User talk:Ground Zero

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See previous discussions at:

Contents

[edit] Afd (list pages, again)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Democratic Party candidates, 1990 Manitoba provincial election. CJCurrie 23:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Watermens page

Thanks for formatting lists on the watermens page, as you can see from the earlier versions I was struggling to get the layout to work.--deepwaters 11:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Republican/Democrat

Thanks! I will be careful to put the US party links. Wooyi 15:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HELP!

Please visit the NAMBLA article talk page Talk:North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association#categories_again and voice your disgust at NAMBLA being included as an LGBT organisation. Alternatively, if you believe that this is indeed an LGBT organisation, then you're welcome to voice that opinion. Either way, discussion is needed!Enzedbrit 21:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Labour

OK, I know I should have linked Labour to Labour (UK). There were a lot of links and ISBNs to check, that one got missed. I am deeply sorry, guv, it will not happen again. Promise. :-) Guy 23:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian parties with English name

I do not agree with you, but, anyway, I won't tray to revert your edits. --Checco 14:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

But why have French, Italian, German, Austrian, Swiss, Dutch, Belgian, Swedish, Spanish, Portugese, Greek, Polish, etc. parties articles named in English and why Quebecker parties not? I think that it is defenitely absurd. --Checco 14:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, some of my translations were definitely wrong, but why is the policy you are advocating not applied to all the parties of the countries I mentioned? This is strange. I think the uniformity and coherence should be two important pillars in Wikipedia. --Checco 19:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Party Logos

I thank you for your work in adding those pictures, I added them because I was bored one night and figured I would pop in at wikipedia. Thankyou for your work. MS123

[edit] UCC, again

GZ - I hate to bring this to your attention, but the anon editor who caused such disruption at Upper Canada College about a year back has taken serious issue with recent edits I made to the article in the hopes of getting it up to FA standards - specifically not giving enough prominence to the scandals, etc., at the school. I sought a third opinion, but what was given seems to have not been effective enough to end the edit war. Could you please weigh in on this debate again? You helped greatly the last time. Thanks. --G2bambino 06:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] St. Columb's College

Please remember to mark your edits as minor when (and only when) they genuinely are minor edits (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one (and vice versa) is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'. Thanks! --Mel Etitis (Talk) 19:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

  • With respect, I do believe that my edit here meets the criteria set out in Wikipedia:Minor edit in that my only changes were of capitalisation and bypassing a redirect by changing SDLP to Social Democratic and Labour Party. (And I added one typo, which I thank you for correcting.) I am curious about why you chose to provide this reminder to me. Ground Zero | t 19:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You're quite right; I misread the edit as being more substantial than it was — sorry. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 19:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Resolving a loose end

GZ,

There's still one outstanding issue between GoldDragon and myself on the Talk:Joe Volpe page (re: "The placement agency"). No-one else has weighed in on this matter after two months; your tiebreaking vote is solicited accordingly. CJCurrie 05:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Thanks regarding Museum (TTC) error

You're welcome! Captmondo 19:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Socred split

Thanks for creating this article. There's one thing I'm wondering about, though:

On 10 September 1963, Lucien Plourde, MP for Quebec West, declared his support for Caouette[9], bringing the Ralliement des Creditiste caucus to 13, and reduced the Social Credit Party caucus to 11, one less than the minimum for a party to obtain “official party status” in the Canadian House of Commons

Are you certain that the "12-member rule" was in place in 1963? My understanding is that it wasn't introduced until 1990, when the Mulroney government used it to deny official party status to the original Bloc. CJCurrie 22:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I have access to the G&M's online archives (and the Toronto Star's, for that matter), so I'll be able to check the source material shortly.

My question regarding the "twelve member rule" was taken from a separate newspaper entry that I came across yesterday. I'm currently expanding the biographical entry for Bill Blaikie (aside: thank you for your corrections to the related Dean Whiteway article), and was reviewing his press coverage from the 1980s and early 1990s. In the process, I discovered that he made a special appeal to the Speaker for the NDP to considered as an official party for the purposes of House business after the 1993 election.

Here's an excerpt of a letter that he wrote to the Winnipeg Free Press on the subject (printed on 13 June 1994, editorial page):

The Free Press was its old predictable self in trashing my recent point of order in the House of Commons as a self-serving whine.
Even The Globe and Mail, not exactly known as an NDP rag, called it a well researched and convincing argument. Rather than responding to my argument with counter-arguments, all the Free Press could do was simplistically and ignorantly repeat the very same false claim that my point of order was addressed to, i.e. that the rules of Parliament say official party status, which gives the party more resources and the members a better chance to be heard in the House, is granted to any party which has elected 12 members. My point the other day was to show that this very claim, repeated uncritically by the Free Press, has no foundation. The only place where the number 12 appears is in the Parliament of Canada Act where 12 is the number of members that parties must have in order to qualify for certain financial support. There is no other mention of the number 12 anywhere else, and certainly not in the Standing Orders, or the rules of Parliament as the editorial claimed.
What I therefore asked the Speaker to consider was all the historical precedent for treating parties with less than 12 members as parties for the purposes of conducting House business and allocating time on the floor of the House. The CCF in 1958, and Social Credit in 1963, 1974, and 1979 were given as examples.
And as for the only counter-example, the treatment of the Bloc Quebecois in the last Parliament, it was pointed out that the Bloc was formed by defectors from other parties after an election, and that they were not a party as far as the Canada Elections Act was concerned. The situation of the NDP caucus in the current Parliament is obviously quite different.

It's possible that Blaikie was misinformed on the matter, but this seems to indicate that the official Socreds didn't suffer the modern penalties of "non-party status" after the split.

On another matter, I should apologize yet again for not having done anything on the SPBC front over a period of several months. You've probably noticed that I've been taking a methodical approach to my current work on Canadian politics, and that I've been focusing mostly on active legislators. There is, of course, a reason for this: many of the articles that I wrote on active politicians in 2004-05 are currently in need of improvement, and will likely be put under increased scrutiny when the impending provincial and federal elections take place. My "historical" work has been put on the backburner, accordingly, as I've tried to add references and make corrections to the existing pages.

If I start working on the SPBC page now, it will probably drag me into several other matters relating to BC politics in the early 20th century, and take up quite a bit of my time. I'm still willing to begin work on this in the near future, but it's simply not my strongest priority at present. (Perhaps I should simply learn how to pace myself ...)

That being said, I'd be able to look up specific things in the G&M and Star archives, if you should need them for your own research. I can do word searches, so it generally doesn't take very much time or effort on my part; feel free to ask if you need something. CJCurrie 23:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/r/o/User_talk%7EGround_Zero_01ae.html"