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. |
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)
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)
I was wondering what the guy was shoveling. Trolls here? On Wikipedia? Mugginsx ( talk) 00:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Please note WP:ELBURDEN and please revert your edit to comply with WP:ELBURDEN. Thanks! -- Ronz ( talk) 19:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Glad we came to an agreement with the DMOZ link! -- Ronz ( talk) 20:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The article The luckiest man in Iraq has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
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)
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)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
below this notice, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Black Kite (
talk) 06:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)Canoe1967 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Consensus was not reached. Most editors are sleeping now including at least two more that disagree with the current image. Other editors have pushed the issue in the meantime. Canoe1967 ( talk) 06:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Your claims that this image violates BLP are absolutely unfounded, as several people tried to explain to you on the article's talk page. Max Semenik ( talk) 08:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
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)
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)
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)
Thanks for your help, just a question or 2 left. Bluefist talk 01:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
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)
Heck, it could be a fortnight or more! -- Orange Mike | Talk 21:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
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)
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
Tribal44 ( talk) 03:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)Tribal44
Tribal44 ( talk) 03:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)Tribal44
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
It has been done. Daniel Case ( talk) 05:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Truce? :}
Tribal44 (
talk) 08:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)Tribal44
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
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
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 yet Andrewcrawford ( talk - contrib) 08:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
You are very welcome. Far better response than I get from other IP edit requests.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 01:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
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)
Thanks for understanding.
-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 03:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Done. A curious history, seeing the edit a few minutes later by the same IP. JohnCD ( talk) 21:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The image you just added to the Paris article is from 2011, not from 2008. EricaL2003 ( talk) 20:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
|
Moved to Talk:Gun laws in Colorado-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 03:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Good point, but bad analogy. The pea guy wasn't editing his own Wikipedia page. Crusio is.
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:
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.
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)
"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)
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)
Thank you for your service and dedication to your home country. Viriditas ( talk) 07:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
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.
This article is being discussed for pre-deletion. If you wish to discuss intermediate deletion, full AfD, pre-rename, or pre-merge please select the appropriate template. Only Paris Hilton may remove this tag. |
When that happens, you can use {{ outdent}} Viriditas ( talk) 10:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 10:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
I have replied to you on Talk:Duck. Henrib736 ( talk) 02:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
SarahStierch ( talk) 00:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Feel free to check my talk page for the details of what other editors think/feel. Carptrash ( talk) 19:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Eye snore ( pending changes) 22:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Did the IP actually claim to be Jan Mak at BLPN? I don't think he did. Giant Snowman 09:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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) |
The Special Barnstar | |
Thanks for your helpful advice for my contribution for Culture of Second Life :) Rosiesievers20 ( talk) 10:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC) |
[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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Would you like to delete your comment? If you do, I'll delete my response. — rybec 04:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
Firstly, I want to thank you for all your prompt help in tryinng to balance this Wiki profile. Secondly, I have raised this
Wuser999 ( talk) 08:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Sure, I am. How does that game work? Please explain more. ActorBoss ( talk) 18:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
And I'm active on Commons too, uploading and categorizing pictures. -- Niemti ( talk) 13:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Why don't you put a transport subsection in the "Economy" section? Nyttend ( talk) 23:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Miss Bono (zootalk) 19:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
Hi! Thanks for your sig... I would really love feeding your cat. It's lovely ;) Miss Bono (zootalk) 12:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that edit request for me. ★ ★ Retro Lord ★★ 19:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
HCNicholls ( talk) 12:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC) HCNicholls ( talk) 10:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Greatpumkin ( talk) 18:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC) |
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)
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)
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)
Skookum1 ( talk) 09:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
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 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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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? petrarchan47 t c 22:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
Just to let you know that this was indeed the intended talk page. :-) Arc de Ciel ( talk) 14:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Bill Cunningham already has his Wikipedia article.
ActorBoss ( talk) 18:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
below this notice, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Bbb23 (
talk) 21:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)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)
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)
Monsanto sells a pesticide which kills milkweed, the only food source for the larvae of Monarch butterflies.
— Wavelength ( talk) 19:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
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)
Hello. I have completed it. :) - Here's the link. Bill Cunningham (Canadian photographer) ActorBoss ( talk) 16:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. |
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
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)
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)
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, X Ottawahitech ( talk) 15:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
X Ottawahitech ( talk) 16:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
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)
You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. X Ottawahitech ( talk) 10:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Please see the talkpage of that template. Skookum1 ( talk) 14:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
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)
Just wanted you to know I very much understand what you went through here. There never was any chance. petrarchan47 t c 04:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The article Sniffy has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
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)
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)
You have a lovely cat. Ḉɱ̍ 2nd anniv. 23:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
I suggest you start archiving your talk page. It is getting very long. ⠀— Glosome 💬 02:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
this article is vey imortoant
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. |
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)
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)
I was wondering what the guy was shoveling. Trolls here? On Wikipedia? Mugginsx ( talk) 00:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Please note WP:ELBURDEN and please revert your edit to comply with WP:ELBURDEN. Thanks! -- Ronz ( talk) 19:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Glad we came to an agreement with the DMOZ link! -- Ronz ( talk) 20:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The article The luckiest man in Iraq has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
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)
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)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
below this notice, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Black Kite (
talk) 06:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)Canoe1967 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Consensus was not reached. Most editors are sleeping now including at least two more that disagree with the current image. Other editors have pushed the issue in the meantime. Canoe1967 ( talk) 06:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Your claims that this image violates BLP are absolutely unfounded, as several people tried to explain to you on the article's talk page. Max Semenik ( talk) 08:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
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)
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)
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)
Thanks for your help, just a question or 2 left. Bluefist talk 01:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
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)
Heck, it could be a fortnight or more! -- Orange Mike | Talk 21:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
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)
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
Tribal44 ( talk) 03:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)Tribal44
Tribal44 ( talk) 03:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)Tribal44
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
It has been done. Daniel Case ( talk) 05:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Truce? :}
Tribal44 (
talk) 08:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)Tribal44
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
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
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 yet Andrewcrawford ( talk - contrib) 08:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
You are very welcome. Far better response than I get from other IP edit requests.-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 01:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
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)
Thanks for understanding.
-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 03:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Done. A curious history, seeing the edit a few minutes later by the same IP. JohnCD ( talk) 21:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The image you just added to the Paris article is from 2011, not from 2008. EricaL2003 ( talk) 20:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
|
Moved to Talk:Gun laws in Colorado-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 03:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Good point, but bad analogy. The pea guy wasn't editing his own Wikipedia page. Crusio is.
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:
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.
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)
"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)
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)
Thank you for your service and dedication to your home country. Viriditas ( talk) 07:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
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.
This article is being discussed for pre-deletion. If you wish to discuss intermediate deletion, full AfD, pre-rename, or pre-merge please select the appropriate template. Only Paris Hilton may remove this tag. |
When that happens, you can use {{ outdent}} Viriditas ( talk) 10:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
-- Canoe1967 ( talk) 10:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
I have replied to you on Talk:Duck. Henrib736 ( talk) 02:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
SarahStierch ( talk) 00:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Feel free to check my talk page for the details of what other editors think/feel. Carptrash ( talk) 19:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Eye snore ( pending changes) 22:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Did the IP actually claim to be Jan Mak at BLPN? I don't think he did. Giant Snowman 09:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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) |
The Special Barnstar | |
Thanks for your helpful advice for my contribution for Culture of Second Life :) Rosiesievers20 ( talk) 10:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC) |
[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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Would you like to delete your comment? If you do, I'll delete my response. — rybec 04:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
Firstly, I want to thank you for all your prompt help in tryinng to balance this Wiki profile. Secondly, I have raised this
Wuser999 ( talk) 08:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Sure, I am. How does that game work? Please explain more. ActorBoss ( talk) 18:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
And I'm active on Commons too, uploading and categorizing pictures. -- Niemti ( talk) 13:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Why don't you put a transport subsection in the "Economy" section? Nyttend ( talk) 23:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Miss Bono (zootalk) 19:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
Hi! Thanks for your sig... I would really love feeding your cat. It's lovely ;) Miss Bono (zootalk) 12:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that edit request for me. ★ ★ Retro Lord ★★ 19:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
HCNicholls ( talk) 12:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC) HCNicholls ( talk) 10:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Greatpumkin ( talk) 18:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC) |
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)
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)
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)
Skookum1 ( talk) 09:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
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 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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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? petrarchan47 t c 22:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
Just to let you know that this was indeed the intended talk page. :-) Arc de Ciel ( talk) 14:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Bill Cunningham already has his Wikipedia article.
ActorBoss ( talk) 18:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
below this notice, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Bbb23 (
talk) 21:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)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)
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)
Monsanto sells a pesticide which kills milkweed, the only food source for the larvae of Monarch butterflies.
— Wavelength ( talk) 19:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
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)
Hello. I have completed it. :) - Here's the link. Bill Cunningham (Canadian photographer) ActorBoss ( talk) 16:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. |
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
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)
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)
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, X Ottawahitech ( talk) 15:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
X Ottawahitech ( talk) 16:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
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)
You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. X Ottawahitech ( talk) 10:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Please see the talkpage of that template. Skookum1 ( talk) 14:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
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)
Just wanted you to know I very much understand what you went through here. There never was any chance. petrarchan47 t c 04:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The article Sniffy has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
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)
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)
You have a lovely cat. Ḉɱ̍ 2nd anniv. 23:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
I suggest you start archiving your talk page. It is getting very long. ⠀— Glosome 💬 02:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
this article is vey imortoant