User talk:Skeezix1000

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers such as yourself:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- Spinboy 01:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bilingualism

I moved the bilingualism stuff from City of Ottawa Act to Bilingualism in Ottawa as I felt it was detracting from the article itself, but worthly of it's own article due to the extreme length of what was written. Great job! -- Spinboy 16:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian?

I've noticed that you've edited numerous articles dealing with Canadiana of some sort, so I thought I'd let you know about a few ongoing and developing projects that may (or may not) interest you:

We'd certainly welcome your participation in any of these. Mindmatrix 01:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Carlu

Pure unintentional accident.

I would note that having an Art Deco category that contains every individual example of art deco architecture in the world isn't at all consistent with the way categories are supposed to work, but that's a bigger discussion than I'm personally willing to take on. Bearcat 22:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mindmatrix scam adminship

Image:CAD1000 Front.png

As fellow residents of this land, I feel it is my duty to employ my newly-granted priviliges to ensure that this politically unstable land may one day achieve a level of stability and functional governance that we all desire. To that end, please use the attached funds with the strictest confidence to accomplish this goal. (Yes, you're right, functional governance and Canadian politics is an oxymoron.) Thank you for your support. Mindmatrix 21:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eaton Centre

That's fair enough. Toronto City itself lists the CN Tower as the top tourist attraction, but yes more tourists probably go through the Eaton Centre than anywhere else in the city (other than Pearson). Not sure it means the Eaton Centre is necessarily a tourist attraction though, but they do visit it. Ben W Bell 15:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Election candidates

Please stop listing election candidates on AfD. This issue is being discussed at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates, which is a much better method than listing candidates one at a time. - SimonP 15:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I was unaware of Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates, as it does not appear to be mentioned in any of the other recent AfD's for Canadian federal candidates that I have seen. I welcome your advice, but do feel that the curt/lecturing tone of your post could have been avoided. Frankly, I don't care whether non-notable candidates are deleted or not. I do believe that it's essential that there be some consistency, however. I got beat up over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Swanson for suggesting that candidate articles be kept, and that article looks like it's about to be deleted. As for listing candidates one at a time, it doesn't appear as though any consensus has been reached at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates, so I do not think that I have committed any error or breached any guideline in listing some non-notable candidates for deletion. Each candidate is different, and their articles should be assessed separately (until such time as consensus has been reached that all "credible" candidates merit an article). I note that the Siobhán Coady article has already been edited, and it looks like she is notable above and beyond her candidacy; that might not be the case for all of the articles I have nominated. I just want to be helpful, but I am really concerned about this haphazard approach to deletions, where some articles are kept and others are not. If Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates results in a new guideline, that's great. Skeezix1000 15:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I couldn't help but notice this little discussion and I would like to make a comment or two. I started the Wikipedia:WikiProject Electoral districts in Canada/Neutrality but let it die down once Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates began. I strongly urge you to participate in the centralized discussion. It will take several months to complete but it will be worth it. Perhaps I can influence you a little...as you have noticed WP:BIO has not proved to be a panacea and has lead to contradicting afds. Eventually, every election will have hundreds of articles created for candidates that are famous for 15 mins then disappear. Anyone can create an article on Wikipedia, it is free and becoming more and more popular - it is free advertisement. We need a comprehensive solution. The one I like best is the mergist's solution which creates one article per party which lists a little bio on each candidate and redirects for the candidate's name to their place in the list. If they try to create an article then revert to the redirect, which avoids clogging afd. The list is much easier to monitor for vandalism and NPOV-fluff than hundreds of pages. For example, Green Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election. --maclean25 05:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality in dispute - A Response

I have wrote a response for your concerns related to certain sections of the RP article. Let me know your feedback, and I will change the sections accordingly. I would like to get the NPOV issue settled. Thanks. --Natkeeran 20:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for a thoughtful and detail response. I was perhaps too eager to expand the content that I did not put sufficient effort into crafting verifiable content. I will take your input, and try to rewrite the sections to be more objective. As you noted, some statements that are self evident to me, come across as very opinionated to a person not familiar with RP. Also, as you noted the items discussed are important to understanding RP, thus I would not agree to “nuke” the section as suggested by Nfitz. It will take some time for me to rewrite the section. If you want you can move that section to the discussion page until then. Or, you can modify the sections as you see fit, and I can add or modify it later. Once again, thanks for the feedback. --Natkeeran 20:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Corel Centre

Thanks for the comment about the Corel Centre. I would appreciate it enormously if you could incorporate this information into the article itself. (Which had incidentally been vandalized in recent weeks without being recognized). Cheers, Peregrine981 01:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] St Andrews

Well, according to StatsCan it is Saint Andrews. The Parish is as well. [1] -- Earl Andrew - talk 22:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Montréal vs Montreal

Hey oh. Was having a last look at my watchlist before going offline for a few weeks and I saw that you changed the spelling of the Montréal region in the Quebec template. I have no opinion how English-speaking people spell the name of the region, but just wanted to make sure: have you considered that the "Montréal" used in the template is not the name of a city, but the name of an administrative region of the province of Quebec? From there on I let you do what you think is best and turn off my computer. ;-) --Valmi ✒ 16:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey oh.  :) Of course I considered that. The template contains links to both the region (Montréal) and to the city (Montreal). I only changed the spelling of the city link. Now both the region and the city references within the template reflect the spellings of their respective articles. I hope that explanation helps. Skeezix1000 18:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Melbourne

You are seeking a change. You should seek consensus. Tied for first is exactly the same as ranked first. Xtra 02:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Not really, but fine. Skeezix1000 02:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ottawa

Hi,I am from Ottawa, and in my first few weeks of trying to contribute to Wikipedia. Thank you for your messages. As I indicated in the discussion page, I believe that if the opening paragraph is going to include the statement that Ottawa does is not a national capital district, it might be helpful for readers to be aware that the government has nonetheless taken steps to give Ottawa the amenities and activities one expects in a capital city, such as designating Ottawa-Gatineau as the National Capital Region and having the National Capital Commission. As far as characterizing what the NCC does, here is the NCC's own take: The NCC is a Crown corporation that was created by Parliament in 1959 as the steward of federal lands and buildings in the National Capital Region, with a mandate and mission to build the Capital region into a source of pride and unity for Canadians. I tried to give a more "plain English" version of "steward of federal lands and buildings" by saying that the NCC "manages federal lands and monuments. Nathan NatMor 02:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi,Thank you for your comments. The PR firm point was funny, and helpful!! (LOL)... I agree that the NCC does have a major and wide-ranging influence, going far beyond managing federal buildings. I am still trying to get the hang of the talk pages and the collaborative editing process. Nathan NatMor 03:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scarborough Nicknames

While I don't really want to expand on this section, there are in fact some web references to Scompton:

There is also a wikipedia page called Canadian slang which references Scompton as well as a couple of other nicknames not mentioned in the Scarborough article. I used Clusty search engine to find these references. Up to you whether you want to put this reference back. I don't care one way or the other.

Regards, Atrian 16:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

  • You're absolutely correct. Serves me right for editing before my first cup of coffee in the morning. I found nothing relevant for Scompton, but when I redid the search later, I did get results thru a search for Scompton AND Scarborough. I ought not to have deleted the entry based on a Google search turning up nothing.

    Personally, I generally don't see any value in having a section for nicknames for the municipality. But there is obviously precedent for having it (e.g. Toronto). The problem I have with these sections is that they end up including obvious entries (like "Hogtown" for Toronto), but then also up end up including nicknames that may be used in some circles but don't have particularly wide usage. The particular problem here in the Scarborough article is that so many of the nicknames have such a negative connotation -- perhaps that's just a reflection of public perception, but I do believe that it does, to a degree, give the reader the wrong impression of the place. Frankly, I am just waiting for someone to add "Scandahar" to the list.

    I'm not from Scarborough, so I will leave the list in the hands of folks who have a better sense of whether its inclusion is justified. Given your edits to the article, you are probably better placed to make that call than I.

    Cheers, Skeezix1000 20:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I changed the paragraph around to limit people adding to it ad nauseum. On a related topic what's the story on the person who keeps vandalizing the news section at IP address 199.212.26.244. I saw your block warning on his talk page but he is still doing it. Atrian 00:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Good edit. As for our friend the vandal, I reported him yesterday and he appears to have been blocked for 48 hours. If he returns, presumably the next block would be permanent. Skeezix1000 15:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Toronto Twinnings

Hi Skeezix1000,

You congratulated me a few weeks back for FINALLY getting the Twinned cities updated...guess what...it was STILL wrong! The city 'approved' the list in Dec 2005 but it didn't pass council?? (I guess they run Toronto with a lower and upper house!)...anyway, I got the confirmed ones today and have changed it again! KsprayDad 23:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC) (BTW I'm in Ottawa! Go Sens!)

[edit] John Labatt Centre

Your edit regarding the JLC that "Not unique -- it is very common for it take years for a demolished property to officially cease to be designated -- the Talbot Inn by no means the first" is 100 per cent incorrect.

The standard procedure for demolishing a designated heritage property is to repeal the designating by-law and to issue a demoltion permit. At the JLC, the City of London did neither. What the City did obtain was a "heritage alteration permit" to demolish the Talbot Inn -- totally contrary to the Ontario Heritage Act and a total abuse of process.

The Talbot Inn remained a designated heritage property in London for approximately 17 months after it was demolished and the building materials trucked to Try Recycling on Highbury Avenue.

According to officials that I spoke with at the Ontario Heritage Foundation (I did a story on the matter in SCENE magazine, plus I sat on the London advisory Committee on Heritage for three years), it is a first for Ontario and likely Canada. It is also a first for London, Ontario.

I will be editing the article accordingly. Barry Wells 23:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Although I am pleased to know that you take such an interest in heritage matters, and am very happy to discuss such matters with you at length, I am afraid that you are incorrect. I am a lawyer that handles heritage matters on a regular basis. Under the Ontario Heritage Act (an article I wrote, by the way), as it existed prior to the 2005 amendments, a landowner could demolish a designated building 180 days after a municipality refused permission to demolish. Where the municipality was opposed to the demolition, it was incredibly rare for it to repeal the designation by-law prior to the demolition. In fact, it wouldn't make any sense for the municipality to do so, given that the intent of the 180 day period was for the municipality to try and negotiate some level of heritage preservation (if it was able).

And although the statute required the municipality to repeal the by-law after the demolition, it was very common for a municipality to take quite awhile to pass the housekeeping by-law to repeal the earlier designation by-law. It was not rare whatsoever in Ontario, therefore, for a building to technically remain designated for quite some time after the demolition. The only time that it was standard practice for a municipality to repeal the designation by-law prior to demolition was where the municipality approved the demolition.

Under the Act currently, a landowner must apply to the Ontario Municipal Board to demolish a building where the municipality refuses a permit to demolish. Presumably, where the Board grants permission to demolish, in the face of municipal opposition, the designating by-law will still end up usually being repealed post-demolition, depending on how quickly a landowner acts on the Board order. I can only speculate, as the first appeals under these new provisions are still working their way through the system.

The City of London may have demolished the Inn contrary to the provisions of the Act. That does not change the fact that the fact that it was not unusual for the City to take 17 months to repeal the designation by-law. There may have been many matters unique to the demolition of the Inn, but this was not one of them.

And although the Foundation is established pursuant to a section of the Ontario Heritage Act, it does not administer the municipal designation provisions in section 29 or the alteration/demolition provisions in sections 33 and 34 of the statute.

So unless I have completely misunderstood what you are attempting to convey by the phrase "a first in Ontario's history and perhaps Canada's, according to officials with the Ontario Heritage Foundation", I'd have to say on its plain reading that it is wrong at law. I have amended the article accordingly. Skeezix1000 03:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

First things first. The current version is incorrect as no one from the Ontario Heritage Foundation made comment on the precise number of months between the unlawful demolition on Sunday, June 3, 2001 and the actual repeal date of the designating by-law -- that is a matter of public record on file in the clerk's office in London, Ontario.

To wit, Planning Committee supported the London Advisory Committee on Heritage's (LACH) recommendation to de-designate the property in September of 2002 (http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:yvBzVR8PNQ0J:council.london.ca/oldarchive/Planning%2520Archives/Archived%2520Planning%2520Committee%2520Reports%2520-%25202002/Report%2520September%252030,%25202002.pdf+Talbot+Inn+demolition&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=4) so 17 months is the approximate time elapsed after the Planning Committee's recommendation went to City Council a week later, then public notice requirements were carried out.

Translation: the wording in the current version "according to the Ontario Heritage Foundation" should be deleted.

Regarding the other business, User:Skeezix1000 maintains that it is not unusual for a demolished heritage property to remain designated by-law under the Ontario Heritage Act and that he is a lawyer who regularly deals with heritage matters, even though his scenario runs contrary to the provisions of the Act, which he admits with the line, "And although the statute required the municipality to repeal the by-law after the demolition ..." (actually prior to the demolition.)

I believe that is incumbent on him to provide specific examples (other than the Talbot Inn example -- a first in London, Ontario's history) where a designated heritage property has been demolished without the prior or prompt repeal of the designating by-law.

For clarity, what occurred in London is that the council had approved a "heritage alteration permit" for the Talbot Inn (owned by the municipality) several months before the building was demolished with heavy equipment on the morning of Sunday, June 3, 2001.

This is also contrary to the Ontario Heritage Act as an alteration permit approved by a municipal council cannot be used to demolish a designated heritage property. Since the municipality is the body that often initiates charges under the Act, no charges were laid as no citizen stepped forward to initiate them, nor did the province. Barry Wells 23:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC) (copied from John Labatt Centre's discussion page) Barry Wells 00:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The Act does not require that a designation by-law be repealed prior to demolition. Subsection 34.3(1) requires that the municipality enact the repeal by-law if the owner has applied to demolish and the Council consents to the application or the Board (on appeal) orders the municipality to consent. There is no timing requirement that necessitates passage of the repeal by-law pre-demolition; the statute simply requires that certain pre-conditions be met. In fact, municipalities will often enact the housekeeping measure after the demolition. The example that comes to mind right now is a building down the road from where I live, where the City of Toronto enacted the repeal by-law after the building had been demolished to make way for condos (see the repeal by-law at [2], and note the fifth recital which acknowledges that the building had already been demolished).

In 2001, when the Inn in London was demolished, the Act (as it read then) similarly contained no requirement that the repeal by-law be enacted prior to demolition. In fact, (then) subsection 34(5) required passage of the repeal by-law where Council had consented to the demolition application OR the 180 day period had expired (as had the extension periods, if any) and "the demolition or removal of the building or structure on the property has been completed". The text of (then) s. 34(5) had been in the statute for years, and acknowledged on its face that the repeal by-law would, in many circumstances, be enacted post-demolition. The example (from around the same time as the Talbot Inn demolition, based on the same version of the statute) that comes to mind at this moment is the controversial demolition of the Union Carbide building on Eglinton. I'll dig up that repeal by-law when I have the chance.

I have no comments on any of the other issues. Skeezix1000 12:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The Union Carbide repeal by-law, as mentioned above, is at [3]. That wasn't too hard to find. Skeezix1000 12:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Hoteldevilledequebec.jpg

Hum, I taked this picture myself, and it's my name on this picture, and I'll not erase my name. MaThQc 06:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for disputing JLC page

Thanks for disputing the stuff about the demolition of the Talbot Inn on the John Labatt Centre page. Your input helped clarify the situation. Barry Wells 00:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

  • My pleasure. I enjoyed debating it with you, and am always pleased to see heritage issues get discussed. Thanks for your help with that section -- it is now far better than my original edit way back when. Skeezix1000 20:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: NAmE

Hi! No prob—the question is, I'm kind of crusading against the phrase "Commonwealth English," trying to erase references to it whenever they are unnecessary. The Caribbean thing is a tricky one, it's arguably harder to picture Caribbean English in the same backdrop as U.S. and Canadian—and should it be North America, Northern America, or...? Anyways, thanks for stopping in. Best, JackLumber 11:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for Keeping an Eye on "Beach" vs "Beaches"

I too had noticed 142.240.200.10's wholesale and very POV edits to The Beaches article, and you beat me to it. Thanks for keeping an eye on that one.

I live in the area and I try to keep my postings on the subject as non-POV as possible, and providing references where possible just so that I can back up what's said (I've been rightly dinged on that point before). But 142.240.200.10 went truly overboard this time, even changing a statement in one of my references willy-nilly.

For the record, I am for "Beaches", and have voted thusly. But I recognize that Wikipedia is not a place for POV-ism, and am just interested in providing facts on the issue where possible, rather than conjecture.

Cheers! Captmondo 19:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian articles

I have had problems with spelling changes. I was reverting edits I had done yesterday in American articles and I must have put the Toronto category into the list. I will change these edits back to what they should be and I am sorry to cause any problems - Erebus555 16:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted all edits back to the correct spelling as requested. - Erebus555 16:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Hoteldevilledequebec.jpg

This is somewhat of a curious case. I suppose, realistically, the image should be taken to Images and media for deletion and the uploader discouraged from uploading any more images with copyright watermarks. The uploader clearly did not intend to license the image under the GFDL but instead under an attribution license, and probably under something like CC-BY-ND. Under the GFDL the copyright watermark could simply be removed in the next revision so long as the history was accurately perserved. I think that the best way not to be jerks is to gently suggest to the uploader that if he or she would like to share watermarked images that cannot be altered that they should use Flickr, or some other media-sharing service that is respectful of copyrights, but that Wikimedia projects can't be used to host such images and that all original contributions must follow our policies. Once the uploader understands that they incorrectly licensed their image they will probably want it deleted themselves; let me know and I will speedy it. Jkelly 18:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

In Canada, where you live, you can be put in jail for doing it. There is a law about copyrighted things and the syndic of journalist of Quebec and Canada can do a complaint about the Wikipedia. Just a little word it, I Will check it what I do later with my syndic. MaThQc 12:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what you are talking about. First, I was not the one who cropped the image -- please check the image history before you go make accusations. Second, you licensed the image as GFDL when you uploaded it -- which grants permission to others to modify it. Third, as mentioned above, it is Wikipedia's image use policy that images NOT have credits in the image itself. If you disagree with the policy, and prefer to have credits within the image, then do not upload it to Wikipedia. --Skeezix1000 13:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: "Historically" Beach vs Beaches

No, I do not mind, and I agree with your point. We don't want to have a section where every business in the area is listed willy-nilly. I thought "institution" would take care of it, but "historically" just drives thr point home. Cheers! Captmondo 18:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Master Jay's RfA

Hey Skeezix1000, we kicked the Sens you know what just this weekend ;). Anyways, thanks bud for your support at my recent RfA. Since a certain team will be absent from a certain playoffs :(, you can leave me a message here, and I should get back to you, given the fact that I won't be watching much TV nowadays. Regards, --Jay(Reply) 02:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SD vs RM for Beach

If you feel a Requested Move is best considering the article's history, feel free to change that. I'm just coming in and finding a bad page move; I didn't realize the degree of history behind it all... Radagast 20:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Hortons

Hi, Skeezix -- I see you reverted my changes to Tim Hortons with the explanation "The comments in that section of the talk page have been responded to first -- please respond to those before blanking an entire section, esp. sourced material)". I assume some words got omitted. If you're saying I shouldn't change it till the comments in the talk section have been responded to, how long am I supposed to wait? As for the section being sourced, I think the section would be more to the point if it actually discussed what those sources claim about Tim's supposed iconic status (and, like, soon). As I've said elsewhere on the talk page, Tim's deserves a serious article, and the cultural fixture section is not serious.

Anyway, after removing the footnotes I reverted to your last version and won't touch the article till I get some advice from you. John FitzGerald 11:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I replied on the talk page to your recently posted comment, which answers my question above. As for my answers, my position on Tim's cultural status is clearly and fully described in the section caled "Remove or improve the cultural icon section." How about someone responding to my points for a change? John FitzGerald 11:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Skeez. thanks for the prompt reply. I think the problem is we're of different minds about how to go about dealing with this section. The two approaches can probably be combined. I'll have to get back to you about this later, though. I'm recovering from an operation and I think I've used up my energy for today. At any rate, I think if this article is to stay in it should be expanded and include some definitive evidence. More later -- I'm going to go now and put a similar comment on the Tim's talk page. John FitzGerald 14:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Skeezix. I'm a little preoccupied this week, too (for one thing, income tax and GST return preparation has been neglected during my recovery), so a little delay won't hurt me. John FitzGerald 11:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Skeezix. It looks as if you and I are the only two interested in working on this section. It occurred to me it might be good for me to start by doing some research on how the term cultural icon is used. I think there's a chance you and I have different opinions about this section because we have different conceptions of cultural icons, so it might be an idea to see if we can find out if there's a generally accepted use of this term. Incidentally, I didn't mean to insult Pierre Berton. His columns in the Star influenced me greatly when I was young (I'm talking about long long ago here), and I still consider his journalism of the 50s and 60s to be some of the finest Canadian journalism. And his opinion about Tims is important, just not authoritative. John FitzGerald 23:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence of Tim's iconic status

Now this seems like definite evidence of iconic status to me. John FitzGerald 12:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Although the article no longer claims Tim's is an icon, if it is an icon the article would be better if it acknowledged this status. The problem with calling it a cultural fixture (my idea, I admit) is that any chain with thousands of outlets is obviously a cultural fixture. I think I'll see if I can find Pierre Berton's remark in context. There probably is some place for it in the article, but it needs some evidence to support it. I'm quite sure Mr. B would not have made this remark without having a good reason for it.
Another sign of Tim's iconic status might be the widespread belief that it serves good coffee, although I guess we'd need the results of taste tests and culinary competitions before we could assert that. That's half a feeble joke and half a serious comment. John FitzGerald 13:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I posted my final thoughts on this matter at Talk:Tim Hortons#Specific criticisms of the "A Canadian cultural fixture" section. Thanks for taking this issue seriously. The discussion has changed my views a bit. Now I'm off to see if I can find out anything more about that important cultural figure Scotty Holt (well, he's an important cultural figure to me). John FitzGerald 01:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian city naming convention

Thought you might be interested in joining the discussion: Wikipedia talk:Canadian wikipedians' notice board#Canadian city naming convention. -- Usgnus 23:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gretzky

Okay, well, I'm not convinced it isn't fair use, but I double-checked and Wikipedia does have a public licence image of Gretzky, so I swapped it for that. When I cam across the article, the image was busted, which is why I changed it. WilyD 21:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, both the Cherry and Gretzky images (which are otherwise identical in usage) are licensed as fair use promotional materials - so I'm not clear on the overall point. WilyD 21:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Who knows. I just wanted to let you know about a recent edit summary. I have now found the policy reference I referred to earlier, which says: "Fair use images may never be included as part of a photo montage, as their status as being "fair use" depends on their proper use in the context of an article (as part of criticism or analysis)". It's up to you to decide if you agree with Thivierr's interpretation or not. --Skeezix1000 21:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I think Thivierr didn't go after the Don Cherry image because its fair use source information was added after Thivierr made his edit to The Greatest Canadian (according to the article history). --Skeezix1000 21:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you're right, but I'm not really sure that the article has a photo montage per se, rather than merely arranging several photos in a table - the critical commentary level on the page for anyone buy Fox/Douglas is pretty weak, but I do believe you may be able to at least argue it's non-zero, given the talk about the contest as a whole, their involvement in it, their representation and so on ... anyways, I'm not a lawyer, so don't take my opinion too seriously. WilyD 16:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Hortons

Hi. I appreciate your comment you left on my user page, but Yes I do know "Tim Hortons iconic and cultural status has been the subject of lengthy discussion going back months", as I've read it. I was in a rush and had no time to add any more information to the reason for the edit. I personally don't see it as a big deal. But technically if I feel that information shouldn't be there, I can remove it as I wish as Wikipedia is 'The Free Encyclopedia' That any one can edit. I apologize from the bottom of my heart that I asked "Do we have proof that most Canadians view Tim Hortons as a notable part of Canadian culture? ". I find people are far too "nit-picky" on this website ... including yourself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Decimal10 (talk • contribs) .

Hello. Sorry for the delay in responding, but I did want to reply.

First, of course I am "nit-picky". That's the whole point of an encyclopedia -- to contain well-written, verfiable and correct information. In order to achieve that we all need to be picky, not careless, with our edits. By no means is perfection required, but you should not criticize other editors who are concerned about the details that you do not think are a big deal.

Second, Wikipedia is the Free Encyclopedia, that anyone is welcome to edit. In fact, Wikipedia:Be Bold is a tremendously important guideline for editors. But if someone disagrees with one of your edits, then the applicable guideline is Wikipedia:Consensus. As stated in WP:BOLD, "editing boldly should not be confused with reverting boldly" (see also Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle). It is not as simple as "I can remove it as I wish".Skeezix1000 21:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jackp

I know pointing this out isn't really in the spirit of wikipedia, but i thought you might appreciate a laugh: Jackp would like to become an administrator: [4]. Merbabu 14:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Starbucks

Thanks for your comments and concern. I've replied to you on my talk page. Cheers Mr Christopher 15:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JPD's RfA

Thanks, Skeezix, for your support at my RfA, which finished with a tally of 94/1/0. I am glad you have found my comments helpfulin the past, and hope I live up to the confidence you have shown in me in my activities as an administrator. JPD (talk) 15:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Train Station (OC Transpo) overpass paragraph

Hello Skeezix1000.

I've put that paragraph since the article about both the Transit Station and the Train Station are merged together.

The Transportation Master Plan says about that overpass that it will:"Provides (d) enhanced transit accessibility to the stadium (Lynx) and adjacent employment area (Coventry Road)" [5]. That paragraph was related to the Transitway Station and transit accessibilty to the baseball stadium and the growing employment area on Coventry Road and also Overbrook residents.

I'm wondering if de-merging the article would be better, so we would put the Transit stop's info and the overpass paragraph in a separate article --JForget 02:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biased Tim Hortons edits.

Hello skeezix1000. This is my second comment on your talk page about Tim Hortons. It seems your a "regular" editor of the article. Almost every time I add someting to the Tim Hortons article, or change something . . . you seem to remove it. I find you are very biased towards Tim Hortons and Canada, you can't seem to accept the fact that Tim Hortons is also in the United States. I find many Canadian owned companies, that have Wikipedia articles are over done with the whole Canadian thing. Take The Canadian Home Hardware for example. Several months ago it has some very anti American comments on it, and it was compared to other American comanies like Home Depot, which apprantly "invaded" Canada. I find the same thing with the Tim Hortons article. Canadians that edit the article (not all, but some) are trying as best they can to get any comments about The United States "out of the article". The thing is, Tim Hortons is still currently affiliated with one of the largest U.S. fast food chains. Wendy's. You need to realise just because a company is Canadian . . . it isn't perfect. Tim Hortons is no different then any other fast food company, they don't care how Iconic they are in Canada ... there in the business for the money. It's as simple as that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Decimal10 (talk • contribs) .

No, I am not trying to remove any reference to the U.S. in the article. As my edit summaries indicated, I simply removed the inaccurate reference to TH being "plentiful" in the northeastern U.S. -- in Canada, TH has practically saturated the market in many regions (there is a TH outlet for approximately every 12,500 persons in Canada), but no state in the U.S. has more than 50 outlets, except New York which has under 100. TH is in the U.S., as it says many times in the article, but it is not ubiquitous the way it is in Canada. If you have a source that states that TH is plentiful in Buffalo or Detroit, then amend the sentence accordingly by all means -- but it is an exageration to extend the concentration of outlets in those two cities to the entire N.E. U.S. Perhaps if you took more time to read the edit summaries and the substance of the sentences you are editing, you would not jump to conclusions of anti-Americanism. Skeezix1000 11:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cold war template discussions - thanks!

Just wanted to express appreciation for your contribution to Template talk:Cold War. As someone who edits articles on El Salvador and tries not to be disproportionate, I liked having someone point out so articulately why the decisions over figures and countries to include is so problematic. Everyone who specializes in a given country that is relevant to Cold War discussion naturally has a tendency not to want to see that country's significance underplayed, even though few countries will be as CLEARLY important to that discussion as the US and USSR. After all, the idea of these templates seems to be to pull together articles that the novice may not realize relate, and if we serve that function, it's not going to matter whether we do it via a template, a category, a list, or whatever we end up using. Thanks for your well-reasoned and well-written comments. Lawikitejana 19:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Update: Did some category replace the older ones named something like Category:Cold warriors and Category:Cold War people? Or is there now a list? It seems odd to have nothing in the template referring the user to any grouped listing of Cold War figures.Lawikitejana 02:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] and vs. or...

I sense we're very close to a stable version of {{Ottawa-stub}}, since we're now only differing by one word. :) But I don't really understand your thinking on that: why would "or" be read exclusively here? The trouble is, that if this is applied to an article in the NCR, but not in Ottawa, then the article isn't about both, but is only about the NCR, strictly speaking. (Granted that those seem to be very much the minority, and the statement is true as written about topics within Ottawa proper.) But this isn't a big deal, and I'm no hurry to change it back if you disagree. Alai 02:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TA Sekhar

A minor problem. T. A. Sekhar is the naming convention followed (space between initials) but the article is now at T.A. Sekhar. I'll get an admin to do the switch. Tintin (talk) 05:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks

Hey Skeezix1000, thank you for supporting my recent RfA. It finished with an amazing final tally of 160/4/1. I really appreciate your support. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Moving an article

The big asterisk (you may know this already, but just in case) is that IF the target article is ONLY a redirect, you can do the move anyway (overwrite the redirect). And such was the case with Frank Clair Stadium. So you DID see something there - it was a redirect. If the edit history had anything more than that - it did not, in this case - the move would have required admin assistance. John Broughton 19:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I did not realize that at all, but figured it out when I saw your comment at WP:RM. I'm glad to have learned something new. Thanks for your help. Skeezix1000 21:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timbit of Dreams

I've posted to his talk page, as politely as possible asking him to explain why he views it as necessary to give it a separate subheading. Don't know if or when he'll answer, though. Bearcat 20:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Hortons Criticism

Thanks for your help in ensuring I get the citiations necessary for the item I added today. I have now updated the page with proper citations. KsprayDad 23:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yorkville, Toronto

Good move in removing that store section. I did some reverts there earlier today, and wondered why they needed to be listed. --ArmadilloFromHell 21:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:MontrealWindsorHotel.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:MontrealWindsorHotel.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 21:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] U.S. city convention vote

Since you left a comment in the "Not Yet" section of the city convention proposal, it has been revised to no longer merge U.S. with Canada. Please reconsider your vote here. --Serge 20:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About what you left on my discussion page ...

The Donut and Doughnut thing. I DID read the discussion page. I DID leave a comment about it. Did you not see the comment I left? Perhaps you are the one who didn't take the time to view the discussion page. I saw no consensus on either donut or doughnut.

You continue to remove the criticism sub article. The red Friday part IS criticism. Perhaps the Toronto Star article about the rise of Tim Hortons as a national icon, isn't exactly criticism and I don't care if that part gets removed. But the Red Friday thing is, because it was direct criticism of Tim Hortons. I think the reason you continue to remove the criticism section is because you are obviously a Tim Hortons fanatic. You come on here, every day, watching that article to make sure it's exactly how YOU want it. It seems to irritate you that Tim Hortons is also in the United States, and you seem to enjoy making the article as pro Canadian as possible, and as anti American as possible.

Talk:Tim Hortons#McDonald's Vs Tim Hortons). Now as for the Tim Hortons and McDonald's discussion, that was my opinion on the matter, and I don't see the inappropriate sarcasm in that discussion.

User talk:Skeezix1000#Biased Tim Hortons edits. That is my opinion on your edits of the Tim Hortons article. Your edits do seem biased.

I do NOT vandalize the article. You think it's vandalizing because it's different from the way YOU want it. As for the Yorkdale images and the comment, okay your right. I won't do anymore personal attacks over edits or upload copyright pictures.

I honestly can't figure out what it is with you. You seem to have a hate of my edits and anything I do on this website. You have even started researching on me and looked for my IP address on Wikipedia. In your view I am vandalizing. In my view, YOU are vandalizing. You are vandalizing the Tim Hortons article by continuing to remove the criticism section over and over again. You left it there for awhile, and then you just decided to dump the whole thing again.

Decimal10 22:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I am well aware that you left a discussion on the article talk page in respect of "doughnut vs. donut". What was inappropriate was that you attempted to circumvent an ongoing attempt to achieve consensus in respect of this issue. Just because consensus has yet to be achieved, or may not be achieved, does not entitle you to ignore the ongoing discussion.

As for your other comments, I again urge you to carefully review Wikipedia:Assume good faith. You seem incapable of having a discussion with any editor who dares disagree with you without engaging in silly accusations. I am not anti-American, I am not "irritated" by Tim Hortons having American outlets (why would I possibly be iritated?), and I do not "have a hate" for your edits. I also am not a "fanatic" for Tim Hortons (I don't even drink their coffee, and ironically, I am the one who added the Rudyard Griffiths critique and the current Red Fridays source to the article). Don't you see the problem? Even now, you are spending more time making accusations and personal attacks than in actually discussing the substance of the issues. Please stop.

By the way, if another editor disagrees with you, that does not make them "biased". They simply disagree with you. Stop looking for ulterior motives, and instead engage in civil discussion and canvass the views of other editors.

In respect of the "criticism" heading, I have no problem with creating such a section -- in fact, the one time you proposed content that would be appropriate for such a section, I responded favourably (see Talk:Tim Hortons#Tim Hotons does NOT recycle?). I left the heading in place for some time, on two occasions, to give you the opportunity to respond to the discussion on the talk page or to respond to the subsequent request made on your own talk page by another editor to explain you insistence on having the heading. You never bothered to respond to either. I am happy, however, that you now appear to be willing to discuss the issue, and appear to have read some of my earlier comments, or the comments of WilyD (and I notice that Stickguy has proposed a helpful alternative). As for the new material on Red Fridays belonging in a criticism section, I don't think that I agree with you on that (it isn't ongoing criticsm, but rather a minor controversy that lasted a few hours in Pembroke, Ontario -- arguably, the information belongs higher up in the article, in the subsection on the Canadian military). However, I don't feel strongly about it, and I will happily leave the issue alone if it will put this issue to rest.

As for "researching" you, you should not be surprised when other editors investigate when you use your IP address to make inappropriate edits.

Finally, I am happy to work with you as long as you stick to the substance of the issue and engage in civil discussion with the rest of us. I generally have no problems with most of your edits (in fact, one time I took another editor to task for reverting one of your edits without having first responded to the concerns that you had earlier raised (see User talk:Sherurcij#Tim Hortons). Skeezix1000 00:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re Tim Hortons

I'm with you for the most part, and I'll keep an eye on it – as time allows. — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 23:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re History of Poland

It is a good suggestion. You may also want to check how I treated Reagan and Gorbi in my newer History of Solidarity.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Hortons references

When making edits like this (scroll to the bottom) please take a couple of minutes to check the page out. the use of 2 ref tags with one closing tag is what busted that. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of Quebec template

My friend, I still haven't seen a response from your part at Template talk:History of Quebec. --Liberlogos 01:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Westboro Baptist Church entry on the Westboro dab page

Hi! Sorry if the reason for the revert was unclear. I noticed that you reinstated those changes, and rather than reverting the entire edit this time, I removed only the words "hate group" per WP:NPOV. The issue here is that the term "hate group" isn't an objective fact, it's an opinion or value judgment. The article includes cited references to the effect that it's classified as a hate group by specific organizations. Those citations are completely legitimate. It's not acceptable for Wikipedia to state editorially that it's a hate group, as you did with that edit, so I have again removed the words "hate group" in compliance with core Wikipedia policies. If you have any further questions about this, feel free to ask me about it. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 20:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Holt Renfrew

I took a look at the dispute over at Holt Renfrew. I'm hoping that your reply to the anon on the talk page will be enough to put an end to it; if not, I'll help out. The material was really about as blatant POV as you can get. -Joshuapaquin 15:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

HI

Could you help me regarding the PATH article? I am not sure what I am doing? phillip@torontopath.com

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:United Way Centraide of Ottawa.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:United Way Centraide of Ottawa.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 03:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Centraide United Way logo.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Centraide United Way 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 04:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] STTWbot

Thanks for informing, could you let me know the exact category or article and I will revert the edits. STTW (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:TorontoEatonCentreHolgerWerschnik.jpg

An image that you uploaded from stock.xchng or altered, Image:TorontoEatonCentreHolgerWerschnik.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images#SXC_images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. OrphanBot 03:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

03:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/k/e/User_talk%7ESkeezix1000_b540.html"