.Bcameron54 20:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

At the very least I would say that it is a POV statement. There are hundreds of books on the origins of World War I. How many accept this argument? HistoryBA 21:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. History is POV - see EH Carr's "What is History?" ISBN: 0140135847. Of the hundreds of books on the origin of WWI out there, most are from the English POV and in the English language, which could possibly be biased being of the victors. AJP Taylor is exceptionally authoritative, and has famously written in "War by Timetable" the loudest spoken theory that it began as an inevitable dominoe effect of interlocking treaties, leading to mass mobilization, and then a logistically unavoidable German invasion of Belgium due to rail incapacity, and the presence of only one existing logistical plan for invasion to follow. How innocent - avoids any blaming, intent, or even consciousness. Before we accept a poll of writings as the best evidence of truth, look at 'cui bono' to evaluate motive from consequence. Empires do not go to war because of existing treaties and alliances, they do so to defend their current interests. A good introduction to an alternate analysis is "A Century of War" by Wm Engdahl, ISBN: 0-7453-2309-X. Bcameron54 22:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia policy, articles should be NPOV, and not present "alternative" analyses as fact. HistoryBA 23:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

"Alternative" to what? This is an alternate historical analysis. It is not an "alternative" to the facts. The antagonistic policies of Britain towards the Baghdad Railway project by Germany are fact. Its economic intent for Germany is fact. Its potential economic consequence for Britain is obvious. Its interruption and then its undoing by WWI is fact. Well thought out and referenced alternate analyses in history should be recognised not in a diminishing sense, or simply deleted as pseudohistory, or we lose the balance and broad perspective that makes history more than one-sided revisionist propaganda. Is there room in Wikipedia policy to accomodate bona fide "alternates", or else whose version of the facts and analyses must we stick to?Bcameron54 00:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

"Alternative is your word, not mine. It is not a fact that the Baghdad railway caused World War I. To the best of my understanding of this place, it is not intended to test "alternatives" without clearly identifying them as such, which you have not done. HistoryBA 02:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

My word was "alternate". As you follow so many contributions, you will note I have used the heading "Alternative" elsewhere where that was appropriate. I originally used the word 'link' to connect an assassination in the Balkans and a rivalry become a war between UK and Germany, with their economic rivalry manifest in the Baghdad railway. You inferred or queried causation, which I did not state. However, looking at the breadth, low level and manic (POV) quantity of your contributions list, this is my last word for you: philistinism. Bcameron54 03:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I stand corrected. You did say "alternate," not "alternative." I am not sure, however, how this changes the meaning of the sentence in which I used the word. I would remind you of two things about Wikipedia: (1) it is an encyclopedia, not a place to test "alternate" analyses, and (2) uncivil comments (such as "low level," "manic" or "philistinism") have no place in this community. HistoryBA 13:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

MacEachen

My bad on the MacEachen article...good catch.Habsfannova 23:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

No problem. I'm glad to help. HistoryBA 00:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The Right Honourable

I think the rationale for removing "The Right Honourable" is presumbly the same as not calling other people "Mr" at the start of their articles; he's automatically a "right hon." by virtue of being a Baron, so we don't need to say it explicitly. -- The Anome 18:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. Would this also apply to cabinet ministers, who must be members of the privy council and, therefore, Right Honourable? HistoryBA 18:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Paul Martin pic

Your edit of the Paul Martin picture on Canada causes the link to be broken, so no picture appears inctead of my link, which is the correct one. If this were coming from a unknown editor, I would assume it to be vandalism. For you, I assume that you do not realise that you have done this. Is there a reason for this? Ground Zero | t 16:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I didn't know I had done that. HistoryBA 16:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

No harm done then. I've put it back. Ground Zero | t 16:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Is it possible that we were editing at the same time and I was editing a version of the page that existed before your edit? I certainly didn't touch the picture. HistoryBA 16:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

GG

Good save. My concern about just saying the first ex GG to re-enter politics is I think some of the old British appointed GGs (maybe not GGs appointed to Canada but certainly some of the GGs in the Empire) later served as cabinet ministers in the UK. Homey 15:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. HistoryBA 23:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

G8 Tag

Oh, ok. I just noticed that the only article using the tag was United States and thought whomever created it had not added it to every article. Thanks. -- PRueda29 ^Ptalk29 00:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Meech Lake

Hello. I think that the article on Meech Lake needs to be expanded, so I've created a sandbox to help put my ideas down so it doesn't mess up the main article. I'd appreciate it if you want to add any corrections/additional information.Habsfannova 06:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll do what I can. HistoryBA 20:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Your request to delete List of interracial, interethnic or intercultural couples

I just saw your question you made on that article's talk page a few weeks ago. To list an article for deletion, follow the instructions at Template:AfD in 3 steps. However, WP:NPOV states that lack of neutrality is not an excuse to delete an article, since a lot of Wikipedia articles deal with controversial subjects. For example, Asian fetish recently survived an AfD. --Idont Havaname 23:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Vietnam Era

The quote in the Canadian Forces article was incorrect and you were right to remove it. However, use of "Vietnam era" to refer to Canadian equipment is perfectly acceptable. We used M113 APCs from the US, PRC-25 radios (what we called the 77 Set), 1960s US camo covers and M1 steel helmets - in other words, much of our kit in the 1970s and as late as the 1990s was directly cast off from US Army surplus. Other equipment was designed in the US during Vietnam - we still use the M35 truck for example, though they were built in Canada and slightly different from the US versions (ie hard tops, no .50 ring mounts, 6 wheels vice 10). I think "Vietnam era" perfectly describes much of the equipment we used in the 1970s to 90s, it is, however, no longer true. Also, Canada DID have soldiers in Vietnam, interestingly enough (given our membership in NATO) serving alongside Warsaw Pact soldiers, as part of the truce supervisory organization there in the early 1970s. Given our shared culture with the US and the large impact the Vietnam War had on Canadian daily life (military service became very unpopular in Canada, we were host to thousands of US "draft dodgers" and also had thousands of Canadians go south to join the US forces), I think we can safely use "Vietnam era" in regards to Canadian history and expect people to understand what is meant. We watched Laugh-In and Johnny Carson and the US news programs too.Michael Dorosh 03:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I am sure you will agree that the general reader will not understand that "Vietnam-era," in the context of an article about the Canadian military, refers to Laugh-In, Johnny Carson, and the US news programs. Without the explanation you provide above, the reader might well conclude that Canada was at war in Vietnam, and not just sending a handful of truce supervisors. HistoryBA 23:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Causes of WW I

You are right, Social Darwinism did not grow out of nationalism, they just sort of found each other in place and time. I think it is worth mentioning their togetherness, as they interacted. Is that fair? Bcameron54 03:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage on FAC

I have nominated the article Same-sex marriage in Canada as a feature article. Ardenn 19:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Canadian Political Rich List

Because of potential threat of litigation, until legal advice can be had on this, the Wikipedia entry, the only possible Canadian politician who has publicly acknowledged his wealth, other than Belinda Stronach, was PM Paul Martin. Former PMs have threatened constant litigation when their financial affairs, righftully or wrongfully, are attempted to be known, as premiers, and mayors, which makes this list very difficult to create, without threats to Wikipedia as a whole. So much for the belief in Canadian press freedom. Google "Richest Canadian politicians" or "rich + Canadian + politicians" and see what comes up, little. However, there is hope, one of the Canadian journalism schools might receive a grant to create and maintain a list of the wealth of Canadian politicians - with enough citations and enough proof, that Wikipedia can cite those sources without fear of litigation.

As well, there is no rich list of American or English politicians either. So that indicates the challenges ahead.

If you can add citations to this article, or more material, please do. However, in Canada the law is that assessing the wealth of politicians, over or under, or their families, their wives and friends, is an invasion of privacy, even if the politicians are public figures. It makes accountability almost impossible, unless a press foundation sponsors research, and then fights this ability to disclose politician's net worth, before, during, and after political service as an important discussion point for accountability within the Canadian political system.

Because of this, while a good many politicians are known to have assets in the hundreds of millions of dollars after retiring from office, such information cannot be made public.

Can Journo 13:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks ...

... for your adjustments to the Dhalla and Toews pages. I know that my manner of expression can be convoluted at times; feel free to make other style adjustments, if you're so inclined. CJCurrie 01:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. You are doing a great job in putting these pages together. I'm glad if I can help with a little fine-tuning. HistoryBA 01:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Harper

I must be corrected, in the Johnson book, on page five, it states he only has two brothers, no sister. That was an error on my part. SFrank85 20:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. HistoryBA 23:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I assume good faith until people remove verifiable, relvant content without comment. That practice borders on vandalism. No Guru 00:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

That's not how it appears on SFrank85's talk page. The discussion there makes it look as though you assumed good faith until you saw that he was a conservative. HistoryBA 00:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Frankly I reverted what I beleived to be an act of vandalism. When it in term was reverted by a registered user I asked why. Not satisified with his reply I checked out his user page and saw that he is a huge supporter of the Conservative Party. It certainly cleared thing s up for me. No Guru 00:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

My point exactly. HistoryBA 01:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

You call this edit an act of vandalism?

"The probe was widely criticized as by the PMO and other conservatives as partisan since Shapiro was Liberal appointed and he had turned down earlier requests to investigate Belinda Stronach's floor-crossing[29], as well as Tony Valeri's questionable land deal. Shapiro had also been under fire from former NDP leader Ed Broadbent for "extraordinarily serious credibility problems"."

For one, I did not make that original edit, you deleated it, there was nothing wrong with it, and should be said that the PMO and Conservatives said that this was partisan, not me. SFrank85 00:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

SFrank, I have replied on your talk page. No Guru 01:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Have you...

Have you noticed that there seems to be some strange obsession with the Canadian federal election, 1993 on Wikipedia? It seems every single page related to Canadian politics has to link to it somehow...Habsfannova 18:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I hadn't noticed. Is it a coincidence, or is the same person linking all the other pages to it? HistoryBA 21:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

I just noticed your edits to this page. It looks like you reverted it to a prior version, but which one? You seem to have removed a lot of information, not all of which was sourced, but I would suggest that in cases where the assertion is logical and reasonably NPOV, the {{citation}} tag be used first, or it be questioned on the talk page. I think a number of the edits you reverted were by a particular anon. user whose edits I've looked into and seem to be of the highest quality. I'm thinking of doing a revert to the last version and adding the cite tags, so any comment would be helpful, thanks. Makemi 21:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

You are absolutely right: I reverted to the wrong version. I have now corrected the error, and thank you for pointing it out. HistoryBA 21:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Makemi 21:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Brian Mulroney

I was in the forces when Brian Mulroney introduced the new uniforms. New uniforms aren't noteworthy but the sense of purpose he reintroduced were. We also got new small arms during that period to replace the FNs in use since 1960. I would suggest revitalized is apt - budgets don't tell the whole story. The Forces got a new sense of purpose out of the deal, too, after being (it felt) ignored for so long by the Liberal government.Michael Dorosh 02:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I've taken another stab at it and put a spot for discussion on the Talk page over there. I'd appreciate if we discussed before making more changes.Michael Dorosh 02:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

(Hardly revitalized. There may have been new uniforms, but take a look at the budget cuts and the declining size of the regular force.) Incidentally, these comments of yours look only at the dollars; wasn't one of the mandates of Mulroney's government to reduce the number of general officers and colonels and useless officers at NDHQ and promote a more favourable tooth-to-tail ratio? This would not account for a huge savings in money or manpower but I do know that despite cuts, the Army was still benefiting from acquisition of stuff like the Iltis (seemed like a good idea at the time, and was needed to replace the CJs and MUTTs), LSVW (piece of shit, but still...), MLVW (indestructable), and especially the C7, C8, C9, and C6 weapons, all of which we are still using today because they are still world class. I was born in 1969, and my FNC1 on basic training in 1988 was manufactured 11 years before I was born. Old stalwarts loved the FN but all modern armies used the smaller rounds (and the NATO standard is now 5.56mm) of weapons like the C7. Michael Dorosh 02:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

TT

Yeah, actually, the similarities are definatly there...anyway to tell for sure?Habsfannova 00:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, now that I look, the similarities are glaring...especially the posting links that don't involve the subject to "prove" something. Man, that man loves ensigns.Habsfannova 02:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I resent the implication here and I DEFY you to prove the assertion. I do not engage in subterfuge in any way, shape, or form. How dare you make such an accusation? Trace my ID if you want. I am who I am, and have never "been" anyone else in Wikipedia. The arrogance is appalling. TrulyTory 05:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Whatever you are implying in this exchange is way off-base. Further, how can I assume good faith when the three of you seem to gang-up on accurate postings simply because you have not "heard of it" before? I have written articles on Red Toryism, George Grant, Jacques Ellul, Gad Horowitz, and John Farthing where they either (A) did not exist before, or (B) if they did exist, were written from total POV and without correct historical and philosophical context in a manner that betrayed ignorance (in the literal sense of the term) of the subject matter. YET, those without sufficient knowledge see fit to declare their lack of knowledge as somehow above reproach and thus feel free to delete perfectly referenced and quite common knowledge about said subjects merely because they know little about it. I WANT to assume Good Faith, but in watching your Talk Pages all I can detect is a sort of cabal that is being used to modify pages that are beyond your particular set of expertise. Further, you do not seem to acknowledge that other people have such expertise in certain areas. I also see that Habsfan is preparing a whole rewrite of the Red Tory article on his Talk Page; it appears he is back on his mission to move forward with the "Socially Progressive and Fiscally Conservative" take and agenda. His first edits on the subject were totally dismissive of the Grant & Horowitz lineage, which is astounding when you consider that Horowitz coined the term in an attempt to explain the surivival of a pre-capitalist toryism in Canada. TrulyTory 05:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I am merely noting the similarities between you and another editor. He accused others of arrogance and conspiracy, refused to apologize when he made unjust accusations against others, resented being asked to provide evidence to support his claims, and insisted that his edits must stand because he had expertise that others lacked. Ultimately he was banned from Wikipedia. I am not asserting that you are the same person; I am pointing out that you are following his steps in an uncanny way. HistoryBA 20:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

That is fine then, but that is not fine is what is implied on Habsfan's talk page. I have generally been respectful in Wikipedia, but there are two articles that I have a hard time accepting poor or abitrary edits on: Red Tory and One Nation. My passion gets in the way of my reason at times, but the fact is that I have a real hard time accepting someone reverting or deleting edits because they "had not heard of them before." That is what has set me off here, and I apologise for the over-reaction, but really .... who would dare use that rationale for deleting perfectly good and widely-known and accepted edits. All I am trying to get across here is that if you are not an expert on the subject matter, then either initiate a discussion on the topic - or go learn about the topic prior to editing. Do not act dismissively and arbitrarily. (and then get offended if someone else seems dismissive ...) What you should not do is assume a monopoly on the subject matter and edit on the basis of (literal use of the term) ignorance. (see ignorance in wikipedia ..... TrulyTory 18:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Would you please subtantiate your allegations:

What is wrong with what I wrote on Habsfanova's page?

What "poor or arbitrary" edits have I made on the Red Tory and One Nation articles?

When have I reverted an edit because I "had not heard of them before"?

When have I assumed "a monopoly on the subject matter"?

When have I edited "on the basis of ignorance"?

These allegations are inappropriate if you are not prepared to back them up. HistoryBA 18:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

"I also see that Habsfan is preparing a whole rewrite of the Red Tory article on his Talk Page; it appears he is back on his mission to move forward with the "Socially Progressive and Fiscally Conservative" take and agenda."

Actually, if you look at my edits before you came, I modified the page to show what the term meant before, not the more modern media definition.Habsfannova 15:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually I don't think TT and AVD are the same. There is a strong similarity in their aggressive tone, disregard for Wikipedia policies, and contempt for other editors, but AVD was really mostly into flags. I don't see that in TT's work. Ground Zero | t 23:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

talk pages

Could you explain what you are doing on the talk pages? Removing material is fine as long as you archive it and it doesn't confuse anyone who might look on the page. Removing selective comments like you did on Talk:Cartoon Network won't work. Thank you, – ugen64 23:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy allows for inappropriate content to be deleted. To prevent people from using the talk pages as chat groups, we may delete comments such as the one you are referring to. HistoryBA 23:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I just noticed that I reverted way more than I had intended to. I've tried to fix my errors. HistoryBA 23:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Abreu Camp

Just out of curiosity, what makes you believe that Philmont Scout Ranch, and Abreu Camp are in NY and not New Mexico? Donbas 01:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Bill Graham

I've been following your discussion with Bearcat from the start. I've been tempted to intervene more than once but, quite frankly, I'm uncertain of which side of the argument to support.

I could, however, suggest a manner of resolving the situation with reference to the way Gallant's comments were covered by the respectable press. Let me do a bit of research first ... CJCurrie 01:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the invite, interesting discussion. It took me awhile, but I finally realized your side of it. Habsfannova |t 19:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Red Tory Edits

I am more than willing to assume good faith, but I also assumed that we would discuss changes to said article before wholesale edits were undertaken. To do otherwise negates any assumption of good faith. TrulyTory 14:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

C.P.Stacey and A Date With History

Just wondering what your criticisms of the book were? Michael Dorosh 22:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

My point wasn't that it is a terrible book, but that any unsourced expression of opinion is inherently POV. HistoryBA 23:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I got the point, I also read very clearly that you thought it was a terrible book, so was curious why you thought that. Your exact words: I thought it was terrible. Just curious.Michael Dorosh 05:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Revert

I thought that was unlike you, but didn't want to say anything. People can be funny about these things. Thanks for letting me know. Best regards, Ground Zero | t 16:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Protestantism

Hi, HistoryBA. In fact, the Anglican Church is considered a "via media" or middle way between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. You'll note that the Church of England article actually says that it is a reformed and Catholic church. Although it is categorised in the UK as a Protestant church for legal purposes, religious scholars no longer find this designation useful. On page 106 of This Anglican Church of Ours, Patricia Bays writes: "We Anglicans tend to define ourselves as neither Roman Catholic nor Protestant, but as a distinct kind of church...Many Anglicans don't feel comfortable being referred to as Protestants--though often society outside the church places this definition on us."

Besides, Campbell did not practice any religion at all. Though raised in the Anglican Church, you'll note at List of Canadian Prime Ministers by religious affiliation that she is quoted as calling herself "uneasy about organized religion".

Now you know. Cheers,

Carolynparrishfan 17:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Except some Anglicans do consider themselves Protestant, and Pearson himself was not a church-goer. HistoryBA 18:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I live in England and I can tell you that the Anglican church is not viewed as Protestant, some might do but they are not a majority. There have been many disagreements between foregin historians on this fact, such as Europeans. Regards, Captain scarlet 08:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but can either of you (or anyone, for that matter) explain why the Wikipedia articles on "Protestant" includes Anglican, and the Wikipedia article on "Anglican" lists it as Protestant? Given this information is it fair for you to say categorically that Kim Campbell was not Protestant? HistoryBA 13:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It is like that because someone who doesn't much on the subject edited the article, I'll leave this to your capable hands. also people like to categorise things, it'd either be in Catholism or protestantism, one thing is sure, the Church of England does not view itself as protestant. Concerning Kim Campbell, I don't know her so am not at liberty to comment. Regards, Captain scarlet 13:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I still don't get your explanation. I went on the internet site of the Anglican Church of Canada and found this: "Waterloo Ontario, 8 July 2001 - An exuberant service of joint worship between Anglicans and Lutherans here today marked the capstone of celebrations concluding nearly two decades of discussions culminating in this week's historic entente between Canada's two largest episcopally-based protestant religious denominations. ..." If the Canadian Anglicans call themselves "Protestant," who are we to say they're not? HistoryBA 13:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm only speaking of what i know, I can't remember how I found this page, but I'll be honnest I don't care about Anglicans in Canada, I stumbled upon this talk page and thought it would be appropriate to add a word. If Canadians want to call themselves protestant, they can, it doesn't mean nor does it imply that they are fundamentally correct, just try to go to the source and see who invented Anglicanism. Regards, Captain scarlet 13:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Bill Graham

Thanks. Sorry, I was going to put my comment above yours and indented but I thought that might be rude to make your comment look less direct. I'll move mine now. --JGGardiner 13:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Chief Justice of Canada

You're welcome. It was never properly moved, so I just did a cut and paste. I'm 99.9% sure that's the proper title, and it matches that of Chief Justices in other countries. Ardenn 17:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Your Username

I completely empathize with the second part of your page :) T K E 03:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Canada

Concerning the Canada article, I would appreciate it if you would review and comment on this: Talk:Canada#History. --maclean25 00:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

GPC

I'm a bit concerned about a Green Party of Canada candidate editing the GPC page in a partisan manner. Could you please keep an eye on things?Homey 04:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I am the person being referred to above and I would ask in the interest of fairness and accuracy that the statement that I am making changes that are incorrect (imputed by the use of word partisan) is backed up by examples of where something changed is incorrect. EricbWalton

Deleting Nonesense

I am curious why you said what I wrote was nonsense? I agree "giver" is a word with a very restricted usage, and therefore perhaps does not belong, but it is not an inside joke, and was not meant as a joke. It is a very common word in the area that was described (perhaps from Owen Sound to Goderich to Listowel) but from my experiences in the other parts of Ontario is not used. Stettlerj 22:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you cite a verifiable source in support of this? HistoryBA 23:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I used this term myself growing up, and having moved around a lot I have an idea of the limits of usage. If I need to source it I'll take it out though. Do you have to source every slang regional canadian term, if that's the case it might be tough to source not only the word, but that it is canadian etc especially words used in rural areas (it would be an advantage for "city slang" which is more likely to make it into print, be used by more people, even if in a smaller area). There is no book about that area's slang terms that I know of. The other option for me is to find the term used in a blog, which I am sure I could if I know exactly where to look, but with all the other uses of the term it would probably prove quite difficult, since the population doesn't even hardly include a small city in that area mentined. Anyway, I hope you demand a source from everyone with every term. Anyway, it doesn't matter, it's not worth arguing over, it's kind of stupid anyway, it's just a slang word they use there that I thought I would add. I don't mean to make you upset with the word. Stettlerj 00:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not upset. I'm just making sure that we follow Wikipedia policy. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." HistoryBA 15:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

David Anb*r

RE: David Anb*r

• HistoryBA, I was wondering if you could cut a bit of slack here. I know you disagreed with me on the Yvon Duplessis article, but I was just stating my opinion. Many things in the word of politics is often harder to find verifiable ONLINE sources for and since I don`t keep track of all the articles which have made reference to this fact. I think you do great work, but I think you`re being a little heavy handed.Anb*r 02:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not being "heavy handed." I am just following Wikipedia policy, which requires that information be verifiable. When your exams are done and you have the time to dig up the sources, you are welcome to restore the information. You may wish to consider creating your own website for this information. There you will be free to write whatever you'd like about yourself, without interference from others. HistoryBA 15:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Things seem to have hit the wall at David Anb*r. I was wondering if you'd like to do an RfC at the Canadian wikipedians' notice board? --JGGardiner 22:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The article will likely be deleted in the next few days. If not, I'll do an RfC at that time. HistoryBA 22:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I was sort of thinking the same. Maybe I shouldn't have asked you to do my dirty work. But I would like to see WP presentable in the interim, even with the imminent departures. I'd also like to get the Anb*r page cleared up. I had my first accusation of vandalism for deleting him from the January 23 article (for his birth). --JGGardiner 23:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

For what it is worth, Anb*r wasn't the youngest elected by several years (I put it on the talk page). But I'm sure that the "full term" bit was more intentional than I had realized. --JGGardiner 06:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Grand Bay-Westfield

How does commuting distance not provide proof? As I said, there is absolutely nothing nearly as large in any direction other than Saint John. Not only that, it is part of the Saint John CMA, the town is part of Enterprise Saint John (the area's economic development agency), and the Saint John, New Brunswick article, and the following references ([4], [5], [6]) all call it a suburb. Kirjtc2 02:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

As I have explained before, the distance proves the distance. Maybe most of the people in the community are retired. Maybe most are in school. Maybe most are unemployed. These people live in suburbs. You have provided no evidence that most of the people there commute to Saint John. HistoryBA 12:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I notice that you have changed "most" to "many." I can live with that. HistoryBA 12:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Innapropriate

Hey! Sorry buddy! AFD isn't a help forum though - check out Wikipedia:New contributors' help page for some basics on policy and guidelines! Hope you like it, see you around, For great justice. 00:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it was a help forum or not. Wikipedia is a collaborative and cooperative venture. Taunting is inappropriate. The guidelines make that clear. HistoryBA 12:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

There was no taunting - just some pointers to where you could find some basic information about the topic you were interested in - sorry for any offense you took, For great justice. 20:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

"Thanks for playing though, better luck next time!" implies to me that you are viewing this as a competative rather than a cooperative endeavour. HistoryBA 20:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was an ironic comment, meaning that you should should read the rules before playing the game. An analogy, if you will. For great justice. 21:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that ironic comments of this sort are not constructive. I think we have an honest difference of opinion here, and you need not be sarcastic or suggest that I haven't read the rules. HistoryBA 21:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest that when you're in a hole, stop digging. For great justice. 23:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that you stick to the substance of the issues and avoid giving unsolicited advice, which others might well find offensive. HistoryBA 00:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Respectfully, it was you who started giving unsolicited advice, which, frankly, I found offensive. For great justice. 16:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

That's not what the record shows. I voiced my opinion on a substantive issue, to which you responded with a series of ironic comments. Here's my opening comment, verbatim:

"For great justice" is right that the stuff on Calton's desk isnot worthy of an article. But Calton does raise a legitimate point. Just because something is verifiable does not mean that it deserves an article in Wikipedia, as "For great justice" seems to suggest. Wikipedia policy makes that clear.

There's no advice there, no ironic comments, just one person's opinion. You may disagree with it, but you should stick to the substance of what I said, rather than responding with taunts, sarcasm, or irony. HistoryBA 17:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your unsolicited advice. Dig, dig, dig... For great justice. 17:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

In this particular case, it's not advice; it's simply Wikipedia policy. You have to function within the spirit of this enterprise, which is cooperative, not combattive. If you don't I have every right to point it out, as I have, and will continue to do. HistoryBA 17:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Dig, dig, dig... It's ok to admit you're wrong and move on... For great justice. 18:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll quote the relevant passages of Wikipedia policy if that's what you are disputing. If not, I'm not sure what you are saying. HistoryBA 19:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying that you were mouthing off about something that you did not understand on AFD. When I pointed out that you were wrong, you started complaining that I was rude. It may seem rude to point out to someone that they are wrong, but, sometimes it is necessary. Sorry about that. Please, move on. For great justice. 20:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

No, there is a polite way to disagree with someone. Just because someone is wrong, doesn't mean you can be rude to them. HistoryBA 20:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to politely ask you to get over this. For great justice. 20:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Is that what "Dig, dig, dig" was about? HistoryBA 18:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Pearson's Date of Death

I was the person who changed the date of death of Pearson. I checked a Government of Canada website that said 28th of december. I assumed that the Canadian government would know best here is the URL: http://www.biographi.ca/EN/ShowBio.asp?BioId=42123&query=pearson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nargnohurt (talk • contribs)

Thanks for this. In the future, putting an explanation in the edit summary box would make it clear what you are doing and why. HistoryBA 12:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

William Lyon Mackenzie King

Good NPOV edits; I wasn't happy with the way that para was written by whomever did so; your edits improved the wording.Michael Dorosh 18:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; I'm glad to help. And thanks to you also for all your work on military articles. HistoryBA 18:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Presidential Succession

Thank you for being bolder than I was in editing this section. I too had disapproved of this general statement about Albert's "precedent", and had merely tried to soften the earlier editor's insert. You were not only correct, but your brief comment made clear why you were correct. Well done. Unschool 01:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. It is very kind of you to say so. HistoryBA 20:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Anb*r

Thanks for the Anb*r link. Persistence indeed. I suppose that it is only fitting since Anb*r's claim to fame (and a WP entry) was that he stayed for a whole term on the council. The funny thing is I had thought the vote was 10-1 (or was it two?). But, like I said, I am too polite to say anything. --JGGardiner 16:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability

Has it occurred to you that your deletion on the basis of never personally having heard (or more likely noticed) the US pronunciation suffers from the same weakness that you impute to my argument? On the other hand, if you want to verify what I say, I suggest you ask a dozen or so Canadians how "missile" is pronounced, and see if they all say it the same way. I'll bet they won't. Kelisi 19:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The burden of proof on Wikipedia lies with the editor who wishes to add material to the article. In other words, you have to prove that you are right; I don't have to prove that you are wrong. You can imagine what Wikipedia would be like if the burden was to disprove, rather than prove! HistoryBA 19:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiousity, where exactly is the "missile pronounciation" debate? Sounds interesting.Michael Dorosh 20:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

See Canadian English. Kelisi says that Canadians use the US and British pronunciations of "missile" with equal frequency. I'd like to see a source. HistoryBA 01:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Vielen Dank, as they say in Toronto. :-) Michael Dorosh 01:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

history of canada

Hi, I see you've done some work on history of canada in the past, and I was wondering if you could add to the discussion I started about splitting it into summary style. Thanks. -- TheMightyQuill 15:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure. HistoryBA 15:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Michael Hampton

Hello HistoryBA! I have the Michael Hampton article on my watchlist from some editing I did there in Feb. 06. Nice to see that a long time Wikipedian as you are still takes an interest in the project, it gives me some imputus for my own efforts! I'm 10 months in at this time, and got "it" as soon as I found out about the project last summer. Keep up the good work, Noble Editor! Hamster Sandwich 00:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Protocrystalline

Your recent edit to Protocrystalline was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 01:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

In the future, the {{copyvio|url of source}} tag will be of use, the bot has no idea if a page blanking is a copyvio and hence it reverted, with the copyvio tag it won't touch it (and hopefully a human well get to rewriting the article to not be a copyvio). -- Tawker 06:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Mom, Pop, the Hells Angels and the Viets

Saw your reversion to what somebody else had reverted/changed last night, and your comment about needing a verifiable source. I gather you don't live in BC. It's like posting evidence for rain in BC, no kidding. Reality is both views/accounts are correct, though the mom'n'pop thing has faded off in more recent years - it's definitely where it got started from, before the HA and the Asians clued in. Singling out the Viets isn't really accurate either; they're just the guys getting caught the most. And it's hard to know where Mom'n'Pop end and the HA start; everyone has families and in-laws and all, and since Expo '86 everyone has tried to figure out how to pay for a Vancouver-sized mortgage. It's just as things went on, the money got bigger, and the big boys (the HA and the other gangs) horned in on the scene; once shots started getting fired, Mom'n'Pop got less interested - in big grows anyway; there's more than one rec room in a Tory-voting household in this town that's helping keep the wolves from the door, let's put it that way.

But as for verifiable sources. Hmmm. Well, the police are not a verifiable source, and they're certainly not NPOV; but they'd be on the side of "blaming" it on the HA and Viets and others, and have always tried to debunk the Mom'n'Pop origins as "myth"; lately the cant is that grow-ops are part of the terrorist (read: al-Qaida) worldwide network. On the other side, the free-pot crowd do everything they can to distance themselves from the HA (to counter the police version) and hold hard and true to the Mom'n'Pop story; it's not so true as it once was, but it's still true enough. But find enough busts with Mom'n'Pops and you'll find just as many with HAs. Both are true, and neither are verifiable because the evidence hasn't been brought into court yet. Literally.

Both accounts should be there, perhaps with a comment connecting them as the one side of the story vs. the other side of the storySkookum1 14:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I do live in BC, though I don't know how that's relevant. I just think that we should base the material on verifiable sources, especially on sensitive subjects like this. Ther are many POVs, but they should be indentified as such, and not presented as fact. HistoryBA 15:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

What I meant was it sounds like you hadn't heard the HA/Viet story and reverted to the Mom'n'Pop story, and as explained "verifiable source" here would have to be a census of all the grows in the province; and nobody's telling, not 'til they get busted anyway. And there's not enough HA busts to validate naming them (not a wise thing to do anyway, naming them, that is) and there's no way to define what a Mom'n'Pop is. Police-generated statistics on this cannot be trusted, and NORML/Marijuana Party propaganda can't be trusted either. That was sort of my point; the "live in BC" thing was just because all of us here have heard both stories so often it's like saying "will it rain this year?"Skookum1 15:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. But the solution here is to delete the reference to Mom'n'Pop, not add further POV, unverifiable information. Just because we live in BC, doesn't mean we don't have to follow the NPOV and verifiability policies. HistoryBA 18:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

But then there are also no verifiable sources which hold that the grows are dominated by the HA and the Viets; there are police statements ascribing "outlaw motorcycle gangs" (they are careful not to use the HA name in such pronouncements, as they have no proof, only their allegations, true as they may be) and there are, for some reason, a string of busts which have been of Vietnamese immigrants. And busts are not grows anymore; and it's a given that this is, or was, a "cottage industry" that turned from home start-ups to a major, organized industry. As far as a Mom'n'Pop cite goes, I suggest literature from the Marijuana Party or High Times magazine may suffice.Skookum1 19:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Person/Warrior edit on Oka Crisis

No, no, it wasn't me. I think the reason someone who doesn't know the history of these events may have thought "warrior" was inappropriate or reaching didn't realize the existence of the Mohawk Warrior Society; come to think of it, shouldn't "warrior" be capitalized here?Skookum1 05:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Saskatchewan Party

Hi,

Could you please add Saskatchewan Party to your watchlist? Two SP partisans on this page appear to have a seriously limited understanding of NPOV. CJCurrie 23:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Will do. HistoryBA 13:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Your many errors

I will add to the long litany of criticisms of your work. Your actions on the Warren Kinsella page was far below Wikipedia standards. You yourself admit reverting to versions with errors. Please try to do better.Arthur Ellis 00:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

If there is a problem with an edit, other editors may revert. As I explained before, this doesn't mean that they support the previous version. HistoryBA 00:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Revert to an article you know has errors without fixing the errors? That improves Wikipedia? I just shake my head sometimes.Arthur Ellis 00:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I never said I would revert to a version that I knew had errors without correcting the errors. HistoryBA 02:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes you did. And you admitted to doing it. See the Warren Kinsella talk page.Arthur Ellis 03:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, your latest edits to Mark Bourrie leave the phrase "without reservation," which you had previously identified as one of my errors, in the article. Is it no longer an error, or did you decide to leave the error on the page? HistoryBA 01:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

This shouldn't continue

He has being really nasty to both of us. He called me dishonest several times on my and the WK talk pages. He should not be allowed to personally attack either of us for making legit edits. I would go to arbitration commitee or the administrator's noticeboard or something. He has already been banned once this week so his reputation is toxic. Any process you persue will likely side with us. Geedubber 02:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I lose my patience with you two, but you make edits and reversions without seeing the big picture that these should be complete, accurate entries into an encyclopedia.Arthur Ellis 03:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The really big picture here -- the one that you don't see -- is that Wikipedia is a cooperative venture build on good faith and good will. It is not a forum for insulting people that one considers inferior to oneself (or in your words "thick as a brick"). I'll accept the apology and drop the matter if you can assure me that you accept Wikipedia policy on civility and will stop your attacks against me and other editors. HistoryBA 15:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Please[read], and add your comments to the article. It will help the case. Pete Peters 03:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Head case?Arthur Ellis 22:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Bourrie/Kinsella/Marsden

I am going to avoid those pages for a while. Kinsella's page is locked, Bourrie's I don't care about, and enough people already watch Marsden's. Thanks for your edits, civility, cooperation. Geedubber 05:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Geedubber. I'm sorry the turkeys have got you down. HistoryBA 22:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I've tried some edits on the Bourrie page and everything is simply reverted by an IP user. It's rather exasperating to deal with IPs sometimes. And I thought the Anb*r supporters were persistent. Hmm... I wonder if any of them are still around? --JGGardiner 18:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the Bourrie page is very frustrating. I find that not only are my edits reverted, but then I am insulted for making them. All we can do is be persistent, particularly when much of the disruption is caused by anonymous editors. HistoryBA 20:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It is ironic that some people hear in the media that Wikipedia is free-for-all, where political people attack each other. And when they come here to expecting to participate in that, they accuse editors who are commited to the project of such actions. In my first edits here, I disagreed with some regular editors (CJCurrie and Ground Zero as it happened) and I never even thought they might be biased; I simply disagreed with them. But today it seems that many IP editors crys "bias" (or "POV" if they are savvy) at every editor who crosses them.

As for the Bourrie article, I think an RfC might be useful at some point if things don't improve. We can't let an article become a black hole like that. If an article exists on WP, the editors are responsible for maintaining it. --JGGardiner 21:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Then quit blanking copy, making errors, ignoring corrections.206.191.56.34 23:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

If there are errors, the onus is on you to explain, not to blindly revert and cry "vandalism." HistoryBA 00:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No the onus is on you to know what you're doing before you start meddling with pages. Ellis is right: you make far too many errors. 206.191.56.34 00:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I ask you to please identify the errors. HistoryBA 00:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

People keep telling you. You don't listen. In the most recent case, you reverted without checking a source in the reverted version and screwed up a guy's journalism awards, basically you denied him an hon. mention on a national award.206.191.56.34 00:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I was just reverting someone else's blanket revert. If there was an issue over the award, the editor should have corrected that section, not revert entire edits. That's Wikipedia policy and also good sense. HistoryBA 00:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The rest of the edits are blankings. Again, I see you are not dealing with your errors. Instead, you are changing the subject and trying to throw the blame my way. You must take responsibility fo the errors you put into Wikipedia entries.206.191.56.34 00:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

JGGardiner made four edits and provided a rationale for each one. If you disagree, you owe it to JGGardiner (and the rest of the Wikipedia community) to explain why. You can't just cry "vandalism," which is an unfair attack on another editor who is operating in good faith. HistoryBA 00:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It is blanking, even if there are two of you. I see that you are, yet again, trying to shift the discussion away from your propensity for error and careless, sloppy and POV-motivatewd editing and not taking responsibility for your mistakes. I notice you do this throughout your talk page and the Mark Bourrie entry discussion page so there seems no point in being engaged in conversation with you.206.191.56.34 00:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

He has removed information and provided a rationale for that. If you would like to include it, all you need to do is provide a verifiable source. What you cannot do is revert all the edits without an explanation and then claim that you are reverting "vandalism." You also cannot engage in personal attacks on other editors. HistoryBA 00:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You cannot explain or address your errors.Why not?206.191.56.34 01:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

As I have said many times before, I am happy to address my errors. Just specify which edits of mine you believe were mistakes. HistoryBA 18:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Is that seven reverts by one user? I've never seen that before. --JGGardiner 01:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think he's too concerned about Wikipedia policy or guidelines, or about the whole community aspect of this venture. HistoryBA 18:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I just hope you use your computer science degree better than your history BA. I guess every community needs a village idiot209.217.75.14 18:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

talk:kinsella

I like to keep talk pages unprotected if possible. I prefer blocking vandalizing IP's to restricting other IP's from talking about Mr. Kinsella and his article. Make sure you give vandalism warnings when you revert true vandalism - it'll make it easier to justify a block when it gets out of hand. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you edit anything other that Kinsella-related subjects? Gosh! Leave the vandal fighting up to the professionals and go do something productive - the fewer people editing Kinsella etc, the less attention from weird IP's etc. Don't feed the trolls. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Check my edit history. I've edited more than 1000 distinct pages, maybe as many as 3000. I agree that the "professionals" should fight the vandals, but you must admit that they haven't had much success on the Kinsella/Bourrie/Bourque pages. HistoryBA 23:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Close to 2000 apparently. And for the record I think that Carleton is a fine Canadian university. After all, both Warren Kinsella and Mark Bourrie went there. --JGGardiner 05:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe HistoryBA and Bourrie and Kinsella have some kind of history?209.217.93.12 16:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

As I said on the Mark Bourrie talk page, I had never heard of him until he inserted himself into the Warren Kinsella article. I had heard of Kinsella, but certainly don't have any kind of "history" with him, other than having seen him for years in the public eye. HistoryBA 18:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

How does JGGardner know Mark Bourrie went to Carleton?!? That's a terrible thing to say about someone without any proof. As for Bourrie "inserting himself" into your Kinsella drool-a-rama, a check of the historyu shows Kinsella inserted Bourrie, and the lawsuit, into it himself, if not by name than at least by innuendo. Can you get anything right?Arthur Ellis 17:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Check the record. The name "Mark Bourrie" was inserted into the article by Bourrie himself. Because I had never heard of Bourrie, the "innuendo," as you call it, meant nothing to me until Bourrie himself edited the reference to include his own name. I have already explained this to Bourrie himself on the Mark Bourrie talk page. Once again, you have falsely accused me of getting something wrong. As for the Kinsella page, you can hardly blame me for it being a "drool-a-rama." If you check the record, you will see that I have removed both pro-Kinsella and anti-Kinsella material. I have hold no brief for either side in the Kinsella-Bourrie war. HistoryBA 14:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I only know because Bourrie says so himself[7] but you can see his name at Carleton as well[8]. Bourrie completed his MJ there. Actually he went about the same kind of route as you; got a BA in his youth (I presume), worked for a while and then recently got an MJ. --JGGardiner 18:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Saw that. Golly, I like to think of myself as being in the full flower of my radiant youth... exquisite breasts (some even say "perky") , firm butt, toned legs, not a grey hair on my head. I bet you all thought I was a man because I used to work for Canadian Pacific. Maybe when I hit Bourrie's age I'll get a doctorate and retire.Arthur Ellis 18:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that I thought you were a man because you used the name Arthur. And you used "he" on your user page. But I think that you're older than him actually. You got your BA in 1974 when Bourrie was only 17 (or so). --JGGardiner 18:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a long time ago. I doubt I could write too many of the exams now :). That was back in the day when any BA was good enough to land you a great job, even if you were a woman who loves trains. By the time Bourrie graduated (looks like sometime in the '80s-- not so good. Now, a BA is like Gr. 12. So sad, really.Arthur Ellis 18:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess the other reason that I thought you were a man is because you have a "this user is male" infobox on your userpage. --JGGardiner 18:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems to confuse a lot of people ;). Arthur Ellis 20:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit Wars

I know that these sometimes take people from us but I hope that you haven't got your Blighty. But I know that you're like the Anb*r crowd: persistent and committed. And I suspect that you're duration also. So I hope that I can look forward to seeing HistoryBA in my watchlist some more soon enough. Not counting this edit of course. --JGGardiner 04:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the words of encouragement. I must admit that snide comments from two administrators (Bearcat and Crzrussian) have taken the wind out of my sails a bit. I'm going to take it easy for the next little while, but am sure I'll be back. HistoryBA 15:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually it was those comments, at least the latter, that was part of what made me leave that message. I've generally noticed Crzrussian to be a constructive and effective admin but I think that his comment above were completely unfair. I considered responding to it at the time but he was under attack from certain quarters (which no doubt contributed to his frustration) and I figured that criticism would just fan those flames. --JGGardiner 00:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Warren Kinsella RFAR

Please be advised that a request for arbitration is being filed over the continued edit war occurring over this page. Please feel free to make a statement on the request page. Geedubber 05:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Warren Kinsella RfAf

Please come add your comments to [[9]] - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I've got nothing to say about the matter. I've been the subject of many attacks by Arthur Ellis and some of his obvious sockpuppets. When I solicited your assistance, I received only a reprimand and the suggestion that I had contributed little to Wikipedia. As per your advice, I'm leaving this to the professionals. Good luck. HistoryBA 22:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

your note

Thanks for your note. One thing that I was never able to figure out was exactly what your supposed "errors" were. Looking back at the old article histories, it struck me that this all goes back to your original discussion with Bourrie/Ceraurus as to what exactly his apology to Kinsella was for, but I didn't really want to get too deeply into the pre-June 28 socks. Bucketsofg✐ 19:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Theta Beta Potata PUNK HOUSE Deletion Review

Theta Beta Potata

This article was first started by me and was deleted back in May '06. I was reading the punk house article and saw that the link for the TBP article was no longer red so I clicked on it and there was an article back up, started by another user. I dont know who started it because, it was deleted soon after I saw it. The decision made in the "Article for Deletion" debate should be reconsidered. The article is about a punk house not a fratenal organization. It seems that the debate, run by User:ChrisB and results were reported by User:Mailer Diablo. I will post this on their talk pages. This is the first time I have requested a deletion review so please let me know what else I need to do. If there is anything. I am on wikipedia frequently and I want to learn. Thanks. Xsxex 16:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

AfD nomination of John Diefenbaker

An editor has nominated John Diefenbaker, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Diefenbaker and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome Back

I hope. I suppose that I had watchlisted your talk page automatically but it has sure been a long time since I saw your name in an edit summary. I hope that you've come back to stay. Wikipedia could really use more good editors like you. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)