User talk:Canoe1967

This user may have left Wikipedia. Canoe1967 has not edited Wikipedia since 11 May 2014. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Unified login: Canoe1967 is the unique login of this user for all public Wikimedia projects.

Template:quicktemplates

• User:Canoe1967/Monsanto and GMO archive
• http://www.philosophy.umn.edu/people/FacultyProfile.php?UID=kahnx009
• Censorship ref
• More
• Failure to yield
• Ag Sec foot
• Read later
• Check plot
• Archive of deleted articles.
• Wikipedia:(ignore previous link)
• World Architecture Festival
• Anthony Trewavas
• Scarlett Keeling case in UK parliament now, book written, movie released, so it now meets notability. Archive
• Wikipedia:ImageSize
• Correlative-based fallacies
• Westmoreland v. CBS
• #2013041310001871
• {{Citation |last= |first= |year= |title= |publisher= |publication-place= |page= |url= |accessdate= }}
• <ref name="My Cat">Details of ref</ref>
• <ref name="My Cat"/>
• Kite aerial photography my lighest cam is too heavy
• Susan Bernard
• Greatrex Newman
• copyvio?
• Michael Behagen
• File:Marisa get out.png
• Defence Scheme No. 1
• Laurie Holden
• Michelle Thomas
• User:JackofOz/Unresolved questions
• https://dl.dropbox.com/u/50919224/clock.xml
• http://www.flickr.com/photos/ngawangchodron/3426239674/
• http://paulkrassner.com/
• http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Biographies_of_living_people
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation
• COI Essay
• COI actions

I find your edit summary interesting when all you did was revert the revert. On another note I live in Edmonton as well.Curb Chain (talk) 19:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You!! It perfect! ReelAngelGirl Talk to me! Tea? 00:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Nun killing a grizzly with a broom.ogg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? Get stuffed, hoser-bot!--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering what the guy was shoveling. Trolls here? On Wikipedia? Mugginsx (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for lending me your sandbox with the translated W. Stower WP:Germany article. It was useful, and I now have access to more information to help improve the English article. Feel free to delete, or whatever. ~Eric F (Talk) Don't talk:98.26.28.41 (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. Did you ask in the de:talk page for the article for any Germans that may wish to help on en:WP?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't thought of that, sounds like a good idea. However, I think I have the translation situation under control. I just wish the de article had citations for the bio information. Btw...

If you must "improve" Stöwer's lithograph, please upload as a new version, not replacing the "faithful photographic reproduction of an original two-dimensional work of art" (unless there is a consensus to do so). I would really like to have a copy for his page that hasn't been tampered with. [please, please!] Thanks, ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert and chew my ass out in the comment section. You may also mention something like "Do not revert this image! Upload other versions as new files", type thing.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Either I can't figure out how to revert, or I don't have admin access, or something. Btw, I have a copy on my computer that I have adjusted (histogram) that is more of a digital restoration rather than "improvement". I'll figure out a way to upload to Google docs, or get a Picasa account or something. ~E 184.76.225.106 (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC) -- Btw, that new image wasn't really "higher resolution", it was simply enlarged -- compare the two, the smaller one actually is much sharper and less grainy. ~E 19:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I will revert it and leave a comment about uploading other versions as new files. I may be able to google the same image you have and upload that one for you. Can you not log in to your account because of lost password?--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a WP account. The image I have is on my computer (not online anywhere yet) -- which is currently in the shop (HD crash) -- hopefully, the file will be recovered. Currently using a borrowed laptop; and need owner's password to access google docs; and if I remember correctly, you can't simply upload images to Google docs, must have Picasa "web album" or something,. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've set up a Picasa album, and set copyright stuff to 'Creative Commons' licence:

• Link to Picasa Album? ~E 98.26.28.41 (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• On Picatom? ~E98.26.28.41 (talk) 01:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Direct link to image from Picasa?

Can this image be uploaded as an "Other version", instead of replacing current file (unless/until there is a concensus)? ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 20:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)21:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can just replace the existing. The picacom one won't load in my browser. The picasa one does seem slightly better quality. We should have the best quality b/w version in that image page.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the upload!

Can you access this signature image file? ~E 184.76.225.106 (talk)184.76.225.106 (talk) 04:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see "talkback" here. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 23:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Russian wiki article he was killed on 1938 (shooted) or in 1944 (cancer of stomach). See articles on ru-wiki and de-wiki: ru:Булла, Виктор Карлович de:Wiktor Karlowitsch Bulla. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 03:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note WP:ELBURDEN and please revert your edit to comply with WP:ELBURDEN. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 19:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:ELBURDEN: "Disputes about links can be addressed through the normal dispute-resolution process, particularly at the external links noticeboard."--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take your time looking over the policies and guidelines. There's no rush, and I see you're relatively new here.

I tend to be very brief and to the point, which some find upsetting. I'm happy to explain further and sorry if my editing or comments upset you. --Ronz (talk) 19:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Disputes about links can be addressed through the normal dispute-resolution process, particularly at the external links noticeboard."--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glad we came to an agreement with the DMOZ link! --Ronz (talk) 20:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Me as well. I know WP has policies, but I think we can ignore all rules here. Many may look in WP first for a list of online directories. That is far better than getting all the spam from google for them. I added their postal code list to the postal code article. You may wish to spam check the other 3 links there.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was inappropriate. My post there was a discussion of the sources and the way a COI editor should approach editing the article. Don't do that again. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"My edits (the ones you reverted) were not coatracking. I intend to be rigorous about the COI issue." <--This seems to be a statement made by an editor that doesn't seem to focus on the article and just focuses on another editor.--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

re this, please see WP:REDACT. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Stay on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The comments from Abhayakara and Nomoskedasticity that you deleted do not meet any of the criteria listed in WP:TPOC. The comments were about whether a particular text needs to be in the article and thus were entirely relevant.

In Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, the section titled "How to use article talk pages" tells you what you should add. The section titled "Editing comments --> Others' comments" tells you what you can and cannot remove. That section starts by saying "Editing—or even removing—others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection." The above comment by Nomoskedasticity is clearly an objection. You should respond by indicating that you will not do it again. Also, please follow WP:REDACT. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a clash in WP policies then. One says that they are subject to removal (the same as irrelevant material in articles). At this point we should use the 'discuss cycle' to reach consensus on whether I can remove all irrelevant material, just mine, or none at all.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given what these guidelines say about others' objections, I think it's reasonable to anticipate that others are likely to object. If you really want to remove your comments -- and certainly if you want to remove others' comments -- my suggestion is that you ask those affected first. You appear to do good work here in other respects and I don't want bad blood between us -- my suggestion is meant as genuinely constructive. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the wording is confusing, and I believe that Canoe1967's removal was in good faith, although I disagree with his conclusion. I have asked for clarification at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#"Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal". --Guy Macon (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• (ec)@Nomoskedasticity - I will avoid that article if I can and sorry if my edits seemed wrong to many. I can well understand why editors need to go off topic to help the discussion and article. It just isn't a thing that I normally do. You are a good editor and I hope we can just drop this with no bad blood.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a similar objection to your recent edits to the Magnotta talkpage. This wasn't even a sentence, let alone a claim. I get your general point, but I think you're taking it a bit too far here. If you must edit, keep other people's replies to what you're editing in mind. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Too mention the video as relating to a BLP is a violation of policy. There is no RS that confirms he had anything to do with the video.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but there's a big difference between someone claiming "Magnotta is the murderer in that murder video" in the article and someone typing the words "view magnotta murder video" (presumably intended as a question) on a talk page. Your intentions seem good, but I think you overestimate the defamatory effects of something so minor as this. We certainly do not need to verify our talk page comments with reliable sources! Anyway, I've changed it and you've said you're fine with the change, so we're cool. As for me adding the bit about changing it and the reason why, this is encouraged by talk page guidelines and was done in the interest of transparency. I would strongly advise you to NOT edit any more comments by others unless there is consensus on whether and how to do so. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following is meant to be a helpful/friendly note, so I hope you take it that way. I urge caution to you when it comes to "agreeing" and engaging in converse with brand new editors whose first edits are at Sondra Locke. It has been a very contentious space for quite a while, mostly due to the high number of sock puppets that have been there. In the two or three years since the issues initially began, Excuseme99 has appeared with no less than 10 socks to "defend" and "agree" with his earlier opinions. Please do not misunderstand me, I am not accusing you of meat or sock puppetry with your most recent edits -- but I am urging you to proceed with caution. Thanks. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 18:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it is another sock or meat of the other socks. I still expect Rovi to change their date. I have sent their legal dept. an email recently which totals two sent to Rovi. I have yet to hear back from the publisher of the book. It does seem strange that I received prompt emails back from the sources that state 1944 and that the 1947 ones seem to just STFU. Although they may be just being thorough about their source checks before they respond. On the matter of the original sock. I went back in their edit histories and did find a few edits that were improvements to other articles and later reverted by admin after the investigation. They were good edits and I may just add the diffs to the talk pages and see if another editor wants to re-add them so I can avoid all the bullshit that I had to go through before.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So... let me get this straight. You're planning to re-add material of a indefinitely banned editor? You may be new to wikipedia, but that would constitute editing on behalf of banned editors. Furthermore, you really, really need to understand that your emails to various people constitutes original research and is therefore pointless. If you genuinely want to improve the article, I suggest you familiarize yourself with WP policies, rather than trying to rewrite the rules to make work that which won't. At this point I'll just take it back to the talk page, as my friendly note has very clearly fallen on deaf ears. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 21:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it is good (RS) material that improves/expands the article, I see no reason not to add it back. I think admin just erred on the side of caution when they removed it. I will check the sources, discuss on talk pages, and possibly have other editors do the edit. The articles may have changed too much to just paste in as it was. Asking a source to check its source and possibly change it is not OR. She was not born in both years, and it would be nice to have all sources agree on one year. The book can not be changed until a new addition is printed but the publishing company may find another way to correct it publicly.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article The luckiest man in Iraq has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

An article on a non-notable video, used in a military press-conference like hundreds of other videos from aircraft targeting pods and probably fails WP:NOTNEWS as well.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. MilborneOne (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

please read why I keep removing this pic, follow the history and you'll find the story behind it. If you have any newer free pic of Rob De Luca,, you're welcome to suggest it to him and post it, if he agrees. Contact Lovemberrecords.com for approval!

Thanks, Moonslide (talk) 13:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe this bullshit. The way wp treats BLPs is atrocious. I wouldn't be suprised if a bunch get together and file a class action suit in Florida. I may be first in line to gather evidence for them.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@MaxSem:

While it is not likely to be a harmful image, the BLP policy is clear: "Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."

On Talk, Canoe1967 made a claim that the image violated some portion of WP:BLP and summarily removed it. Other editors reverted the image. This seemed to turn into an edit war over the inclusion of the image. Seems like this was poorly handled and not quite in line with how the BLP policy says to handle it. We may not always immediately see what another editor sees and a couple of the other editors in their edit summaries said "Reverted good faith edits by Canoe1967" (although this appears to be part of a templated response by Twinkle). Point being if they are willing to claim the edits were in good faith, why were they going against BLP guidelines and reverting without a consensus having been established? -- Avanu (talk) 18:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There were two editors with COIs. Every established editor on BLPN, the editor's talk page, and the article's talk page soundly rejected there was a BLP issue. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't appear that there was a conclusive consensus established. While I can't see a big deal with the picture, I don't think you can just say "I don't see a problem. Done deal." if someone raises a BLP concern. What I can see from the edit history is people edit warring over something that didn't need an edit war. If the image is gone for a day, how much does that hurt anything? Why did it have to be rushed? -- Avanu (talk) 19:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where this COI bullshit is coming from. The BLP requested an updated image. An editor uploaded one under fair-use. It was speedy deleted and the image that can possibly affect his career was placed back in and I kept removing it. I have sent an email to the BLP since my block to request a better free image and he is working on getting us one. I see no reason why we can't remove the existing image until the new one arrives. We could include both in that case.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The COI is that you are in contact with the subject and editing on their behalf. Fair use images cannot be used when free images are available. If the subject wants to use a different image, have them place it in the public domain and then suggest the change on the talk page and be fully up front that it is their request (declaring the COI).--v/r - TP 21:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I only contacted the BLP after I was blocked. Some editors should read more closely. If you and others wish BLPs to look bad on wp then you may end up in deep, brown holes. See the image issue below as well. We are not in a hurry here. To have editors blocked for copy vio of images within minutes without waiting for OTRS is total bullshit. The uploaders are responsible for the images, not other editors.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What a joke that was. Just like that <redacted> SPI that other editors tried on me. I still don't know why editors are stalking my edits and articles created and trying to piss me off. I even gave you huge assistance in a BLP article that you were alone in trying to fix. Not even a thank you for that. I still find this bullshit totally unbelievable. I will continue to edit but probably only in ref and help desks where some other petty, power-tripping editors are far below the line of any decent input.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help, just a question or 2 left. Bluefist ^talk 01:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contacting me at the Canadian Forces Base North Bay Wikipedia page. Our air force base does not hold a copy of the video. Because the video deals with an event in Iraq, a theatre of operations that the Canadian Forces did not participate in, I doubt that a high-quality copy exists anywhere within our military. Best wishes in your search.22WHERO (talk) 12:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heck, it could be a fortnight or more! --Orange Mike | Talk 21:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops. Could you; as admin change my edit summary to reflect that? I wouldn't want to cause any confusion. Perhaps use the term '14 days or more' in case some don't know what a fortnight is?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could I trouble you to try to explain this? Are you implying that I have a COI w/rt Roach? If so, I'll insist that you provide evidence. Since I don't have a COI on that article and you won't be able to provide evidence, I would strongly advise not repeating that edit. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I intend to be rigorous about the COI issue." <--This seems to be a statement made by an editor that doesn't seem to focus on the article and just focuses on another editor. I would consider this as COI toward an editor and not the article. I offered to help you before on the article an you basically told me to fuck off. With an attitude like that I can see why you are alone with it now.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Canoe. I noticed you reverted my last edit on the article. I'm not going to edit war, or argue with anyone about the whole ordeal, since you have good faith. But the picture you cropped is actually the bad one, and its already on the article. The original one may be kind-of bad, but at least you can see her whole face. I hope you understand, and hopefully the dispute would end :}

Tribal44 (talk) 03:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)Tribal44[reply]

That image looks like shit! I assume you know nothing about photography. You have had another editor banned because the BLP agrees that it is a shit image. If you want a BLP to look like shit in a wp article then you will have a hard time finding others to back you up.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no need to be rude. Just pointing out the facts there, buddy. And apparently you're such an expert on photography, why don't YOU pick out another image you think its so great, huh??

Tribal44 (talk) 03:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)Tribal44[reply]

Rude my fucking ass. You are the rude one that reverts edits on 'possible' copy vio that are still in OTRS. The uploader is responsible for the image not other editors. When that image passes OTRS I am going to laugh long and hard. Did you even bother to read the image page on commons? We are not in a hurry here. To block an editor, delete an image, and edit war like children, all within minutes is total bullshit.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are being rude by cussing me out for reporting a user who kept uploading COPYVIO IMAGES WHICH IS NOT ALLOWED! I'm trying to be civil and you just want a fight, which you aren't getting one anyways. Get that stick out of your butt and pay attention. Good lord.

Tribal44 (talk) 03:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)Tribal44[reply]

How do you know they are copy vio? Someone slapped a tag on an image that is still in OTRS. You may wish to look at that system closer. I don't know why this wikidrama keeps bleeding over to commons where most wp assholes lose very quickly. I still don't know why you were in such a hurry to bully the the other editor and their image. Again, all within minutes. Why does no one have any patience on wp? You did not upload the image, commons will deal with any possible copy vio, you just seem to be another focused bully that doesn't like it when others tell them to shut up and fuck off.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the link here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lisagerrard01.jpg It was from another webpage. Now tell me that is copyvio.

I'm not bullying anybody. I think you are butthurt over the fact that I reported that user for something they knew was wrong and kept doing it. You need to keep on your wiki facts there.

Tribal44 (talk) 04:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)Tribal44[reply]

That is another joke. If you would take the time to pop over to commons you may notice that 90% of wp editors wonder why they can't upload every image they find on the net that doesn't have a copyright watermark on it. They are a new editor and they were bullied to the point of being blocked without anyone even trying to explain it to them. If I had been involved earlier I would have set them straight with a simple 'Learn the copyright shit!' type statement instead of playing edit war, image tag, block editor games with them.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has been done. Daniel Case (talk) 05:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Truce? :}

Tribal44 (talk) 08:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)Tribal44[reply]

Lol ok. And I believe David Bowie is a lyric baritone. It was on the page, but it somehow got taken down.

Tribal44 (talk) 18:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)Tribal44[reply]

No, I don't. But I do get what you are saying. He does perform mostly in the lyric baritone range. Sometimes in the dramatic range, lol.

Tribal44 (talk) 23:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)Tribal44[reply]

hiya,

i wish it was that simple but you have two sets of opposite biased editors one who wont accept to say the club could be alive and the other who wont accept the cub could be dead and they wont accept a medium ground hence the need to go to request for comment next to get uninvolved editors like yourself for input but it isn't live yetAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 08:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

unfortnally neither side is willing to comp[rise i did put something similar prior to full protection but it was revert saying ld club liquidated for the one, and the other reverting saying isnt a new club no uncertainties,i think someone raise those point or similar but they where dismissed saying it was that person pov but it more i say because it doesnt suit one side of the arguments pov but i appendices your input it will be appreciated more as neutral person once the request for comment goes live--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

yes a relible source has been posted a few infact but any edit request is opposed because there no consensus, its been at ani but the admins dnt want to get involved one did and beraged with talkj posts saying this a scandel type things. i am hoping the request for comment will get more neutral with no knowledge or bias editors like yourself who will review it with the sources and make a consensus--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have claimed several times that I once told you to get lost (and other less restrained versions of the same thing). Could you please provide a diff, so that if I have something to apologize for I can do so? I recall requesting that you abide by TPO and REDACT, but I don't recall saying anything like get lost. If I did, please remind me with a diff. thanks. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't be bothered to waste any more time on your childish antics. You are spewing crap in every dispute forum you can find on the matter. I hope you continue to waste your time on that article because this will prevent you from pissing off editors in other ones.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Canoe! Thanks for making the edit. But I left you a reply on the Usher talk page because you only completed part of my edit request. Thanks again. --76.189.114.180 (talk) 01:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! --76.189.114.180 (talk) 01:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. Far better response than I get from other IP edit requests.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea looks to me like he/she is new when it comes to these type of articles, I put a message about article ownership on the talkpage. If the editor continues to cause trouble just give warnings. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem =) Have a good day (Or night depends on where ya are). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for understanding.

--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. A curious history, seeing the edit a few minutes later by the same IP. JohnCD (talk) 21:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The image you just added to the Paris article is from 2011, not from 2008.EricaL2003 (talk) 20:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look: http://www.zimbio.com/photos/Paris+Hilton/NBC+Universal+2011+Winter+TCA+Press+Tour+Star/Ikr_c4U1KsZ EricaL2003 (talk) 20:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That picture would be a perfect one for the "early life" section - putting it alongside the part where we talk about her family. What do you think?EricaL2003 (talk) 21:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's ok, it's actually pretty cool. EricaL2003 (talk) 21:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Click on the "Show" link to the right to see the full discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please do not remove the POV dispute tag on 2012 Aurora shooting until the dispute is resolved on the talk page and on the POV noticeboard. The tag was not added due to "POINT" or "STICK" behavior. The tag was added per best practices outlined by Wikipedia:NPOV dispute: "In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved." Please review the talk page discussion. You will find that consensus has not yet formed to close out this dispute, nor have any uninvolved editors discussed it on the NPOV noticeboard. Please be patient. Viriditas (talk) 01:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] Wikipedia:STICK and WP:POINT --Canoe1967 (talk) 01:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] I'm sorry, but you clearly do not understand what STICK and POINT refer to here. Have you ever read WP:NPOV? Viriditas (talk) 01:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] I count six users who have noted the absence of relevant gun law and gun control information: Martinevans123 (talk · contribs), 213.168.117.36 (talk · contribs), 173.74.10.29 (talk · contribs), HiLo48 (talk · contribs), BritishWatcher (talk · contribs), and myself, Viriditas (talk · contribs). A new RFC will bring in more. Viriditas (talk) 01:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] The article is about the incident, not the gun debate. If 10,000 RS say it involves the gun debate then put a section in the gun debate article and link to it. No one in the article is saying the the gun debate is not affected by it so your WP:NPOV tag is WP:POINT bullshit so please fucking Wikipedia:STICK! Have you even bothered to improve the gun debate article or the incredibly lame gun law article? If you would spend more time improving the project instead of pissing everyone off in every dispute forum you can find then we may gain a little more respect for you.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] That's not how NPOV works, nor am I talking about any "gun debate". An encyclopedic article on the shooting covers all major aspects, including topics about Colorado gun law that made it possible and the reaction to those laws in context of the shooting. If 10,000 reliable sources discuss this, then we discuss it in the article. You can't simply say "I DON'T LIKE IT" and argue we should move it to another article. In case you haven't figured it out by now, I am neither looking for your "respect" nor do I require it. Your actions in this regard have been completely transparent. You're pushing a POV and attempting to override NPOV in the process. NPOV "cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus." Is this making sense? Adhering to NPOV is improving the project. Viriditas (talk) 02:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] From: Wikipedia:NPOV#Due_and_undue_weight. "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and NPOV, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] And now, give an example of how discussing gun violence and gun laws in an article about a violent gun attack is "undue weight"? Good luck, my friend! Viriditas (talk) 02:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] How about a fucking policy!!! "Articles should not be split into multiple articles just so each can advocate a different stance on the subject."--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] Wow, you've completely misunderstood what forking is all about. Adding sources that discuss Colorado gun violence and gun laws in terms of the Aurora shooting is not forking. In fact, you are the one who is advocating forking material you don't like into a different article. In any case, we have expert sources like Robert Spitzer at the State University of New York at Cortland who has commented on the subject of the Colorado shooting and gun laws. Are you saying we shouldn't cite expert sources on this subject? On what policy do you base this? And are you also saying we shouldn't discuss the lax Colorado gun laws that made it possible for the shooter to carry out this crime? That's strange, since we have dozens of reliable sources discussing this. I'm sorry, but you cannot override NPOV. Viriditas (talk) 02:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] Moving discussion to Gun laws in Colorado and Gun politics in the United States to prevent WP:CONTENTFORKING.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] Wrong, again. Best practice encoded by our guidelines is always to ask the other editor involved in the relevant discussion if they wouldn't mind moving the discussion. In this case, I mind and I would ask that you do not move this discussion to that talk page because it has nothing to do with this curent discussion. I am not discussing gun laws in Colorado and gun politics in the U.S. I am discussing what expert sources like Robert Spitzer, professor of political science at State University of New York at Cortland, are discussing, such as the availability of weapons by Holmes under current Colorado law, which is entirely relevant to the article on the Aurora shooting. In fact, I can't think of a single argument that would make it irrelevant. So no, you don't have my permission to move this discussion. Further, you still don't show any sign of understanding what content forking is. Viriditas (talk) 03:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Talk:Gun laws in Colorado--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted it. As you were previously informed, per talk page guidelines, you did not have my permission to move my comments. Feel free to brush up on Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages, Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, and Wikipedia:Civility, all of which you have violated. Viriditas (talk) 03:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted my comments for a second time. If you add it again for a third time, I'll remove it again and file a noticeboard report. Again, I told you that I did not want my comments moved to that page. You are, of course, free to do whatever you like on your user page, including deleting my comments. But, you cannot move my comments wherever you want. Viriditas (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, but bad analogy. The pea guy wasn't editing his own Wikipedia page. Crusio is.

WP:COI edits are allowed. If other editors wish to cite policy/guidelines they are allowed to seek consensus. Making inane, childish comments on the talk pages of articles and users does not help the project though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

• 04:01, 29 July 2012[1] -Removed a blatant BLP issue.--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• 01:27, 29 July 2012[2] -Removed a template that was WP:POINT--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• 19:31, 28 July 2012[3] -Removed a very sloppy, incoherent, edit and replaced the good material in the next edit.--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you persist, one of us is going to get reported, and it's not going to be me. Viriditas (talk) 08:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't you WP:STICK? Are you going to piss off more editors and admin with your POV now by dragging me to another ANI? You may wish to read WP:PETARD--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"If you are involved in a dispute with someone, try to discuss matters with the other person via their talk page. If they won't cooperate, seek dispute resolution. Try to avoid reporting someone for administrator intervention when you are angry; wait until you are calm and then think about whether the report is appropriate. If you do report someone, be sure you are at the correct noticeboard and read the rules of the board before making your report. Finally, consider whether your own actions in the matter have been entirely blameless."--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Gun debates in article space , a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Gun debates in article space and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Gun debates in article space during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of the discussion the page has been moved to User:Canoe1967/Gun debates in article space. Hut 8.5 17:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your service and dedication to your home country. Viriditas (talk) 07:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. The only reason I left is because the pay sucked.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately posting comments inside other comments quickly becomes confusing. In this edit you signed the sentence "Or this one?", but I wrote it. In the most recent edit its almost impossible to determine who wrote what. Please don't put your comments inside mine. Thanks in advance, Arcandam (talk) 08:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC) p.s. I am bored, I am going to do something else for a while.[reply]

Then please don't ask me questions I can't answer for you according to format policies. Format them in a way I can or don't bother asking them.--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can answer below my comment. Duh. Arcandam (talk) 18:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can sign each question in place, so I can answer them in place. Otherwise is looks very confusing as to which ones I am answering. Duh!--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When that happens, you can use {{outdent}} Viriditas (talk) 10:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have used those often. I will wait for others to respond though. I think a discussion by only three people on the delete page, the article talk page, 2 times at a laughable ANI, my talk page, other article talk pages, Jimbo's talk page, 3 pages on commons, 2 on meta, Paris Hilton's face book, Obama's twitter, the Popes Sunday mass, etc, etc. is fine for a while. If you come up with any valid points at all I would be interested in how others will respond to them, but I don't think I will be responding to your repeats over, and over, and over, and over after I give you the same valid answers, over, and over, and over, and over.

--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. I'm making this request because you truly believe the personal essay you are writing could actually be elevated to a policy. I'm sorry to have to tell you this (but it will save you some time) that's completely impossible. Viriditas (talk) 06:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may also help if you read Wikipedia:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays. Viriditas (talk) 06:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I have answered this at least 10 times already, here, here, my talk page, the article talk page, etc, etc.. Why do you keep asking over and over. Drop the stick, walk away from the horse, take the article and my talk page off your watch list, and ignore them all if you don't like them. You and User:Arcandam seem to be focused on other editors judging by your recent contribs. If you have a problem with an editor it will not help by stalking them all over WMF and hampering their efforts in the project. I have spent more time defending my work from your improper deletion request than actually improving it. You both repeat the same questions, I keep giving the same answers. Much of the time within seconds you repeat another question and never allowing others to have any input. I have said the same to User:Arcandam: Drop the stick, walk away from the horse, take the article and my talk page off your watch list, and ignore them all if you don't like them. The article consists of policy therefore it is policy that can be followed. There is no POV on how to follow it so it is not truly an essay. It is a work in flux that others are free to edit, add examples, and offer ways to follow the said policies. If you keep bothering my talk page with more entries like this I feel I may have to formally ask you both to stay off my talk page and never come back--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

us meaning: User talk:Sensei48, User:HammerFilmFan, and myself. I have only had one interaction with Sensei48 that I can think of when they reverted an edit of mine and HammerFilmFan is similar except I may have responded to them on article talk pages. With Sensei48 you decided for some reason to join us on her talk page about the revert. With HammerFilmFan you filed a 3RR on one revert they did of mine plus some IP reverts. That 3RR was declined. With me this list is incredible if admin wishes to do a checkuser on your edits and mine they may feel as I do that you seem to be hounding me all over en:wp as well as User:Arcandam. It is very difficult for 'us' do do anything when other editors act like this.--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Canoe, if you won't fix a problem you introduced into the article, then I'm forced to escalate the matter. I'm sorry you feel hounded, but if you continue to ignore these issues when they are raised, then I will have to ask others to look at them. Since, you refuse to fix the problem, that's what I have to do. Your summary of Hammer's 4RR in 24 hours indicates that there's still a major communication problem. Viriditas (talk) 08:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked for consensus for it on the talk page. If you would take your time to read the correct forum for issues like this I would not have to keep answering you on the wrong page.--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, local consensus does not at any time override or supersede core polices. NPOV and our other policies are clear on this. We don't replace the name of a source with a generic term. That you persist in this kind of disruption is troubling. I'm going to start composing my report. Viriditas (talk) 08:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even follow the wikilink? Pew Research Center, I may just speedy it for a few reasons that I think it is guilty of.--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Canoe, I feel some responsibility for your behavior. I want to apologize for stressing you out. I'll try and give you some breathing room. Again, I'm sorry. BTW, feel free to speedy PEW. It might be a good learning experience for you. Talk to you in a few days. Viriditas (talk) 10:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The dog is dust, the carrier was firewood, the car is probably part of my beer can now."

Thank you, I enjoyed that. Belchfire-TALK 02:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. Most of the time my sense of humour gets bad response from editors who have none.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't understand this edit by you. The source, which is reliable, clearly states the charges being faced. I know that WP:BLP is a minefield at the best of times but this seems not to be speculative. Well, it is not speculative if you understand Indian English. Could you perhaps clarify, as I'm presuming some sort of WP:CRYSTAL might underly your quote of BLP. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 03:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With current events that are still unfolding it is best to remove contentenious material then seek consensus as to what if any should be added back. Possibly facing charges is wp:crystal, yes.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not contentious. The only contention is whether the charges will become more serious (ie: murder). As for the "suspects", there is a thread on the talk page that explains the problem relating to the infobox template - "suspects" vs "accused". These named people are in the Indian criminal justice system, no-one else is being sought, some have already admitted guilt/complicity etc. I think that in this instance you are being over-cautious and, believe me, I am usually cautious <g> Maybe we should take this to the article talk page? It being 0330 here, I'm off to bed shortly anyway but, honestly, unless you want to strip all the names etc out of the thing then this looks like a well-intentioned but poor application of BLP. - Sitush (talk) 03:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'll copy this entire thread over to the article talk page. My apologies for raising it here - it really is not the best venue, and I suspect it may end up at WP:BLPN. - Sitush (talk) 03:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you Canoe1967 for your help in getting us started!!! James W. Pickens 22:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the image to the article! I was too hasty in removing it. I thought that an image of a similar statue might be confusing, but I can see that it aides the "copies" section. -- Hazhk ^{Talk to me} 02:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. I hope we can find more detail on the controversy for either article. It seems the images of the real one are up for deletion in commons. I think the copyright holders enjoy filing legal actions. They may yet file one on WMF. I would rather we avoid spending our WMF funds on defense lawyers though. It may be cheapest to just delete them.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the best thing to do with images in commons is simply delete them. The article must have gone thought ten different images over the past few years, and the current licensing on the main image is the only one acceptable. The Eriksen family must be making a lot of money from aggressively suing what they see as infringement. -- 11:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Hazhk ^{Talk to me}

I have replied to you on Talk:Duck. Henrib736 (talk) 02:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was recently removed from Wikipedia:Most vandalized pages so it may be safe to edit with your changes. Many will agree it should have a section like that, but many won't. If they give you a hard time like they try with me then you can either fight back or walk away.I doubt anyone will lose an eye.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Thank you. Henrib736 (talk) 03:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Am aware of what makes a Rabbi and also aware that comments are being scrubbed from legit sources. The article they use where they say he is a rabbi if you click the link it says he's not a rabbi. They deny the holocaust in their very post.68.174.123.10 (talk) 10:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The defintion of Rabbi is very broad. He seems to meet our wikipedia definition. In that case no editor can remove the term from the article. It will just cause edit wars and blocks.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So at least make the article accurate. They are using obscure newspapers rather than stating what chief rabbi of israel said about him and wiki sources.68.174.123.10 (talk) 10:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Canoe, this IP is a self confessed sock [4] Darkness Shines (talk) 10:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

abuse@rr.com then? I think I will go back to the duck article and edit war there. Far more important to the project.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Canoe1967,

Sorry to revert you, but I did some clean up of this article, and an IP reverted all the changes without an edit summary so I reverted him and went to the talk page. Hopefully we can work something out. Do you think this article should even be kept? Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 03:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just saw your last edit summary. I am sorry about that. --Malerooster (talk) 03:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you are an involved editor in a content dispute on this article, however can you please explain how this revision relates to controversial information that requires consensus. I am coming over to this article in response to a merge discussion, and would like to help you guys work out the problems with this article. Tiggerjay (talk) 17:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I will probably have time this afternoon to take a closer, critical look at the article to work to improve it. Tiggerjay (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also next time, please be sure to assume good faith before you make such blatant personal attacks like you did here. Tiggerjay (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have mentioned you on the talk page Talk:2012_Delhi_gang_rape_case#Teek_hain --sarvajna (talk) 04:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Canoe, and happy new year. I wanted to ask you about your camera in connection with that fake photo. I've never had a Canon DSLR so I'm not sure what it does if you screw on a lens that's not programmed into it. Say a teleconverter and a telescope. Does it still measure the F-number and focal length somehow? BadaBoom (talk) 10:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You noticed that 0 mm lens and 0 f-stop as well I see. I don't know how the camera got that. I will try to take a picture with no lens in the daylight and see what the EXIF data reads. I have a new 300mm Vivitar lens that I haven't tried yet as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's exactly what I meant, thank you. :-) I know that DSLRs don't "see" some lenses and you have to go to MF with them. But I'm not sure how the camera records the data. Please let me know how your experiment turns out. Nice lens btw. :-) BadaBoom (talk) 10:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HI Canoe1967, thanks for welcoming me back. I have received both your messages (on my WIkimedia and Wikipedia account). While you were writing me, I also had asked the question with the copyrights village pump (per the suggestion in the help desk), which you can find here.

Great to hear that it's no problem uploading the logo to the English Wikipedia under the Fair Use Rationale. I've done it before with various album covers, so I will do it once I have a nice 300px version of the logo ready (in a couple of days). I think that in the mean time, I will look into the question of the copyrighting/trademarking a little more. Is it okay for me to contact you should I have any questions? Should everything run smoothly, I will at least keep you posted on whether it worked ;-) --Eddyspeeder (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SarahStierch (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hi, here is the siris search for John Weaver [5]; here is a photo of the artist on a blog [6]. because the artist is deceased, you can use a "fair use" photo that you upload here at english wikipedia (use upload file in the toolbox). 198.24.31.118 (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I managed to upload a good cropped image under fair use. I hope to get more images of his sculptures though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a few more links on the talk page, but have you come across any other sources? I figure expanding the article with one source per day should get the article GAN-ready in no time! --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been awarded the seldom coveted Thumbs Up Award for speedily coming to the rescue (in a canoe, no less) of another editor who was floundering in a sea of formatting confusion. Life is good, and it is even better with folks such as you around. Carptrash (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your recent insights, I will try them out. Carptrash (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

retired from wikipedia for a bit, until I get over (emotionally) this latest copyright thing, but I don't want to be rude about it. I am very curious as to where where you may have seen the two pictures being discussed at my talk page, and look forward to hearing from you on this, or any other subject. Carptrash (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops! It may have been flickr.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's me too. Carptrash (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should be able to upload the one to commons with template {heir}. I can't see anyone coming out of the woodwork with the other. It does look like a professional shot that was taken by a government photographer though. I don't think regular press were in China at the time. The pilot had sent the photo, so I assume the government gave him at least the one copy.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to check my talk page for the details of what other editors think/feel. Carptrash (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

I have changed the logo size in the infobox back to 150px . 300px is way too big for an ibox logo and made the ibox overpower the article's lead section.--ukexpat (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Canoe1967. How's it going. Just a note to tell you I've manually uploaded most of the images I want from this collection, there's a couple more, I'll grab them later. To avoid any duplication of effort if you get your tusc thing together. He's got lots more good ones in his other collections, but some aren't labelled... The Interior (Talk) 05:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Storm naming controversy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Storm naming controversy until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

In less than two minutes, you fixed the problem I reported with the Christopher Jordan Dorner article. Rybec (talk) 04:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Seems they tried to delete the PD image over at commons. I re-tagged it as a slower review. It should be able to stay as a PD work by a CA employee.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the cleanup! I'm still getting used to wikipedia, where it seems the usual revision of my careful work is wholesale deletion of everything I've entered because it doesn't cohere with someone's or some gang's intended narrative. So thank you for the pleasant surprise. Mathematician0 (talk) 04:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By now you may have already noticed that a number of students working with me (as their tutor) are exploring ways to improve machinima related pages across Wikipedia. The course details are available here. I'm sure that those who interact with you will benefit greatly from your experience and good spirit. Thank you! --ToniSant (talk) 14:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eyesnore (pending changes) 22:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to call you an ignorant asshole, but wp guidelines frown upon that.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did the IP actually claim to be Jan Mak at BLPN? I don't think he did. GiantSnowman 09:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, apologies - I knew I'd seen it somewhere. He doesn't claim to be Our Mr. Mak - he doesn't claim to be any Jan Mak at all. We should not take an anon's unsupported claim over a source. GiantSnowman 09:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't claim to be the Jan Mak we have an article on. He doesn't claim to be called Jan Mak at all. GiantSnowman 10:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to be as clear as I can - what evidence is there that the IP was talking about the subject of this article? GiantSnowman 10:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of sources say 1948 - see Google - and this one is widely used/respected across Wikipedia. GiantSnowman 10:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What an over-reaction, what crap will hit what fan if (and I doubt we have) got the date of birth slightly wrong. GiantSnowman 10:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck you are an asshole! Why be such a prick and stuff the wrong date in there just to piss me off!--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning for your attitude/language/attacks, I've told you before. It is not the 'wrong' birth date, plenty of sources say 1948 - whereas your 'reliable source' for 1945 clearly cannot be trusted seeing as it says he is Swedish when he is actually Dutch! GiantSnowman 10:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I no longer give a shit! Go ahead and fuck up the article! I will have a good laugh when egg hits face after shit hits fan.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snowman, I'm sorry to say that you were wrong when you said (above), "He doesn't claim to be Our Mr. Mak - he doesn't claim to be any Jan Mak at all." He most certainly did. He signed his help desk comment "Jan Mak". Now it certainly doesn't prove that he actually is Jan Mak, but your claim that he never said it is false. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a signature, or is that just an example of the IP's obvious poor grammar? No way of telling which is which. GiantSnowman 18:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snowman, who cares about the editor's grammar? I have to say that it really surprises me that you're an administrator based on the types of rude, sarcastic, defensive, and other inappropriate comments you've been posting. Admins should be de-escalating problems, not creating them. Very sad to see. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because the poor grammar means it is near-impossible to accuratlely decipher the IP's intention/desire. My comments have been not rude, sarcastic, defensive, and otherwise inappropriate, if you feel differently some diffs would be welcome so I can re-phrase/apologise as appropriate. GiantSnowman 19:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I call bullshit on that! Either behave or I will formally ask you to stay the fuck off my talk page. The original date I removed had no source and the one I replaced it with seemed to come from the person themself. You weasel added a google link for Jan Mak‎ 1948. I edited it to Jan Mak‎ 1945 and you whined like a baby. Of course your google link will match your POV in this case. I also feel you are very COI in this issue being an avid soccer fan. If you can't behave like an admin at least behave like a responsible editor and stop power-tripping with your status to win your edit wars with your POV, COI, and OR.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the time both dates were unreferenced, you were relying on somebody (possibly) claiming to be the subject but not providing any sources. I didn't weasel add anything - I founds sources which supported a DOB I believed, at the time, to be correct. Just because I believe that something, supported by sources, was correct does not mean I have a POV; just because I am interested in a sport means I have a COI - what a ridiculous thing to say. I'm also intrigued where my apparent OR has come from? GiantSnowman 20:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the date to the google search is POV and OR. Why would you believe an unsourced date in an article? The reason they are unsourced is because the editor probably couldn't find a source. As I have said before it is atrocious how wp treats blp articles. Far too many want them to be unsourced, undue, tabloids. Mentioning Mr. Mak's grammar is highly un-called for. What part of Dutch don't you understand? If you can't come up with better arguments and keep repeating the same lame ones, then I will remove them and ask you not to post on my talk page again.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snowman, Again, the IP clearly signed his comment with the name Jan Mak.[7] And if you don't understand why your "the IP's obvious poor grammar" comment was rude, then there's no point in anyone explaining it to you. That goes for other inappropriate and aggressive comments you've posted. Denying the obvious - about the IP's signature and your grammar comment - do nothing but decrease your credibility. For the record, the IP's grammar was perfectly acceptable for a help desk comment. He said, "Date of birth incorrect. 21.06.1945 is OK. Jan Mak". There are some really great admins out there. Hopefully, you will learn from their example on how to treat others. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 19:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not clearly signed, the grammar is poor, and the intention is unclear. Who's the one with the rude behaviour now? GiantSnowman 20:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snowman, you said "the poor grammar means it is near-impossible to accuratlely decipher the IP's intention/desire". I'm sorry, but that's complete nonsense. The IP said, very simply and clearly, that the date of birth was wrong and that it should be changed to 21.06.1945. What, exactly, didn't you understand about that? If you honestly can't decipher that comment, then your editing is even more concerning. I'm not at all saying that the content should've been changed based solely on that request - it absoultely should not have been - but let's not pretend his request couldn't be understood. Finally, your latest barb ("Who's the one with the rude behaviour now?") only serves to substantiate what I've been saying about your inappropriate tone and behavior. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, I'll be as clear as I can - do we 100% know what article the IP was talking about? No. Do we know that the IP was the subject of oour article on Jan Mak? No. It is sensible to assume he is called Jan Mak, and sensible to assume he was referring to the article of that name, and probably the subject - but we cannot be sure at all. My barb was merely in response to yours. GiantSnowman 20:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snowman, please stop this nonense. Of course we "100% know" he was talking about Jan Mak. The section title of his help desk thread was "Jan Mak" and the IP editor said the date of birth was incorrect.[8] How many Jan Mak articles are there on Wikipedia? One. And, as you are well aware, the discussion on the article's talk page now includes two sources which show the exact date of birth given by the IP editor claiming to be Mak.[9] So please stop what you are doing. I'm starting to think that perhaps you keep defensively repsonding to plain logic simply to be disruptive. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You know I care about you. I think the ip does too. Personally, I don't mind your broo-tal way of talk page discussion. Sort of enjoy it. But the neolibs feel like a Hun is in the castle when they see that.

Just avoid the aggravators and don't mess with anyone for a while. You don't have to crawl.

It's gonna be OK.

Peace, babe.

TCO (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I think I will tone down. It reminds of a talk the General gave us one time. "Remember boys and girls, when you go home on leave after this war try to remember the climate change. When your mother invites the Bishop to dinner, do not lean over to him and say 'Pass the fucking spuds, asshole!'"--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear, Canoe. Was watching this whole imbroglio and hoping we wouldn't lose you to the Rage. This place is far from perfect, but it doesn't need to be. Just needs to be functional enough to build an encyclopedia. Next time you need to rant, feel free to use my talk page as a verbal dumping ground! The Interior (Talk) 22:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you as well. Btw, if you are near John Hendry Park could you see if there is a statue of him there? It is for the article John Hendry (industrialist). If so see if it has the sculptor and other details as to its creation. I assume he has a statue somewhere in Van and that is the most likely place. The park itself could probably use better images as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, be driving past there on my way home from the Shuswap. Got some Drop photos as well, I'll link you when I've time to upload them. Heed the General, he sounds like a wise man. The Interior (Talk) 23:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He is very wise. I trained his son who is a Colonel now. I still have the General on my resumes as a reference as well as the Chief of the Little Shuswap Indian band that I used to work for. I grew up in the Shuswap and keep trying to get back there but lack of good work and the 'sunshine tax' prevent it. If you are driving through Spuzzum, we could use a shot of their 'leaving Spuzzum' sign. One sign, same message on both sides.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That explains something - in a military situation, sometimes you've got to call someone an asshole (so they don't step on a mine and blow them and their colleagues up, f'rinstance), but round here you're much better off just shouting it into the monitor and not committing it to the "Save" button. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to make you aware of this discussion I started at Winter storm naming. I have no intentions of making any changes to the article myself, but was just hoping to get input from editors previously involved in the article (or recently-closed AfD) in an effort to improve the article and clarify its purpose. I will leave any changes to the consensus of other editors who decide what's best. Your participation would be welcome, regardless of your views on the issue. Thank you. 76.189.111.199 (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That article may be in flux for a while. It was originally titled as a controversy and then consensus changed the title. We may have to revisit the title and scope. We could change it back to the controversy, re-title Tropical cyclone naming and then include the other naming material in that article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. The editor who removed the word "controversy" from the title completely changed the context of the article. (Was there consensus for that move? If so, I can't find it. Would you be allowed to move it back to the orginal title?) Further, I believe that the title should include "The Weather Channel" in it since (1) it was their naming system that apparently prompted you to create the article in the first place, and (2) it was in fact TWC that made winter storm naming notable and therefore eligible for its own article. With the very vague title "Winter storm naming", I agree with you that the article will be in flux; perhaps forever if the title isn't changed or its purpose isn't well-defined. I believe it would be very helpful if you, as the article's creator, would give your thoughts in the article's talk page discussion. I don't care which side of the issue editors are on, but I think it's vital that a determination be made about the article's defined purpose and title. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think consensus was reached at the deletion discussion that is linked at the top of the talk page in the banner section.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you have no interest in helping to resolve the confusion about the purpose of the article that you created. Of course, that is your choice. You didn't even address what your intent was when you created the article; whether it was meant to be an article solely about TWC's winter storm naming system. The AfD consensus was simply to keep the article. And the closing admin's decision was without prejudice to rename, which means it's up to editors to discuss and reach consensus about a possible title change. Again, I found no consensus for the title change. Most importantly, the AfD decision had nothing to do with determining exactly what the article is about and what a winter storm is. Without doing that, a potentially solid article makes little sense. In any case, I'll leave any further discussion to the article's talk page. Feel free to participate there if you change your mind and want to help resolve the problems. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like many articles I have created it seems they are put up for AfD too quickly and for the wrong reasons. When that one was first put up for AfD I was trying to work on it at the same time as defending it in AfD. With Political gaffe, Jennifer Graylock as well as others, I ran into too many reverts and edit conflicts while in AfD. I usually let the dust settle to work on them. The title should be reached by consensus. Once that is decided then the article can be formatted to suit the title. I am neutral on the title at this point so my input probably wouldn't matter much.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must say, I don't understand how the creator of an article can be neutral on its title. The title is precisely what determines how the article should be developed. Again, you did not answer what you specifically intended the article to be about. That in itself would go a long way to resolving the problems. If my hunch is correct, you wrote it specifically about TWC's winter naming, which I believe makes sense. After all, there is no other prominent naming system for winter storms other than theirs. It is notable. And the controversy surrounding it is also notable. It looks like participation in the article has almost completely stopped. Apparently, the editors previously involved have decided to move on now that the AfD is over. In any case, I hope appropriate improvements can be made to the article so that it won't continue to cause confusion for readers as to exactly what it's about. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't WP:OWN the article just because I created it. Others seem to have different views on where it should lead. Once they settle on a title then we can work on the article. Feel free to bring up a discussion about the title and how to expand the article to fit that title. My original was Weather wars but I decided to be more in line with wp naming policy. You could put a Template:Under construction tag on it so readers won't be confused by it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Participating is completely different than owning. The current discussion already includes talk about the title. I'm not sure why you're so resistant to improving the article you started, but you have to do what you think is best. Weather wars... haha. That would be a good movie title. Suggest it to George Lucas. Or maybe Jim Cantore. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 23:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your help on the Machinima Virtual Filmmaking page, you were the first to reply on the talk page and provided some very useful information JPeachman (talk) 09:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. Let me know if you need any more help at all.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for your helpful advice for my contribution for Culture of Second Life :) Rosiesievers20 (talk) 10:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. Let me know if you need any more help at all.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[10] Just to let you know, there is a welcome template. {[welcome}} Give it a try. MIVP - (Can I Help?) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 16:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware of it. If someone were to make a collapsable one then it may look better and not dominate talk pages. To me it seems to say "You are new, please read all of these links thoroughly before you get in trouble."

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, you may be blocked from editing.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I feel you are being very pointy and disruptive. If you have an issue with another editor then bring it up on their talk page and not the article one.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And which editor would that be? Several SPA and ip accounts have been editing for the subject. Contacting OTRS is what they should do in the future. Ive been watching this article recentely to watch for COI edits that violate policies as well as BLP. And when an editor reverts your bold removal of a TP comment, you should not remove again short of BLP.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your posts seem trollish to me. See:WP:TPO. "Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism."--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File a complaint at AN/I then. Good day.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't be bothered with that drama bullshit. I have made my point and will let you dig your own hole. I have put your talk page on my watchlist to laugh when you are taken to ANI by someone that has more time one their hands than me.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That didn't take long. Let me know which sock accounts you try to create now so I can have a laugh at those as well. Bye.............--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please if you are going to revert my comments do the homework before jumping to conclusions. I have presented proof at ANi and at a sock puppet investigation prior to me making those claims. I am aware of the guidelines. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot make claims about a BLP in an article talk page without RS.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have please read the comment, I modified it again and I will continue to revert it. That is a easily confirmed comment, links are on the comment and Jimbo himself acknowledgedthat there was Paid editing. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will keep removing it and claim 3RR exemption for removal of contentious material as to BLP policy.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added a comment made by one of the editors in question they had posted on their talkpage with use of the word we and personal knowledge of the situation to say that they had a COI and a COI only without specifics, it is still being said it's a violation of WP:OUTING which I don't understand can you answer my question there and explain it to me? If I'm off base with the second one I really need to know how if I am not to repeat it in the future, the first one I do understand and agree it should be RevDel'd but I did make every attempt to make the second something useable to at least say we had a COI using comments from the user made on their talkpage. I would appreciate some guidance in this issue if I'm off base. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem very COI on this article. You should just drop the stick and walk away. You have abused article talk space to push your POV. If you have an issue with other editors or policy then bring it up elsewhere.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your opinion which I believe is off base and regret that you will not explain to me the policy. I won't ask you again and instead ask someone more amenable to helping. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TPO is one policy and WP:BLP another. There are more. Article talk pages should not be abused to push a POV. They are for discussing the article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to delete your comment? If you do, I'll delete my response. —rybec 04:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which comment? The one where I said I would remove material that consensus has agreed to leave out, or the one that you need other editors to agree that Wikipedia should read like a bs tabloid huffpost?--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that one. I take it you want it to remain. —rybec 06:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That one?--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

diff —rybec 06:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

dont Delete Scarlett Keeling please.. the case caused international incident and she with Julio Lobo at time of her death by --Sunuraju (talk) 06:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the sources I do believe it may be notable enough to remain. Try not to make a mess of it and others may not notice it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source for "eight siblings (six were fathered by other men)." is http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-532789/The-truth-Good-Life-murdered-teenager-Scarlett-Keeling.html#axzz2JiXp1dSM, where it is written ...Her first three children - Halloran, 19, Silas, 17, and Scarlett, 15 - were the product of a relationship with Richard Keeling, a Libyan-born concrete contractor. [...] but split up shortly after Scarlett's birth.. Thanks···Vanischenu^「m/_Talk」 18:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors may consider that as WP:UNDUE etc. You should try not to make the article look like a tabloid piece or it may be deleted as POV pushing. You could try asking at WP:BLPN for advice and assitance.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I want to thank you for all your prompt help in tryinng to balance this Wiki profile. Secondly, I have raised this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Wikipedia_profile_of_Murdered_Girl

Wuser999 (talk) 08:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I am. How does that game work? Please explain more. ActorBoss (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will be worthy of something like that. What exactly would Al want? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ActorBoss (talk • contribs) 20:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, find out what you need. Good idea, what article is he interested in, I don't know if I have any articles related to his business.ActorBoss (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really following. You mentioned at first that Al would be really interested in an article which I created. You haven't said which article I created which is related to him in any way. Al Oeming – Man of the North is not an article which I created. Get back to me :).. ActorBoss (talk) 12:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh... I understand a little bit more now. So you take photos then upload them to Wikipedia. You did a good job on that Jennifer article, which was you're first created article on WIKI. I'm a useful and great researcher, just give me a message and I'll get back. ActorBoss (talk) 15:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I create deceased BIO articles because you tend to find more information about them, alot infact. Living people are quite hard, to find updated information about them is really hard. ActorBoss (talk) 16:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I created the redirect and added a small amount of text to the article. Fell free to expand as needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making content on the Judge Judy article inaccurate. This was never a content dispute. It was a dispute as to whether or not material should remain in the article because the man in question saw it and didn't like that he was reported on. I've presented the arguments that it is indeed relevant and they've agreed. Then they said that the section I scaled down was too bulky. So I have no idea why you continue to come in and insert errors. The articles in question state that Jones has suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuued Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeindlin and that Randy Douthit was naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamed as a defendant, so they were suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuued. Bottomline, I'm going to an administrator and reporting you if you continue to be belligerent and make it a content dispute when it never was one.AmericanDad86 (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEIGHT. And you also should be glad I don't consider the admin intervention as a 'block threat'. Others may consider it so though. There is no consensus on inclusion of any of the material and loading it up with pointy quotes from subjects that are still in litigation is not the correct way to treat contentious BLP article material.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEIGHT has nothing to do with how much material is in the article, copycat. Read the guideline page you gave me as opposed to just sending it to me. If you actually read that page you'd know it has to do with reporting evenly all sides of the source provided. I reported all side of the source provided which was that Sheindlin and Douthit were suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuued. Not Big Ticket Television. Nowhere is Big Ticket Television named in the lawsuit. It says Douthit is. So I have no idea where you get off making a content dispute out of this when it wasn't want. And I full well do plan on informing an administrator if you continue to. I don't care what you take it as. You're misrepresenting the source and being belligerent. As it was, I had agreed to scale it down, then you decided to instigate a content dispute. And if you actually new the subjects you were arguing about as opposed to just belligerently jumping in, you'd know that none of this is still in litigation. The first 2 are from 2007 and the last one was settled out of court several weeks ago. So again, you're wrong! AmericanDad86 (talk) 22:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources say that suit was "filed against the production company". Can you find a source that states suits were filed against the other two?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Two of the nationally syndicated show's producers have filed separate lawsuits in the last two months against the show's production company, claiming that they were treated with less justice than most of the people who appeared before the wise-cracking TV judge. From: http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=4081369&page=1 --Canoe1967 (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Canoe, as said, read the source. If it was against the production company and not Judge Judy, they wouldn't mention Judge Judy at all in the headline and they wouldn't mention Randy Douthit. I'm done with the games. The content and wording was never the issue of this dispute. It had to do with the IP owned by Randy Douthit not wanting the sources used and information in the article whatsoever. Your jumping in the situation belligerently is out of line. And if you actually wanted to resolve this civilly, you would have left it alone when I scaled it down as was suggested on the Wikipedia Help Desk. Instead of leaving well enough alone at that point, you continued instigating. So now I've reported on your behavior at the Wikipedia Administrator's Noticeboards. Good day! AmericanDad86 (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually find a source as to who the suits were filed against?--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just did my second revert on Marion Raven. Does anyone want to take a look at the source? It is a Face Book type page of the subject of a BLP article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Canoe, I removed the above comment from WP:ANEW. I'm sure you mean well, but you can't use ANEW as a personal sounding board for whether your edits are appropriate. You need to familiarize yourself with the policies and guidelines that apply to content disputes and edit warring. If you have questions, depending on what they are, you can ask at one of the noticeboards, like WP:RSN, if it involves reliable sources, WP:BLPN, if it involves living persons, or WP:EAR, if it involves general assistance for editors, to name a few. If you think only an administrator can help you, you can go to the talk page of an admin or go to WP:AN if it's serious enough. (I wouldn't go to WP:ANI unless you are reporting a serious incident, not just for a question.)

In this instance I'm puzzled by your edits. I'm not familiar with bebo, but it does not appear to be a reliable source unless one could confirm that the biographical information is in fact posted by Raven. If you wanted to investigate that, you could try posting at WP:RSN. In the meantime, I would be leery of using it as a source. However, you removed the material about Raven's mother, but you left intact all the rest of the material supported by bebo. Why?

As for the procedural issue, regardless of who supposedly has the burden, I would start a topic on the article talk page about the content. I wouldn't continue reverting.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I posted there to avoid the Streisand effect on the article. Most of it is probably true but sourced to a blog page written by the subject. There is a difference between thinking you know who your mother is, claiming to know who your mother is, and having it kept in en:wp. The one she names as her mother in her blog complained at help desk that it wasn't her. I removed it as sourced to the subject twice now. If they want to use en:wp as a battle ground as to who is who it wouldn't be the first time. It may end up at drama boards all over, OTRS, DNA tests, the White House, the Vatican, the Hague, and the bathroom wall at Grand Central Station before those two are done. From: http://www.bebo.com/c/about "Bebo combines community, self-expression and entertainment, enabling you to consume, create, discover, curate and share..." --Canoe1967 (talk) 22:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear that Kodak were less than helpful with your Ektachrome question, but thanks for trying to help out anyway. All the best! Ubcule (talk) 20:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Found a source. "The discontinuation means that Kodak will no longer produce any colour reversal films - commonly used to create slides." An IP added it to the talk page.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to stop by and make sure you were following the societal norms. Don't want to scare the little chipmunks with your thuggish manliness.

Srsly though. Hang in there big guy. There are bigger and more important things than fuckers on the Internet. I spent a year in my 20s associated with a guy who dived on a hand grenade to save his comrades. I think about it every day. I mean...I really do! He has no children. But other men go forth. Means a lot more than jerking off with the neoliberals or getting too involved in the fuck-fuck games.

TCO (talk) 22:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am mellower now. I try to walk away from the anal edit wars. I have been working a lot at commons to get more images in articles. One whined here when I added to the cosplay aricle. I simply found a better image and they seem to have backed off now. The one they kept reverting I did manage to add to other articles though. I found this image:File:Nighthawks by Edward Hopper 1942.jpg after they tried to delete it here. After a little research we found that it is actually public domain. They are trying to delete File:Yellow Submarine Second Life.png but I will just make a new sub and take a picture of that to replace it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hang in there, ground pounder. No last stands.  :) TCO (talk) 22:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support. I doubt I will be leaving anytime soon and it is nice that a few have faith in me.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do it like everyone else - if you want, just add them to the thousands of similar photos in the Commons, and to any revelant categories (and this one wasn't even cosplay, at all). See the link to the Commons parent cosplay category in the article? It's where everyone else's photos go (preferably to the sub-categories, not the parent cat, it's for uncategorized pictures only). The article doesn't need any more illustrations to begin with, and definitely not random pictures (but not any).

That was a kind of friendly warning and I hope it was enough. --Niemti (talk) 13:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm active on Commons too, uploading and categorizing pictures. --Niemti (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss it on the article talk page.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Cosplay images in articles--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, since I've seen you and another complaining about how Admin don't like your Adminpedia/Deletionist thing on your user page, the main concern isn't the message of being anti-Admin or anti-deletionist - that's fine, you're free to feel that way and express it. The problem is the part says Please vandalize deletionist user pages with it!. The hang up is how you're promoting vandalism, which, as you can probably imagine, is a less noble viewpoint on Wikipedia. Is there any way you could remove just the promoting of vandalism bit? Let me know. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 19:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a big difference between vandalizing Wikipedia and messaging a user page. I see little difference between by message and a trout slap. If it does get abused then one editor can just ask another to stay off their page which is a more correct action than edit warring and locking my user page. I can't see why the two admins that keep removing it don't discuss it first. I can only assume that they think they are special because they have an admin bit and can do anything they want to anyone. This is typical of far too many admins on Wikipedia. Abuse power and expect no actons. I may yet take it to the community and have consenus decide there. I will give them a while to think about their actions first though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's already been to the community - many times, and your own userpage was there as well. There is no difference whatsoever between vandalizing an article and/or a userpage - all are owned by the WMF, and all are subject to the same rules and policies, even BLP. Userpages and usertalkpages exist for purposes compatible with the Wikipedia project and acceptable to the community. As you already know from WP:UP, the fact that they are subject to the same rules is obvious. Yes - a you already know it was being discussed first - both removals were after the discussion that you were already made aware of. There's no abuse by admins here (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion was about me edit warring in an article. I walked away from that ANI when I walked away from that mess of an article. I avoid most drama boards when I can because I have far better things to to with my time then read endless drivel. If you want to create another ANI about my user page then feel free to do so. Unless you can find 20+ vandals that have done so after reading my page then I see no harm in a sense of humour. It seems ANI doesn't have a sense of humour at all so I will probably get screwed there again.The best option if there is a concern with a user's page is to draw their attention to the matter via their talk page and let them edit it themselves! From the two wikilinks you provided.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No - prevention is more powerful than the cure. Vandalism is not humourous, nor acceptable. What you're suggesting is that we should allow your inflammatory statement because someone else can deal with the repercussions. That's pure BS, and most certainly is not our role, and certainly removes the aspect of YOUR responsibility to not only the project as a whole, but the rules you agreed to (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any idea how authoritarian you're coming off here, Bwilkins? "This desk belongs to the company, misbehaving drone. I'm going to restrict your access to your desk while you think about what you've done". Barf. A little humour and tolerance when dealing with good-faith contributors would go a long way towards making this a more pleasant place to volunteer one's time. The Interior (Talk) 14:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The best option if there is a concern with a user's page is to draw their attention to the matter via their talk page and let them edit it themselves! Unless you unlock my page to fix it then don't bother posting here ever again! If you have a problem with me then send someone else to deal with it!--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see my response at ANI. As I said there, the problem is that you use the word vandalize. Vandalize, by Wikipedia definition, is a bad faith edit. As such, you're essentially saying "Put this on people's user pages against their will, when they don't want it there". If people wanted it there, then it wouldn't be vandalism, right? So it can only be interpreted as causing trouble and breaking rules. Can't you see how that's not okay?
  • I think it can be argued that the "Adminpedia" part is okay without the comment on vandalism, but you've got to work with me here. Let me know your thoughts. Sergecross73 msg me 13:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your points after reading the policy and later ANI entries. I just don't like the way it was handled. I was taken to ANI for edit warring on a lame article that is still a huge mess of fan OR and few sources to back up the huge text. I decided to walk away from both when they recommended Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard because it wasn't worth the effort for one of 1000s of images. Even though one of my images may be a better fit in that article, I doubt the editors that own the article will ever allow it. After I left ANI my page was brought up. I didn't realize it was even brought up as a violation but thought the two admin were just being <redacted> by removing it. To delete it without discussion with me as a rider on another matter is not the way it should have been handled and I doubt this is allowed in wp. I am still waiting for my page to be unlocked and an apology. Until then Bwilkins will not be allowed on my pages without me dragging him to ANI. If he doesn't undo it within 24hrs then he will be banned from my pages forever. I will also request an interaction ban between us. He used his tools and policies improperly and I am not very impressed.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for their actions. Their approach, while technically acceptable, was rather rash and aggressive. I wish they had bothered to discuss it like I'm doing, so we could come to an understanding. While I have the ability to unlock your user page, I want to make sure there's consensus first, as to avoid the Admin's version of edit warring. I will work on that. On your side of things, just to make it official, you do literally agree that, if your user page is unlocked, you'll remove the part about vandalism, right? Sergecross73 msg me 14:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly will you "ban" him from your userpages forever? Unless there's some policy I'm missing, you can't forbid anyone from speaking on your talk page (except, of course, through an interaction ban decided by community consensus). — Richard BB 14:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ask User:GiantSnowman another admin I banned from here.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, I managed to catch GiantSnowman's comment just before Canoe did exactly what Snowman said he would -- remove it with a misleading edit summary. Clearly, Canoe, you cannot "ban" anyone from your talk page, even if you just belligerently delete their comments. I think you should consider improving your Wiki etiquette. — Richard BB 14:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is probably sensible to respect their requests...." I don't know why 'probably' is used to modify 'sensible'. It doesn't seem to make sense in any of the many dialects of English that I am well versed in. I may bring that up for a re-wording at the talk page of the policy I found it in. I should ask at the UK, USA, Canada, India, Belize , Toronto, and Down Under village pumps policy to see if makes more sense to them. 'Sensible' is an easy term to understand but one may need some 'sense' to understand it. 'Probably sensible' reads like the sensible thing to do may not be the probable one.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please, everyone calm down. No, you can't formally ban someone from your user/talk page, and yes, its in bad taste to just delete others comments, but people are allowed to remove other's comments from their user/talk page as long as its not things like active block messages. Please, this nitpicking isn't helping. Lets just work on getting this wrapped up. Sergecross73 msg me 15:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The removal of material from a user page is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents. There is no need to keep them on display and usually users should not be forced to do so." from Wikipedia:User pages. User:GiantSnowman knows that he should not post here this is because of User_talk:Canoe1967#Jan_Mak.E2.80.8E. It carried on at Talk:Jan Mak. I think I was taken to ANI over it but can't remember the result. I just walked away and let the others fight it out on the article talk page. I see that GiantSnowman did manage to keep an incorrect year in the article as well as the correct one but I no longer care. I had similar with Sondra Locke and gave up on that one as well. With Ms. Locke's article I emailed all four sources. Hal Erickson (author) and the wire service that supplied Today in History for ABC both responded promptly. The wire service said they used "government records" and while Hal Erickson isn't responsible for sourcing the dates he did confirm that 1944 is correct. He has the credit for her bio at Rovi. Her bio at IMDB credited Hal Erickson at one point as well, I think. I emailed Rovi at least four times to either confirm or correct their date and never recieved any responses. I also emailed St. Martin's Press who published the book by Patrick McGilligan (biographer) and recieved no response either. Until the sources change their dates then we are doomed to keep both in the articles it seems. I have brought up Rovi as a poor source for birth and death dates numerous times at Wikipedia:BLPN and Wikipedia:RS/N with very little response so I couldn't be bothered trying to change the guidelines to avoid it as a source for dates as we did with IMDB. I started a list of ones that I have come across, User:Canoe1967/Rovi, with wrong dates. I can see reasons for discussing which dates to include but to edit war and use a bit to try and bully others is why GiantSnowman will have his input to my talk page removed. If he wants to not follow 'probable sense' then that is his choice and I will just remove them. I use 'copyedit (minor)' because I set default to leave an edit summary to allow saving and that one seems to fit the best from the drop down choices. If there was a 'remove probably sensless material' then I could use that as it follows the guideline. I could manually type and edit summary but I don't want to waste anymore time then I have to when he knows full well why his comments are removed.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need not explain yourself further, despite what others may say, you're allowed to remove talk page info outright, as long as its not block messages. That being said, we kind of got off subject here. As I was saying earlier, if you confirm that you won't re-add the part about vandalism, I can get your user page unlocked. Can you confirm this? Sergecross73 msg me 14:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather wait the 24hrs for Bwilkins to unlock it and apologize but I doubt that will happen. I just remembered that GiantSnowman had brought the same user page before at ANI on the Jan Mak issue, I think. I don't think anyone responded to his comments on it there. I just ignored it as well as I didn't realize it was a violation. If policy had been pointed to then I would have removed it immediately. I did the same when I first started and added the orange 'You have messages' banner to both may pages. I decided to look into to policy and removed them before anyone noticed. Once my page is unlocked I will not add the image nor the vandalism comment. If I do decide to do something controversial with my pages again I will check policies and possibly ask at help desk 1st. I doubt I will though as far too many editors here have no sense of humour at all. Feel free to unlock it then but unless Bwilkins does and apologizes for trying to bully me with his bit then he will just have all his material removed without comment as well. I do understand that I can't remove some notices but I hope he has another bit add those. If he does it himself then I will just consider it harrassment and abuse of his bit. I may even escalate it if I feel he hasn't learned 'probable sense'--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've mentioned at ANI that I intend to unlock your page, and will do so shortly barring any sort of massive uprisal against me or something. As far Bwilkins goes, is there any common article or project you guys both work on? If not, then hopefully it just won't be necessary for you guys to interact at all to begin with. Rather than "escalate", if problems with Bwilkins, or anyone for that matter, arise, try to get a third party opinion through ANI or just asking someone like myself. Rather than likely get yourself in trouble by "escalating", you may find someone who can support you if you're right, or explain things to you better if you're wrong. Sergecross73 msg me 14:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I remember the name but not from where or whether we have ever interacted. I have had run-ins with many arrogant admins though and he could have been one of them. I do hope that he realizes how wrong his actions were and doesn't act so rashly with his bit in the future. We aren't in a hurry here unless another mass shooting happens with loads of crap added to articles on it. Those are the only cases where we need to act quickly and boldly as editors and admin. I have been avoiding those articles lately and just try to explain how to get pictures for them according to the rules at en:wp and commons. I still don't like the fact that File:James Holmes, cropped.jpg is being hosted without valid rational IMHO. File:Christopher Dorner.jpg is okay but it would still be nice if we had one for commons from friends of family. We are only allowed approx 300px wide with fair use so they never look great in articles. File:Rehtaeh Parsons.jpg is another one that is still in review. I uploaded it to replace a another image that wasn't the best. This is the one most media use so I trust their choice over an editor's. I emailed her school and I think the mayor to see if we could get one licenced but no response yet. Many don't agree we should use fair use images like these in articles but I think our reader's like to see what the subjects looked like. I don't know why I keep ending up in huge disputes over images as I did with most of these. Cosplay I can easily walk away from as it has some good and almost legal images (one was just redlinked from a commons deletion). File:Nighthawks by Edward Hopper 1942.jpg was a very nice treasure that we just discovered at the deletion review is public domain and has been since 1970. I don't know how the museum will react when they find out because they sell various versions for media use, prints, and even an umbrella. That cosplay article is still a huge mess but I will just walk away from it. The angry editor suggested other articles and I came across Cosplay photography which is I think is spam of the website that is mentioned in it and then used as a source. It seems cosplay has a huge clique here. That was the first one I checked in Category:Cosplay and decided to walk away before I decided to tag more for DR. From that one in Category:Photography by genre I discovered Pet photography and tagged it as well. I decided to stop there before getting accused of drive by tagging. There are probably 1000s of similar articles but quietly created and below the radar. I kinda promised at Mr. Wales talk page to write a 'How to Images' so I think I will start that to help others upload images with the correct hoops jumped. I still don't like the fact that BLP articles have the infobox images get older and older as fans upload them and then replaced with a youthful one after they die. Our main focus should be our readers and I feel they would like to see the best image in the infobox not the ones that show their age. I have had a few battles over these and just walked away as well. I did win a few though. Anyway, enough of my issues and sorry rant on so much when you are just trying to close an ANI issue. I thank you for your help and hope many will learn from it. --Canoe1967 (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your userpage has been unlocked. Sorry people came on so aggressive. I think Admin get so tired with dealing with difficult people that sometimes they come off a little too jaded when its not really warranted. I see it a lot, online or otherwise, so I suppose its just part of human nature, not that it makes it okay. Let me know if you need help in the future. Best of luck working with image stuff. Sergecross73 msg me 21:02, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The best option if there is a concern with a user's page is to draw their attention to the matter via their talk page and let them edit it themselves!--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

to start:
http://siris-artinventories.si.edu/ipac20/ipac.jsp?session=13M89804WI494.1909&profile=ariall&source=~!siartinventories&view=subscriptionsummary&uri=full=3100001~!327768~!4&ri=3&aspect=Browse&menu=search&ipp=20&spp=20&staffonly=&term=Weaver,+John+Barney,+1920-+,+sculptor.&index=AUTHOR&uindex=&aspect=Browse&menu=search&ri=3

it suggests that there are no copyright markings on the statue its self. I've had pretty bad luck over the years trying to get locals to do research for me - excepting of course librarians, who will look in their archives or vertical folders and likely not find an answer to this sort of question. What a pain all this sculpture copyright stuff is. it has backed me off a lot over the years and it is only with your help and insights that I've even considered posting again. Usually if you get a relative they are only to happy to grant permission but it can be a lot of work for very little payback. Carptrash (talk) 16:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS I am registered at Sculpture Community.Net but stopped going years ago because I got very little value out of it. Were I to return (and I just got a new password,) I'd post somewhere that I'm a wikipedian looking for pictures and permissions. I suspect that the best you could get was 100 or so very recent sculptures who'd agree and I have little interest in using those sorts of images. But if you wish we can try it. If you do post send me a link and I'll show up too. But I think it is a good idea to know pretty exactly what we are looking for before posting there. Carptrash (talk) 16:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Smithsonian data base SIRIS has several different types of listings. Early ones were mostly collected from museums and are not that good. Around 1992-93 there was an initiative called Save Outdoor Sculpture! that was an attempt to inventory all the outdoor sculpture in the United States at that time. (I was the SE Michigan co-ordinator) After it was over (though listings can still be added or corrected) the Smithsonian got the information and around maybe 1998 (to make up a date) went on line with it. The SOS! listing should include all the markings on the sculpture, so a © should show up. Because it is the Smithsonian Institute behind it, it is usually accepted as a good source. Later we can talk about what it ment to have volunteers do the field work. Carptrash (talk) 19:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Canoe1967, this is Rosiesievers20, how's it going? It has been a while since I completed my Wikipedia assignment in my class. Last time you contacted me, you wanted to know what my class's machinima festival went. It was great, everyone did really good pieces. Me and fellow classmate and wikipedia user, violeta tsavera, did our own machinima trailer of Sherlock Holmes and the Hound of the Baskervilles, with a modern twist. Everyone else's pieces were comedy machinima and it was a common theme throughout. One group did a trailer for Second life using a combination of live action and animation. We are now wating to get our feedback from this assignment and our final mark for this module. Once again, thanks for your help in our Wikipedia assignment. Rosiesievers20 (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I might upload the video in the future, I have to ask permission from Violeta first. I might put it up on Wikipedia or YouTube. Good luck on your video. Rosiesievers20 (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you put a transport subsection in the "Economy" section? Nyttend (talk) 23:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Bono (zootalk) 19:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC) [reply]

I need some help with the tag of the shot of my iPod· I can't find the right one. can you do that for me???? Pleasee. I have a bot in my page telling me I must pick one tag but I don't know which one.Thanks Miss Bono (zootalk) 12:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for your sig... I would really love feeding your cat. It's lovely ;) Miss Bono (zootalk) 12:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that edit request for me. ★★RetroLord★★ 19:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I liked your idea at ANI about someone writing an essay. I think DGG and OM should create one together. Keep in mind that WP:NOPAY and WP:NOSHARE are very clear on the issues involved in this situation. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 03:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!. Very rarely does anyone listen to the rare sense that I do make occasionally. A very harsh but within policy/guidelines essay may actually cause the 'hose of sewage' to filter its water thoroughly and behave better here. We should also create different templates for COI on user talk pages. Various levels such as we have for vandals.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, you're very welcome. One clarification: the exact term OM used was "appropriately harsh". And, yes, the templates idea is great, too. You better stop now. Two great ideas in one night is a lot to handle. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 03:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Canoe. I didn't realize anyone was using/reading my little essay, so I just gave it a couple fresh reads and overhauled it quite a bit. Would be interested in any feedback. I've also pinged Orange to see if he feels it's basically on-target. One thought that comes to mind is that the editor making promotional edits that was blocked would have been warned first, than blocked under the advice in the essay. CorporateM (Talk) 14:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would be glad to look it over again for you. I first noticed it when a subject had problems adding an image to their article and requested assistance at help desk where I think you linked it. They were treated very harshly on their talk page and at the help desk. Months later I tried Help_talk:Contents#Images that has had very little input after I was reverted. You and Mike may be opposite poles of COI 'changes' to articles. As I said in the section above we should create an essay that 'counters' yours to link views from another side. I fully understand Mike's actions on this issue and other ones that I have seen him deal with. My main focus lately has been images/pictures for the projects. I have had much success with emails to get images or better ones from subjects as anyone may view from my commons uploads and history. Our main focus should be 'good' articles for our readers. This doesn't mean advertising/promotion and yellow journalism nor does it mean two sentence stubs with both sentences verified by six reliable sources. If more of us could look at Wikipedia from a reader's point of view then the project would vastly improve. I feel they would like at least one picture, no 'puff and fluff', and no endless BLP details about every traffic ticket, trivial dirty laundry from ex-wives, minor business issues, environmental group complaints about their fur coat, and blog sites that claim they were shoplifters at the age of 14, etc. --Canoe1967 (talk) 16:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orange and I agree on more things than you would think and I'm not sure positioning us as being in opposition of each other is quite right. However, I would say if it is overly pro-COI, lets fix it. If other perspectives need to be incorporated, lets put them in. The absolute last thing we need is even more conflicting COI advice, which is a big problem I'm already contributing to by writing the essay at all. I was surprised to see the doc positioned as being pro-COI (if anything anti), but maybe I have a skewed perspective. It is more instructions-oriented, while WP:COI (last I read anyway) was focused on labeling people and came off as contentious. CorporateM (Talk) 18:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I misunderstood your stance. I just felt your essay was a good 'nutshell' version of numerous COI, wp:paid, NPOV, and other pages that COI editors could read easily and follow the links. If I were to write an essay about it then it would be short and simple:

"Don't even bother trying to edit the article. Request changes on the talk page. If no one sees them then use a request template. Below are links to our policies and guidelines on these issues as well as links to talk pages of blocked COI accounts. If you decide to ignore this very sound advice then you can expect to be blocked and the article stubbed to three sentences with one lame image. This basically means you only have two options: play by the rules the community has set out or find yourself in a deep hole here and a deeper one with your clients."

"On another point, Mr. Wales himself brought up paid editing policy/guideline changes on his talk page a while ago. It died with very little input. It was suggested that a project be created to form an outline to take to RfC, village pump, etc. That is as far as it went.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I think WP:COI will never be very good, because the community is unable to reach consensus and there is no decision-making authority to create reasonable compromise. Hence we have a fragmented group of conflicting documents that continue to frustrate PRs. The essay is actually much better than WP:COI, but the essay is easy for me to improve, while a PR person re-writing policy would naturally make people uncomfortable. Oh well.

There are very few PRs here that are actually willing to devote the time necessary to do good work, so I think warning them up-front that they will not be successful without investing the time is a good way to scurry them off, while skimming out ones that may be helpful. CorporateM (Talk) 21:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What could be a solution is have those that severely trim articles that have puff and fluff write an essay about what should be included and what shouldn't be. Another solution would be 'practice' articles. I used to live in Salmon Arm but I don't think I have ever edited the article. It could be a good article for COI editors and the 'trimmers' to practice their edits with. The article could be improved greatly without pushing a POV from either side because they probably don't care that much about a small Canadian city. For biographies there are many that are full of puff, fluff, and tabloid cruft like the Bieber kid's article. They could learn trimming at that one. There are also small dead guy stubs that they could expand and work on together like John Hendry (industrialist) and Philip Timms. I created the Timms and Hendry articles but haven't spent any time sourcing more material for them. COI editors could learn with these about how to find good sources to include material without affecting articles on the living. Once they learn from other articles then they can make better requests on the talk pages of their PR articles.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to factual corrections, unsourced contentious material, and other significant problems, we should provide a high degree of customer service in these areas. They shouldn't have to learn how to edit Wikipedia, or even provide sources and/or alternative text. CREWE is right in this regard - we have a responsibility to be fair and accurate.

For those that want to actually author content, I would check them against three criterion:

• Have objectives reasonably aligned with Wikipedia's
• Are willing to invest a substantial amount of time/resources to contribute in a thoughtful manner
• Demonstrate a willingness to read and follow instructions

I would go so far as to publish this criterion and tell PRs asking for help to check themselves against it. One way (but not the only way) to verify #2 is if they learn to edit in other places, which very few PRs will be willing to do.

The biggest problem is that PRs create complex strategies for Twitter and Facebook, hire expert consultants and invest a monumental amount of time, but often just delegate Wikipedia to an intern that doesn't spend more than five minutes. So the community can author a mountain of guides, devote all our time to helping them, but at the end of the day, a lot of us are just spammers looking for a quick hit. The trick is to quickly shove-off the 85%, so we can devote our resources to helping the other 15%. CorporateM (Talk) 23:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand all of your points. My main issues are the way the ones are treated that just wish to do a minor change to an article. When the BLP subjects wish to simply update an image they are treated the same way as PR editors that want to create brochures here. I tried to fix this on the main help page and it was reverted here. I then brought it up on the talk page but only two of us had any input there. One subject had the same image deleted about 20 times at commons until I walked her through the OTRS hoops. She was willing to provide more images of herself but gave up after all the abuse she received here. I have seen others have their articles trimmed unfairly after they ask at the help desk about how to provide an image. The help desk and other forums like the BLPN are full of editors that like to adjust articles with their own agendas after they are mentioned and brought into the radar. Some like to trim them back further than they should be and others like to include as much tabloid crap as they think they can get away with. I think many just enjoy having power over notable people. Either sling mud or demean them to 3 sentences of Wikipedia article. Many PR editors are treated unfairly for similar reasons. As I said in the section above we should create varying levels of COI templates as we have with vandal templates. I do agree that most want huge fluffy articles but instead of explaining it well enough to them we revert their edits and then continue to trim the article more than it should be. Many end up blocked as well. Some sort of filtering system is needed to keep the 15% but if we had some sort of training for them then we may get that up to a higher number. A method was mentioned at Jimbo's talk page for paid a editng policy. If they stay within a guideline we write then we wouldn't be allowed to harass them or their edits. We could also have a new project page to discuss all of the PR edits. New PR editors should be directed to a board first before they get in too much trouble and fill talk pages and edit histories with all the dirty laundry that shouldn't belong there.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. And many of these problems like civility, deletionism and undue are problems we have in general that are exacerbated by COI. Images are an area where I would expect us to do the legwork, as the images themselves are valuable and difficult to obtain other ways.

I think what is needed is a great deal of optimization. There is far too much drama-mongering around the topic, when what is needed is hard-work and thoughtful discussion, in order to create clearer instructions, establish standards, build processes and better deter bad behavior. When compared to an area like AfC, COI instructions/processes are remarkably under-developed.

It would really be quite achievable to increase the number of helpful PRs from say 15% to 35%, while decreasing harmful ones, just by doing a better job on our side. CorporateM (Talk) 01:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have had good success with getting images through email but many failures as well. I have provided links to the lame images we have of them and 'threatened' that some fool may upload a lame picture from a fan for articles that don't have them. I think I did that with Margaret Trudeau. Ajay was nice enough to pose for me in Calgary and so was Amanda. I try to focus on images for projects but keep getting dragged into long an useless discussions about other issues. Lately I have just taken to walking away and letting them win. The 14th Dalai Lama doesn't have a birthplace in his article because of a dispute on his talk page. He may never get one if we can't sort it out. With PR we could create more COI templates for PR editors and BLP subjects that just want an image change or album added. We could have varying degrees of mellow to harsh like the vandalism templates. These templates could link to a new PR project that we could create for them. Mike may agree to use our template for some of the mellower COI edits and then wait for them to chime in at the project page before blocking them. The project page could be full of our 15 to 35% that could help with each other's articles. Whoever gets to new PR and COI editors first at the help desk or other drama boards may still be an issue but if we can get a project link into the main help page and COI pages that may avert a lot of damage and drama.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still working on getting this template live, which drew nearly unanimous support from both sides of the aisle. I've got this template laying around for COIs making direct edits, which can be followed up by a block or block warning. I think COIN is already an acceptable noticeboard for PRs to use, but most requests are routine and only require a single editor.

What I would like to work towards is having that template on all articles about extant organizations and replacing the "Click Here" with a wizard like we have at AfC with multiple choice questions and guidance throughout the process.

When I look at AfC, there is really no good excuse for a PR not to use it, but when I look at 3-month-old Request Edits, I don't feel the same way, so I want to bridge the gap by creating a drama-free, process-driven, wizard system with clear instructions. Naturally this requires a lot of technical help, which we do not have an abundance of. CorporateM (Talk) 04:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Article wizard has most of the code I would think. Have you tried copyvio copy/pasting the code and creating a COI wizard? --Canoe1967 (talk) 04:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. I can play with it a bit and see how far I can get. CorporateM (Talk) 05:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've started working on it here. CorporateM (Talk) 05:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It moved when clicked it which is probably better than I could have done. Looks good so far. You should add a button labeled 'I want to write a brochure.' that links them to a near clone of our article on spam. Re-write the lead of the spam article. "Spam is mainly defined as PR editors trying to sneak BS edits into Wikipedia. They are caught very quickly, many are blocked, and some are even fired for embarrassing their company in the media."--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's 3 am for me and that's all the energy I have left. Tomorrow is the beginning of the work-week and I'll have to get back to doing actual client work. If you take a look at this page which is the actual submission page for a factual error, this is where it needs some serious coding magic to make it work. Any thoughts? CorporateM (Talk) 07:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I switched back and forth a couple times to see how they looked. (Also, requires a refresh for the new version to load on my browser.)

Please behave and don't do anything I wouldn't get in trouble like I do.

TCO (talk) 16:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. I emailed the creator at the Uni but he may be gone until Sept. I don't think we need to worry about any deletions but you know how people can be here. If you ever want to upload a picture then remember the copyright rules about the photographer and the sculpture in the US. See these two images I made to help: File:Photograph of tourists permission form.png and File:Copyright information image.png.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree. Good enough. Let it percolate. (And I don't want to freak the guy out or distract him with all our subtleties. I find OTRS actually does a great job of bridging the Wiki-world to "civilian" comprehension gap when getting releases.)

Peace, firepower-man.  ;-) TCO (talk) 17:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have now tried on several browsers and several machines and don't know why the Snowden image looks squashed/stretched. I noticed that some editors have been screwing with the Snowden image, loading different resolutions and crops, and may have affected our display. Can I suggest that you find an admin on Commons and have all the prior versions deleted except for version that is actually subject to OTRS ticket. That might eliminate the problem. Failing that, we might have to load a local version. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 01:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Canoe1967, I want to explain that the website that you linked to in the info box for the article National Lampoon (magazine) is not a website for the magazine, which died completely in 1998. The website you linked to is for a company called National Lampoon, Incorporated. That company was founded in 2002 and has nothing in common with the magazine except that they are using the name (and trying to pretend they are still the same entity.) I am going to remove the website link again and put a note on the talk page explaining why. Thanks and good wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 01:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Canoe, I certainly don't blame you for thinking it is the same entity -- they have even rigged their Google listing so the header says "National Lampoon: The Humor Company EST. 1970" which is a blatant lie... unless EST actually stands for "Easily Stolen Title", since they reneged on paying the Harvard Lampoon $99 a year for the use of the name "Lampoon" a legal obligation. The original company that owned the real magazine for the majority of the finer part of its existence was Twenty First Century Publications. Thanks again, Invertzoo (talk) 13:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HCNicholls (talk) 12:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC) HCNicholls (talk) 10:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Greatpumkin (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for voting to keep the article. One user has twice tagged the article with original research and unreliable sources tags, for reasons I do not understand. If you have any thoughts on the matter, feel free to respond to my comment on the talk page. I thought I would wait for a third opinion before I removed the tags once again. Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't think notability tags should have been added to all of the other sculptures in Vancouver as well, but that's just me... --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion about the nude image of Marilyn Monroe at Playboy has been reopened after I added this whole paragraph describing its significance. I'm notifying everyone involved in the review discussion to see whether we can build a consensus deciding how to best portray that image within the project. Diego (talk) 22:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a notice that there is an active discussion regarding your recent edits at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#cosplay pics. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Skookum1 (talk) 09:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well done for taking bold action at Talk:Charles G. Smith and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pegasus Intellectual Capital Solutions. I think, though, that your deletions are more likely to stick if you add a dummy edit with an edit summary mentioning Help desk#Final legal notice and Special:Contributions/178.148.150.9. Anyone who has watchlisted the article or the AFD page won't understand your deletions from the edit summaries you've used so far. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointers. I did the dummy edit to the AfD. The article talk page summary I left should suffice. I doubt anyone will revert. I will consider it case closed for now.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just amended that page, and commented on Talk:Nashwito Creek about that one.....I can't conscionably cite my own website, although it's based on Shaw/Gibbs and other period sources for the Chinook Jargon. From French sauvage and though it's still on teh BC map in various places. In Oregon, where a creolized version of the CJ is in use on teh Grande Ronde Agency and undergoing a revival, they distinguish between SAIwash and SaWASH, the latter being closer to the French-derived original (sauvage) and considered culturally acceptable, whereas the former is not. On this "Siwash Lake" "rescinded" entry for what is now called Anah Lake, near Anahim Lake, is the only place in BC Names I see anything about the now-derogatory nature of the word. There were others, though no other "rescindeds" are shown.Skookum1 (talk) 11:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

If you have any questions, you can ask Ocaasi anytime. --17:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

(edit conflict)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.. You currently have four reverts in less than 24 hours at March Against Monsanto without a single discussion on the talk page. Please do not revert if you are unwilling to discuss your proposed changes. a13ean (talk) 19:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You two should learn to read edit summaries as well as Template:Dubious#Incorrect_uses before you go whining to drama boards with your heads up high instead of up your backsides where they are now. What part of improper template was hard to understand? You should do more reading and less beaking off.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

hi

You have mentioned some phone call you got both on the ANI re the MaM article and on the GM foods controversies Talk page.. could you say more about that? So strange to me... If you don't want to say anything, that's fine and I would understand, but I am curious so wanted to ask. Best regards, Jytdog (talk) 16:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I didn't record it but called back to get permission to paraphrase it on the projects. The caller read the article, went to another page for a bit, came back and was amazed that it had changed. I went through the history and explained about consensus/material flux and the talk page discussions. He read the talk page and thought that the article was a big POV push from both sides. To him it seemed like 'whitewashing' but I can't remember the exact term he used. I didn't read all of the talk page drama but did notice the COI Monsanto accusations. I didn't edit the talk page but followed the links to ANI(?) and voiced an opinion there. If it is being censored/whitewashed by Monsanto or those who have strong beliefs against the anti-GMO 'fringe' then that should be a major concern for the projects. I may ask at commons if other languages have the same issues. I almost took it to Arbcom myself this morning but that mark-up and criteria looks like a confusing mess to me. I did create Taco Bell GMO recall as an acid test to see if that article is treated the same way in its inevitable AfD. That AfD may get other opinions on the other issues as well. The GMO articles I have looked at seem far too contentious for just regular articles. Editors that do have a POV issue with them should either declare COI or walk away from them and let truly neutral editors balance them. I also noticed that Monsanto is mentioned in the lead of one of the GMO articles where it shouldn't be. I don't know which side put it there either to spam the company name in the lead or blame them in the lead for producing 90% of the world's GMO product headed by that article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:35, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So strange to me! I don't know any editors in the real world... interesting concept to discuss articles on the phone. If you are interested, I will give you my take on the GM articles... don't want to just push my perspective on you, so let me know if you want my perspective and I will be happy to give it! Jytdog (talk) 16:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I am going to avoid them for a while. When the recall article survives Afd then I will probably just work on that one and link it to others. That won't be as much fun as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political gaffes and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Storm naming controversy were though. They didn't have as much vitriol as the GMO issues have. I still hope to revive Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The luckiest man in Iraq which is my only AfD failure out of about 10. 9/10 isn't that bad for my controversial creations here.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, good luck! Jytdog (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you said at ANI that you were banned from editing March Against Monsanto. Did the community or ArbCom actually do that to you (per WP:BAN)? I haven't seen anything about that anywhere. If you simply meant that you sort-of self-banned for a while, that's certainly your prerogative, but I would be very concerned if anyone has taken it on themselves to tell you that you cannot edit there if you would like to. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant discussion here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have also heard lots of people in real life express frustration/confusion/outrage at how heavily our articles seem to be slanted towards the Monsanto perspective on GMOs. This is an issue that actively contributes to Wikipedia's bad reputation among the general public. groupuscule (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Groupuscule, I hear you that people who call you on the phone find the GMO articles to be slanted, but the articles are a heck of a lot better than they were last spring, when there was literally no information in Wikipedia on what foods were actually derived from GMOs - instead there was just paragraph after paragraph of negative content in the GM-related articles, often repeated verbatim across the articles, much of it badly sourced and untrue or half-true. I really mean that - I wrote almost the whole main body of the Genetically modified foods article. Whatever their perspective on GMOs, readers can now come to wikipedia and find reliable information about GM crops, GM food, regulation of GM crops and food, and the controversies. This is a good, good thing. Groupuscule, I would be very happy to walk you or anybody through the work I have done over the last year-and-a-few-months to make these articles informative and compliant with the 5 pillars. Others have done a lot, too. I am proud of the work that I and others have done. And I have done it in good faith with respect to Wikipedia's ideals, policies, and guidelines. And I am happy when new people come and do more work in that same spirit. Again, I understand that people you talk to on the phone may be displeased, but what is your evidence that Wikipedia has a "bad reputation among the general public", broadly speaking? Or even narrowly speaking with respect to the GM suite of articles? Best regards, Jytdog (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think most mainstream press avoids reporting on Wikipedia because we are their biggest competition. We have been in the news many times and a few were because of corporations, governments, and others trying to censor or white wash content. List of Wikipedia controversies has most listed. If this GMO issue goes to Arbcom then someone is sure to contact the media about it. I am sure Monsanto is aware of the articles here but all groups on the other side may not be. Would anyone like to take it to Arbcom sooner than later? The articles, to me, seem like editors are trying to push their POVs far too much. Someone re-directed Taco Bell GMO recall to Taco bell unilaterally which I was not impressed with. I still feel more material on it belongs in Genetically modified food controversies since it was the first GMO recall, possibly the biggest food recall, very notable, etc. It does belong in the health section as its own section because of its impact and the fact that the recall was by the FDA and not the EPA. To bury it way down in the environment section is wrong in so many ways. The discussion on the talk page did have limited input. I just walked away until it goes to Arbcom where I will bring a whole list of these issues. I still can't find that article I noticed where Monsanto was improperly in the lead. Does anyone here remember removing something like "Monsanto produces 90% of the world's...." from near the bottom of a small lead? The article was a GMO one but not about Monsanto.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The MaM article has that mention of Monsanto, if I remember right. I don't recall seeing it anywhere else but have not looked. wrt to the Arbcom, as I have written on the Monsanto page and above, I think my work and others has dramatically improved the quality of these articles and made them useful to the public. I am happy to talk about my work with anybody. I don't understand what grounds you would raise for some administrator action, in any case. Finally with respect to content on the Monsanto page.. (the discussion belongs on its Talk page but briefly): I was surprised you stopped talking on the GM controversies page - I responded to what you wrote both overall (yuor accusations of bad faith) and content-wise, and was looking for you to come back on the issues, and you just apologized for the accusations and then stopped talking. I am still open to discussing the Taco Bell thing more. Please come with facts backed by sources on "biggest recall ever"; and with respect to the recall itself, Kraft did the recall (they make the Taco Bell products that are sold retail) - the FDA did not do it, so I don't understand why you are saying they did much less using that as a justification for putting this under "health". This is all stated clearly in the LA Times article you provided. Do come back and talk more! Jytdog (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will try and clarify your wrongness point by point. The blatant mention of Monsanto in the lead was not in the MaM article. I don't feel your work on any of these GMO articles is an improvement but just you pushing your COI POV and owning the articles. I have told you more than once that you should take a break from editing GMO articles but you seem to just continue with BS which will probably lead to drama boards if you don't clue in. I don't think I have ever edited the Monsanto page so I don't know why you wish me to edit on its talk page. The GMO controversy page is a huge mess that I feel you are trying to control the content and format with. Anything I have said on its talk page was not treated in good faith and is a waste of time as long as you are allowed to own the article. The recall was a health related issue and belongs in the health section. The recall was a health related issue and belongs in the health section. The recall was a health related issue and belongs in the health section. The recall was a health related issue and belongs in the health section. The recall was a health related issue and belongs in the health section. I repeated that a few times to see if it will finally sink in. I think the source said it was 'the biggest recall of its type' but didn't clarify which type it was claiming to be. The way it was worded it could have meant GMO or food recalls. It may even be the biggest GMO food recall up to 2000. Food recalls have been larger since and I haven't looked into other GMO recalls yet. You have stated more than once, including falsely in article space, that Kraft made the shells. They did not. If you had actually read the sources this should have been obvious. Since it seems you are not reading sources then this just adds to my feelings that you are OR now as well as COI and POV. As to your last statement "This is all stated clearly in the LA Times article you provided." You obviously didn't read it so don't even pretend that you had.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I will not continue discussing content that belongs on article Talk pages here... it gets too confusing. Along those lines, I did make a mistake referring to Talk pages above- you and I were indeed talking on the GM controversies article, not the Monsanto article. Sorry that error. I will say that I do not attempt to "control" any article. If you look at my history of edits, you will see that I spend a lot of time working on "health claims" as was noted by an involved third party in the MaM ANI in this dif by User:Nil Einne. And as I mentioned in the Talk page of the GM controversies article in this dif I did not understand your reasoning for including this recall under the health section; I still don't, as you have not responded there. I do hear you repeating above, that you believe "the recall is a health issue", but repeating a claim many times is not making an argument - it is just repeating a claim. I understand that this is somehow very obvious to you but it is not to me, and Wikipedia is about collaboration which requires communication. I am very open to talking - if you check out talk page of that article you will see that i have engaged in many discussions, including a current one over a proposed addition by User:Semitransgenic where I am supporting his/her addition and other members of the supposed "cabal" are opposing it. Finally, you are mischaracterizing me. Please stop accusing me in this inappropriate way, and please do bring this to any board you wish. You are the one creating the drama. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 12:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

btw I don't know User:Ohconfucius from any of the GM pages... not one of the people who edit with any frequency on those pages. Jytdog (talk) 21:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be rather defensive of another editor here. I could think sock or meatpuppet but without looking into it further I won't.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Just wanted to respond to what you wrote, where you seemed to me (and I may be wrong) claiming that I have some relationship with that editor. Just clarifying that I do not. Jytdog (talk) 12:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of strange circles do you guys move in? I don't think I've ever met a person IRL who gives a rats ass about GMO one way or the other. Would you like to comment on whether you have connections to the Anti-GMO movement? This is not an accusation, this is an opportunity for you to provide a clarification if you wish to. I will certainly clarify any such thing if it is requested of me. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) If you are speaking to me, I don't give a rat's ass about it either. I do however give one if edits are done to Wikipedia by COI editors. It seems that far to many editors believe the POV is not balanced. If it was balanced we wouldn't have it all over the drama boards. On Jytdog's user page he states: "I work at a university. I'm interested in biotechnology, intellectual property, and the public perception of both." I consider this as being employeed in the GMO field. See:Biotechnology + Criticism_of_patents#Criticism = GMO. The way I read policy then the template is used correctly. Since everyone is so upset about it I will remove it until Arbcom or the COI notice board have their input. They may wish to add it back or they may not.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothetically if he was a biotech researcher it does not mean he has a COI in any way. It does indicate that he's probably got a pretty informed perspective on the topic. You do realise that astrologers edit the astrology article, and you think scientists editing science related articles is the issue? You should have a look at what is actually considered a COI on wikipedia: Wikipedia:COI#Categories_of_COI_on_Wikipedia. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with IRWolfie about that. I'm interested in aquarium fishes and neuroscience, amongst a lot of other things, but it doesn't mean that I have a COI in editing there. Canoe, there are some process things I want you to realize. WP:COIN won't evaluate it unless you or someone else raises it there. You didn't do that, so far as I can tell, but it would have been more civil than putting that tag on the article talk page. ArbCom isn't going to look into it unless there is a formal request for arbitration, and the dispute resolution process hasn't progressed to where they would be satisfied that other avenues have already been explored, so the odds are low that they would accept a case now. But I already reverted the tag from the talk page, as I said below. You need to read that, because it also links to a thread at WP:ANI where your actions are being discussed. That is happening now, and you need to pay attention to it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Taco Bell GMO recall at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Canoe,

I notice you've placed a COI note on Talk:Genetically modified food controversies, re Jytdog. Could you explain why? Either for me, here, or on that page. It seems pretty out-of-the-blue, and so I thought I'd ask what the conflict is, in honest good faith. DanHobley (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. I assume you are familiar with the line at Wikipedia:COI#Noticeboards_and_templates that starts with If you are sure..." a13ean (talk) 16:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt reply, Canoe. Just to let you know, I don't think your justification is strong enough for calling out a COI on this. I'd urge you to take the flag down. The fact you placed it midway through your two person discussion over at Talk:Taco Bell GMO recall#Copyvio? makes it look quite a lot like a personal attack. And given the recent ANI over sockpuppet and specifically astroturfing allegations at March Against Monsanto, I'd tread exceedingly carefully, as people will already be primed to kick off over this kind of thing. DanHobley (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How can it be considered a personal attack? He admits to not reading sources before changing my material and also stated "...and I am already familiar with the incident." As his reason for adding material without reading sources. He did add explanations later but I won't comment on those.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed that at least one other editor claims he is COI. I feel he should take a break from editing GMO articles to show other editors that he is not editing using his own POV which is on his user page is: "I'm interested in biotechnology, intellectual property, and the public perception of both." (my bold). If he is willing to discuss his edit history, POV statements, and lack of response to questions on the issues at COINB, then that board may agree to remove the templates.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "one other editor" is a WP:SPA account that made 8 edits. Being interested in a topic does not mean someone has a COI. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have reverted the personal attack, although the claim can certainly be examined at WP:COIN. I have furthermore reported this at WP:ANI#Problem now spreading to another page. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say thanks for taking the time out to comment a couple of times in the AfD on Detention of Albert Haines, and for starting the inlining of sources (which I've now finished). Cheers, Sighola2 (talk) 20:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. It may have been one of those lower notabilty 50/50 cases if the subject had requested deletion or it were a negative article about the subject. It is negative but about the process not the subject. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scarlett Keeling is a similar case that went the other way. The Keeling case is back in the news so someone may wish to see if it is notable enough now. This is a book based on the case. Article with her mentioned first of 35.Documentary and movie. There should be more RS as the case moves forward.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I accepted it was right the article needed to be about the landmark legal appeal establishing an equal right for open justice for detained psychiatric patients in England and Wales, and incidentally about Haines himself rather than vice versa. Regarding Scarlett Keeling, those sources seem to show her case having some ongoing national and international political ramifications and media analysis so I'm not sure why it wouldn't be notable. Sighola2 (talk) 23:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should ask the closing admin first. Then it could go to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Feel free to copy/paste my links and statement with out attribution. I declare my statements in this Talk:Canoe1967/Albert Haines case section as public domain.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can only suggest whether you can propose a Murder of Scarlett Keeling or something, as suggested in the AfD I think. I would be happy to add my view at the time in any debate that arose as I saw it, and to contribute something towards an article as I saw it. Sighola2 (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could probably have the deleting admin userfy it to your space under that name. Once the new material is added then we can re-open the same AfD with a link to your userspace to work on the article and view it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your latest act of edit warring, in which you stated in your edit summary "bold neutral edit, no image until consensus", this is not a "neutral" edit, since your previously stated fallacious reasons for removing that photo during the discussion are already a matter of record, and there is no such requirement for consensus discussions that requires the outright removal of the disputed portion of the article. In the over eight years I've been here and the almost six years I've been an admin, I have observed that the standard procedure is to keep the article in the last stable version before the dispute started. Because of your repeated edit-warring (which you have glossed over with the inane argument that somehow it is others who have edit-warred, and not you), I have contacted uninvolved admins and requested that you be blocked for your clear policy violations. And if you touch that photo one more time before the talk page discussion is concluded, and before the admins respond, I will re-protect the page and/or block you personally, uninvolved admin or not. Nightscream (talk) 02:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I consider that very uncivil. You have done nothing but insist that your personal 2010 image remain in the article. You edit warred with another admin over it and abused your tools to lock the page after you replaced your image in it. The only reason you unlocked the page is because you got chewed out on the talk page of a BLP that is actually active on that page. Did you think to email the BLP and find out whether he is impressed with your image or ask one that is in contact with him? I assume he is not impressed with your actions regarding it. The only reason I replaced it in the first place is because we found newer images on Flickr from 2013. If it means that much to you to keep it in the article, then go ahead and wheel war with Anna, block anyone that disagrees, and OWN the whole article yourself. You are personally involved because of your image, you are abusing your tools, and now threatening blocks. If I do get blocked I may decide to take this straight to ANI from my talk page.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with all extreme opinions here. Canoe, I think you were being unfair and provocative by referring to the image as Nightscream's personal image. Keep in mind NS is the one who called for a discussion of replacing that "personal" image, back when there were only two to consider, so NS is clearly not married to it. And NS has been quite willing to entertain all comers as new images have surfaced.

It is standard practice to leave the extant image in place during discussion, so NS's revert of your removal was appropriate. I think the article lock was correct, but an uninvolved admin should have done it.

Mistakes have been made by 4 editors, including me. Everyone who boldly changed the image in the article erred to greater or lesser degree by not waiting for a clear, all-!votes-inclusive consensus. I erred by not insisting that discussion not be broken by sections earlier.

Everyone's opinions have shifted and adapted as new images have been offered.

It's all going to be alright. Everyone just needs to not behave precipitously, or threaten too much, or edit-war, or be too verbose (me). --Lexein (talk) 10:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if I misunderstood. I didn't realize it was an actual dispute of which image to include. I came in late because I saw a request to vote in a project on my watch list. I thought is was just content discussion and not a disputed issue of contention. I have always understood that content shouldn't be changed during those. I didn't see any edit warring so I didn't realize that. When the third image came along that was 2013, I changed out the 2010 one as a normal article update. When NS got very angry it really surprised me. I didn't even realize that he was the photographer until much later. I still think we shouldn't keep an older image in the article if a newer one is available. This is the second time I have walked away from it. The only reason I came back after the first is because everyone else had given up. I think Anna and I were all that was left and I thought she started a new vote. That is why I changed it again because 3/4 of the new votes wanted C. I hope this makes sense.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Luckily it wasn't and isn't a dispute, in my opinion, just a bit of overeager boldness and some rush to judgment. I just hope everyone can slow down on the trigger finger in future. Thanks for replying. --Lexein (talk) 07:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. I have never seen a dispute over an image like this in an article. There were two on commons over copyright. one when I found a lost public domain treasure with Nighthawks. They had a fair use one here since who knows when. I came across it at a fair use review here on en:wp. Here is the DR at commons where en:wp got mad when I moved it over there as PD. Not many votes but lots of discussion and armchair copyright lawyers. Two admin wheel warred over saving the old versions it seems after the commons version was kept. I wonder if we should move those 5 deleted versions over to the commons history.--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite normal and human to unintentionally drag intensity from other discussions into new discussions without meaning to. It's sort of about the accumulation of annoyances; it all gets to be just too much. So then we just have to take a step back, read WP:TIGERS again. I still don't think we're having a dispute at Remender, just rambunctiousness, since nobody seems to have a deep beef with anyone else, just maybe eagerness, coffee jitters, some insomnia maybe, and adrenaline. What they used to call "nerves". I'm slowly learning that the drama is so high only when the stakes are so low. --Lexein (talk) 11:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not cite Wikipedia or other sites of the Wikimedia Foundation as sources, as you did with this edit to Rick Remender. As was pointed out on the talk page, this is not permitted, as it is circular sourcing, and in violation of WP:CIRCULAR. A photograph cannot be used as a source. If Remender wants his entire date of birth in his Wikipedia article, he can put it in a blog entry or on a biography page on his site. Nightscream (talk) 20:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both sides may believe to be in the right. I think on one side we have mainstream science and logic. On the other side we have sensationalism and tabloid journalism. Our English Wikipedia material needs to be defined as where it fits in regards to our readers. I have come across this many times with BLP articles looking like National Enquirer. Many of our editors want to include all of the rumours/dirty laundry and others want to include none of it. An extreme argument is that if it s sourced it should be included, even if the source is Facebook. The balance should be enough reliable sources to meet our notability criteria of the material. Even if the New York Times has a small article about a fringe thing on page 20, maybe we shouldn't include it unless other mainstream media has it on similar pages. The NYT could have had a slow news day or it was just a local NYC thing. With GMO we are getting long discussions from both ends, as well as those in the middle. Thoughts from talk page followers?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Canoe. I think I agree with you, especially that editors on both "sides" actually believe that they are right. A lot of times, when different editors have different sincere views of things, it can look to editors with one of those views that the other editors, with the other view, are somehow involved in some kind of ulterior motive and working together – but it actually turns out that everyone just has their own opinions, and Wikipedia works by putting people with different opinions together and getting them to work it out collaboratively. And there definitely is a difference between sources that reflect mainstream scholarly analysis, and sources that promulgate the rumor-of-the-day. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is why some editors believe that every sentence should have a secondary source. Primary sources are cherry picked by both sides from their personal points of view. Any opinions in articles should be RS quoted with an RS quote to counter from the other side on the contentious material to keep the articles NPOV. I noticed this recently when looking into Glyphosate and the bees. A very notable bee person had 15 years of research disappear on him. He had Bees that were resistant to glyphosate as well has data that was linked to it causing Colony collapse disorder. There is no opinion from the other side that I have found in any source. Therefore the RS should be used in both articles that glyphosates can case CCD according to him. They wrote it off on the talk pages claiming that the notable bee person was a 'fringe theorist'. No other editors may wish to push to include it in both articles so I may do so myself. Our readers deserve material such as this because it is sourced. For some strange reason CCD isn't even mentioned in Bee.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I heard about that story about the guy in Illinois and his bees - I spent about two hours looking for reliable sources on that story and was not able to find any. In the absence of any I have written this off as rumor/"rural myth". But I would be open to seeing a RS on it.Jytdog (talk) 20:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Canoe, the example you give is what I was talking about when I said some things are the rumor-of-the-day. The solution to having only one primary source is not to say that the absence of other primary sources means that we must include it. And no one should add material in order to "right great wrongs"; never add something to make a point, simply because you think that other editors would not want to add it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found 4- 5 secondary sources on it from the Deep Web which Google doesn't search. I also found some Canadian RS in Google.ca. Google.com I don't trust because they filter by country. Each country can ask Google to filter searches, I think. Log on to Google.ca and see if you can find the same RS. You may need an proxy IP from Canada or you may get the filtered USA version of Google. I won't give you my links yet because that may bias your results. I only touched the tip of the deep web on it but I did come across some big icebergs. I will be busy the next few days so I need to focus on the far too many discussions I have open now, here and at commons. I think that health vs environment issue has stalled as no consensus on the talk page. Once that is confirmed then I will try Arbcom. ANI or Rfc will just be more drama fests of POV editor against POV editor and not look at things like descriptive headings, secondary sources, and reader expectations. The failed DR proved that. ANI and RfC may cause more blocks as well. I have also asked for off-wiki investigations. You could try ANI or RfC if you think they will help. If they turn into drama fests then I will just walk away to Arbcom where that crap usually isn't tolerated.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This may explain my OP better.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Canoe,

Since you are participating in the recent discussions at MAM, i wanted to get your take on the idea of an RfC to once-and-for-all deal with the "number of participants" issue. I just can't believe that if RS guidelines are used appropriately, this should be the huge issue it has become. I just don't think we need to be dealing with this question any longer, while the rest of the issues that need editing go ignored. What do you think? petrarchan47tc 22:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I am going to walk away from that article again as a lost cause. I have called for off-wiki investigations that should be changing things soon. We should all walk away and then phone Monsanto to re-write the article. Then they will have more egg on face when fur hits fan. Articles like this created by those that make edits like this make me wonder if they did truly leave the projects. They may outnumber those of us that want to write articles without editor POV but they will lose out in the long run. It will just be another entry like BP in List of Wikipedia controversies back in March. Have you seen Taco Bell GMO recall yet? I am still trying to explain how it belongs in the health section of the controversies article. They want it buried way down in environment/escapes. No reader would ever expect to find it there. If it wasn't so notable and well sourced then Monsanto would have tried to delete it by now. If it existed before the protest as an article then they may have read it and mentioned it to the media. A 12 year old controversy that many editors knew about and just kept under the rug in GMO escapes. See the section above about causes.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have pleaded that it be turned over to ArbCom, as i cannot fight this on my own. And i don't think anyone should have to fight to edit Wikipedia. I sure as hell don't have to anywhere else here. Cheers, and thanks. petrarchan47tc 00:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About the recall article, maybe in all reality every article that shows symptoms of POV editing with regard to GMOs should be handed to ArbCom. I think that has been suggested, or something like that... i'm not sure how it works. petrarchan47tc 00:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that you informed Canoe but no one else? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you calling this "informing"? I asked about Canoe's take on an RfC - which if anyone decided to go ahead with, would be known to everyone at the talk page. There is nothing sneaky about filing, talking about filing, or even ask for help in filing an RfC - which is the least sneaky thing ever. This question is just weird. petrarchan47tc 04:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A note to both Canoe and User:Petrarchan47- I have said several times that there are appropriate boards for dealing with COI. You are both are coming very close to the disruptive behavior called canvassing and I am writing this as a courtesy to make sure you are both aware of the guideline. The next time either of you do it or mention doing it, I am staring an ANI about the behavior. I am really sick of the witch hunt mentality. If you have grounds for these accusations, bring them to to the appropriate board. If you do not, please let it go.Jytdog (talk) 23:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And if Jytdog comes to have reason to do that, I will be in full agreement with him. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really? You both suggest i go to a COI noticeboard and "never do this again"? You realize all i have done to ask Canoe his thoughts about an RfC over the number of participants at MAM? This is scary, seriously. You are both on record saying this. This reminds me of large corporations who try to stop any organizing or unionizing by workers, running around corners to see if anyone is whispering about rising up... separating people so everyone is kept in the dark and powerless. Just saying. petrarchan47tc 04:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're all aware of the issues around Monsanto articles, this has nothing to do with Wikipedia's canvassing policy. Furthermore, I don't see how Jytdog can claim to be victimized when their pro-Monsanto POV continues to advance further and further across dozens of pages. In fact I think it's inappropriate for Jytdog to intervene in every single talk page discussion discussion that relates to Monsanto or GMOs. In the past year, Jytdog has made by far the most edits to Monsanto, genetically modified food controversies, and other related articles—maybe it's time for them to step back a little. groupuscule (talk) 02:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked.. er, told jtydog no more intimidation tactics and no more bullying or trying to stifle conversations. It did no good whatsoever. petrarchan47tc 04:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It probably is due for ArbCom. What we should do is just walk away from all the GMO articles. After they get edited to make Monsanto and GMO look better than Jesus then the hole will be just that much deeper when ArbCom and the Canadian media look into it. We may wish to wait for media reports first before we go to ArbCom. The COI board will just be another waste of space the same as ANI, DR, and all the other drama boards were. Everybody beaks off but no action is taken. ArbCom may end up the same but if we wait for it to hit the media then Arcom will be forced to act or have egg on face.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have been working on the whole GM suite for over a year. They achieved reasonable stability about six months ago and have been worked on with relative civility. It was only when the March Against Monsanto article was created that people like you, Canoe, who self-admittedly know little about GMOs but have plenty of attitude, have come and started making very strong claims, in a very uncivil manner. I have no doubt that you have good intentions; what I struggle with is the consistent insinuation that there is paid editing/COI going on. I voted for quick delete on the MaM article because this is pretty much what I feared would happen. So life goes.Jytdog (talk) 13:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One doesn't need to know anything about GMO to edit its articles. Those that do work in the field would have an inherent POV to make articles like the MAM look like a bunch of wingnuts. You still don't consider the Taco Bell GMO recall a health issue. Is this another one of your fears? I have never been afraid of an article. I fail to understand how anybody would be. If you don't like the content then don't read it. Wikipedia doesn't go by your opinion or the opinion of companies that editors are employed by. We go by what the sources say. Your account seems very WP:SPA to try and show only one POV in many of these articles. If you edited a wider field of articles, like most do here, then there wouldn't be so many SPA accusations. ArbCom may eventually topic ban many GMO POV editors from those articles. It will be interesting to see if they move on to other articles or leave the project. Some may attempt coming back as socks even. All we can do until then is keep up with endless discussions that don't go anywhere.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that anybody can edit any article!! Of course! The issue is that if one is ignorant, one should come with some humility... be ready to really listen and read and dialog and work. Well one should always be ready to listen and read and dialog and work but it is all the more important if you are new to a) a field and b) an article that has had a bunch of people working on it for a long time. On the health issue, I really believe that right now, you have no idea how the material came to be where it is even though I have explained that twice. You haven't dealt with that or even acknowledged it or talked about. You parachuted in and demanded the change you wanted and started hollering "COI" the instant I didn't agree with you. That is pure crazy. No real dialog, no responding to me. This is what I meant. You don't seem at all interested in really talking (actually responding to me when I write) - but time after time you have ignored what I wrote and have just brought up new arguments for your position. I would love it if you would respond on the Talk page, in the part where I explain how the content got to be where it is, and what the benefits of that location are. That would be so... collegial. So wikipedia-like. Really talking, really working toward consensus, which is very different from arguing relentlessly for your position. Jytdog (talk) 15:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying I am "ignorant" in the field 'food controversy'? I have worked in the field and know it quite well. I have worked with crops, eggs, chickens, pigs, beef, as well as many other places dealing with food. You keep voicing your opinion that it was not a health issue. The sources outweigh your opinion 1000:1. If you want an opinion article on it then go write a blog. It doesn't matter how the article came about. It has a health section so that is where it belongs. I have yet to find a source that claims it to be an environmental recall. I am sorry for ignoring opinion but you continue to ignore sources.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was just going to fix where I said "the health issue" to read "the Starlink recall issue", sorry for that confusion. Jytdog (talk) 16:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Canoe, you're reminding me of the time I tried to add information from this Etropy study. Want to guess how successful that was? Ended up at the MEDRS noticeboard where I was schooled on the many horrible things about the source, and this info never saw the pages of Wikipedia, I assure you. Jtydog remembers this one, he was front and center (and very civil all the while....) petrarchan47tc 18:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yep, petrarchan you brought that source to the MEDRS notice board where it was unanimously shot down as failing MEDRS. There is nothing of my personal preference there.Jytdog (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand that. I am going to give the media a while to report it. If they don't we should take it to ArbCom anyways. Ignoring valid sources and using personal opinion is not the way to write articles here. I think I figured out a way to get media attention. I should know soon if it will work.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

btw Canoe, I was referring to your statement at the end of the MaM notice board discussion, where you said "I had never heard of the GMO controversy until the phone call I received." Sorry if I misconstrued something about that.Jytdog (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I probably had heard about it before but I just didn't care enough to remember it. I still don't care either way as the decisions will be made by others. I do care about the way are articles are being edited. If editors care to much about one side of the controversy then they shouldn't be editing the articles at all. Their inherent POVs about the subject just makes for poor articles and long discussions that go nowhere.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

argh. Just argh. Jytdog (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand your frustration. Like many editors you wish to use personal opinion, experience, and primary documents to edit articles. This is not our policy though. We should avoid articles if we have a strong opinion on the subject. We may have extensive experience in a field but that does not make us a reliable published source. We go with reliable published sources. This reminds me of User talk:PrimalHawaii. We killed of a good friend of the editor using RS that had the wrong person named. He is still very much alive. PrimalHawaii was attacked by many and almost blocked in his efforts to simply provide accurate material. After the way he was treated he has since left the projects and we lost a potentially very good editor. He could have contributed much material from his knowledge and experience, but after it was sourced. He did provide sourced material to expand the article greatly before he left.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You apparently have no idea why I am frustrated as your response doesn't speak to it. And that is your constantly judging me. Above, out of the blue, you do it again. What I find frustrating in dealing with you is your complete pre-judging of me - talking about me all the time instead of content - and your unwillingness to respond to what I actually write about content. The very first time we interacted, you came out at me guns blazing about my putative COI. I am interested to learn where you got the impression of me that you did. Do tell, if you like.Jytdog (talk) 20:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I got it from the first paragraph of your user page. You work in the field, have an SPA account to edit in that field to ensure your 'public perception' of it. We go by sources not the perceptional opinion you seem to want to force on our readers.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really, so before you heard anything about me, but just after saw my first edit on your Taco Bell Recall article, you went and looked at my user page? Hm. In any case, by calling my account an SPA you have taken a step too far. Again. I will spend my upcoming wikitime preparing and filing an administrative action against you. I warned you to stop, and you did not. (This is NOT how I want to spend my wikitime but you refuse to stop personally attacking me even though I have asked you to, repeatedly. Enough.) The next thing you will get from me will be a notice of the filing. Sorry it came to this. Jytdog (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Canoe I have been an editor here longer than you and I understand very very well the sourcing requirements. If you review sourcing on any of my edits you will see that I always strive to find RS that are acceptable to any side in any debate. NY Times, 2ndary reviews by the best people in that field for MEDRS, that sort of thing.Jytdog (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then why don't you accept the fact that all of the sources consider it a health controversy and not an environmental one?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know that this was indeed the intended talk page. :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 14:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, because of your (mistaken) comment in the edit summary, I assumed that you had merely made a mistake and saw no harm in undoing it, so I don't think it's fair for you to characterize me as edit warring. Of course, if you consider the issue important (I don't really) I have no reason to oppose you. I will only note that there are now redundant tags in the article, one under "Health" and one in the Allergenicity subsection of Health. Arc de Ciel (talk) 14:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We still don't have consensus on which section of health it belongs in. Allergies section is not correct because it isn't controversial because it is allergenic. It was controversial because the government and company knew about it beforehand as well as other reasons.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not true that the Bt protein in Starlink is allergenic. There is no reliable source that says it is allergenic and for you, Canoe, to be so focused on content about Starlink and keeping getting the basic facts wrong, is frustrating. The concern the EPA had about the Bt protein in Starlink was that it might be allergenic, and that was due to the longer time it takes to break down, compared to other Bt proteins, and the lack of data in what Aventis produced proving that it was not allergenic. Something that is unknown based on lack of data, is very different from something that is known from experimental data. (btw, much of the allergies subsection under the Health section, is also concerns about what might be allergenic. I am not arguing that the Starlink content should be in one place or another - we just need to keep the facts straight. Jytdog (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being or not being allergenic is not the reason it was controversial though. The lack of silo segregation, the ignored reports to the government, the false claims after the fact by the government, etc, were what made it controversial. I can see why so many lack trust in the industry and government when their health is involved. And why is the article rife with material that isn't controversial? It reads like a detailed crop report.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You just made an argument that the Starlink incident was not a health controversy at all, but rather a regulatory one. Jytdog (talk) 10:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The recall was for health reasons. It was controversial for other reasons as well. Perhaps it should go in the lead with referral in other sections. My addition to the article was deleted. I created a stand alone article that you and others don't agree with. It seems that Monsanto, and those sympathetic to them, don't want our readers to know about the first GMO recall, and possibly the largest food recall. It isn't going to go away so they may need to get used to the fact that mainstream media may be corruptible but Wikipedia isn't. It belongs in the health section, as well as other sections, and probably the lead as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you're familiar with WP:LEAD. I suggest you get consensus for a larger section before you suggest including it in the lead. :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 03:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is probably too detailed and due for a trim the same as the rest of the article. I still don't see why so much is included that isn't controversial as I mentioned in examples earlier.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Canoe's comment 14:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC) Fair enough. I don't know enough about the issue so I can't take a position. Based on your comment I have removed the second tag I added. Arc de Ciel (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see above. Jytdog (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It seems that whole article is a mess. The article should be about controversies. Much of the material isn't even controversial. For instance at the end of the allergy section it mentions that GM can be used to remove allergens from existing foods. I don't see any Greenpeace or tree-hugger types whining about that. When I worked on the farm we gave animals penicillin. There was a warning to administer epinephrine if they showed signs of anaphylaxis. I asked where the epinephrine was stored. "We don't have any. Allergic animals aren't worth buying drugs for." No argument from me, thus no controversy.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYKs are not a good place to get help for an article. DYKs are for articles that have already received such a help. I'd be happy to help you to get your future articles to DYK level, but please don't nominate articles that are far from criteria. It doesn't take much to get a DYK: 250+ words, inline citations for all claims... easy. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I probably won't bother with DYK again. New articles have so much edit warring and AfD that it is hard to do anything with them in the short time frame for DYK.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) None of the articles I've created or expanded, and had DYKs for, have had edit warring or AfD issues. Hot-button issues like GMO are just nightmare controversy magnets, and editors get knocked around a lot there; it takes an Australian-rules football state of mind to hang in at those articles. I encourage you to continue to a) create high-quality new articles, and expand existing articles, neutrally, verifiably with reliable sources, keeping WP:42 in mind and b) keep going for DYK. I'm not saying you should only do non-controversial stuff, just try it for a while. It's ok to incubate articles in your userspace, to avoid people hounding you. --Lexein (talk) 06:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Addendum: Ha, I take it back: We Steal Secrets: The Story of WikiLeaks has some rather noisy partisan scrum activity - --Lexein (talk) 06:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please make sure that you have seen my reply to you at Talk:March Against Monsanto#More Monsanto censorship. Thank you. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GMO Myths and Truths has a link for downloading a 123-page report titled "GMO Myths and Truths" ("An evidence-based examination of the claims made for the safety and efficacy of genetically modified crops"). Many references are provided.
—Wavelength (talk) 22:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Jytdog (talk) 19:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In case you don't know about it already, i thought you might like to see this page http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/08/12/wikipedia-as-a-political-battleground-after-a-gmomonsanto-content-dispute-longtime-wikipedia-contributor-viriditas-is-blocked, which has a thorough breakdown of the involved editors. I tried to help balance several GMO articles including M.A.M a couple months ago but got tired out by the argumentative circles from the pro-GMO crowd, which is their aim i think. El duderino ^(abides) 12:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is where I got the Monsanto COI link from.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was wondering if you have hear back yet about the 12th Doctor free license image? Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had a response to one email that indicated his people are looking into it. I don't know if it may be a costume issue with the BBC or other. I will send a reminder email soon. We could put a green hair on the only image we have and that may blackmail them into action (kidding).--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I count four times now you have changed someones talk page comments. You have been told not to do this enough times. Consider this your last warning. AIRcorn (talk) 22:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to policy unsourced BLP statements can be removed from article talk pages.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way this falls foul of any BLP policy. If you see something in the future you think should be redacted can you please just mention it at the talk page or ask someone (anyone) else if it should be removed. Editing others comments is seen by many here as the height of rudeness and it is probably best to tread carefully in this area. AIRcorn (talk) 08:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your most recent comments at that ANI thread. I really do thank you very sincerely. You struck exactly the right note. Happy editing, going forward! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I too thank you. I only just now saw your apology. I hope we can work together productively going forward, even if we do not agree. I really like talking through things together with people who think differently than I do, in a careful and clear and civil way... I hope you and I can do that. It is one of the greatest pleasures here. I look forward to it. Jytdog (talk) 23:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are right back at it with assuming bad faith, and this is like your fifth post along those lines in a row, with accusations of spamming/coatracking for Monsanto etc. What is up with this? If you think I did something corrupt, bring it to a drama board, with difs. Enough of flinging around these accusations of bad faith, of spamming, of creating content to benefit Monsanto. I have worked very hard, with good intentions, to improve Wikipedia. You are doing all this even though you promised to stop. To be fair I think some of what you are doing is just unthinking sloppiness but the recent run on the discussion about roundup/glyphosate unmerge is really direct. I am mentioning User:Sergecross73 and User: Tryptofish here to notify them.Jytdog (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you consider me acting in bad faith. The correct way to merge that article is to trim it through consensus and then merge all of the remaining material. Many others on that page agree that we should unmerge it, discuss changes, and then merge any remaining material. If there is too much remaining then it will unbalance the main article. Many of our readers will see this as Monsanto spam in a chemical article. If we took all the material from Big Mac and put it in hamburger it would have the same effect. Our readers would think the article is full of McDonald's spam.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You just refuse to get it. You disagree with how a merge was done -- that is fine and good. You can criticize the process, and you can critize the result. To the best of my knowledge, at the level of detail you are describing there is no single way to do a merge described in policy or guideline, that I am aware of. Your argument (at the level of detail) for how a merge should be done is based on your preference, not policy or guideline. How it useful, for creating better articles, to criticize the process by which is a merge is done, I do not understand at all. But sure you can criticize that. Then bring evidence that it happened the way you said it did (it did not) and evidence that the process you advocate is the one dictated by policy or guideline. And that is probably something to do at a drama board as it has nothing really to do with content. The result does. So let's say you disagree with the result. OK.. said plainly, that would be something like - "content that I found useful, NPOV and well sourced was left out of the merge, for instance "XXXXXXX". Let's re-introduce it or undo the merge to get it back into article space." Nobody could argue with that. To claim as you do, that the merge results - the content - was created with a POV, that I "cherry-picked" - all go to accusing me of bad faith. And you offer no difs, no evidence. Just a wild, blanket condemnation.

You do not have to personalize arguments to make a point. Just say what you want without the vitriol, and be specific. Like on the controversies article, if you just say "why is this content here" instead of "why is that monsanto advertisement here" things can actually move forward - in other words, ask a real question so we can discuss it, rather asking a rhetorical question with a harsh criticism in it which is a conversation stopper. You need to stop with the attacks! Jytdog (talk) 16:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't consider them attacks. I was not the one that opened the RfC after questioning the merge. You now are suggesting that we should unmerge it after arguing that we shouldn't. Many besides myself will disagree on how the merge was done. There was very little input, much material was lost to our readers, etc. That is why we are having an RfC on it now. Since there was no discussion on which material was to be merged then how did you decide? Flip a coin, dart at a board, or your POV? In order to have a NPOV merge we need to unmerge, discuss changes, and then decide on whether the all remaining material will coatrack the main article with too much material about one product. Our readers would consider that spam in the same way as if we took all the material from Big Mac and put it in hamburger. --Canoe1967 (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I have nowhere advocated for doing an unmerge.Jytdog (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Let's re-introduce it or undo the merge to get it back into article space." from your statement above.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Read what I wrote. I was offering YOU language that would be an AGF way to say that content was left out that should have been put in. "So let's say you disagree with the result. OK.. said plainly, that would be something like - "content that I found useful, NPOV and well sourced was left out of the merge, for instance "XXXXXXX". Let's re-introduce it or undo the merge to get it back into article space." Nobody could argue with that. " Mother of god. Jytdog (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And no response.Jytdog (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The last remaining consensus version should have been merged en masse. If that is not satisfactory would you agree to unmerge it so we can trim it and then discuss whether it would coatrack the article or not? As it is now it is hard to do this from the history versions without opening each one individually by each editor.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And you have no basis in policy or guideline for how you are saying this "should have been done". if an "unmerge" happens and if so, how, will be decided on the Talk page.Jytdog (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Argh.Jytdog (talk) 16:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1) Please show me, in policy or guideline, where it says that a merge has to be done as you describe. Thanks.Jytdog (talk) 16:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

and no response.Jytdog (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2) It is possible (we are all human) that I made some bad judgements in doing the merge, that no one else working on the article at the time caught. Please show me content, with sources, that I left out that you believe were wrongly left out.Jytdog (talk) 16:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

and no response.Jytdog (talk) 18:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3) Please demonstrate that each item in 2) reflect "cherry-picking" or POV-pushing. Thanks.Jytdog (talk) 16:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

and no response.Jytdog (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

4) If you can do neither 1) nor 3), please withdraw your criticism. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

and no response.Jytdog (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of this points we are discussing at the RfC now. The reason the RfC was created is because another editor was critical of how the merge was done. If you consider criticism of edits as being attacks then that is your view. Many edits are criticized without being labeled as attacks. If they were attacks then no one would be allowed to criticize edits.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

canoe, i am not bringing these issues up with other editors, because right now no one else is personalizing the criticisms. ONLY YOU ARE.Jytdog (talk) 18:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so in other words, you are accusing me of violating merge policy/guidelines, and of a bad faith merge, with no evidence.Jytdog (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And you just will just not get it! There are lots of ways to criticize content and sources without making it a criticism of the editor. You just don't seem to understand how to interact on Talk and discuss content, not contributors.Jytdog (talk) 17:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if this is wrong, but this looks more like questioning whether a merge was done correctly more than any sort of bad faith/accusation type situation. I have no idea on the validity of the merge, so I don't know if that's a fair thought or not, but I don't see those difs as out of line... Sergecross73 msg me 17:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking. In my book, accusing editors of coatracking and adding "Monsanto advertising" to articles is ABF; on the merge issue he is accusing me directly of violating process (with no basis), and cherry-picking and POV pushing content, with no basis, no dif's - just the assumption that I am personally a bad egg. I am really sick of his and other editors' accusations of bad faith. But if I need to recalibrate - if what they are doing is just fine, I am very interested in hearing that. That would be hard but better to be in line with what AGF means in practice than be unhappy all the time. Jytdog (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if you feel offended at our comments. You claim to be the one that selected material for the merge. Other editors are criticizing the way it was selected besides myself. If the last consensus version of the article were added en masse then our readers may see it as coatrack/spam for Monsanto. I hope this is a little more clear.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one is personalizing it like you are. No one. Jytdog (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one that personalized it when you claimed to do the merge unilaterally using your own judgment. If the others were aware of that earlier then they would have directed criticism toward your edits as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, I think you're just missing a bit of the nuances as far as what acceptable/not acceptable as far as accusations go. It's okay to accuse something of being improperly merge, having POV/COATRACK issues, etc, without out going into detail. Should Canoe provide difs to prove what he's saying? It'd probably a good idea as far as getting his point across. But he's not violating policy if he doesn't. The accusations/AGF stuff is a problem when its going beyond the issue at hand. For example.

• Acceptable - I don't believe "person X" merged the article right. It favors "stance Y's" thoughts too strongly.
• Unacceptable - I don't think "person X" merged the article right. They're just a rabid "Stance Y" fighter, always spreading their propaganda all over Wikipedia. This garbage needs to be removed. They're probably just trying to brainwash the public, I bet that's all they do in real life too. Etc Etc Etc."

I feel like Canoe's comments fall much farther in the "acceptable" area. I'm not defending him, I haven't looked at how it was merged, and I'm not very well versed in the subject. I'm just saying, as far as policy goes, I don't feel his comments were out of line. I mean, if you apply WP:AGF that rigidly, it'd be a violation for simply nominating an article for deletion or asking for a source to back up a claim... Sergecross73 msg me 19:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Sergecross. Adjusting my parameters. Thanks.Jytdog (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since Jytdog asked me to comment here, here I am. Somewhat like Sergecross, I'm not seeing a big problem with the discussion about the merge thing, although, at this point, I myself am suffering from TL;DR, and so it's entirely possible that I'm missing something. I very sincerely am grateful to Canoe for the eventual resolution of the ANI complaints, and therefore, I'm very much predisposed to cut Canoe a lot of slack over minor quibbles about choices of words. I really WP:AGF that Canoe is trying his hardest to do the right thing now, and I want to support him in that as much as I can. I'll reply a little more to Jytdog on my talk page.

Canoe, a bit of friendly advice: in that third diff, from the GMO controversy page, you said: "This article should not be a huge ad for Monsanto and other GMO corporations. Just the facts Ma'am, and only the controversial ones." Other editors can construe/misconstrue that as sounding like you are saying that they want to make the page an ad for Monsanto. I'm pretty sure that you were, instead, talking about how you think the page might look to our readers, but I can easily see how Jytdog, in the context of everything else that has been going on, would feel that you were implying an agenda. I think you were also being sort of cheerful and friendly in what you said about "the facts Ma'am", but humor can be misconstrued on the Internet (and that's something where I make a lot of mistakes, myself). (I'll also quibble with you that the page can, in fact, include some non-controversial content, even though the title of the page is about the controversies, but that's a quibble for the article talk page, rather than here). Happy editing! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly I think that you guys should get off Canoe1967's back. He hasn't done anything wrong. This micromanaging and hairsplitting serves no useful purpose. If editors are misconstruing disagreements as attacks, they need to get over it. Coretheapple (talk) 23:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Canoe, I'm glad that you self-reverted this: [11], [12], but you should have thought twice before you saved the first edit. And your edit summaries here: [13], and here: [14], continue to make the same implications about other editors for which you apologized earlier. Commenting about pro-Monsanto POV is fair game, but calling it "Monsanto spam" is saying that editors put it there for that purpose, intentionally. And we do have "reader feedback" features on pages, where editors can see where readers have asked for more information about something in an article. It doesn't mean that there's some secret e-mail cabal somewhere. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Please ask a basic question if you expect response.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't asking you a question, and it's up to you whether or not you respond. However, there is a different kind of "response" that I very much expect of you: that you understand that I was giving you legitimate advice, and that if your future edits reflect a rejection of that advice, you are likely to run into trouble. Really, I appreciated your recent apology, and I want you to avoid trouble. But how you conduct yourself is under your control. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I redacted it because I had edited the wrong talk page. The talk page it was intended for has been corrected since. The two edit summaries made sense to me. I was simply asking which readers had requested the material. With the other summary the material was ordering in a way that didn't balance the neutrality of the article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About WP:REDACT, you may want to follow what it says there, in terms of using strike-through, like this, instead of deleting the comments, unless you believe that what you have said is so egregious that it is better to replace it with a placeholder. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The luckiest man in Iraq is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The luckiest man in Iraq (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article..

Hi Canoe. As per WP:SHUN you will generally not see me responding to you much anymore, as long as you continue operating in battleground mode. I have been trying to work with you, but am at the end of my rope. Best regards. Jytdog (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably a good move forward since many editors consider you as an incredible waste of space.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ive started a new discussion at the Taco Bell GMO article. Both of you please, please response, but to me, not each other. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 00:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed you were active on the BLP noticeboard, clicked over and saw "COI Essay vs appropriately harsh reality" in your "Notes to self" and it gave me a chuckle. I'm not sure these two links necessarily conflict. The community seems persistent in positioning me (the PR guy) against OrangeMike (defender of the Wiki), but I appreciate it when Mike blocks PR editors that are disruptive to my volunteer editing and the "anti-PR" camp resonates more strongly with me than pro.

A fun story: A while back someone posted on my blog that this nasty editor - OrangeMike - blocked them for username violations (they were very angry about it). I pinged Mike so he could respond, sat back and ate some popcorn :-D

Anyways, I don't know if there is "consensus" per se among a half-dozen editors or anything, but I was wondering if you felt the Monster Cable Products article was ripe for a move to Monster (company) based on the discussion. CorporateM (Talk) 21:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The new name sounds like it is due. I also adjusted my notes above. Feel free to adjust the wording.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was just snickering over it is all. You could put some bull-$%&# by a PR shill if you want ;-)

Since you drew my attention to it, I'm going to give it a couple reads and maybe make some more trims and such. CorporateM (Talk) 22:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm not sure if you remember File:Alice Vickery Drysdale.jpg, but it's been nominated for deletion. Could you provide some input, please? It would be very much appreciated. I've been going through the PDF you showed me, trying to find the year the photograph was published, but so far unsuccessfully. Surtsicna (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've created an article about Julia Grace Wales, as you suggested a while ago. There were many free images to use, released by the Library and Archives Canada. Surtsicna (talk) 12:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I considered adding Template:Infobox person, but decided not to. That way we have more place for photographs, which are far more valuable than infoboxes. Surtsicna (talk) 12:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies - there is no 3RR for an article in your userspace. Taking that off my watchlist. My apologies again. Jytdog (talk) 18:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Sorry about not replying to you soon enough, I just very recently received the email you posted on my page. So, you would like me to create three different articles, using those three website pages which you linked to me as references. Am I correct?

ActorBoss (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Cunningham already has his Wikipedia article.

ActorBoss (talk) 18:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm extremely sorry for not getting back in contact with you. I've been incredibly busy over the past few days. I'm having a little problem in my personal life which needs sorting out. I had to move and all of that. But, I will surely make the page soon enough and I will give you the heads up in advance, alright? Cool, man, see you soon..

ActorBoss (talk) 22:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me make some friendly suggestions about those various Monsanto pages. I agree with you about the speedy delete on MON 809, since it's just a stub anyway. I'm pretty sure that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MON 863 will go as you plan. But I think you might as well leave MON 810 without a deletion discussion, because it's a pretty well-developed page. And I think that Roundup Ready soybean is likewise a more broad topic and is likely to be kept as a page on its own. That's just my 2 cents based on my past experiences with deletion discussions. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They all don't need separate articles. One Monsanto product article will do fine.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is User:Canoe1967/Monsanto_and_GMO and why am I and other editors listed in it? IRWolfie- (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've had it watchlisted since it was created, so Canoe, you should be aware that other editors can see what you are putting there. I assume that it's about this: [15]. When similar pages have been discussed at WP:MFD in the past, the consensus has typically been that pages currently being used to prepare for dispute resolution are kept, but attack pages or pages used for activities outside of accepted dispute resolution processes are deleted. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where do I sign up for my Big Farmer cheque? --Roxy the dog (patronize me) 19:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know as well, Roxy. If a corporation sends me money then I could easily stop giving their sympathetic editors a hard time. I may even join their side for enough cash. Money talks as well being a very good persuader. My email is turned on an my PayPal account is valid if they wish to go that route, or they can simply ask for a name, address, account number, etc. I can understand editors being adamant about including their POV in articles but many at Wikipedia seem to be far beyond that and determined to censor/whitewash articles to make Monsanto and other interests happy with their phony image in articles.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So this is an admittance that it's an attack page on certain editors who you continue to believe are being paid to edit? Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to put words in my mouth? I don't see how you consider it as an attack page. It is just an evidence page to show facts. I do believe that some editors are very adamant about the censorship and whitewashing of articles. Policy won't allow me to claim they are being paid to edit. Some seem to be editing on company time and company computers. Either the companies sanction their edits or don't care that their employees are violating policies and possibly breaking the law. I do wish that I would get paid to back off though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I think your accusations, or insinuations, Canoe, are bonkers. --Roxy the dog (patronize me) 21:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment Canoe, I do think he is a very busy man and probably will not have time to sig my guestbook :) Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 18:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do think he has the time. He may not sign it on principle though. A person like Mr. Wales should not have to respond to simple requests to sign guest books. It would be the same as someone asking him to send a signed photograph even though a pre-paid return envelope was provided.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's why I think it is least likely that he signs it :) But I really appreciate your comment on his talk page :D Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 18:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again but never give up hope. He may just Wikipedia:Ignore all rules and add a sig similar to: "Hi Miss Bono. I don't normally sign guestbooks on request, but after viewing responses from other editors I decided to go against my norm in this case."--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be wonderful :D, I wonder if Jimbo has ever sign a guestbook ¿(O_o)? Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 19:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If he hasn't for various reasons then that would make yours very special for being the first one. He may sign it: "This is probably the first and only guestbook I will ever sign. I am signing it because....."--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! :) Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 12:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Archive of the harmless user page.
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Canoe1967/Monsanto and GMO

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Monsanto modified wheat mystery is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monsanto modified wheat mystery until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 07:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Block accepted as the normal at en:wp. Blocking admins may wish to look into more of the underlying details though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeesh, Canoe. One does NOT share facts about GMOs on Wikipedia unless those facts are positive! When will you ever learn? We do have rules here, ya know. (Big hug to you...) petrarchan47tc 06:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the articles are censored and whitewashed by a Wikipedia:FACTION that outnumbers those that are try to uphold the Wikipedia:Five pillars. Mainstream editors don't seem to notice or care that they are Wikipedia:Gaming the system to the detriment of our Wikipedia reputation in the real world. I still think we can have their crap corrected and the articles fixed but it will take time and effort to do so.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Canoe! Finally, I've got an agreement from a congressional office to let me visit Statuary Hall and investigate the copyright status of its statues. This would actually be tomorrow morning EST. Can you remind me which statues I'll need to inspect? If so, I can report back to you very soon. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 03:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:National_Statuary_Hall_Collection_1963_to_1977 --Canoe1967 (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Terrific. As it happens, I had to reschedule my visit for two weeks hence—next Friday, October 11, it's on. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And then just this week, while trying to confirm my plans to visit the Capitol this week, I saw this: Due to a lapse in government funding, the Capitol Visitor Center will be closed and all tours of the Capitol have been suspended until further notice. Of course, I can't believe I didn't think of it. Well, assuming this thing is resolved and we still have a federal government in a few weeks, I'll just try again! Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Monsanto sells a pesticide which kills milkweed, the only food source for the larvae of Monarch butterflies.

• http://e360.yale.edu/feature/tracking_the_causes_of_sharp__decline_of_the_monarch_butterfly/2634/
• Roundup-ready crops killing habitat of monarch butterflies
• Two-way Monarch Migration Map | Monarch Watch Blog
• In Midwest, Monarch Butterflies’ Flutters May Be Far Fewer - NYTimes.com
• http://www.flightofthebutterflies.com/conservation-preservation/
• The Monarch Butterfly Decline, and What You Can Do About It | Cool Green Science
• http://insects.about.com/b/2013/03/18/monsanto-milkweed-and-the-declining-monarch-migration.htm

—Wavelength (talk) 19:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that articles are censored and whitewashed by a Wikipedia:FACTION that outnumbers those that are try to uphold the Wikipedia:Five pillars. Mainstream editors don't seem to notice or care that they are Wikipedia:Gaming the system to the detriment of our Wikipedia reputation in the real world. They tag team revert any sourced and relative material that is negative to Monsanto, its products, and GMO. I still think we can have their crap corrected and the articles fixed but it will take time and effort to do so.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still have hope. One weird thing is, if any of those regulars are actual PR shills for Monsanto or their lawyers, they aren't very good at it. (Their arguments at the talkpages seem amateurish, compared to other political activists I've seen here.) Especially Jytdog-- have you seen his latest rantings at Jimbo's talkpage? I'm also astounded that the COI/N for Jytdog was closed after only one admin looked into it, and that admin has ties to GMO and a questionable interpretation. El duderino ^(abides) 07:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, brother. Sorry, I've had to deal with a few problems in my life. So, are you still interested in that article being created? I'm all up for it. Just give me a little message and I'll get back to you ASAP... ActorBoss (talk) 15:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have completed it. :) - Here's the link. Bill Cunningham (Canadian photographer) ActorBoss (talk) 16:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Canoe. If you have the time/interest, I was hoping to find someone willing to chip in on the Monster page for a bit. User:North8000 has done a lot of the editing, but I saw on North's Talk page that he/she is unavailable for a while. I pinged User:Drmies, but got no response and User:Crisco 1492 has been involved, but asked me to ping someone else.

The main thing atm, is that Crisco moved my draft History section into article-space, which includes the Trademarks controversy (in a sub-section) and a controversial sponsorship of Candlestick Park. However, both of these controversies are also still covered in dedicated sections from before, so they are now there twice.

After that, I just need to re-write the Lead and take another shot at Products and it should be ready for a GAN. Do you think you could take a look, decide the best place for the controversies and fix the redundancy? CorporateM (Talk) 18:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am avoiding en:wp because of the Monsanto/GMO fiasco. My hard drive was corrupted and all my login, passwords, IP, etc. info was compromised at WMF servers. I can't point fingers but I am paranoid that my edits to Monsanto and GMO articles may be the cause.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:22, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered what happened to you! I am sorry for your computer trouble, Canoe. Huge bummer. I am glad you call the notion that somebody trashed your stuff due to your work on Monsanto/GMO stuff, "paranoid." whew. I just wanted to say, that while I found it very difficult to work with you because of your lack of WP:CIVILITY in those discussions, ultimately your work led to the creation of the Starlink corn recall article (which you in fact started under a different name) which is a valuable addition to Wikipedia. Additionally our discussions around that led me to learn a lot more about Starlink, for which I am personally grateful to you. So thanks, for both things. If you do come back and start working on GMO-related stuff again, I hope it is with civility and WP:AGF. You have valuable insights to contribute and it will be so much more pleasant and most importantly, efficiently productive, if you would just.. well, be nice, and recognize that nobody has all the answers and everybody can have something useful to contribute. Thanks again, and good luck in any case.Jytdog (talk) 13:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that is what caused your problem, I'd be tempted to stay away from all Monsanto related articles if I were you, just to be safe. It might screw up your computer even more. Have you tried switching it off and then on again? You can never be too careful, can you! --Roxy the dog (resonate) 14:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Roxy the dog that is not constructive. Bad dog! Jytdog (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening, Canoe! I finally found a Friday afternoon where I could get a private tour of the Capitol, and with the help of a staffer from Del. Norton's office, I managed to find all 8 statues. Short version: all were signed by the respective sculptor, but only one statue (Ernest Gruening) had a copyright symbol included. I think this means all but that one are OK to include, is that correct? Anyway, I have photos to verify my findings for all eight, which I can upload to enWP or Commons or share with you, depending on what we need to verify copyright status. Let me know what you think we should do next! Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 00:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	Hello Canoe1967, Miss Bono has given you an lovely bat, to wish you a Happy Halloween! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a lovely bat! Enjoy!
	Spread the goodness of a lovely bat by adding {{subst:User:Miss Bono/Halloween}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

A tag has been placed on Hal Erickson (author) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Acalycine ^talk 08:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your upload of File:4 and 7 confusion.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:11, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Canoe1967,

I see you are no longer very active - pity. I just thought of you becuase of of a strange reversion at Cheerios. Not my cup of tea, but if it brings you back to Wikipedia it would be great. Cheerios, XOttawahitech (talk) 15:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

XOttawahitech (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Winter storm naming is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winter storm naming until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. XOttawahitech (talk) 10:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the talkpage of that template.Skookum1 (talk) 14:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Marilyn calendars 1953 1952.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted you to know I very much understand what you went through here. There never was any chance. petrarchan47tc 04:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:CGI Machinima sample film.ogg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:1953 Playboy centerfold.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 09:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Infortrend-logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 10:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! My name is Kate and I am a student at Cornell University working with a group of peers on a Wikipedia project for a class. The project requires that we edit a C-Class page with the hopes of making it B-Class in the future. I was reading through the talk page for Jack Welch and noticed that you made a few critiques in the topic of 'Post-GE,' and because this is my focus for the article I was hoping for some feedback for additional information to add to that section. My group includes sjoo446, The_Da_Crook, Mzw3, and myself, and we would appreciate any input, advise, or suggestions you might have for this particular Wikipedia page. Thank you so much! Kateheinle (talk) 03:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited to participate in the discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling#Signature move sourcing. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 00:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Diamond logo-PSauce-outlined.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any award other than Wayne Gretzky 99 Award? Recently Velan Nandhakumaran is awarded with "Wayne Gretzky Award".Lake Ontario Wind (talk) 04:41, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Shrewsbury Town FC.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Sniffy has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

None of the entities mentioned has a Wikipedia article that can provide the reader with more information

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Schillings law logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have a lovely cat. ^Ḉɱ̍ 2nd anniv. 23:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Canoe1967,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Al Oeming for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

DrStrauss talk 16:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Trudeau family, Canoe1967!

Wikipedia editor Legacypac just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

nice page

To reply, leave a comment on Legacypac's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Legacypac (talk) 06:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Infortrend-logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:PETA logo 2013.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:48, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Round Square logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:39, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Women of Wrestling logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:47, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Canoe1967. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Centennial Voyageur Canoe Pageant".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. CalOtter (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you start archiving your talk page. It is getting very long.  ⠀—‌‌  Glosome‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌  💬 02:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Do you do copyright research or is it something you would be interested in doing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.183.70.251 (talk) 16:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Hungarian Testing Board logo2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Round Square logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:BC Sports Hall of Fame logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Newman's Own logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Council of Canadians logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Ch aviaton logo a.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:1953 Playboy centerfold.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Quantity/sandbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. User:GKFX^talk 23:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Christopher Dorner.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Tom Kelley Sr.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —holly {chat} 21:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

this article is vey imortoant

Wolan268 (talk) 16:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]