Hello Arctic.gnome -- Last year I dropped you a message saying that I was challenging the definition you added to the Wiktionary entry for "zombie". As a result of my rfv, in Summer/07 your definition was removed from the entry. Further research confirms the accuracy of your entry and I have restored it, with apologies. -- WikiPedant ( talk) 20:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Could you maybe help me with getting more info for the references so it could be more visable on the NOTES Kelvin Martinez ( talk) 00:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC) Honorific titles in popular music
Hello there. Yourself and User Qyd have made major contributions to the Template:WikiProject Canada. User:Mr C.C. has been making improvements to the SK communities and Neighborhoods branch of Saskatchewan wikiproject. Saskatchewan wikiproject which is now as a province, is included in the Canada template. There is also a department in the Canada template for communities. Mr. C.C. would like to be able to see how the Sk communities are coming along in regards to their ratings and assessment, and has also already received requests for review regarding ratings.
My query is In your humble opinion, should we start another talk page banner devoted to Wikipedia:WikiProject Saskatchewan Communities & Neighbourhoods/Assesment?
... or ...
Is there a way to forward into categories such as one named Category:B-Class Saskatchewan Communities & Neighbourhoods articles by doing a periodic AWB comparison of Canada template Saskatchewan articles with Canada template community articles, so that Wikipedia:WikiProject Saskatchewan Communities & Neighbourhoods can receive an assessment in this manner from the Canada template? cc Qyd Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 02:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I was the guy who added that article to the topic. I won't do it again. So you don't have to warn anybody. Serendi pod ous 22:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Please follow along at User_talk:Gimmetrow#WP:GO; I have long been the only person archiving that page, GimmeBot finally took it over (after a year-long search and much frustration from Raul), and now a wiki programming error has broken it. I'm considering no longer updating the page. If you don't mind, please keep responses at User talk:Gimmetrow, so we can keep the whole thing in one place. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Arctic, there is currently a number proposed of changes to the Featured Topic criteria and process. See Wikipedia talk:Featured topic criteria and Wikipedia talk:Good topics. I think your input would be helpful as a number of comments are coming from editors that are not involved in the current process. Your input, and other involved editors, would be greatly appreciated. ( Guyinblack25 talk 02:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC))
Hello Artic Gnome, good to have you back and I was happy to help out in the meantime. I didn't put "failed" on the Everglades articles as firstly there weren't even FTC candidate processes, and secondly, well if you look at the nom you can see it shouldn't have been brought in the first place. But anyway, you're right, I guess ultimately I was just being lazy and only just getting into the role then.
Secondly, with regards to the Smallville nom, that did get a bit heated and there was pressure from all sides, I hope you're wrong obviously but I guess time will tell.
Thirdly, I would like to apologise for the ridiculous amount of upheaval you have come back to, and briefly explain it from my point of view. If you look here, you'll see that there was a proposal to up the criteria. Following that conversation, it quickly became clear that while upping was good for some reasons, it was bad for others. Hence I proposed a split off here, with good topics being featured topics but with lower criteria, and both largely occupying the same space. (I explain there how topics can move between good and featured at will using templates, and would be happy to implement this.)
Anyway, at the end of that discussion I feel it was somewhat hijacked by Cirt, who set up Wikipedia talk:Good topics. However, he did not fully understand WP:FT? 3.c), so left it out, and since then we have spent most of the time debating that criteria's inclusion in WP:GT? - largely pointless and quite frustrating. Anyway, he's now given me permission to include it, so that's that sorted, but borne out of this are the two slight changes to it that we've brought here and here.
Anyway, the long and short of it is that it appears the second straw poll at Wikipedia talk:Good topics will pass, meaning that things will be done much as I said they should be right back in the very first place, and so this whole thing will be an entirely pointless exercise! Sorry again about the giant mess, I'll be helping to clear it up from here on out and I hope you had a good holiday! - rst20xx ( talk) 13:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Do you mind if I close the Guitar Hero FTC as no consensus? It is partially dead and its not getting very far. Should I close it or leave it?Mitch32( UP) 17:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! You just brightened my day :) And I hope we can find a way to solve that final step of the puzzle (the listings), so this isn't a constant pain in the ass for you - rst20xx ( talk) 02:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
It's so obvious! Cirt suggested we come up with something like a daily log of status changes, but we were struggling to find what. Why don't we just actually set up a daily log of status changes with the WP 1.0 bot? All we'd need to do is set up the categories it requires, and then get Template:ArticleHistory to tag each article a third time (yes, another layer of categories, but oh well). And then you just need to run the bot daily and look at the log it outputs, and you can work out if any articles have changed rating, or been added or removed, from there! And resultantly, you can work out somewhat easily if a topic has moved from good to featured :)
Obviously this will only catch "vandals" who change an article history and won't catch "vandals" who just change a featured topic box, but it will catch all legitimate topic promotions/demotions, and besides, the featured topic box "vandalism" is a problem we have already - rst20xx ( talk) 13:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Made a request for temporary unprotection. By the way, here's something I just noticed - good articles do the same thing - rst20xx ( talk) 17:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay. FeaturedTopicSum (which you should never have to use on a regular basis by the way) takes three parameters: the name of the topic, what to do if this topic is a featured topic, and what to do if this topic is a good topic. In other words: {{FeaturedTopicSum|TopicName|FeaturedTopicAction|GoodTopicAction}}. Using the topic name and by using the categories, FeaturedTopicSum works out if this topic is a featured or good topic, and then does the appropriate of the two candidate actions.
TopicTransclude takes two parameters, one of GT and FT, and then a topic name. For example: {{TopicTransclude|GT|TopicName}}. Then, it basically says, if the first parameter is GT: invoke FeaturedTopicSum on TopicName, such that the good topic action is to transclude Wikipedia:FeaturedTopics/TopicName, and the featured topic action is to do nothing. And if the first parameter is FT: invoke FeaturedTopicSum on TopicName, such that the featured topic action is to transclude Wikipedia:FeaturedTopics/TopicName, and the good topic action is to do nothing. Make sense? If you look at Wikipedia:Good topics, you will see that TopicTransclude is using GT everywhere - rst20xx ( talk) 16:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I'll just have to wait for Quatermass (TV serial) to roll around to the top of the pile for review. :)
Another question (yes I know). I came across these just now:
These are the album and all the singles from it, per here. There were however, three other songs from the album that have their own articles:
Would a featured topic need the last three? If not, the work deserves recognition at WP:FT. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk to me The mess I've made 16:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey, can you deal with my request here for a change to Template:Historyoutput? I'm not sure why this hasn't been done yet. In the meantime, we have situations like this, where it says it was a "Featured topic candidate" in the List milestones simply because it can't say it was a "Good topic candidate" until Historyoutput is updated to cater for good topics. And if this problem is still going on when the rush of good topic promotions occurs, well, it's going to be a major problem - rst20xx ( talk) 20:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Heya; please take a look at User_talk:Rst20xx#WP:FT2008. Thanks! Gary King ( talk) 23:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi there! :)
As someone who's worked on D&D and/or RPG articles before, I'm inviting you to participate in our goal to both improve articles that have been selected to be placed in the next Wikipedia DVD release, as well as nominate more to be selected for this project. Please see the WikiProject D&D talk page for more details. :) BOZ ( talk) 13:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
There is currently an open Request for Comment on User Conduct here, regarding G2bambino. As someone with past interactions with him, you are invited to comment. — [ roux ] [ x 15:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Would you like to comment at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Boulevard du Temple by Daguerre? -- MichaelMaggs ( talk) 22:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh cool, thanks! However I think I'm going to reject (for now anyway!) I am an Oxford student and it's term time, hence I wouldn't really have time to get behind the nomination - rst20xx ( talk) 09:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm currently working on the lists of premiers of the Canadian provinces. I can't find references for some of them; seeing that you worked on the lists before, if you could provide some references that'd be great. You can just add them to the references section of each list. For some references, only the years are listed for elections and designation dates, but it'd be nice to have the exact dates. Thanks in advance! Gary King ( talk) 19:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I and my fellow editors are facing a deadlock on a issue of removing/toning down a section on 'allegation of cruelty' as subsection under 'criticism' section in Operation Blue Star article, concerns include WP:NPOV, the summary of dispute can be found at [1], please let us know your views/opinion at the talk page of the article so that 'alleged' bias may be looked into and a consensual solution may be found. Thanks LegalEagle ( talk) 06:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Was that an intended sassy aside or was it a Freudian slip for definitely? :-) DoubleBlue ( Talk) 18:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Arctic Gnome, I requested deletion of John Sparrow David Thompson so I could move John Thompson (politician) there as per Talk:John Thompson (politician). Now you've re-created the page and I again cannot move it. :,-( DoubleBlue ( Talk) 14:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Do you have a link to the source for this image that you uploaded: Image:John Bracken.jpg? For image checks in the article's FLC. Gary King ( talk) 22:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
That box is for the election in the riding, not as election as premier. He was elected in Iqaluit West three times, February 15, 1999, February 16, 2004 and October 27, 2008. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 04:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Gary King ( talk) 02:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Withdraw Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Universities in Canada please. Gary King ( talk) 19:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I am wondering if you want to be credited with nominating this FLC nomination. You truly deserve it. --
SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.
24
[c]
08:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Looks like a no consensus to me, right? Mind closing it? Gary King ( talk) 19:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
It's fine if we have to work on a more difficult article. What I do care about is that we have a topic that will pass once it's up to speed; the worst thing is working on a dozen or two articles for a topic and finding out that it is an unacceptable topic. I'll open a discussion on WT:FTC since the topic is almost done. Also, I'm not quite sure what you mean with "historical". I think the list of current First Ministers makes more sense because every item in the topic is linked from there. They all seem much more connected with that as the lead. Gary King ( talk) 21:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:7th_parl_PMs.PNG. 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 "Edit this 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) 09:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I definitely think that these things are best dealt with on Meta, and to a lesser extent on the mailing lists. I do not get along well with chat lines; I think too much about what I want to say. Even if I had wanted to participate in the steering committee, the usual 8 p.m. starting time did not work for me on the west coast. I'm usually the one cooking supper during the hour beginning at 5 p.m.
The difficulty now seems to be in getting decisions made, and determining when there is enough agreement on anything to go ahead. In the first draft of the by-laws I tried putting each part on a separate page in Meta, hoping that it would draw comments, but that didn't work. I'm relatively flexible on most aspects. The only aspect that I would treat as virtually non-negotiable is a requirement for a mechanism to insure that WMC not be dominated by any one province. Most of the other concerns that I raised on the talk page address either legal questions or ideas that may not work. It is especially important to be mindful of some of the tricky language of charitable purposes. Eclecticology ( talk) 08:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
The two additions are basically good, but if we are going to talk about "projects" that term will need to be defined. You and I know what we mean by that, but we can't assume that a random person reading the by-laws will know. The right to speak French at meetings is great theory, but is of little value if nobody understands what the person is saying. It may work on a wiki or mailing list when the reader has a time to figure it out, but it could be a problem in a chat room or in person. I don't expect that we will be able to afford translators in the foreseeable future.
The WMF does request that it review the by-laws before incorporation, but we cannot become a legal chapter until after we incorporate. Until we are incorporated, or have in some other manner acquired legal status under Canadian law, we will not have the legal right to enter into contracts, except as individuals. Any purported contract between such a group and WMF could be declared a nullity. Using the name and logos a matter of trademarks, not copyrights. Avoiding use of the logos before we have the legal issues sorted out is not much of a difficulty. The name is trickier. WMF, by approving our request to be a chapter would effectively be granting us permission to a group of people to establish a corporation or chapter with that name. The extent to which such a permission is required under Canadian law is highly debatable, but it would not be in anybody's interest to force that debate.
Your idea of working to a time limit is fine. Can we have them ready for submission no later than the end of February, perhaps earlier It would be great to have Canadian representation at the proposed Berlin chapters meeting in April.
The founding documents should be in two parts: the Application for Incorporation, and the by-laws. The former includes the name, purposes and the "assets" provisions. Everything else goes into the by-laws.
Since the Steering Committee is defunct, can we now get rid of references to it on the by-laws page? Eclecticology ( talk) 08:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I have been continuing my exchanges with Utilisateur:Khayman. Our Quebec people have been canvassing opinions about my proposals, and so far so good. I have also strongly suggested that one of the three people applying for incorporation should be from Quebec. By having that selection ratified by the upcoming Laval University meeting we can be confident that the individual has some support in Quebec. Once we receive their ratification the names of the three incorporators can be made formally public; this is is not to say that the information is confidential anyway. I have proposed that Wikimédia Québec would be recognized as an official sub-chapter shortly after Wikimedia Canada, and that the domain wikimedia.qc.ca would be made available for their use.
I haven't yet addressed the question of finances, and their federal-provincial distribution. Having the federal body the sole authority for issuing receipts will imply responsibility to account for all finances including those of sub-chapters on the required annual tax reports. This includes insuring that the funds have been properly spent for charitable purposes. Because Quebec requires separate tax receipts for its provincial income tax returns, a higher degree of financial autonomy for that sub-chapter may be warranted. I essentially agree that we should maintain flexibility in the distribution of responsibilities. The federal body would retain primary management of legal responsibilities and finances; publicity and organizing get-togethers might be best left in sub-chapter hands. Beyond these broad strokes much will be subject to negotiation.
Meanwhile, let's keep working on the by-laws until we have something workable. Eclecticology ( talk) 21:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I was hoping to take the list through FLC within the next few days, and I was wondering if you would mind taking a look and letting me know what you think. I'd also appreciate it if you could look over the lead and make sure it's fully accurate. Thanks, Scorpion 0422 20:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi again, I've been trying to decide if I should withdraw this list due to stability concerns and I was wondering what you thought. The way I see it is that we won't know if the government will fall until the 8th, and even if it happens, it'll probably be a few weeks before any changes are made in the Senate (if any are made at all). -- Scorpion 0422 01:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
[2] Gary King ( talk) 03:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I left comments on the above FLC. Dabomb87 ( talk) 23:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking, if someone vandalised this template, the implications would be catastrophic - rst20xx ( talk) 16:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello, this is a message from
an automated bot. A tag has been placed on
Category:WikiProject Government of Canada articles, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be
speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because
Category:WikiProject Government of Canada articles has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (
CSD C1).
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting
Category:WikiProject Government of Canada articles, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at
WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the
bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click
here
CSDWarnBot (
talk)
21:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello Arctic.gnome -- Last year I dropped you a message saying that I was challenging the definition you added to the Wiktionary entry for "zombie". As a result of my rfv, in Summer/07 your definition was removed from the entry. Further research confirms the accuracy of your entry and I have restored it, with apologies. -- WikiPedant ( talk) 20:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Could you maybe help me with getting more info for the references so it could be more visable on the NOTES Kelvin Martinez ( talk) 00:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC) Honorific titles in popular music
Hello there. Yourself and User Qyd have made major contributions to the Template:WikiProject Canada. User:Mr C.C. has been making improvements to the SK communities and Neighborhoods branch of Saskatchewan wikiproject. Saskatchewan wikiproject which is now as a province, is included in the Canada template. There is also a department in the Canada template for communities. Mr. C.C. would like to be able to see how the Sk communities are coming along in regards to their ratings and assessment, and has also already received requests for review regarding ratings.
My query is In your humble opinion, should we start another talk page banner devoted to Wikipedia:WikiProject Saskatchewan Communities & Neighbourhoods/Assesment?
... or ...
Is there a way to forward into categories such as one named Category:B-Class Saskatchewan Communities & Neighbourhoods articles by doing a periodic AWB comparison of Canada template Saskatchewan articles with Canada template community articles, so that Wikipedia:WikiProject Saskatchewan Communities & Neighbourhoods can receive an assessment in this manner from the Canada template? cc Qyd Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 02:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I was the guy who added that article to the topic. I won't do it again. So you don't have to warn anybody. Serendi pod ous 22:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Please follow along at User_talk:Gimmetrow#WP:GO; I have long been the only person archiving that page, GimmeBot finally took it over (after a year-long search and much frustration from Raul), and now a wiki programming error has broken it. I'm considering no longer updating the page. If you don't mind, please keep responses at User talk:Gimmetrow, so we can keep the whole thing in one place. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Arctic, there is currently a number proposed of changes to the Featured Topic criteria and process. See Wikipedia talk:Featured topic criteria and Wikipedia talk:Good topics. I think your input would be helpful as a number of comments are coming from editors that are not involved in the current process. Your input, and other involved editors, would be greatly appreciated. ( Guyinblack25 talk 02:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC))
Hello Artic Gnome, good to have you back and I was happy to help out in the meantime. I didn't put "failed" on the Everglades articles as firstly there weren't even FTC candidate processes, and secondly, well if you look at the nom you can see it shouldn't have been brought in the first place. But anyway, you're right, I guess ultimately I was just being lazy and only just getting into the role then.
Secondly, with regards to the Smallville nom, that did get a bit heated and there was pressure from all sides, I hope you're wrong obviously but I guess time will tell.
Thirdly, I would like to apologise for the ridiculous amount of upheaval you have come back to, and briefly explain it from my point of view. If you look here, you'll see that there was a proposal to up the criteria. Following that conversation, it quickly became clear that while upping was good for some reasons, it was bad for others. Hence I proposed a split off here, with good topics being featured topics but with lower criteria, and both largely occupying the same space. (I explain there how topics can move between good and featured at will using templates, and would be happy to implement this.)
Anyway, at the end of that discussion I feel it was somewhat hijacked by Cirt, who set up Wikipedia talk:Good topics. However, he did not fully understand WP:FT? 3.c), so left it out, and since then we have spent most of the time debating that criteria's inclusion in WP:GT? - largely pointless and quite frustrating. Anyway, he's now given me permission to include it, so that's that sorted, but borne out of this are the two slight changes to it that we've brought here and here.
Anyway, the long and short of it is that it appears the second straw poll at Wikipedia talk:Good topics will pass, meaning that things will be done much as I said they should be right back in the very first place, and so this whole thing will be an entirely pointless exercise! Sorry again about the giant mess, I'll be helping to clear it up from here on out and I hope you had a good holiday! - rst20xx ( talk) 13:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Do you mind if I close the Guitar Hero FTC as no consensus? It is partially dead and its not getting very far. Should I close it or leave it?Mitch32( UP) 17:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! You just brightened my day :) And I hope we can find a way to solve that final step of the puzzle (the listings), so this isn't a constant pain in the ass for you - rst20xx ( talk) 02:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
It's so obvious! Cirt suggested we come up with something like a daily log of status changes, but we were struggling to find what. Why don't we just actually set up a daily log of status changes with the WP 1.0 bot? All we'd need to do is set up the categories it requires, and then get Template:ArticleHistory to tag each article a third time (yes, another layer of categories, but oh well). And then you just need to run the bot daily and look at the log it outputs, and you can work out if any articles have changed rating, or been added or removed, from there! And resultantly, you can work out somewhat easily if a topic has moved from good to featured :)
Obviously this will only catch "vandals" who change an article history and won't catch "vandals" who just change a featured topic box, but it will catch all legitimate topic promotions/demotions, and besides, the featured topic box "vandalism" is a problem we have already - rst20xx ( talk) 13:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Made a request for temporary unprotection. By the way, here's something I just noticed - good articles do the same thing - rst20xx ( talk) 17:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay. FeaturedTopicSum (which you should never have to use on a regular basis by the way) takes three parameters: the name of the topic, what to do if this topic is a featured topic, and what to do if this topic is a good topic. In other words: {{FeaturedTopicSum|TopicName|FeaturedTopicAction|GoodTopicAction}}. Using the topic name and by using the categories, FeaturedTopicSum works out if this topic is a featured or good topic, and then does the appropriate of the two candidate actions.
TopicTransclude takes two parameters, one of GT and FT, and then a topic name. For example: {{TopicTransclude|GT|TopicName}}. Then, it basically says, if the first parameter is GT: invoke FeaturedTopicSum on TopicName, such that the good topic action is to transclude Wikipedia:FeaturedTopics/TopicName, and the featured topic action is to do nothing. And if the first parameter is FT: invoke FeaturedTopicSum on TopicName, such that the featured topic action is to transclude Wikipedia:FeaturedTopics/TopicName, and the good topic action is to do nothing. Make sense? If you look at Wikipedia:Good topics, you will see that TopicTransclude is using GT everywhere - rst20xx ( talk) 16:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I'll just have to wait for Quatermass (TV serial) to roll around to the top of the pile for review. :)
Another question (yes I know). I came across these just now:
These are the album and all the singles from it, per here. There were however, three other songs from the album that have their own articles:
Would a featured topic need the last three? If not, the work deserves recognition at WP:FT. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk to me The mess I've made 16:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey, can you deal with my request here for a change to Template:Historyoutput? I'm not sure why this hasn't been done yet. In the meantime, we have situations like this, where it says it was a "Featured topic candidate" in the List milestones simply because it can't say it was a "Good topic candidate" until Historyoutput is updated to cater for good topics. And if this problem is still going on when the rush of good topic promotions occurs, well, it's going to be a major problem - rst20xx ( talk) 20:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Heya; please take a look at User_talk:Rst20xx#WP:FT2008. Thanks! Gary King ( talk) 23:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi there! :)
As someone who's worked on D&D and/or RPG articles before, I'm inviting you to participate in our goal to both improve articles that have been selected to be placed in the next Wikipedia DVD release, as well as nominate more to be selected for this project. Please see the WikiProject D&D talk page for more details. :) BOZ ( talk) 13:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
There is currently an open Request for Comment on User Conduct here, regarding G2bambino. As someone with past interactions with him, you are invited to comment. — [ roux ] [ x 15:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Would you like to comment at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Boulevard du Temple by Daguerre? -- MichaelMaggs ( talk) 22:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh cool, thanks! However I think I'm going to reject (for now anyway!) I am an Oxford student and it's term time, hence I wouldn't really have time to get behind the nomination - rst20xx ( talk) 09:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm currently working on the lists of premiers of the Canadian provinces. I can't find references for some of them; seeing that you worked on the lists before, if you could provide some references that'd be great. You can just add them to the references section of each list. For some references, only the years are listed for elections and designation dates, but it'd be nice to have the exact dates. Thanks in advance! Gary King ( talk) 19:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I and my fellow editors are facing a deadlock on a issue of removing/toning down a section on 'allegation of cruelty' as subsection under 'criticism' section in Operation Blue Star article, concerns include WP:NPOV, the summary of dispute can be found at [1], please let us know your views/opinion at the talk page of the article so that 'alleged' bias may be looked into and a consensual solution may be found. Thanks LegalEagle ( talk) 06:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Was that an intended sassy aside or was it a Freudian slip for definitely? :-) DoubleBlue ( Talk) 18:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Arctic Gnome, I requested deletion of John Sparrow David Thompson so I could move John Thompson (politician) there as per Talk:John Thompson (politician). Now you've re-created the page and I again cannot move it. :,-( DoubleBlue ( Talk) 14:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Do you have a link to the source for this image that you uploaded: Image:John Bracken.jpg? For image checks in the article's FLC. Gary King ( talk) 22:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
That box is for the election in the riding, not as election as premier. He was elected in Iqaluit West three times, February 15, 1999, February 16, 2004 and October 27, 2008. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 04:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Gary King ( talk) 02:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Withdraw Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Universities in Canada please. Gary King ( talk) 19:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I am wondering if you want to be credited with nominating this FLC nomination. You truly deserve it. --
SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.
24
[c]
08:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Looks like a no consensus to me, right? Mind closing it? Gary King ( talk) 19:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
It's fine if we have to work on a more difficult article. What I do care about is that we have a topic that will pass once it's up to speed; the worst thing is working on a dozen or two articles for a topic and finding out that it is an unacceptable topic. I'll open a discussion on WT:FTC since the topic is almost done. Also, I'm not quite sure what you mean with "historical". I think the list of current First Ministers makes more sense because every item in the topic is linked from there. They all seem much more connected with that as the lead. Gary King ( talk) 21:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:7th_parl_PMs.PNG. 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 "Edit this 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) 09:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I definitely think that these things are best dealt with on Meta, and to a lesser extent on the mailing lists. I do not get along well with chat lines; I think too much about what I want to say. Even if I had wanted to participate in the steering committee, the usual 8 p.m. starting time did not work for me on the west coast. I'm usually the one cooking supper during the hour beginning at 5 p.m.
The difficulty now seems to be in getting decisions made, and determining when there is enough agreement on anything to go ahead. In the first draft of the by-laws I tried putting each part on a separate page in Meta, hoping that it would draw comments, but that didn't work. I'm relatively flexible on most aspects. The only aspect that I would treat as virtually non-negotiable is a requirement for a mechanism to insure that WMC not be dominated by any one province. Most of the other concerns that I raised on the talk page address either legal questions or ideas that may not work. It is especially important to be mindful of some of the tricky language of charitable purposes. Eclecticology ( talk) 08:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
The two additions are basically good, but if we are going to talk about "projects" that term will need to be defined. You and I know what we mean by that, but we can't assume that a random person reading the by-laws will know. The right to speak French at meetings is great theory, but is of little value if nobody understands what the person is saying. It may work on a wiki or mailing list when the reader has a time to figure it out, but it could be a problem in a chat room or in person. I don't expect that we will be able to afford translators in the foreseeable future.
The WMF does request that it review the by-laws before incorporation, but we cannot become a legal chapter until after we incorporate. Until we are incorporated, or have in some other manner acquired legal status under Canadian law, we will not have the legal right to enter into contracts, except as individuals. Any purported contract between such a group and WMF could be declared a nullity. Using the name and logos a matter of trademarks, not copyrights. Avoiding use of the logos before we have the legal issues sorted out is not much of a difficulty. The name is trickier. WMF, by approving our request to be a chapter would effectively be granting us permission to a group of people to establish a corporation or chapter with that name. The extent to which such a permission is required under Canadian law is highly debatable, but it would not be in anybody's interest to force that debate.
Your idea of working to a time limit is fine. Can we have them ready for submission no later than the end of February, perhaps earlier It would be great to have Canadian representation at the proposed Berlin chapters meeting in April.
The founding documents should be in two parts: the Application for Incorporation, and the by-laws. The former includes the name, purposes and the "assets" provisions. Everything else goes into the by-laws.
Since the Steering Committee is defunct, can we now get rid of references to it on the by-laws page? Eclecticology ( talk) 08:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I have been continuing my exchanges with Utilisateur:Khayman. Our Quebec people have been canvassing opinions about my proposals, and so far so good. I have also strongly suggested that one of the three people applying for incorporation should be from Quebec. By having that selection ratified by the upcoming Laval University meeting we can be confident that the individual has some support in Quebec. Once we receive their ratification the names of the three incorporators can be made formally public; this is is not to say that the information is confidential anyway. I have proposed that Wikimédia Québec would be recognized as an official sub-chapter shortly after Wikimedia Canada, and that the domain wikimedia.qc.ca would be made available for their use.
I haven't yet addressed the question of finances, and their federal-provincial distribution. Having the federal body the sole authority for issuing receipts will imply responsibility to account for all finances including those of sub-chapters on the required annual tax reports. This includes insuring that the funds have been properly spent for charitable purposes. Because Quebec requires separate tax receipts for its provincial income tax returns, a higher degree of financial autonomy for that sub-chapter may be warranted. I essentially agree that we should maintain flexibility in the distribution of responsibilities. The federal body would retain primary management of legal responsibilities and finances; publicity and organizing get-togethers might be best left in sub-chapter hands. Beyond these broad strokes much will be subject to negotiation.
Meanwhile, let's keep working on the by-laws until we have something workable. Eclecticology ( talk) 21:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I was hoping to take the list through FLC within the next few days, and I was wondering if you would mind taking a look and letting me know what you think. I'd also appreciate it if you could look over the lead and make sure it's fully accurate. Thanks, Scorpion 0422 20:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi again, I've been trying to decide if I should withdraw this list due to stability concerns and I was wondering what you thought. The way I see it is that we won't know if the government will fall until the 8th, and even if it happens, it'll probably be a few weeks before any changes are made in the Senate (if any are made at all). -- Scorpion 0422 01:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
[2] Gary King ( talk) 03:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I left comments on the above FLC. Dabomb87 ( talk) 23:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking, if someone vandalised this template, the implications would be catastrophic - rst20xx ( talk) 16:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello, this is a message from
an automated bot. A tag has been placed on
Category:WikiProject Government of Canada articles, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be
speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because
Category:WikiProject Government of Canada articles has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (
CSD C1).
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting
Category:WikiProject Government of Canada articles, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at
WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the
bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click
here
CSDWarnBot (
talk)
21:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)