User talk:Canadia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello Canadia, 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:

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! DoubleBlue (Talk) 11:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Boinger

Please discuss things with User:Boinger first on his talk page. He seems to be acting in good faith, and says he only inadvertantly deleted anti-American content once. Please do stop deleting anti-Canadian content; remember to be non point-of-view. If you wish to dispute the article's contents, please do so on the talk page, rather than deleting large amounts of material. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 19:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop

Please stop the 'santizing' of any subject relation to Canada.

I understand your fervor for your country - in fact, I agree Canada is a wonderful place, and I have been to various places in Canada several times.

I am not trying to sully the name of Canada or Canadians, I am only striving for completion of information in articles.

Offensive terms per nationality is, by nature, offensive. It's right there in the name. There are plenty of terms that, said to my face, would likely get the speaker a bloody lip. That doesn't mean I think they shouldn't be documented on an encyclopedic collection.

boinger 19:05, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Lester B. pearson.jpg

Warning sign
This image may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Lester B. pearson.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ~MDD4696 01:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:1942dieppedead.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:1942dieppedead.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. --OrphanBot 07:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:1944-06-06-juno-beach.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:1944-06-06-juno-beach.jpg, 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.

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Fontaine.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Fontaine.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 06:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Image Tagging Image:Bastienoverthetop.jpg

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Bastienoverthetop.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stan 04:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Image Tagging Image:Canadiandollar.jpg

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Canadiandollar.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam (T/C) 18:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Crest - Canadian Army QC.jpg)

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Crest - Canadian Army QC.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that your image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If your image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why your image was deleted. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use 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. Shyam (T/C) 13:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Bastienoverthetop.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bastienoverthetop.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Dethomas 20:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Juno_Beac.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Juno_Beac.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Image legality questions. 11:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:RL-201_Avro_Arrow.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:RL-201_Avro_Arrow.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Canadianism

Just to let you know, due to what I've written on the talk page, tomorrow I will be reverting all your edits, anonymous and logged in. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 06:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, how about you form some coherent arguments in favour of your version? CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 06:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
So what do we have here, a simple deletion of what I said? The simple fact is, your arguments are so utterly inane and flawed that you are myopic to my salutory advices. There are a myriad of grievances which I have listed, some of which include:

Lucien Bouchard (Unless you can provide me with a cogent explanation on why he is a left/right winger, I suggest you delete the man's name from the page)

Volitare (How is it that you can pen a man with such great reverence as anti-Canadian when all he has said of Acadia as, a few acres of snow? As a matter of fact, historians have questioned whether Volitare is actually anti-Canadian or just expressing his dislike toward Acadia, which happened to be an economically worthless French possession?)

Americanism (This is my central argument against the creation of the site. The whole damn article reeks of anti-Americanism. As I have pointed out before, there are only THREE non-American references: Quebec (which should be categorized under Quebec sovereignty movement), Brazil and Volitare (who isn't even anti-Canadian! The main thrust of the article focuses on Ann Coutler and Pat Buchanan, both of which are from the northeastern states and conservatives. It's not a surprise that they don't like Canada, as their propinquity to Canada creates this false image of incessant Canadian anti-American bashing (which, for the most part is quite, is quite specious. Canadians dislike Bush, but they don't hate Americans)

Anti-Canadian Canadians = most of the arguments under "anti-Canadian" Canadians have been expressed in the following articles: Quebec sovereignty movement and Western Separation movement.

[edit] Canada in WW2

I can see that you want to included Canada in the list of "major partipants" in the allies. Well, it depends how big this list should be. You could first say that the biggest one is the US, as they were in two theatres. Second, the Soviet Union and Britain. Third, China and France. Then fourthly, there is a much larger list, India, Australia and New Zealand (all two theatres), Poland, Holland, Canada and South Africa. India is probably the most important of these, as it defeated the Japanese in a number of engagements, and was involved in many battles in Europe too. I personally would love to see Canada there, as it was involved in many important battles, and like New Zealand, took heavy casualties. However, you would have to include at least India, South Africa and Australia too.... and that would leave Poland out... you see the problem? Wallie 15:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The USSR was involved in two theatres too and by far suffered and caused most casualties. --Taraborn (talk) 08:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Military history of Canada

hi, I just wanted to bring your attention to the Canadian Military Task Force at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. We're currently looking for the task force so that we can start to develop and organize Canadian Military history content on the 'pedia.Mike McGregor (Can) 17:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canada in WW2

Actually the Battle of Britain article says this, which puts Canada fourth. However , if you have different stats, please update. "The RAF recognises [1] 2440 British and 510 overseas pilots who flew at least one authorised operational sortie with an eligible unit of the Royal Air Force or Fleet Air Arm during the period 10 July to 31 October 1940. This group includes 139 Poles, 98 New Zealanders, 86 Canadians, 84 Czechoslovakians, 29 Belgians, 21 Australians, 20 South Africans, 13 French, 10 Irish, 7 from the United States, a Jamaican, a Palestinian Jew and a Southern Rhodesian." I fully recognise that Canada made a big big contribution in the war. The problem is that if you include Canada on the list of major participants, the India must surely be there too. If you think Canada is overlooked, then India is even more so. If the list is extended, you would have to include Canada (D-Day, Caen, Dieppe), Australia (Tobruk, Singapore, New Guinea), India (El Alamein, Cassino, Burma, Sudan) and New Zealand (Cassino, Crete, Trieste), and Poland (Cassino, Battle of Britain) too as all were important. Wallie 21:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. If you want to rearrange the list, that's OK. I think it was originally a chronological order they entered the war with Poland, UK, Commonwealth, Soviet Union, US and China. Now it looks like the big ones are towards the top of the list. I think the list is now OK. The main problem was grouping the Commonwealth together. I am also concerned that India is usually forgotten, and they were involved in a lot of battles, as you probably know. New Zealand needs to be there too, as it played a leading role in Cassino and Crete, and of course in the Battle of Britain. Did you know that Monty wanted the NZ division there on D-Day, but they couldn't come, as they were engaged at Cassino at the same time. The truth is that all countries on the list played a major part. Wallie 18:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian Military History Task Force

Hi, I just wanted to let you know about the Candian Military History Task Force of the Military History Wiki-project. Check us out at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Canadian military history task force Mike McGregor (Can) 05:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:CANADIANFLAG.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:CANADIANFLAG.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My apologies.

Sorry for that revert, it was out of line. Thank you, Yanksox (talk) 03:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re Who are you to block me?

An administrator who normally reverts vandalism. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 14:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 14:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 14:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Canadianism edit

Hi, I thought I'd drop by and have a word about your edits to Anti-Canadianism.

Reverting is not a good way to go about article development. Instead of reverting, bring up your issues on the talk page, get some input and let someone else make the changes.

Also, try to be polite and helpful at all times. An edit summary like "rvv (Piss off. Again, you have yet to give me any proof that your version is better than mine. stop politicking and start debating" isn't helpful. Firstly, it's not plain vandalism (which is what 'rvv' is used for). 'Piss off' is hostile and perhaps offensive. 'Proof'? This is legalistic and seemingly rubbish, Wikipedia doesn't revolve around people proving that their version is better than the previous one.

So, don't revert and be hostile and legalistic (on talk pages as well as in the articles and edit summaries). Reversion and hostility etc is disruptive and may result in a block.

I think you may have moved on from reverting and are now working constructively on the article. If that is that case, fantastic.--Commander Keane 17:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unbalanced view of map in Islam by country

BhaiSaab is reverting the article to his incorrect map. I can't revert more than 3 times (same as anybody) so I'd welcome any help you can offer here. Thanks.Netaji 04:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Starting up a page

About searching for an article: the search index is often out of date, sometimes taking weeks before it is updated. Recent changes are not reflected until the next time the search index is updated. A better alternative is to use the Google search engine. Simply append site:en.wikipedia.org to your query to search the English Wikipedia. As for the Go feature, article names are case sensitive. The "go" button usually masks this, but if an article name includes a mixture of capitalized and uncapitalized words a redirect is necessary.

Maybe that was the problem you were facing. Also see Help:Starting a new page. You might also want to take a look at Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:How to write a great article.

Ask me another question on my talk page if you are still stuck.--Commander Keane 18:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh ok :P I will try again. Wikipedia's search index is out of date. Because those two articles are newish, they will not show up in the search. The nubio entry elaborates on this problem. You can't do anything about it, just be patient I guess.--Commander Keane 19:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
There is absolutely nothing you can do to get your article to show up in the search. Maybe your friend used "go" instead of "search" ("go" works immediately). I heard that the search index is about 2 months out of date, so June 15th is still reasonable.--Commander Keane 20:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] blocked for 24 hours

Take a day off, calm down, and refrain from such name calling as [1]. Thanks. —freak(talk) 21:17, Sep. 5, 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American

I noticed that you recently added a link to American here. American is a disambiguation page as the phrase has many uses including a person from the Americas or the United States. In the future, could you link the term to one of the articles listed on the American disambiguation term, that would be great. As an example, if you're linking to something related to the United States, you would input [[United States|American]]. Thanks! --Bobblehead 07:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for experimenting with the page Christianity on Wikipedia. Your test of deliberately adding incorrect information worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Ryūlóng 03:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islam

I have seen the talk page and made a comment there. Article is on criticism of Islam, that means that the article is centered on that, not that responses or something else couldn't be inserted. --Aminz 05:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The whole problem with critics of Islam is that they are not reliable sources. Their works are not peer-reviewed and their writings are not cited by academic scholars. But some editors have argued that they are notable critics. A critic doesn't have to be an scholar. Well, then having a section on this point is important. --Aminz 05:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Canadia,

I am willing to "Come Let Us Reason Together" but I have to run now. But we can discuss this later.

Best wishes,

--Aminz 05:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Criticism of Islam. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. ITAQALLAH 14:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPA

With regards to your comments on Talk:Criticism of Islam: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. ITAQALLAH 14:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Kirby is not an administrator. he advised you not to be a WP:DICK, and i wouldn't imagine that forwarding someone to that page can be construed as a personal attack, for obvious reasons. with regards to the dispute, your POV fork suggestion was speedy-deleted. you haven't actually responded to the points, you have merely been reiterating your own along with personal attacks. ITAQALLAH 04:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms of the criticisms of Islam

This page has been deleted as a repost of a page deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticisms of the criticisms of Islam. Please do not repost it again. If you want a review of the deletion decision, go to Wikipedia:Deletion review. NawlinWiki 20:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't be discouraged from editing Islam-related articles! Arrow740 09:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sir George Parkin

[edit] Copyright issue with George Parkin

Hello. Concerning your contribution, George Parkin, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www2.marianopolis.edu/quebechistory/encyclopedia/SirGeorgeParkin-CanadianHistory.htm. As a copyright violation, George Parkin appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. George Parkin has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:George Parkin. If the article or image has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at George Parkin, after describing the release on the talk page. However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Flyguy649 06:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Upper Canada College peer review

Hi - I note you've edited the Upper Canada College article on occasion. In the hopes of getting the article up to a standard where it can be nominated as a featured article, I've initiated a peer review of the page in question. Your observations would be appreciated, and can be left at Wikipedia:Peer review/Upper Canada College/archive1. Thanks. --G2bambino 18:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too bad...

... it's a scientific fact your God does not exist. It doesn't matter how much you pray, the chance of getting a 6 in a die is and always will be 1/6, whether you want to accept truth or not. --Taraborn 08:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:English Patient Oscar Advert 02.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:English Patient Oscar Advert 02.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright problems with Image:CANADIANFLAGa.jpg

An image that you uploaded, Image:CANADIANFLAGa.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)