Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 19:17, 7 February 2014

FLRC

I have nominated List of tallest buildings in Toronto for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

Port Hope Simpson

Port Hope Simpson historic logging town - fishing, pottery, retail & public services, timber products, transportation - for full listing? llewelynpritchard

Ontario Universities' Application Centre - Conflict of Interest

I posted this comment on the Talk page for the OUAC wiki page, but have not received a reply.

I tried contributing to this article in December 2012 from a publication I created for non-public consumption for the OUAC's 40th anniversary. The content was deleted, quoting copyright infringement, and I was also deemed to be an editor with a Conflict of Interest (COI) due to the fact that I work at the OUAC. I had edited the additions and spent a great deal of time formatting and submitting to this article, so I asked the editor who brought this to my attention to return the content to me. I also asked how I could go about getting the wikipedia article edited, if not by me due to the COI, but I never received a reply.

I'm asking again for this article to be expanded upon - some of the information is outdated (e.g., "Compass") and could also be explained further. I believe that the priority of adding to this article is more important than deemed by WP:Canada as it is not just an organization/service within Ontario. It serves the entire world as the OUAC accepts applications for Canadian and international students for many forms of university education.

I don't believe the COI applies to me. I am not out to promote the OUAC or gain anything, save for providing accurate information and a more robust history on the organization. The OUAC is a not-for-profit organization, so what do I have to gain from this other than providing accurate information? However, if it is still deemed inappropriate for me to be the editor of this article, please let me know how I can have someone else expand on the information. I'd be happy to provide the information for re-writing. Thanks. CarlaWhite (talk) 15:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the way that WP:COI is written, I agree with you, but let me be very clear - you have a potential COI situation simply because you work at OUAC. Now, is that a problem? Not necessarily, as long as your editing remains unbiased. I urge you to read WP:COI if you haven't done so already, and please ensure you also understand Wikipedia:Copyright violations. I have added OUAC to my watchlist; please add good information to it and I'll try to keep things balanced. I will also add this comment to the article's talk page. PK T(alk) 00:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PKT is correct. What our COI policy is primarily meant to prevent is the kind of editing where somebody who has a personal association with the topic publishes content that violates Wikipedia policies such as neutral point of view or reliable sourcing (for example, a politician who replaces our article on him with his own self-penned public relations bio from his own campaign literature.) It's not meant as a blanket prohibition on ever touching the article at all if you have an association with the topic — because indeed, sometimes our articles get outdated or cite sources which actually got some of the basic facts wrong, and sometimes a person associated with the topic is actually in a better position than most other editors to recognize when that has happened and to provide updated or corrected information.

COI is, rather, a prohibition on decreeing that your association with the topic gives you the right to disregard or override our content policies, or to dictate that other people aren't allowed to make contributions that you haven't "approved". As long as you respect and follow those content policies, however, the fact that you're an employee of the organization does not mean that you're not allowed to even touch the article at all — you are allowed to make factual, verifiable and neutral edits to the article, and just need to exercise some caution not to step into promotional content or unverifiable "insider baseball" (such as claims about what a horrible boss the new assistant deputy minister of colleges and universities is to work for, and on and so forth. Yes, people have actually tried such things on here.)

If you want to add something to the article and have a concern about whether it might be stepping close to the edge of a COI problem, you also have the option of posting that content for discussion on the talk page, so that other editors can review and give feedback on it.

Hope that helps a bit. Bearcat (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Monte Ck, BC

The information you have posted on line about Monte Ck, BC is not accurate. I wrote the book Pursuit Of Memories and spent many years researching the history of this area. A mexican named Monte did not own property at Monte Ck. There was an early squatter by the name of Alphonse Matteo. The area was called La Montie referring to the climb up the brigade trail to the Okanagan. The area was first called Ducks after Jacob Duck who with his partner Alex Pringle pre-empted land on both sides of the South Thompson River.

Wendy Stewart — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.151.118.48 (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The story you have is interesting, but the bit about the Mexican is from 1001 British Columbia Place Names as cited on Monte Creek, British Columbia. If you have a published source to cite, by all means add it to the article in the format "another version of the name origin's says that....". All published citations and versions are welcome, hearsay is not. BTW the final vowel on "La Monti" whether pronounced Chinook jargon style or in French, is like "pie", and would not lend itself by adaptation to the pronunciation "Monty", though the Anglo-spanish nickname pronunciation would be "Monty". I'm not saying the Akriggs are correct, often they aren't; but they are a published source.Skookum1 (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy, your book is in my library - I'll take a look tomorrow if I have time, and see if we can add some detail to the naming information in the article. I would be good to have multiple cites for different possibilities, as is the case for many BC place names with ambiguous origins. The Interior (Talk) 22:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out the new edition of Akrigg makes no mention of horsethieves, Mexican or otherwise. I see Skookum1 was using a 1969 version - that must have been an errata that was caught. I'll add some more info from your book, Wendy, and what the Akriggs say in the newer edition - which is the mispelled French connection ("La Montie"). Thanks for leaving this note, Wendy. The Interior (Talk) 21:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

not sure what to do with Asleep by the frozen sea

This I found via a piped link on the phrase "confined themselves" in a passage about the HBC on the North West Company page. It's well-written but its content seems to be more suited to a history article rather than an "English phrases" article, as currently categorized. It had no WikiProject Canada template, though has been around since 2012. All material cited from Ashley Morton and Peter C. Newman, I haven't looked closely to see if there's any POV or SYNTH. Other than my doubts about surreptitious piping of this kind, I'd venture the article needs cleanup and some section headings....or a merge into the History section of the HBC article?Skookum1 (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IRS will soon have your private information

I have added this project banner to the talkpage of Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act – yes it is unusual to add American legislation to the Canada wikiproject, but it appears this legislation will touch on the lives of just about all Canadians. Yes, I know this sounds like one of those fringe theories –- that was my first reaction when I saw FATCA back in 2012. Since that time however, Denmark, France, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, United Kingdom and others have signed agreemnents in this respect.

I hope you agree that this article needs more eyes, and that some editors here will at least check it out. XOttawahitech (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The same reality applies to Canadians re Homeland Security and the Patriot Act. Government records of all kinds are now stored with US outsourcers, including medical records and government accounts and more. Whole government agencies and crown corp departments are outsourced now.....Data on our comings and goings to/from the continent are tracked by Homeland Security. Finding citations of this is possible, but not generally in the mainstream media, who avoid the subject.Skookum1 (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also worth mentioning that the CCRA has been wanting to monitor Canadian accounts abroad; various countries have told them to go shove it as it undermines their own banking laws. The TransPacific Partnership I think will engage this issue, there's so much in that that does .... well, so many things, I won't belabout the point. Which is that the IRS isn't alone in this game.Skookum1 (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Skookum1: there is a fundamental difference between the CRA wishing they can get information about money that resident Canadians have stashed aboard and the IRS requiring Canadian banks to provide information (at our expense) about accounts of Canadian citizens who are Canadian residents.

Also it appears that two editors whom I have not seen around here have taken it upon themselves to remove this project’s banner from the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act. I hope someone other than me can put a stop to this. XOttawahitech (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... guess I should stop emailing top secret nuclear weapon hideouts to my North Korean contacts...

Secrets aside, I don't believer the fact that it will affect Canadians (or Americans living in Canada) is reason enough for us to tag the article. We'd have to tag half a dozen other country wikiprojects as well. The globalization banner seems appropriate. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I was the rogue editor who removed 5 or 6 of these wikitags that were only added on Jan 18. It is a USA law and doesn't need to be a part of a bunch of countries' wikiprojects. Happy to readd it if there is a consensus here but like it is stated above the USA has hundreds of laws that affects Canadians. Also the title of this section is borderline fear mongering! Mrfrobinson (talk) 13:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ottawahitech can we get you to take the time and talk to thoses that have a problem with the odd edits to all the Canadian bank pages pls as we have basic conduct expectations. -- Moxy (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Moxy: I am surprised at your comment above-- I spent a lot of time and effort talking to the one person who has been reverting all my recent edits. I wish more would join the disscusion. XOttawahitech (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am posting here after an editor posted on my talk about this.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and not a webforum. The discussion above about the merits or otherwise of a law simply doesn't belong on Wikipedia, and Ottawahitech's spamming of several articles wit boilerplate text about FACTA was also inappropriate; it was rightly reverted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of edits are acceptable on Scotiabank

I have been criticized for "spamming" a subsection titled The 21st century into the history section of Scotiabank. It was based on an interview with Scotia’s CEO Rick Waugh and another Financial Post article. Since it appears most participants here support the reversions of those edits, I wonder if anyone would care to tell me (and others) why history older than 21st century is OK, but history related to this century is spam? Must we wait until this century is over before adding it to Wikipedia? XOttawahitech (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why not discuss it on the article's talk page, as already requested by other editors?

That is standard practice per WP:BRD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: I prefer to discuss this here for reasons I would rather not get into. Why can’t you, or anyone else tell me what is wrong with adding a 21st century sub-section to the history section? XOttawahitech (talk) 08:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ottawahitech: consensus-forming works by editors explaining their reasons for things. If you don't want to explain why you won't discuss an article on its talk page, I see no reason to break the convention. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Every revision of the FACTA information was accompanied by opening a talk page discussion and putting that into my edit summary. To date you refuse to discuss why this information should be added, refuse to discuss on the talk pages and continue to demand that we explain why it should not be included (despite being given numerous reasons). Please respond on the article's talk pages. The foundation of Wikipedia is community consensus, right now no one can reach a consensus because you refuse to participate.

Instead of feeling like it is the world against you (such as the statement on your userpage) try and work with others to accomplish what you feel should be. Mrfrobinson (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"work with others to accomplish what you feel should be"

@Mrfrobinson: Most of my time is spent adding uncontroversial missing stuff to Wikipedia. It is true that I do not spend a lot of time on talkpages working with others when I feel it serves no purpose other than to reduce what I can give to Wikipedia (but I did take the time to participate in another controversial discussion this morning).

As you probably already know, my time on Wikipedia is limited. I am sorry if you feel I have not given you enough attention, but to be blunt, I feel the opposite. XOttawahitech (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You know what I will be ending any discussion with you on this talk page as you continue to refuse to follow BRD, provide any rationale for your edits or challenged edits on the talk pages and continue to spin things. You accuse me of wanting you to accomplish what I feel should be allowed. How about read the NUMEROUS talk page comments on your page, here, and article pages asking you to stop? Mrfrobinson (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)@Ottawahitech:, consensus is the basis of all work here. Editors are encouraged to be bold and edit proactively, but when there is disagreement, editors discuss the issue to seek consensus. You have complained about the reversion of your edits, but then refused to discuss why you think they should stand.
This looks like a rejection of collaborative working. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Havelock Parker

I'm looking to see if anyone has access to sources that would clear up the inconsistency on the John Havelock Parker article. The bottom of the page says that he was MLA representing the Mackenzie River (N.W.T. electoral district) from 1954 until 1960 and was succeeded by John Goodall. However, the Mackenzie River article says that John Goodall was the representative acclaimed in 1954 and held it until the 1967 election. It seems more likely that Parker was the MLA for Mackenzie North given that the district included Yellowknife, which is where Parker lived.

The Northwest Territories general election, 1954, Northwest Territories general election, 1957 and Northwest Territories general election, 1960 also show that Parker was representing Mackenzie North. Any sources in those articles do not appear to be available online. Another odd thing is that Parker did not move to the NWT until 1954, which means he managed to get elected within 8 months. Also the previous link does not mention that he served as an MLA. So if anyone can help it would be useful. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 12:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is an odd one I think there is 2 John ~~Havelock~~ Parker from the area - Women Who Lived and Loved North of 60. Trafford Publishing. 2000. p. 102. ISBN 978-1-55212-449-9.. --

@Moxy: thanks that was a great find. There was enough from that page, coincidence because the next chapter is about J. H. Parker, to let me find G-1979-014: 0006. And then Google gave me Advocate for the North. Not sure how much of the book you can see but there is enough to tell that there were two of them. Coincidence there too because the magistrate Parker represented Stephen Angulalik who was from around here. Thanks again. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ken Tyler

Dear Canadians: Here's an old abandoned Afc submission about an interesting Canadian. It will soon be deleted as a stale draft. If anyone thinks this is a notable athlete, coach, or whatever, and wants to find some references, this would be the time! —Anne Delong (talk) 01:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would think he is notable if he was truly THE coach of the Austrian Olympic team, and not merely A coach. It should be in the IIHF Record book if that is the case. I'll double check when I get back to my copy. Regardless, I would think the article would need to be stripped down, because as the article exists right now, it is just a copy of his CV, His Red Cross training (and much of the other stuff) is not relevant. Canada Hky (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Canada Hky, it's in mainspace now. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WW1 anniversary

This past summer I took lots of time and worked on the Military history of Canada during World War I article adding sources etc. Being that its 100 year anniversary would love if we could get others involved here. More content, copyedit etc... A new section "Royal Canadian Navy" was added recently by someone (looks like a copy and paste from the main article) and needs a bit of work. We could use some info on Canadian women during the war and merchant shipping. Any help would be nice sources can be found and seen (can read many of them) at Bibliography of Canadian military history#First World War and at the ref section on the article. -- Moxy (talk) 05:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Photographs are major weakness of Wikiproject Canada

This is my first time posting here, but I have been a Wikipedia user for some nine years now. I noticed early on that a lot of Canada-related pages are incomplete, and particularly BOLP lack photographs. Is there a reason for this? Is it very difficult to find legal photographs of Canadians? I'm really not trying to be snarky, I'm trying to understand things so that I might help contribute to a solution. In short: we need more photographs, LOTS more photographs. --Rhombus (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, WikiProject Canada is more restricted in what we can grab from outside sources than some (not all) other countries are; Canadian federal and provincial government photo repositories, for instance, are licensed under Crown copyright, unlike the United States where the comparable repositories are almost all in the public domain, and Crown copyright isn't compatible with the licensing requirements for Wikipedia content. So, for just one example out of many, we cannot just grab and upload the "official" headshots of most Canadian MPs from Parliament's website the way American editors can for congresspeople. So we generally have a much narrower range of sources that we can actually use photographs from — unless we can convince a copyright holder to file an OTRS allowance, or we happen to get lucky and find some images that are already licensed under Creative Commons or GFDL, we're mostly restricted to uploading and using photographs that a Wikipedia contributor took with their own camera. Bearcat (talk) 00:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's unfortunate. I was going to ask, "has anybody from the Foundation tried contacting Industry Canada about negotiating an agreement?" but then I read this. That does not make one hopeful. --Rhombus (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, people have indeed tried in the past, and the effort failed. We have occasionally had some success with some other entities — the Wildrose Party, for example, filed an OTRS permission for us to use the headshots of its MLAs from the party's website, and I believe we've occasionally gotten permission from towns and cities to use an image or two from their municipal websites, or from specific individual people to use an "official" publicity shot of them from their own press kits — but federal and provincial government ministries, as a rule, turn us down.

One thing that does tend to trip some people up is that some (not all) content licensed under Crown copyright is permitted for reuse in a "non-commercial" context — which some people erroneously think means we can grab it just because we don't actually charge a fee for use of our site. But in reality, for a variety of other reasons Wikipedia is still considered a commercial, not non-commercial, use, so finding a "non-commercial use permitted" photograph doesn't actually help us at all.

And one final thing that I want to add, just for clarity, is that some people in the past have erroneously tried to turn this into a "Canada vs. US" thing, and tried to pick a fight about Wikipedia "disrespecting" Canadian law — but it's got nothing whatsoever to do with that. Crown copyright isn't fundamentally incompatible with US law, and Creative Commons/GFDL aren't fundamentally incompatible with Canadian law, but unfortunately Crown copyright and Creative Commons/GFDL are incompatible with each other. So as unfortunate as it is, it isn't a nationalist war. Bearcat (talk) 19:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Show Canada

CBC mentioned that this Canadian company was deeply involved in the production of the 2014, 2012 Olympics ceremonies, seems like we should have an article on it.[1] -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 19:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 117: / Line 117: @@
 ::: One thing that does tend to trip some people up is that some (not all) content licensed under Crown copyright is permitted for reuse in a "non-commercial" context — which some people erroneously think means we can grab it just because we don't actually charge a fee for use of our site. But in reality, for a variety of other reasons Wikipedia is still considered a ''commercial'', not non-commercial, use, so finding a "non-commercial use permitted" photograph doesn't actually help us at all.
 ::: And one final thing that I want to add, just for clarity, is that some people in the past have erroneously tried to turn this into a "Canada vs. US" thing, and tried to pick a fight about Wikipedia "disrespecting" Canadian law — but it's got nothing whatsoever to do with that. Crown copyright isn't fundamentally incompatible with US law, and Creative Commons/GFDL aren't fundamentally incompatible with Canadian law, but unfortunately Crown copyright and Creative Commons/GFDL ''are'' incompatible with ''each other''. So as unfortunate as it is, it isn't a nationalist war. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] ([[User talk:Bearcat|talk]]) 19:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
+==[[Show Canada]]==
+CBC mentioned that this Canadian company was deeply involved in the production of the 2014, 2012 Olympics ceremonies, seems like we should have an article on it.[http://www.show-canada.com/] -- [[Special:Contributions/70.50.148.248|70.50.148.248]] ([[User talk:70.50.148.248|talk]]) 19:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)