User talk:Reginald Perrin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hi, Reginald Perrin, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia!   I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. Before getting too in-depth, you may want to read about the simplified ruleset. Of the many ways to get help on Wikipedia, I personally recommend our wiki-boot camp, where you can chat online with fellow Wikipedians willing to help, or see some of the resources on WP:Wc!

Please feel free to ask me any questions you may have, on my talk page - I'm happy to help.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

[edit] Finding your way around:

[edit] Need help?

[edit] How you can help:

[edit] Additional tips...

  • Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes(~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). Or use the Image:Wikisigbutton.png button, on the tool bar.
  • If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
  • If you'd like to meet other new users, be sure to visit our new user log.

Good luck, and have fun. -- C thirty-three 22:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pride FM 103.9

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Pride FM 103.9, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Postcard Cathy 20:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Agnes Macphail not a CCF MP

Hi there:

I noticed you changed a category for Agnes Macphail, that lists her as a CCF MP. Although she was sympathetic to the CCF, she was always elected to the Canadian House of Commons as a member of the United Farmers of Ontario (UFO) party, not the CCF.--Abebenjoe 05:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know she had a formal membership in the CCF between 1932 and 1934, but she never, ever sat in the House of Commons as a member of that party. She was a member of the Ginger group, but it was made up of more than the CCF. She only ran for the CCF provincially. That's why I have a problem listing her as a CCF MP. Clarence Gillis was the first CCFer elected east of Manitoba, and that was in 1940, the same election that Agnes lost (as an United Farmers of Ontario candidate). So I really don't think her page should have her categorized as a CCF MP...that would be officially inaccurate, though technically she was. Just making a murkier citation more cloudy.--Abebenjoe 02:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Misformatted comment (Categories)

FYI, if you want to refer to a category when you're talking on a talk page you have to put a : inside the bracket like so [[: otherwise you'll actually end up adding the talk page to the category, as you did here[1]. The other thing you can do is write <nowiki> and </nowiki> before and after so that whatever you're writing in between isn't "wikified". Type 40 23:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Warner (Canadian politician)

FYI, if you want to delete the biographical material from Mr. Warner's entry, at the very least you would have to do so from the entries for his competitors, Bob Rae and El Farouk Khaki, to say nothing of most other entries for politicians. The citation standard for Mr. Warner matches that of Bob Rae whose site is protected from edits. Your edits smack of vandalism, perhaps Mr. Warner's site should also be protected. --Canam1 12:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I have replied to this on your talk page. I will reiterate though that insisting on sources is not "malicious", it's policy and that your claims about Rae and Khaki's articles are untrue since, as far as I can tell, that material is sourced. Reginald Perrin 03:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

There are no sources given for Bob Rae's education or for El Farouk Khaki. As there is no ssourcing for the education for the American Mark Warner, or for Chuck Daly etc. In fact, the Warner cited to an article that mentioned that he was born in Trinidad, and cited to a third-party source that documented his educational qualifications. Please restore Mr. Warner's articles forthwith. What specifically is not sourced? I am not trying to attack you personally, I just don't see that the Warner entry is any different from that for his competitors. Why are you holding him to a higher standard? In response to your various posts, further citations were added. Why then would you take the extreme step of requesting the deletion of the entry? --Canam1 10:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I would also add that there are also no citations to the Personal section for Bill Graham, the outgoing politician who Mr. Warner is seeking to replace. By contrast, at the time the article was deleted, there were over twenty references to the Mark Warner article. The Bob Rae references to his personal life are arguably to his own autobiography. How is that more legitimate than the third-party reference used in the Mark Warner article. Please note also that in the discussion of the Bob Rae article, a link is provided to changes made by his wife, no less.... And similarly, on his Facebook site, El Farouk Khaki publicly thanks one of his volunteers for creating and editing his site. Why, in light of this, is the Mark Warner article being singled out for deletion? --Canam1 17:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

With the greatest of respect, I would ask you to reconsider and reverse your request for the deletion of this article. As regards the alleged violation of WP:AUTO & WP:SPAM, where is the substantiation for that? And furthermore, even if it were true, how could that be correct in light of the comments above?

With respect to WP:N, how can the candidate for the governing party be the sole candidate not to be notable enough to be referred to among all the opposition candidates listed along with him in the Toronto Centre article? This does not seem to be particularly neutral, especially in light of the fact that the deleted article referenced impartial third-party materials - including newspaper articles - referring to the facts contained in the article.

In light of the above, will you please undelete the article or return the underlying code so that a new article that complies more with the standard (as opposed to the standard in the Bob Rae, El Farouk Khaki and Bill Graha articles) can be created. --Canam1 18:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't delete the article, didn't put the "speedy deletion" tag on it and have no power to undelete it. I believe there is a deletion review process, I'll look it up and give you the link. Reginald Perrin 23:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The process as I understand it is for me to ask the Administrator who removed it to reconsider. However since you initiated this chain of events [03:39, 3 September 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board‎ (→Requests for comment)], in light of my comments above, I would really hope that you would be willing to ask User:Y to re-consider especially since many of the edits you refer to where additions of sources requested by you. I really would know you justify the demand for sources in the Warner article that are not there for Bill Graham, the American Mark Warner, etc. to say nothing of Bob Rae and El Farouk Khaki specifically in reference to childhood and education. I am honestly stunned by what has happened here. If this is allowed to stand, Wikipedia will really have been damaged in my eyes for the reasons listed above none of which you or User:GreenJoe have attempted to rebut directly. --Canam1 00:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, my view is the article was likely deleted since it wasn't seen as meeting the threshold of notability and concerns about autobiography. I suspect the deleting editor will also direct you to Deletion Review. I'll see about listing something there on your behalf. As for Rae etc, I'd be hard pressed to argue that Bob Rae isn't notable. Khaki seesm to have been referred to a number of times in the press independent of his political candidacy due to his involvement in the liberal Muslim movement. Reginald Perrin 00:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

On autobiography, I would be interested in how you would respond to my note about Rae's wife editing his article (See the Rae discussion) and E Farouk's Facebook admission that his Director of IT for his campaign created his article? As for notability, your comments above suggest that you may not have had a close enough look at the newspaper articles (Globe & Mail, Toronto Star, Financial Times etc.) quoting Warner, his publication of a leading Canadian trade law treatise and citation in a third-party publication on leading lawyers around the world. So in your view this makes Warner less notable than Chris Tindal his Green opponent who is also mentioned in the Toronto Centre article and worthy of an article here? I am really struggling to see how anyone can possibly reagard any of this as neutral, but I don't mean to impugn your motives or those of User:JoeGreen. I just think this was obviously done in haste in thw wee hours of the a.m., and the decent thing to do is to admit the error, and correct it. --Canam1 00:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't delete the Mark Warner article and didn't suggest that it be deleted, another editor, User:GreenJoe, nominated it for "speedy deletion" and a second editor, User:Y, deleted it (see their posts on your page, above, and [1]) so your argument is with them, not me. As for Bob Rae's education, see footnote 7 on the article's page, the citation is given as "Rae, Protest to Power, p. 28." - and yes, an autobiography published by a recognized publishing house is considered a "reliable source". As for Khaki's education, the citation listed in the article as footnote 1 is this Toronto Star piece [2]. I don't know why you insist these references aren't cited but they are. Reginald Perrin 23:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

And without wanting to beat a dead horse, Warner's education was footnoted in the publication listed in the first footnote, and his place of birth footnoted in the Towncrier article. Again all of this begs the question (that you repeatedly decline to answer) how is it that no sourcing of such things is required for Bill Graham, Mark Warner, Steve Gilchrist etc. Isn't it time to simply admit an error here? --Canam1 00:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Chris Tindal does not have his own article, he has a section in a longer article on Green Party candidates. Rae's wife seems to have removed inaccurate material which is a bit different from writing the entire article. As for Khaki, you can bring that up in his discussion page if you wish but as long as the article is written in a neutral tone and everything is cited it's acceptable, as far as I understand policy. You'll also note that Rae's article, in particular, has critical information in it and is not a promotional piece. Evidently some editors feel the Mark Warner article was promotional in nature. Anyway, feel free to argue your points on the deletion page where I have opened an entry on the article. Reginald Perrin 00:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it awfully generous to conclude that Rae's wife's edits were minor correction. Just one example, changing a reference to Cabinet "scandals" to "minor scandals" is minor? Her changes were extensive. Please have a closer look. --Canam1 00:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The Steve Gilchrist article could do with more sources, however, Gilchrist (and Graham) are former cabinet ministers so they definitely are notable. Warner's notability is questionable unless you suggest we should have articles on everyone who has a law degree. Reginald Perrin 00:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I am confused. You make a point about sourcing norms. I reply showing you - with examples - that the norm is not as you state it, then you switch the defense to notability? Which is it? When you began this there was no mentin of notability. As for Warner just being another guy with a law degree, I really think you should have a much closer looks at the references cited in the article and discussed above. --Canam1 00:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. I didn't close it, I didn't delete it. I did go to the review and posted my comments. GreenJoe 01:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope Canam1 realizes that even if DRV succeeds, it'll just end up on AFD, and could still be deleted. GreenJoe 01:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It's okay. Thank you for your help with Mark. GreenJoe 01:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Really, I heard enough about this! Thanks. -- Y not? 00:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thanks for being a super Wikipedia editor, and for your patience with this one matter. GreenJoe 01:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Tory

I just popped back to the article to remove the YouTube reference to the "U of Zero" incident, having learned it might be a copyright vio, when I saw your note about removing the qualifying adjectives. I am content that it should be so, as long as the same standard is applied to the whole of the article. Thanks Bielle 02:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Mark Warner (Canadian politician)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Mark Warner (Canadian politician), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Warner (Canadian politician). Thank you. GreenJoe 20:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warner

Reginald,

Plz see Warner's talk page for discussion. I changed one of your edits so I'll drop this FYI here.

Cheers :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandmasterkush (talk • contribs) 01:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Don Meredith (Canadian Clergyman)

Reggie, I don't seek an extended debate with you, but the site lists one current Member. Who is that? Surprise, it is the Rev. Don! You appear to have done some additional research to show that there may at one point have been other members. Can you point to anything that suggests that there is, in fact, at present more than one member, the Rev. Don? While you are at it, good luck finding any reference on google to the Rev. Don's church in Richmond Hill. Does it exist in fact? Can you offer any independant support for that other than the Rev. Don's own web site? I think the article is timely, and not a bad start at an article, but I sure wish we had more to go on to substantiate some of the claims made on the Rev. Don's web site. While you are at it, perhaps you can find some independant support for the fact that he has actually been ordained? I don't intend a war with you. I know you hold your views tenaciously, but I hope you will consider some of the points above in the spirit in which they are offered. --Kibomt (talk) 03:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I have asked another editor to review the edit history and discussion page for Don Meredith (Canadian clergyman) and our dispute. Can I suggest that we await his input before making further edits to that article. --Kibomt (talk) 01:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The Towncrier aricle does note that there is large LGBT community in Toronto Centre, and also has some mumbo jumbo about no vote coming again, and he would never discriminate and that his personal views are irrelevant. Earth to Rev. Don? Come in, Don? --Kibomt (talk) 01:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


yes, i saw the Xtra article. Should we add the fact that he endorsed the Siskay bill? That appears to have outraged some conservative bloggers. See http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=1129705 --Kibomt (talk) 14:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Your comments to me (Hyperionsteel)

I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of my edits to biographies as attacks. I am careful not to editorialize or use inappropriate language and I always cite specific, credible sources to support my work. Also, I do not delete positive information posted on these bios by others.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC))


I don't think I editorialized in my contributions, but if I did, it was a mistake on my part. I will be careful about this in the future.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 02:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC))

[edit] An Invite to join Saskatchewan WikiProject

Hi, you are graciously extended an invitation to join the Saskatchewan WikiProject! The Saskatchewan WikiProject is a fairly new WikiProject. We are a group of editors who are dedicated to creating, revising, and expanding articles, lists, categories, and Wikiprojects, to do with anything Saskatchewan.
As you have shown an interest in Norval Horner we thought you might like to take an interest in this growing WikiProject.
Please assist with any ongoing requests
You might like to take an extra interest in our To Do list
Another project dedicated to Saskatchewan is the Saskatchewan Roads and Highways Wikiproject
Also, a descendant project for Saskatchewan is the WikiProject Saskatchewan Communities & Neighbourhoods
We look forward to welcoming you to the project! SriMesh | talk 17:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CIC

About this, critics dont have to be notable in order to be included. Please see: WP:N#Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content. So I think we should put it back. By the way, he has his own article as well so he is notable: Ezra Levant. Any comments? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 22:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "not notable enough"? Here's one reference on Bill Clinton. It could be similarly argued that this Robert Longley guy is not notable enough so lets not include his opinion. That wouldnt be right now. The criteria for inclusion is, is this guy someone who fits the bill? Ezra is a (notable, although this is not requred as explained in the link I gave above) "Canadian publisher, columnist, lawyer and political activist". If he says something about the CIC, it matters. I dont know, maybe you dont like this Ezra guy but what he says about the CIC may be true. Do you think its not or you think its not deserving of being included? Also, your example of Bill Clinton is not right. Bill Clinton is a million times more famous and notable than this CIC so its unfair to compare the two, similarly for the global warming example you gave.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 05:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify about notability: I'm saying that your issue of him not being notable enough are not valid because: 1) He is notable enough (has his own article with multiple references). 2) A person is not required to be notable as per WP:N#Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content.
Now you ask, if his comments are 'notable enough' to be included. My response to that is, there is no such requirement in the policies. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 05:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
You've changed statements now. Please clarify what you mean by "Why do you think his actual comments are notable enough to be included in the CIC article" -- in what sense do you mean notable? How are some comments notable and some are not? Give an example of some notable comments so I see what you're trying to say. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 05:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You might be using IE like me. Its a bug in IE due to which sometimes these anchor links dont work. Scroll down on that page and you'll see it. Here it is copy pasted:

Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content
Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles (with the exception of lists of people)[11]). The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines; instead, article content is governed by other policies and guidelines, such as the policy requiring Verifiability and the guidelines covering the use of reliable sources and of trivia sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt57 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
You wrote:
"Levant is not such an important person that any opinion he has merits attention - he's a failed publisher and is now almost a fringe political figure and his comments are purely opinion rather than fact."
Do you think he should not have an article on himself? A failed publisher (and your source is? Does the article mention this? I dont think so otherwise the lead wouldnt say it?) doesnt mean now we discount everything he says. Similarly for being a fringe politician - does that matter? Does your opinion matter here, or should I listen to what the article is saying? Obviously the latter. The article says he's a "Canadian publisher, columnist, lawyer and political activist." -- if you disagree with any of this, you're welcome to go to the article and make changes there. Please keep your personal opinion of the guy to yourself, unless its something that the article mentions or its something you can attribute to a reliable source. Here's the thing now: this is a notable guy in Canadian policitics (otherwise the article could not mention this, so your personal opinion doesnt count here). He's a publisher, columnist (you and me cant be columnists, only some people can. He obvoiusly got to that point by being special in some way). He's a lawer as well (if you ask me for a source on this, refer to the article. They have it in the lead after all so he must be all those things). You ask why should we include Ezra's personal opinion on the the CIC? Why should we include that Robert Longley's personal opinion on the Bill Clinton article? Why should we include Daniel Pipes opinion on the CIC for that matter?
I asked you for something and you didnt respond: You said originally his comments werent notable enough. I asked you to give me an example of a situation where someone's comments are notable enough. Can you give one? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 05:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok I see now that he co founded some magazine which later wasnt profitable. Like I said, that doesnt mean his comments are notable enough. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 05:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Before we go further, can you please tell me without any regrads to this issue (CIC, Ezra) 1) what exactly you mean by someone's comments not being notable enough, and 2) give an example of someone's comments being notable enough. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 05:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
About Felton's BLP issue, that comment is reliably sourced. I dont see why it should be a problem. Bad comments about others are not banned from this site, as long as they adhere to policies. As for you wanting to mention the cartoon related rift between CIC and Ezra, you are more than welcome to do that as long as ofcourse you can find a RS for that. This would be relevant information for both parties. By the way, didnt his business go online? It didnt go away. They just switched to the web. So we cant call them a failed publisher. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 06:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Here (heading: Old testament), there is another problem being reported about the CIC website. Therefore what Ezra is saying is not something that is out of the ordinary. Infact, both of these things should be mentioned together under the "Criticism of the website" section. This will show that there were two seperate incidents where problems were found with the website. The only 'experience' that Ezra needed about this issue is to go their site and make his observations. Do you see that Ezrea's comments coincide with that Old Testament incident? I think this is the main point I'm making here. And whoa, what did I find: the next section is again about the CIC people making some anti Jewish comments and getting slammed for it. See the pattern here? All of this belongs together, infact i would just revert that whole thing. Do you see these 3 incidents are basically saying that same thing that, the CIC is doing anti-Jewish stuff? The whole controversy section goes together. The website criticism goes along very well, with the rest of whats being said there. Again, adding the fact that this Ezra person is all that (publisher, activist, columnist and lawer), makes it fit very well. I could agree with you if he was a Canadian football player, but Ezra is the right man for the job, i.e. he is qualified to make this comment. If you're not comfortable with that, we can say it like "Canadian columnist and publisher Ezra has said that ...". This will show that this is just anyone we're talking about, its someone who fits the bill for making this analysis. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 06:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh, no. A publisher can still mean he publishes things online, unless if we said something like online syndicator or something like that. In any case, he has an online publication so it means he's a publisher. Not that crucial here whether he does it in print or web. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 06:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The comments were made by some anonymous guy ("all muslims should be killed"). I knew it couldnt be Ezrea who said that. Yes he said, the comments should be protected as free speech but he didnt defend the comments on any way. But ok its fine to mention this there since the CIC is involved there. Again, I'll say that his comments on the website, dont come as a surprise since the whole section is about that (anti Jewish, anti Israel stuff). --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 07:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I keep looking at the comments he made and all I can think of is, there's nothing in those comments that requires any sort of special justification or requirement. He's only endorsing the rest of the controversy section. The controversy section says the same things he's saying. It doesnt 'pop out' of the page in any alarming way as in "who is this Ezra guy and how can he say stuff like that?" If anyone has that question and they read the controversy section, they can see what he has observed was most probably true. Thats why I say there's no need of real super scrutiny in this case. They're all same the same thing. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 07:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I will raise the issue on the talk page then later and try to incorporate the link from canada.com you gave as well. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 07:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I can see your point. Actually if you said that in the beginning, this debate could have been shorter. I guess it takes time for us to understand each other's motivations. Yes definitely, I would not put something in that article like "A frog in Canada croaked at the CIC and said it sucked". lol. That would not look good obviously. Anyway, I will reevaluate what you've said and everything else to see if we can include this and if so, in what way. I have a feeling we can include this in a nice way without it looking like propaganda etc, as you said. I'm open to it not being included if it doesnt look appropriate. Here's something else that I found that is interesting: [2]. Its the Muslim Canadian Congress now having a beef with the CIC. I'll check up on this and see if we should include this too. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 07:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] films about the labor movement

Hi Reginald Perrin! I had literally just sat down 5 minutes ago with a filmography to go thru and categorize films, and you beat me to it! good job. --Lquilter (talk) 07:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
Carla's Song
Peggy Nash
National Council of Provinces
Scott-David Allen
Zulu language
Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa
Habib R. Sulemani
Government of Punjab
France Chrétien Desmarais
Waheed Murad
Murray Cotterill
The Navigators (film)
Ingrid Mattson
Deputy President of South Africa
Looks and Smiles
Russ Hiebert
Pakistan Muslim League (Q)
Hina Jilani
Mark Warawa
Cleanup
Honey (2004 film)
Nawaz Sharif
Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain
Merge
Carla Marie Dancey
Mohammed Burhanuddin
Military of Hungary
Add Sources
Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal
Tom Hooper
Zia-ul-Haq's Islamization
Wikify
Asif Ali Zardari
Allan King
Paul Winchell
Expand
Black Consciousness Movement
Children's Film Foundation
Yoine Goldstein

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Candidate Rivals

I see that you have been adding the names of potential rivals in the articles on political candidates. Can I suggest that you reconsider. WRT nominated candidates, we mention rivals in a box, not in the text. I don't think we need to mention potential rivals in the text for unnominated candidates unless there is some special fact that makes such reference particularly relevant. To do so seems to me to add an uncertainty to an uncertainty. I have not deleted these references, but would urge you to reconsider. --Kibomt (talk) 23:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It's sourced material and adds relevant information ie that the nomination is contested rather than unopposed. This sort of thing is quite common in articles about people who are running for a party nomination. Note running for a nomination does not in and of itself make one notable, however, when someone who is already notable runs for a nomination it is relevant to note opposition. Reggie Perrin (talk) 23:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Once again, I disagree, but let's see what others say. It does not appear to be the norm here. --Kibomt (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Apartheid

Please hold on with the redirect / page move. There is a long history to the current name and it shouldn't be moved without more discussion. Zaian (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CNR Radio

Updated DYK query On 24 January 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article CNR Radio, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

As for your peer review, have you ever talked to Bearcat? I know he watches quite a few radio station articles, and if you ask him nicely, he might look at your article and offer a few suggestions. Cheers! -- Reaper X 22:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Warner Candidacy

Reginald, Warner web site was recently updated. The date of the intro letter is January 18th. There are other recent articles that are consistent with Warner's web site and that indicate Warner is considering running. See: http://www.eesti.ca/main.php?op=article&articleid=18750&PHPSESSID=e9424e778d794aed7a95bc14d7544508 (January 17th); http://www.insidetoronto.com/news/villager/article/39252?thePub=villager (January 16th) and http://insidetoronto.com/news/NorthYork/article/39595 (January 18th). On the basis of this, I suggest that you are putting to much freight on one article in the National Post. Also, the quote from the Nat Post does not indicate that Warner has abandoned running. That appears to be the reporter's conclusion. What is the rush in changing this in light of the countervailing sources? I am not seeking a fight with you so I respectfully hope you will consider these comments seriously. --Kibomt (talk) 02:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The National Post story has been corrected. See: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/Story.html?id=275289. I have amended the article. --Kibomt (talk) 13:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Radio station

I've already seen them both, actually. They looked pretty good on first glance, though I'll look at them a bit more closely as well. Bearcat (talk) 23:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 31 January 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Independent Learning Centre, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Principal Secretary (India)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Principal Secretary (India), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Principal Secretary (Canada). It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 05:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Quote from Islam Online in Mohamed Elmasry article

You were right - the link was broken - and it was probably my fault since I first posted this citation. Thanks for pointing it out.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC))

[edit] This Magazine

And the difference between "left-wing" and "progressive" would be...what, exactly? Bearcat (talk) 02:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union

I have been reading some of your work with the labour movement in Newfoundland and the main characters, excellent work. I'll research the Encyclopaedia of Newfoundland and Labrador for any new information I could add to articles. Thanks, --HJKeats (talk) 12:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


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

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Fpu.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 15:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting your assistance

Hi Reginald- A little while back you converted my original Colonial Conference page into Colonial Conference (New Jersey) by renaming it, which is absolutely fine. But I was wondering if you'd help me out. I created a page today called "List of 2000 point, 1000 rebound men's college basketball players" but realized it should be titled "List of 2000 point, 1000 rebound college men's basketball players". It makes much more sense that way (semantically anyway). I don't know how to re-title already existing Wikipedia articles. Do you think you could rename it for me? I'd appreciate it a lot. Thanks. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh ok I didn't know it was that easy. Thanks! Jrcla2 (talk) 02:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John Gilbert Higgins

Updated DYK query On 22 February 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Gilbert Higgins, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Feb March Saskatchewan Newsletter Award Announcement

I Love Saskatchewan Award
The editor will receive this award on their user page, as well as an announcement in the WikiProject Saskatchewan Newsletter: Volume 2, Issue 3 - March 2008 newsletter !!!
  • Thank you for your several contributions and your request for peer review! SriMesh | talk 02:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Raul Castro

Mistake noted: I'd assumed the positions were all interlinked. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Current Events Barnstar

The Current Events Barnstar
For your work with articles related to the 2006-2008 Cuban transfer of presidential duties, I award you this barnstar. Thank you, and salute! JeffBillman (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit]

WikiProject Saskatchewan Newsletter: Volume 2, Issue 3 - March 2008

Would you like to keep receiving this newsletter? This edition was delivered as you name was mentioned as the recipient of an award. SriMesh | talk 02:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Toronto Centre election

Thanks for the link to the Elections Canada site. There are at least two other articles (Toronto Centre and Neorhino.ca) that list Baig's candidacy; I'll remove those links. There are two recent articles ([3] and [4]) that state that he is a candidate. The Elections Canada site should be checked in the next few days to see if it's updated, and maybe a note should be made that Baig was reported to be a candidate? Stearnsbrian (talk) 19:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Donald MacDonald

Hi, what is your source of the death of Donald MacDonald? Without a reliable reference, the death announcement may be reverted. Regards, WWGB (talk) 23:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Order of precedence

I noticed you removed the Queen from all the OoPs in Canada. While that matches the list published by Heritage Canada, I thought I would give rationale as to why that is incorrect:

a) All OoPs have the LG has having the highest precedence. This is because the LG is the representative of the Crown and all functions of the government derive their power from the Crown. However..

b) The Queen will always have precedence in any official event, be it federal or provincial as the Queen is the Head of State and GG/LGs are her PERSONAL representatives in Canada.

"The Governor General, under all circumstances, should be accorded precedence immediately after the Sovereign."[5]

"At provincial functions where federal, foreign or diplomatic dignitaries are present, circumstances may dictate that provisions of the Table of Precedence of Canada or international rules of protocol be observed thus giving these dignitaries precedence over certain provincial categories."[6][7]

My speculation on not including the Queen in the OoPs is because she's not here very often and when she does, Federal protocol kicks in and she will automatically assume the first position in the OoP. This has been the practice as recent as Her Majesty's Royal Visit to Sask. and BC.--Cahk (talk) 05:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

fair enough --Cahk (talk) 19:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
"On federal-provincial occasions... Her Majesty The Queen has precedence over everyone. When present on provincial occasions the Governor General and the Prime Minister take precedence after the Lieutenant Governor and the Premier respectively. [8]--Cahk (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I've emailed Heritage Canada and GG, see what happens.--Cahk (talk) 22:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
"Her Majesty takes precedence over everyone when she is in Canada. Whether the Governor General takes precedence over a Lieutenant Governor or not depends on the occasion. In constitutional matters, the Lieutenant Governor of the province has precedence as the provinces are co-sovereign with the federal government. The Lieutenant Governor would always stand to one side if Her Majesty wished to deliver a Throne Speech or address parliament. If however, both the Lieutenant Governor and the Governor General attend an event together, the Lieutenant Governor has precedence if it is a provincially hosted event and the Governor General has precedence if hosted federally. Throughout the precedence determination, there is always room for courtesies where one or the other may request a change in precedence between the two." Private Secretary to the Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia --Cahk (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Other sources: [9],[10] --Cahk (talk) 23:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
More: [11], [12]--Cahk (talk) 00:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Johannes Gerhardus Strijdom

An editor has nominated Johannes Gerhardus Strijdom, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johannes Gerhardus Strijdom and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 18:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Ashley Alexandra Dupré

An editor has nominated Ashley Alexandra Dupré, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley Alexandra Dupré and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 01:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Bruno

Please go to Talk:Joseph Bruno and scroll down to the bottom of the page. There you will see my explanation for removing any reference to Joseph Bruno being "Acting Lieutenant Governor." --SMP0328. (talk) 02:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Tindal

Let's just say the only reason I haven't already moved it is that I didn't feel like subjecting myself to the drama that typically entails if you merge an unelected candidate during the election campaign. I mean, hell, I once got accused of being unacceptably NDP-biased for removing copyvio from a new Saskatchewan Party MLA's article. I wouldn't be opposed to merging El-Farouk Khaki and Don Meredith, too, for what it's worth, although they do both have somewhat stronger claims to being notable independently of their candidacy. Bearcat (talk) 01:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of El-Farouk Khaki

An editor has nominated El-Farouk Khaki, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/El-Farouk Khaki and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 15:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 21 March 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ashley Alexandra Dupré, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--

Nesodak (talk) 18:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 22 March 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Saskatchewan Doctors' Strike, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Wizardman 02:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The DYK Medal
Looks like you deserve one of these...nice work! Nesodak (talk) 02:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re Merle Terlesky

Hi Reginald Perrin:

To me, your question of whether what is on Wikipedia creates more risk than what is on the other website is not the point.

Maybe it does, maybe it does not.

The person has asked for the photo to be removed. We don't know why they asked. Maybe the high profile of Wikipedia creates a greater risk. Maybe there is no actual risk but the person is paranoid. We don't know the facts and we should not waste time discussing the risk level.

If they had asked that Wikipedia be shut down that would be different.

They apparently asked that the photo be removed. What is the "cost" to Wikipedia if we do this?

The article is of fairly minor importance. In fact, it was proposed for deletion in October. There are many BLP articles without photos.

How much difference does it make if one fairly minor article does not have a photo?

It does not make a pinch of coon dirt worth of difference.

For the sake of this totally insignificant issue, editors are guessing about whether there is a safety risk. If by chance there is a risk then fiddling around and declining to remove the image could be a major lawsuit issue. The "value" of keeping the photo in place is not worth the risk to Wikipedia that is involved.

That's how I see it.

Cheers, Wanderer57 (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CfD nomination of Category:People with a single name

Category:People with a single name, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sam Yuchtman

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Sam Yuchtman, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Taser and Taser controversy articles

I responded to your suggestion of an RFC at Talk:Taser#Suggested merge with Taser controversy again. Flatscan (talk) 03:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Paul Sauvé.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Hi Reginald Perrin!
We thank you for uploading Image:Paul Sauvé.jpg, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 16:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


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

Image Copyright problem

Hi Reginald Perrin!
We thank you for uploading Image:Fpu.jpg, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 19:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Michener & Ont post-secondary

Hi,

Could you offer your opinion on the The Michener Institute and the Template:Ont_post-secondary?

GreenJoe and I disagree on it. Discussion is on the Talk page of the template (Template_talk:Ont_post-secondary).

Thanks, Nephron  T|C 02:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 5/17 DYK

Updated DYK query On 17 May 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Thomas Scott (Manitoba politician), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bedford 22:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bearcat?

Would you support an RFC on him? I replied on his talk page about the RFC thing. GreenJoe 17:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I've tried something like that previously, but he never replied. GreenJoe 18:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Taser / Excited delirium

Thank you for doing some much-needed cleanup work on Taser. However, I feel that the Taser#"Excited delirium" section you added to Taser is undue weight – used incorrectly Flatscan (talk) 17:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC). Excited delirium has its own article, which you edited and {{main}} linked, and is mentioned (perhaps too briefly) in Taser controversy#Safety. The first source you added links excited delirium to in-custody deaths and alleged police brutality in general, not Tasers. Am I correct in guessing that your second source refers to the Braidwood Inquiry? It's probably notable that Taser International refers to excited delirium in its advertising and product literature, especially if it's done misleadingly. However, the mention alone may not be uncommon for a company supplying control products to law enforcement. ZARC, a pepper spray manufacturer, makes this paper available on its website, which I found at Talk:Excited delirium#Plagiarism/POV.

I thought I should drop you a note. We can discuss on our personal Talk pages, or we can start a new section at Talk:Taser, whichever you prefer. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 04:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. You are correct that "excited delirium" did not appear in the Taser article. As I stated above, I think that the section you added is undue weight – used incorrectly Flatscan (talk) 17:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC). A section or subsection in Taser controversy would be more appropriate. I read the linked article before leaving my first note, and I stand by my comment that a strong link between excited delirium and Tasers specifically was not made. If Taser International is being accused of misleading advertising that invokes "excited delirium", that is certainly worth mentioning in Taser controversy. I will note my objections on the Talk page.
I noticed that you are revisiting the merge discussion at Talk:Taser#Criticism. I will file the RfC that you suggested previously. Flatscan (talk) 01:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I see that you have filed an RfC. In the interests of keeping discussion together, I will place my future comments there. Flatscan (talk) 03:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
As you have pointed out, I invoked WP:UNDUE where it did not apply. I have struck through my mentions of it. Flatscan (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Reliable source.

[edit] The Hockey Theme

  "You don't only need a source but a Reliable source and blogs are not considered reliable sources as a rule, particularly if it a blog that belongs to the editor since that really is Original Research. Reggie Perrin (talk) 00:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)"

Isn't an associate professor in computer science who specializes in IP a reliable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmgerman (talk • contribs)

I've replied on your talk page. Reggie Perrin (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)