User talk:Canada Jack

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome Johny Canuck to the John F. Kennedy Assassination article. It is good to find more people willing to examine the evidence presented to make their conclusions and not approach it the other way around. In addition, as this page is oft vandalized, the more eyes we have watching the page makes all of the editors job easier. Feel free to make edit's you feel are appropriate, keeping in mind WP:NOV, WP:FAITH and WP:VERIFY.

Welcome, and good luck. Ramsquire 00:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Request for Comment:Clay Shaw 2 Username 3 Sockpuppet Tag on your page 4 Rename 5 WikiProject Paranormal 6 Spaceflights, etc 7 Three articles 8 Sutton Hoo images 9 Your pics 10 Majestic 12 11 Rowsell aliens 12 Debris 13 1997 World Championships 14 Carl Lewis 15 Oldest People 16 3 Revert Rule violation notification 17 WP:EAR 18 You rock! 19 Revert not the way to go there 20 just hello 21 Maria Tomson 22 Please 23 Query on edit 24 Burj Dubai- Emaar is unreliable, outdated and Inaccurate

[edit] Request for Comment:Clay Shaw

I'm asking for an Rfc [1] on the Clay Shaw page regarding the Max Holland article. Please comment. Ramsquire 17:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You've been on for less than a month and I'm dragging you into an argument. ;). Seriously though, I'd love to know if you have any thoughts on the subject. Ramsquire 17:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Username

Hi Johnny Canuck,

I'm afraid it has come to my attention that you need to change your username. We have an existing editer, User:JohnnyCanuck, and a rule that editors shouldn't have names likely to be confused with one another. (Obviously we have good reasons for that. And from what little I know, you really wouldn't want to be confused with the other guy.) This is policy, spelled out in Wikipedia:Username. Fortunately we have a process to change your username (and associate all you old contributions with the new name). Please pick out a new username and go to Wikipedia:Changing username to request the change.

Thank you, —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for putting in the request -- sorry about the kerfuffle below. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet Tag on your page

• It seems that someone has decided that you are my sockpuppet. Despite the fact that I don't think we've ever edited the same page. Anyways, if you want it removed, feel free to post at WP:AN/I. If you don't, I probably will in a few days. -- pm_shef 21:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• My advice to this user is to change names. For the record, I think it it likely that he is NOT a sockpuppet. However, the tag should stay displayed until this is cleared up. ED209 21:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• I have already told this user, above, that he is required by policy to change usernames. What that has to do with you deciding he is a sockpuppet of one party or another in your, um, circle of dispute, I don't know. Why not tag him as a suspected sockpuppet of JohnnyCanuck? If you don't have any evidence for puppetry beyond his name (sounds like you don't) and if you think it's likely he's not a sockpuppet, why on earth would you think his page needs to be tagged like that?!?? I am removing the sockpuppet tags. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rename

As requested, I've changed your username to User:Canada Jack. You will probably want to move your user pages to the new name. Warofdreams talk 02:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I took the liberty of moving the pages for you. I appreciate you cooperation, Canada Jack. I'm sorry I haven't had much of a chance lately to look over your work at Carl Lewis. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Paranormal

Hi! Due to all the great work you've been putting into Roswell UFO incident, I wanted to invite you to join us! The project is undergoing a large expansion right now, and we need quality editors! We are a WikiProject with the goal of improving the quality of articles having to do with Ufology, Cryptozoology, the Supernatural, and other topics. We provide a centralized forum for concerns that effect multiple articles within our scope, as well as methods to rate and categorize articles by quality, get input on how to improve an article from our other members, and a collaborative project once a month where the whole project pitches in to make an article great. You won't be required to do anything special once you join; all that we ask of members is that they sign our participants page, though if you do join you may also find it useful to add some of our pages (especially our main talk page to your watchlist to keep yourself apprised of what we're up to. If you have questions about any of this, please don't hesitate to contact me directly. Thank you for your time, and happy editing! --InShaneee 15:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spaceflights, etc

I think you were being too nit-picky on the length of missions, however I have changed that to say "over three days" instead of "four days", although that is commonly used. I saw a little of what you here doing to the Roswell article. I tried to improve that article in 2005, but I met with a lot of resistance from Dr Fil and an IP address user. The discussion page mentions a possible mediation or dispute resolution between you and Dr Fil. If that happens, let me know. Bubba73 (talk), 00:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I dunno about the nit-pick charge - the first four-day flight was the first flight to be up for four days, which the flight in question did not manage. This is even more true for the first two-week flight, where G7 was listed even though S9 was the first flight to be in space for two weeks. I mean, for a page which such a huge debate over what "rendezvous" means, I am rather amazed that there seems to be no problem with calling a flight which lasted 13 days and 18 hours the "first" two week flight when clearly it was not.

Besides, in this place we should be "nit-picky". IMHO.Canada Jack 00:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you want to be nit-picky, Vostok 1 didn't make one complete revolution, but everyone counts it as one orbit. The articles on the individual flights refer to them as the number of days, properly rounded up if it is more than half of a day. The arguement over the rendezvous was started by a person who believes that the moon landings were fake. Bubba73 (talk), 02:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I read your latest message on my talk page. I admit that I got a little angry over what I thought was being too nit-picky, and I'm sorry. Later I decided that it was too small of a thing to get angry about. I was working on the Roswell article and others such as "Majestic 12" in late 2005 and gave up becuase of Dr Fil and 66.117.135.19. I haven't read the Roswell article lately, but I did read most of the talk page were you were involved, and I got a good sense of what has been going on. I'm on your side versus Dr Fil. In a choice between someone who I think is a little too nit-picky over facts and one that refuses to accept any fact that contradicts his beliefs, I'm going to pick the former every time! :-) So good luck with Roswell and other UFO articles, I appreciate what you are doing very much. If you need references, I probably have them. Bubba73 (talk), 01:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Three articles

Based on your interests, you might be interested in looking at:

• Apollo program missing tapes
• Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings
• Examination of Apollo moon photos

The first one had what I think are factual errors, you may know more about it. The second one is up for deletion/merge. Bubba73 (talk), 21:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sutton Hoo images

From Spitfire1 Sutton Hoo 1939 Pictures

I've just been looking at the Sutton Hoo article discussion, and am really interested in the fact that you have 1939 film and pictures: my mother was at the 1939 dig most days, as Basil Brown took her along (she was staying with her aunt, who was Mrs. Pretty's housekeeper, who was also putting up Basil Brown. I wonder if she might appear in any of your photos? She was 12 at the time.

I've just checked the film and in the initial sequence, there are only men present. Then in the second sequence, there is a part where a man is talking to a woman, but my uncle says that this my great-grandmother Mary Boyle (CW Phillips' remarried mother). There IS a sequence where we see three women from behind looking at the south end of the excavation. They seem to be adults, but one of them may be your mother. I work at a TV network and when I have a change, I will do a high-resolution screen capture of the film I have (I dumped it to an SP tape), and I will get a jpeg of the three women as well. Canada Jack 15:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Spitfire - I realize I DO have a photograph of the same three women. Give me some contact info and I will e-mail it to you. Canada Jack 16:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Canada Jack, I have been away from WP quite a lot for the past couple of months owing to illness etc, and hadn't had a close look at the Sutton Hoo article discussion and the new images you uploaded. As you may know I put quite a lot of work into this article in January, and while I don't see myself as in 'possession' of it I do feel a little parental affection for it, shall we say... So this is just to say thankyou very much for making such a very useful contribution to it with those images, which it was generous of you to make generally available. I have had a lifelong professional interest in Sutton Hoo and of course I'm very familiar with the role played by your great-uncle in the whole affair. What a marvellous job he made of the 1940 publication under such difficult circumstances. With best wishes, Dr Steven Plunkett 21:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your pics

In practice the main policy on Wikipedia is "assume bad faith". If you want your pictures of the Sutton Hoo excavation to remain on wikipedia, please add {{gdfl}} or {{pd}} in the description of the pictures. User:Eagle 101's bot is removing the links to the pics and will probably continue to do so until you have added the necessary tags.--Berig 09:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Majestic 12

With your interest in Roswell, have you done any work on Majestic 12? Bubba73 (talk), 00:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rowsell aliens

Is it correct that no one who actually saw the Roswell debris claim to have seen aliens? AFAIR, Marcel didn't say he saw aliens. Bubba73 (talk), 01:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Debris

I've read a lot about Roswell, but one thing I don't remember reading is what happened to the debris. Was it destroyed? Does it still exist somewhere? Has anyone tried to track down what happened to it? Bubba73 (talk), 17:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Has anyone tried to track down what happened to the debris? The GAO did a huge search for documents. Trying to track what happened to the debris seems like a natural thing to do. Did any document say anything about the disposition of the debris? It was supposed to be going to Writht-Patt, but I haven't read anything about it after it was in Texas. Bubba73 (talk), 18:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Something very similar was recovered five years later, but it no longer exists either: Ralph Horton flying saucer crash. Bubba73 (talk), 19:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1997 World Championships

Was planning to complete it, yes. In a couple of days or so. :) Sam Vimes | Address me 07:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Done! Can I ask for a favour? Could you please check that the page as it is now agrees with the one-week-old version so that no errors have crept in? Sam Vimes | Address me 18:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for checking :) I didn't understand why you removed the WL from the women's relay because it was an AR though? I mean, you can set an area record without it being a world leading time? (It's not too likely, but could happen...) Sam Vimes | Address me 20:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carl Lewis

Nice job on the Carl Lewis article by the way. It's a coincidence, but the first article I contributed to in a big way the was the Ben Johnson article back in October of '05. The version that is up there now is a shadow of it's former self because of the unencyclopedic way that I wrote it. Check it out - you might enjoy it if you're a track fan.[2] Cheers.--Yankees76 19:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oldest People

You've made your point, and the concensus is not with you. Please consider 'cooling off'. I have added a 'disclaimer' per your suggestion.Ryoung122 17:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Basically, I feel like you are wrong. I'm also disappointed you didn't bother to read what I wrote before you continued your attempt to 'roll a boulder uphill.' Let me put it this way: being 'world's oldest person' is more honorable than merely being 'oldest man' or 'oldest woman' (which encompasses only about half the Earth's population). Since anyone can qualify for the 'oldest person' title...even transgendered persons who are neither male nor female...then we need an 'oldest person' list. The 'oldest person' list is the MOST important, not the least important. We could have an 'oldest woman' list but that would be currently redundant. It is not too much to ask to wait until 2008, when a hypothetical problem becomes a real problem (i.e. we won't have an 'oldest man' in the top 10 until about Aug 2008, based on current projections). With lots of work to do in other areas, it seems you'd have a little more consideration than you have shown so far.Ryoung122 08:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Canada Jack,

Wikipedia is not the place for ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Guinness World Records has named 'oldest living person' and 'oldest living man' since before I started there. Wikipedia should 'reflect' what is already in the press, not create their own, competing version.

Further, what you consider a 'gain' for women is just one way of looking at it. Is it more to say that a woman is the oldest of 51% of the human population, or 100%? I would think that 100% carries more prestige. Also, such a list would match the 'oldest person' list for something like 35 out of the last 36 persons...a redundant waste. And for the woman (Julie Winnifred Bertrand) 'unfortunate' enough to die six days before Emiliano Mercado Del Toro? She's already listed in the '115+' list which is INTENDED to catch those who might otherwise not be listed. That includes persons such as Bettie Wilson and Susie Gibson, both of whom lived to 115 but fell in the shadow of Maria Capovilla. Note that if we created a list of the 'world's oldest women', not a single woman would be listed who isn't already on the page, since at least 1986.

Also, your 1/3 analogy doesn't make sense. Truthfully, in the last 20 years men have held the top title for only 44 days...

Ryoung122 12:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3 Revert Rule violation notification

This is to provide you with a required notice that you have violated the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule on numerous occasions, including twice in the last week on "Roswell UFO incident." As stated on the 3 revert rule Wiki page:

"An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time.

"Any editor who breaches the rule may be blocked from editing for up to 24 hours in the first instance, and longer for repeated or aggravated violations."

Specific violations of the 3 revert rule are as follows:

Roswell UFO incident: Nov. 2, 2007: 4 reverts Oct. 28/29: 7 reverts

Witness accounts of Roswell UFO incident: June 11, 2007: 4 reverts November 20/21, 2006: 7 reverts November 13, 2006: 4 reverts November 7/8, 2006: 6 reverts

There are numerous other instances of quick deletions of my material by you. Wikipedia also frowns on repeated deletions of another editor's material even if not in technical violation of the 3 RR rule (you have also been guilty of this):

"Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. Efforts to game the system, for example by persistently making three reverts each day or three reverts on each of a group of pages, cast an editor in a poor light and may result in blocks."

Wikipedia notes that repeated deletions or reverts of another editor's good faith edits with no attempt at first discussing the issues is an example of edit warring. "A content revert is an intentional reversal of the changes made in good faith by another editor rather than improving upon the edit or working with the editor to resolve the dispute; it is not to be taken lightly."

Editors who may not technically violate 3RR but show a consistent pattern of reverting other's work may be held in violation:

"...there are other measures that indicate may edit warring, even in the absence of a 3RR violation. This could mean 4+ reverts on a page in a day, or three, or one per day for a protracted period of time, or one per page across many pages, or simply a pattern of isolated blind reverts as a first resort in response to disagreeable edits."

Wikipedia states that you can possibly mitigate violations of 3RR:

"I have violated 3RR. What do I do?

If you have broken 3RR by mistake and now realize it, or if another user has left you a note on your talk page that points out that you broke 3RR, then you should revert your change back to the "other version", even though you may not like the previous version. In general, this should be enough to prevent you from being blocked, although there are no guarantees.

If you do a restoration of the material you have deleted within the next 24 hours, I will not put you on report. I have no problems with good-faith discussions of the material that has been added. What I object to is how you always delete the material first then later maybe add a supposed "discussion" on it where you feel you always have to have the last word, contrary to guidelines laid down by Wikipedia.

Please read the section on the Do's and Don'ts of reversion. In part it says:

• Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism, or anything very similar to the effects of vandalism. (Vandalism is NOT another editor trying to add material that you personally disagree with.)
• ”If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate, discuss it FIRST rather than immediately reverting or deleting it. (You always delete first before "discussing")
• ”If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it. (You almost always just delete.)
• ”Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view.
• ”Do not revert good faith edits. (Hey, I work hard and spend a lot of time trying to add good, solid material to these articles. They are always done in good faith. Please respect that.)
• ”If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof.
• ”Generally there are misconceptions that problematic sections of an article or recent changes are the reasons for reverting or deletion. If they contain valid information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly. Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly.

Also please read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, where it states certain editors may feel they own articles and justify reverts for frivolous reasons as a way of "defending" "their" article. Wikipedia tries to encourage contributions of many editors to an article. "Consensus" does not mean stagnation and Wikipedia also warns against "tag-teaming" by a small group of editors to block any changes and to enforce ownership.Dr Fil 19:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

And you have been hereby warned of the same, Dr Fil. You are guilty of imposing substantial rewrites of pages WITHOUT ANY DISCUSSION, and of ignoring repeated requests to halt your actions without entering into discussions.

And, you have it utterly backwards. YOU are the one not operating in good faith, The Roswell page has been the product of a painful process which took the better part of a year. If you think you can simply tear that up, insert a lot of irrelevant material and THEN enter into discussion, then you are operating in reverse. I invited you to discuss these changes each time I reverted them - you actually entered into discussion ONCE. Therefore YOU are not operating in good faith.

Some of you material, despite your approach, WAS kept as it was relevant and added important detail to the page. But most of it was extraneous and irrelevant. And each and every deletion was explained.

Your changes were reverted for cause, and if you want to go to arbitrators, so be it. I have repeatedly said that your changes are welcome - if they are done in the proper manner and are relevant. Turning a synopsis of a book into the longest section on the page is not helpful, or reasonable. Citing the need to "balance" unfavorable accounts of a UFO author with stuff on skeptics wasn't omitted because it needed to be censored, it was omitted because it was completely IRRELEVANT. The UFO author was mentioned because it was his research with ROSWELL which was questionable, NONE of the stuff about the skeptics you mentioned had ANYTHING to do with Roswell, therefore it has no place on the page. What here do you not get?

And I will take this to the arbitrators since you clearly are not operating under any normal rules of conduct, you seek to turn this into a pro-UFO page when the function should be to elucidate on the various aspects of the case, NOT to build a pro and con court case. Your approach here is wildly out of whack with what goes on Wikipedia. So if the result here is not what you expect, it is because others will identify what I have identified - you are utterly missing the point of what these pages should be about. Canada Jack 05:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:EAR

The format of your recent request was completely unsuitable. As with all help pages, editors need to follow the instructions in the header when they post questions and doing otherwise can result in other questions being prioritised. When an editor fails to follow the clearly stated posting instructions, they should not be surprised if someone brings that shortcoming to their attention when they bemoan the absence of replies, particularly at a project page that has recently become busier by a factor of at least four in the last two weeks. The limited number of staffers can no longer answer every request. If those of us who work very hard to keep EA going miss your request or opt not to assist, that does not permit you to make comments like that. If you were a new editor, that would garner an NPA warning, but I have opted for the softer approach of merely editing the comment to remove the attack. If the other respondents did not see it prior to that point, they may still reply if they have the time to do so, but assistance may not be forthcoming otherwise. Adrian M. H. 10:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You rock!

Wow, you totally rock! This [3] is the best answer I have ever read on the topic! --Kralizec! (talk) 16:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revert not the way to go there

Hi. I was going to link an external source, but as it turns out there is no need. Just read the very first phrase on Split infinitive. It is a grammatical construction, and the choice to use it pertains to grammatical considerations. It is advisible to use it only if the phrase in question would be ambiguous without it, which is not the case. Retaining the term "successfully" does not lead to keeping the split infinitive. Further, by simply reverting, you restored a type of language unsuited for an encyclopedia (that sentence beginning with "Also, he is..."). We need to adhere to higher standards in terms of language, and that is why I modified it. Reverting is often used as a quick way to change things back in an article, but it is necessary to look at the entire scope of the changes made, since a revert will erase everything.
That said, I will restore, or rather, remove again the split infinitive, but this time by moving the word "successfully" to the end of the relevant sentences. I believe that solves the problem. Redux (talk) 02:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] just hello

Glad you saw what I meant on the Roswell page. I am new so it would not have been THAT unusual for me to make a mistake. cheers Derekbd (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Maria Tomson

I got involved in the Estonian longevity claims because User:Kask complained that he added Maria Tomson on the page Oldest people but it was deleted there. Different people on the talk page commented differently on the rules of that page. There is no explanation on the page and there also is no explanation on the National recordholders page. I added Maria Tomson and Juhan Kallaste there because when I asked on which page Maria Tomson could be mentioned someone recommended me that page. Please place the mentions on the right place. If no relevant pages link to them then there is no use of the articles.

In the article Maria Tomson I wrote everything I know. In Estonia only enthousiasts collect data on centenarians, as far as I know. The main enthousiast, Helje Loopere, died lately, and I am not sure whether anyone knows who is the current oldest person in Estonia. I read that Helje Loopere had her little apartment full of documents. There also is a national record book where Maria Tomson is mentioned as the oldest Estonian ever. I am not sure where to start research. I know a demographer, I'll ask if he knows anything on the topic. Andres (talk) 16:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You are interested in genealogy and there is a project in Estonia about this subject [4]. But for entering it needs log in. The books about Lutherian Church (luterlik kirik) are in German and the books about Orthodox Church (apostliku õigeusu kirik) are in Russian. I don't know what was Tomson's name before weddings, then is her birth and weddings checking now. Kalev Kask (talk) 20:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please

Stop reverting the Burj Dubai article, you are clearly wrong in your statement, the construction shots ARE themself sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.135.239 (talk) 16:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Before we are forced block you, I suggest you read the discussion page on Burj Dubai. There has been a long discussion on what RELIABLE sources are pertinent here. Time to brush up a bit on how wikipedia works, 84. Canada Jack (talk) 17:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Query on edit

I am a little iffy on this edit. What do you think? --Kralizec! (talk) 12:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Burj Dubai- Emaar is unreliable, outdated and Inaccurate

You say that Emaar is a reliable source but if you go to the official website the height is still 629.0 meters but you quote a height of 636 meters which does not appear on the Burj Dubai offical website. I understand that this 636 meters is on an article that Emaar released but although it says 636 meters it also says 2,064 feet not 2,087. Obviously Emaar said 636 meters and 2,064 feet but you put 2,087 feet so you are putting up false information. Another thing is that both Emaar sources conflict with each other as one says 629 meters and another says 636 meters. Since Emaar obviously does not know the conversion between feet and meters and they quote different heights on different sites they are unreliable as a source. It doesn't even say when the tower reached 636 meters. It just says the tower is over 636 meters and Emaar does not even list 636 meters on their offical Burj Dubai site. On top of that they claim the tower is both 636 meters and 2,064 feet right next to each other in the same article. Since 636 meters is not 2,064 feet which height is correct? 2,064 feet corresponds roughly to 629 meters another height that Emaar simultaneously claims on the Official Burj Dubai website. This leaves me to beleive that Emaar is not reliable source because of conflicts between its articles, outdated information, and inaccuries betwen feet and meters. They obviously have no idea what they are quoting. 636 meters and 2,064 feet are not the same thing! I suggest we stop using Emaar as a source and use www.BurjDubaiskyscraper.com because it is a much more reliable, accurate, updated, and clear source with thousands of pictures, videos, and links. Emaar gives us none of these pictures, diagrams or nothing.Maldek (talk) 21:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)