User talk:CJCurrie

• See User talk:CJCurrie/Archive 1 for 2004 correspondence.
• See User talk:CJCurrie/Archive 2 for 2005 correspondence.
• See User talk:CJCurrie/Archive 3 for 2006 correspondence.

Mark Lemire

I had to stub the article again. I hope you can help with it.--Jimbo Wales 02:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Socialist Party of British Columbia

I don't see your fingerprints on this article, which concerns me. They should be there. I have been trying to clean this dong's breakfast up. Your contributions would help improve this and give me more confidence in the validity of the article. Happy new year. Ground Zero | t 18:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Peter Kouba

Thanks for the heads up on the Kouba article. Incidently, penny for your thoughts regarding the current saga concerning the Marc Lemire article? AnnieHall 06:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Isarig

Have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Incivility, disruptive editing, and stalking-like behavior from Isarig. What do you think? Abu ali 21:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Cheri DiNovo

Just by the way, you put the sprotect notice on the page, but then didn't actually sprotect it...so our anon friend got another one in. Bearcat 05:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Dion

You probably won't be surprised to know that I'm already aware of the issue. And I do share your concerns. I was actually about to say something a day or two ago but didn't because GD posted that a tag was better than a removal, even if it was problematic. I'm not really familiar with WP policies in that regard so I just let it go, waiting for Eric to post some sort of defence. And like I said before, I hate to step in the middle of your disputes with GD. =) --JGGardiner 08:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Church/Peter Murphy

Sorry--didn't mean to assume a lack of knowledge of surrealism. I never caught a reference to Peter Murphy in the song, but if there is a history there (i.e. animosity between Kilbey and Murphy), then maybe it fits. I don't feel particularly strongly about it, and after thinking about it, it really doesn't hurt to be on the list. Freshacconci 17:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Please use the + tab when starting a new conversation on talk pages

When you want to start a new conversation on a talk page or a page like the Village Pump, please use the + tab rather than simply editing the last section. I was thinking that you were replying to a post I made. Using the + tab will create less confusion. Thanks. Will (Talk - contribs) 00:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Michael Prue

While I agree with you, I just did a lookup on the anon's IP number, and guess where it resolves to? APNIC. Which means, in a nutshell, that it's most likely the same person as our beloved DiNovo vandal (especially since the same person has also made edits to Sylvia Watson), and that it's very unlikely that any amount of discussion or reversion is going to make them settle for any version of the article that isn't theirs. I honestly don't know what the best way is to handle this, but we know from experience that editblocks and reversions aren't going to work.

I'd suggest maybe going back to your more thorough wording, but say that the incident "was characterized as a smear campaign" if it can be externally attributed to a viable source. Bearcat 03:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The user has never been blocked; the fact that it's a different IP number almost every time they show up has prevented blocking from being a viable solution. And we're also not allowed to put permanent blocks on dynamic IP numbers anyway; we can at most put a 24-hour or 48-hour block. Bearcat 03:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Stalking

Quit following me around; quit looking for any opportunity to support someone who opposes me no matter how bad an editor it is; and quit e-mailing people asking them to post comments against me. Your support for someone who reverted five times in 50 minutes is astonishing, and for you to chastise any admin for reverting takes the biscuit given you're one of the worst offenders. I'm serious, CJC. I don't want to see you following me around any more. If you continue, I'll begin dispute resolution. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• I obviously disagree with the sentiments of the previous message. For my response, click here. CJCurrie 19:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Rigby/Partington

Well, technically, he served -one- day on Regional Council as a St. Catharines representative, the day they elected the Regional Chair. From that day forward, he was no longer a St. Catharines representative, but rather the chair for the entire region. Almas was filled to replace Partington, and then Rigby replaced Almas as Partington was re-selected as regional chair. So yes, Partington was a regional councillor, but for only one day after the 2003 election, and Almas replaced him for the rest of the 2003-2006 term. Partington was still regional chair up until the election, he was still technically regional chair during the re-selection of him as regional chair this past December.

Basically, to sum it up, it is in fact more correct to refer to Almas as Rigby's predecessor, not Partington. Partington's predecessor would Debbie Zimmerman, who was regional chair before him (and now a regional councillor)

Snickerdo 02:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Green Party candidates, 2003 Manitoba provincial election

I've contributed some comments on the article's talk page that you may wish to review. This is not the first time someone has tried to radically narrow the definition of politician to only those they consider ‘viable’ or whatever. Sigh. —GrantNeufeld 01:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Raymond Samuels

CJ, why did you remove the lawsuit stuff from the Raymond Samuels Page? It was very well sourced and very relevant, I think it met the BLP (is that what it's called?) guidelines. The lawyers were involved and never said to remove it, I think it should go back in, it's relevant. Technicalglitch 04:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

re: your reply just now, I don't agree. I don't think you have the authority to be the last word on this article. Others have disagreed with you on this too. With all due respect, you value internet based research far more than actual court documents, and this is backwards. The lawsuit material is much better sourced than the other stuff in the aticle. Please put it back. I'll do so tomorrow if you don't.

Legislative Assembly of Ontario: new website is in development

Public release: March 2007.--anon-23 January 2007

Joe Volpe

I'll try to wade into this in the next couple of days, but as with other disputes, it is difficult to join in when they've been going on so long. Regards, Ground Zero | t 06:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

New Antisemitism

Hey CJ, quick question: can you give me the long and short of the status of the lead on New Antisemitism? I raised an issue at the bottom of the talk page, to which Slim suggests I'm opening an old can of worms, with a mediation and months of bickering etc. Just curious about your take since I see you were involved -- if you wouldn't mind just letting me know, I don't want to start a fight or anything. Many thanks, Mackan79 19:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I checked it out and fixed it. Thanks for the great work, Mackan79 17:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Harper edit

I tried to add that bit during a meeting and struggled to come up with not too POV wording, which was hard considering how disasterous and episode that whole thing was. You did much better. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Markdsgraham (talk • contribs) 00:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

Define a secondary source

Or even better, point me towards a definition of it as accepted by Wikipedia. Technicalglitch 01:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yisroel Dovid Weiss

There was nothing unfair in the original article on Yisreol Dovid Weiss. Those unflattering facts about Yisreol Dovid Weiss should not be deleted simply because you think its not even handed, just like facts concerning Hitler should not be removed because they are unflattering. Your concerns. provided they are rooted in fact, ought to be discussed. If you don't know the relevant facts, it is advisable that you first learn them and THEM decide to make edits by people who are apparently fluent on the issues. Thank you.

Alert

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manitoba Marijuana Party. thanks. Ground Zero | t 21:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

blacklisted hyperlink on Samuels page

CJ, I was trying to re-edit the Samuels page to reinstate the "other" section, and it won't let me save it as there's a "blacklisted hyperlink" somewhere on the page. I'm guessing it must be one of the sex-related links from your sections that you wrote, can you check it out? I can't figure it out. It's not something I'm introducing as I tried both adding it to the current version and reverting to a previous version, neither work, it's gotta be something forbidden that's already there. Technicalglitch 20:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Jack Layton

Hi CJ. Please see the articles on Stephen Harper and Paul Martin. It seems that party leaders have a small flag next to their date of birth in the infobox - probably to spruce it up. If this isn't the case and it's just PMs that have it, feel free to edit it out. Thanks and have a great evening!Homagetocatalonia 04:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It was the flag when the individual was born. That was the case with the Stephen Harper and Paul Martin articles. I just applied their policy onto those boxes. Homagetocatalonia 13:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Joe Volpe

I am trying to move along the three points of dispute at Talk:Joe Volpe. You and GoldDragon have come to a consensus on the Apotex donation, so I have implemented that change. There remain two outstanding issues. I would appreciate your attention to them so that we can resolve them and move on. Regards, Ground Zero | t 09:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Donald Pennell

In '05, you created the article on Donald Pennell in which you stated that a) he fought in the Second World War, and b) he was 49 in 1987. I think you see the problem, yes? DS 15:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Please reconstruct

You have dleted an article with complete disregard to due process. I was in the middle of working on this article. Please reconstruct it, so I can continue. If you want to put it up for deletion please follow process and get consensus. Thanks. Zeq 16:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Children of the Prime Ministers of Canada

Hi CJCurrie. We really need your help to keep this article. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Children of the Prime Ministers of Canada -- Earl Andrew - talk 01:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, they've put Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parents of the Prime Ministers of Canada on AfD as well. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Rachel Marsden

Hi CJCurrie - You reverted my edit to the Rachel Marsden article, stating that the last edit was not appropriate. I would appreciate it if you can explain in more detail why my edit was not appropriate. Thanks. -- Jreferee 03:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits (copied from Rachel Marsden)

An editor with no prior record of activity on this page (AFAIK) posted the "prohibited" version of the Marsden article a few minutes ago. I will assume that this editor was unfamiliar with the Arbcomm decision, which I have since forwarded to him.

I have reverted his changes, and I plan to delete and recreate the page *in its current form* after sending this post. Given this page's complicated history, removing the "prohibited" version from the documentary record seems to be a sensible precaution.

Please inform me if you disagree with my decision. CJCurrie 03:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Because of my significant involvement with BLPs and experience in writing BLPs, I was asked to review the Marsden situation. After my review of the situation, I rewrote the Marsden article using 45 separate Wikipedia sources without reference to any version of the Marsden article. Your statement that I posted the "prohibited" version factually is not true. The article had a significant amount of information and I am unsure how you could have reviewed each piece of information in the article in the context of the ArbCom decision in the less than two minutes that you took to revert the article. Item 9 of the ArbCom decision cites to a negatively biased version of the Marsden article as an example as to what the Marsden article should not be. Your deletion of the page's complicated history affects the ArbCom decision by deleting the negatively biased version to which ArbCom desired to have editors review as part of improving the Marsden article. Since the "prohibited" version was not posted as you stated, your removing the "prohibited" version from the documentary record seems premature and something ArbCom could have done had they so desired. -- Jreferee 04:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi CJC -- in as friendly a way as possible: I disagree. I've posted a message on the RM talk page -- let's take further discussion over there. Sdedeo (tips) 00:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I support what CJC did here. I've only looked quickly at the version Jreferee put up but what I've seen was problematic. I'm not aware that the ArbCom said any particular version had to be available for general review. They said any admin could reduce the article to a stub or delete it if there were BLP problems, and there clearly were. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi SV -- are you sure you saw Jreferee's version? AFAICT from Jreferee's comments, it was only up for a few minutes. Sdedeo (tips) 00:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I looked at it after it was deleted. I only glanced, but the lead was completely unacceptable. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

NDP Support of Income Trust Tax Changes

I would like to add the following text to the article under the header: Conservative Minority Government.

Jack Layton and the NDP continue to support the new proposed rules for income trusts introduced by the Conservatives October 31, 2006. The immediate result of the change in tax policy was a loss to Canadian investors of $20 Billion, the largest ever loss attributed to a change in government policy . According to the Canadian Association of Income Trust Investors some 2.5 million Canadian investors were effected by the change in Income Trust Policy

My intial attempt to insert this new information was reverted by you. I would like an explanation why. DSatYVR 06:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply at User_talk:DSatYVR#NDP. I understand the requirement to present material in a neutral and objective manner, but all facts need to be presented around an issue. Feel free to add any cited information you think is relevant to the discussion. Is Wikipedia a platform for promoting political parties? No. Its a place to present a 'cited' history around an issue, whether it flatters the individual politician or not. Regards, DSatYVR 06:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional comments on my talk page. I understand your desire not to portray Jack Layton in a unflattering way however the NDP does support the change in Canadian Income Trust Taxation as proposed by the Conservatives and this has resulted in certain effects on 'hard-working' Canadians as I have outlined. I've cited my sources. But here is one more Layton's voting record on Trust Taxation vote. Why should this information be suppressed? I invite you to research the NDP record on this issue and add content that meets wiki guidelines. Suppressing factual information just because you don't like it diminishes your contribution to Wikipedia IMO.DSatYVR 07:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit Summaries

I know the two of us haven't always agreed. :) However, I would appreciate it if you would stop making talk page arguments in your edit summaries. I know that you and GD are having a protracted fight, but you're not doing anything positive by dragging it into the edit summaries. I will make the same remark to GD. Alan.ca 07:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

re david miller-(According to Porter Airlines,as reported by 680 News in Jan/07,Porter has created 225 jobs as well as spinoff jobs and will continue to create further jobs as Porter expands to New York and Chicago)

It is an extension of what Buzz Hargrove is saying in the same paragraph,i am not the one who opened the door on the island airport here but who ever did write it left the door open for additional comment.What is so bad about creating 225 jobs for the city?.I am going to continue to add it to the page,you and others can leave it or delete it.If you don't like it remove any reference to the island airport from the page. In the paragraph Buzz Hargrove says that Porter will create jobs,I am expanding on this.It has nothing to do with my POV.If you are the writer on this page remove what Hargrove says and I will cease to edit this point.If not it is fair to add this to the paragraph.myfro

AfD Progressive Bloggers

You have edited the article Progressive Bloggers. This article is currently being considered for deletion under the wp:afd process. You may contribute to this discussion by commenting here. Thank you.Edivorce 23:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

New Democratic Party candidates, 1990 Manitoba provincial election

An article that you created, New Democratic Party candidates, 1990 Manitoba provincial election, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Democratic Party candidates, 1990 Manitoba provincial election Thank you. SkierRMH 20:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Marsden nomination offer

I'm not sure what that line is supposed to be about. A Conservative party official offers a nomination, then withdraws the offer. Is that supposed to say something about Marsden? Is Wikipedia sure the Conservative official had the right to make the offer? I just don't get why that can be considered an encyclopedic fact. Alaric the Goth

Why is it significant enough to mention? In what way? I just don't get the spin of this. If she's not fit to run for the Conservatives, why did they ask her? It seems more insultiung than anything. You answered my question by stating an opinion. Alaric the Goth

I don't agree it was "scouting". It seems like a rash offer (perhaps, if the person making it was qualified to do so), taken back, and nothing of real substance. It seems like it's supposed to be something negative, since it's listed with her conviction. Alaric the Goth 23:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Antisemitism

Hi CJCurrie,

I was wondering if you have some free time helping with Antisemitism article(in which case I would be thankful). If not, that's perfectly okay.

I have been involved in that article for awhile and I think the Islam section is very POV. I think the section would not become neutral unless several new editors join in. There is a dispute here [1].

Thanks,--Aminz 06:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks --Aminz 03:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Does only part of the edit constitute a 3RR violation?

That is fine, I am always up for third parties and mediators. I would however like to explain something. Saying that it is "not fair" because he has also said that about Christianity does not mean anything, and I know you have been here long enough to know that. The quotation is also sourced by a reliable source, and I also know that you know that. That is a huge part of the opposing argument. Erasing it is not only a violation of NPOV but a vandalism violation since you knowingly remove a sourced quotation. Aside from that, there is a world of difference between a Christian leader saying that Christianity has had a monopoly on whatever, and a Christian leader saying that Jews thought they had a monopoly. Big difference, plus that does not even include the Jesus part, nor does it make the statement removable. Are you saying that the people who were offended should not be because he said something similar about Christianity? If so, fine, but that does not change the fact that *they were* offended about that controversial statement. --Shamir1 04:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Alithien or User:Stevertigo. However, I know that Stevertigo is already involved in a several mediations. I would go with Alithien. --Shamir1 05:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I know, but i was just saying that Stevertigo last I checked was quite busy. I understand its not mediation. --Shamir1 05:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I simply just do not understand any reason not to include sourced material. I've been here for a while, and I know that although the Hartford source would be preferred, it is not necessary so long as another reliable source has published that event. --Shamir1 01:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Response:

• The Hartford material could very easily have been taken completely out of context. It's not appropriate for us to present the quote without having a better idea of what Tutu meant.
  • I edit at Wikipedia and was also involved in collecting quotes from foreign leaders for the Pope Benedict XVI Islam controversy. I, and other editors, used regular news sites. The AP, Sydney Morning Herald, Washington Post, Jerusalem Post.... Quotes are already selected for the news site, and were usually just pasted into the article or shortened even more. Not once did any of us editors have to retrieve the complete speech, not once. And we all used reliable sources. Unless you can find a source that even mentions the idea that that line was taken out of context, then that edit stand. Never working at Wikipedia have I heard such a baseless excuse for removal.
• I'll reiterate that Tutu has used the "monopoly on God" line with reference to Christianity as well. We shouldn't present one quote without also presenting the other.
  • I'll reiterate that he is not Jewish! It is totally and completely and utterly different when a Christian leader says that about Jews. Imagine a Jew telling a Jewish stereotype joke to another Jew, that is no big deal. No imagine a Muslim telling an Jewish stereotyoe joke to a Jew, that probably wouldn't be too funny. Not that any of this is irrelevant but it appears hard for you to understand. Anyway, you will need a something that draws that comparison, otherwise it does not stand.
• I'm not opposed to including the "Jewish arrogance" line per se, but the Holocaust quote could easily have been taken out of context as well. The presentation does not seem at all fair to the subject. CJCurrie 02:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Not only do I not see how these quotes can be taken out of context, but it doesnt matter. I dont see how it is presented badly when almost all in quotations. You can bring something up in specific and that can be handled. Unfortuantely, life is not fair, and it is not good form to simply hide away his controversial comments. --Shamir1 07:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• The problem is that we don't have any quote from Tutu vis-a-vis the Temple, nor even the original newspaper report. Perhaps more importantly, we don't have any evidence that Tutu's comments about the temple were a source of controversy among Hartford's Jewish community. All we have at present is a summary (possibly selective) on the website of someone who hates Tutu, and a passing reference in the Jerusalem Post. There's nothing to indicate that this is important.
  • The JPost article lists it as one of several controversial statements. A website of someone who hates Tutu? Thats a pretty strong allegation. And even if he does, obviously that is his reason. Secondly, if "all" we have is the Post article, then that is all we need anyway. All news articles are references. Stick with the rules.

• I don't need anything that "draws the comparison". Tutu has used the "monopoly on God" line with reference to both Christianity and Judaism, and the comments may be referenced together accordingly. The rest of your comments are, in fact, irrelevant.
  • Yes u do... and more correctly, it was about Jews rather than Judaism. And the fact that he has used that line when referring to Christianity does not excuse any offense. And yes my comments were irrelevant (as I already said) but it was just to explain to you the huge difference between a Christian leader saying that about Christianity, and a Christian leader saying that about Jews. The fact that you do not seem to be able to see that just boggles me.

• Context does matter, and there's little purpose in including a potentially inflammatory statemet that may have been taken out of its proper, etc. I'll have to review the AJC's summary of this matter, but I'm not convinced the entire exchange is significant enough to mention. CJCurrie 08:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Nothing is potentially inflammatory, these are his words. So long as it is relevant, and each statement is already quite brief, then it is fine to mention. --Shamir1 20:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

How do I request a block?

How does someone block this IP: Special:Contributions/70.73.76.185? It seems like a low risk action because it only seems be to used by the same idjiot. Deet 01:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Yisroel Dovid Weiss

hi, just in case yr interested, put in an rfc on the above. ben  ⇒ bsnowball  19:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Attribution#Role of truth

I like your comment in the archives:

If Wikipedia ever reaches the point where "false, but attributable" information is allowed to be presented as a simple matter of fact, then we'll have become the monstrosity our that enemies make us out to be. CJCurrie 06:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly the point I'm trying to make. --Coppertwig 00:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You might (or might not) be interested that I've quoted one of your edits at Wikipedia talk:Attribution#It doesn't look to me as if there was a consensus. in relation to discussion at Wikipedia talk:Attribution#Role of truth. Also, you might find this humourous: [2] --Coppertwig 00:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Pallywood

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors on Pallywood. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

i appreciate your attempts at wikifying and improving the quality of the pallywood article, however, it would seem that both you and ChrisO have "taken the article hostage", not allowing anyone else to adding deeply relevant information. your initial attempts at deleting the article (whiche failed), and your insessant insistance on controlling the material that is inserted as if it's false and unrelated (did you even see the film "jenin jenin"? or the counter film made by pierre rehov?) are being the point of good editing and at the point of "controllism" over the article. i suggest, now that your work with the article is done, that you allow for other people with valid expertieze on the subject to introduce what materials they see as extremely relevant - frontpagemag was simply reporting on the "jenin, jenin" film and while the word 'pallywood' is not mentioned in the frontpage mag, it is (the film) mentioned at the seconddraft and it is also commonly reffered to as pallywood by people who reffer to "pallywood productions". Jaakobou 08:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: jayjg: I'm not entirely sure

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt per WP:AGF. I'll keep an eye of him and see if he does anything else.--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 13:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, seeing as how he's an admin who has semi-protected his talk page (is that allowed?), I'm afraid it may fall on deaf ears [3]. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 14:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

He removed the comment: [4]

Would you mind placing it there? If he removes your notice as well, that will make him elligible for RfC.

"Before requesting community comment, at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem."

I was about to make another section on his talk page saying "your "big yellow box" is not official policy." But it seems pointless.

Thanks. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 15:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This is interesting. Kirbytime objecting to personal attacks? Kirby, could you explain the "GTFO" comment you left me here. GTFO means "Get the Fuck out", as I discovered from the Internet. Also, you said to Noogster "you dont own the fucking template", while leaving a heading of WP:DICK in the Title of your message. Thats why I was surprised to see you complaining of Personal attacks. Please refrain from further personal attacks and remain civil.--Matt57 15:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Matt, you are entirely unrelated to the issue. Also, your allegations that I may have done a personal attack are totally irrelevant to whether or not jayjg has done personal attacks.--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 16:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Kirbytime, if I see you engaging in personal attacks again, please beware that I will report that and perhaps you may be blocked for a certain time, so please remain civil to other users. --Matt57 17:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Your comments

I'd like to draw your attention to these comments: [5] When an editor insists that the Holocaust is merely an "allegation" or a "political epithet", and I merely note that, do you really think that could in any way possibly amount to a violation of WP:NPA? Please quote the section you think applies, if you do. Or, if you weren't aware of those edits, perhaps you should retract your question. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• For my response, click here. CJCurrie 21:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Repeating his comments really isn't stating anything about him, is it? If his own comments give you a bad impression of him, well... Also, it's hardly clear he was using a reductio ad absurdum argument, and his later comments tend to compound the problem. See, for example, User_talk:Quadell#Re:_jayjg. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I know no such thing, and I didn't "summarize" his remarks. It's almost unbelievable to me that you would make that accusation. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Read this. Is Quadell "unbelievable" as well? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• For my response, click here. CJCurrie 22:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Moved section

I notcied you were trying to post a comment at the WP:RM page. Jayjg moved the entry out of the section where I had originally listed it, into the section where it now sits. Is this right? I ask only because I'm unfamiliar with the process and considering his deep partisan involvement against a name change, I'm wondering if his actions were appropriate. Thanks. Tiamut 21:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC

Thanks for explaining, I just wanted to be sure. I didn't notice it was you that made the change and don't know the policies so I thought I'd ask, since you seem to be a more experienced editor. I appreciate your clarification of procedure there. Tiamut 21:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Your note

Notwithstanding that I may vandalize it myself one day, you're welcome. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Your reverting

Could you please read source material before beginning another of your series of reverts? You're changing what the source says, and the reverting is pointless and time-consuming. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That's why it's there! That's what the article is about, for goodness sake! And you keep changing what the Toronto person said. She wasn't talking about Concordia, at least not according to Gerstenfeld. CJC, you MUST stop this extreme POV editing. Every single article or edit that draws attention to left-wing antisemitism has you trying to whitewash it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Tell me where the source says this: "In the aftermath of the Globe and Mail advertisement, the communications director of the University of Toronto stated that some incidents at the Concordia protest "could be viewed as anti-Semitic." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• • For my response, click here. CJCurrie 04:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, calmly of course, but could you answer the question, please? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• • For my response, click here. CJCurrie 04:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Jews can be antisemitic just like anyone else. The point is whether the source includes it as an example of antisemitism, and he clearly does, given that's what his article is about. Whether you agree is not relevant. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• • For my response, click here and here. CJCurrie 04:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Sarah

Hey CJ Currie, whatever happened to Sarah Ewart? Has her account been deleted? - Finnegans wake 01:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I can explain. Finnegans, I'll email you. Kla'quot 05:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Grant Devine

Greetings. As an experienced Wikipedian and someone obviously heavily involved in Canadian politics pages, I'd like your advice as to how to handle an edit dispute I'm currently involved in concerning the Grant Devine article. A look at the second-last section of the talk page will show you what I'm dealing with. Thanks! --Hiddekel 03:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think many of the disputes could be resolved if we had some consistency in what is and what isn't to be said about politicians, and that is, more than anything, a structural issue with Wikipedia that probably has also been dealt with extensively in other wikis, concerning, perhaps, George Bush. Perhaps we can should be looking there for guidance as to how the community has dealt with the issue.

Basically what we have is one camp who wants to tar Grant Devine/Brad Wall with (sourced and referenced) bad stuff, but goes and eliminates the (sourced and referenced) bad stuff written about Lorne Calvert and other figures in NDP administrations. And we have another camp that does the opposite, and an edit war is the ultimate result. 70.73.4.197 21:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think many of the disputes could be resolved if ...

if 70.73.4.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 70.64.4.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) were permanently blocked for long-term disruptive editing. The articles would be fine if neither took part. The two have been warned repeatedly over feuding - via hostile edit summaries, unexplained reverts, etc - and then just carry on doing the same. As others have said, it ought to be long since obvious to both that their approach is ineffective in achieving their aim (unless that aim is continuing timewasting mayhem). Tearlach 17:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The articles would not be 'fine' if those users were blocked. Stop trying to impose your own biased POV Tearlach, its one thing to be sympathetic to the NDP, its quite another to make veiled administrative threats simply because there are others with whom you disagree. Now lets look at how this stuff is resolved for other controversial politicians and proceed along a similar path. 70.73.4.197 19:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Stephane Dion

Yikes. So the Dion article is a going concern? Watchsmart 12:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)