User talk:Canadian Paul

Happy Canadian Paul's Day!

User:Canadian Paul has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Canadian Paul's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Canadian Paul! Peace, Rlevse 00:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Primitivo Martínez

Cheers! Thank you for asking. I got Primitivo Martínez's birth date from page 101 of the book Legends and Heroes of Philippine Basketball by Christian Bocobo and Beth Celis. It was printed in 2004 in the Philippines by The House Printers. Hope this helps.

You're very much welcome! And thank you so much for your interest in basketball, Philippine basketball included. In case you don't know yet, that sport is like a religion among the Filipino people. That explains why whenever the Philippine team loses in any international tournament, it really hurts a lot for the people, me included as I myself am a frustrated basketball player.

requested help on another page from Canadian Paul

Hi Canadian Paul, I've just made some major edits to the [Manitoba Eco-Network] article. Since I don't know much about editing Wikipedia, I thought you could take a look at the talk page, read over what I've written, and then maybe re-assess the article if you think it's ready, and if appropriate add any tags or warnings to the top of the page.

I only thought to ask you because you gave an initial assessment of the article. Thanks in advance.

Sincerely, Mikhail Kolybaba (User:Mikhailkolybaba) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikhailkolybaba (talk • contribs) 01:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I have made a few comments on the talk page. Cheers, CP 22:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Hi. Thanks for your notes. Like I said, I'm relatively new to wikipedia from an editing perspective, so I was unaware about Wikipedia:COI.

I read the COI article, and am particularly interested in the section, 'How to avoid COI edits'. Under that section, it states, "...If you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when:

  1. Editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
  2. Participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
  3. Linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);

         and you must always:

  4. Avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography."

The reason I am asking you to review my work is specifically to ensure that it is not in violation of Wikipedia's policies. I'm seeking transparency, and I should mention that I'm doing this out of my own personal interest.

In any case, I just want to go through proper procedure and determine if my work should be allowed to stand, or should be deleted.

1) I did not avoid editing the article, but I did exercise caution. I didn't make any even remotely controversial statements or claims. 2) Obviously not relevant 3) Not relevant 4) NPOV is a little iffy -- I obviously have an internal bias, but I avoided making any controversial statements, and only added relatively basic information (such as basic facts, like 'Climate Change Connection is an initiative to provide public education and outreach to Manitobans about [Climate Change]. This organization takes the position that man-made climate change is occurring.' I didn't state any political belief about climate change, but merely that Climate Change Connection has a certain political belief, and what they do with it.)

Verifiability is also a little bit questionable, but much less so than NPOV, because although there were no third-party sources, all the claims were so basic that they were really a question of facts. I don't know what sort of third party source is necessary to verify a statement as simple as "It is a regional affiliate of the Canadian Environmental Network, based in Ottawa. The Manitoba Eco-Network is a network for approximately 50 environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGO's) throughout the province." Obviously a third party source is ideal, but I personally feel that such a statement is simple enough that a first-party source is at least better than nothing. After all, many articles don't have sources for statements that are completely uncontroversial, such as the majority of this article is.

Obviously autobiography does not apply.

So, basically, I'm inclined to believe that my edits are probably acceptable from within the policies of Wikipedia that I am aware of so far. But, I hardly know any of them, and I also am not the most reliable judge of whether or not my edits are acceptable.

And I hate vandalism, both in real life and on Wikipedia, so I appreciate you taking the time to verify my work and ensure that you feel it does not violate the terms of Wikipedia. But, in the interest of integrity, if you feel in any way that something I have written should be deleted -- even all of my edits -- then please feel free to go ahead. I just want to make sure that the most reliable, informative, and accurate articles are available on Wikipedia, and it made sense to me to start my first edit at my place of employment, because I'm quite interested in it.

Thanks for your time.

Sincerely, Mikhail Kolybaba (User:Mikhailkolybaba) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikhailkolybaba (talk • contribs) 23:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that, aside from all of this, it is simple common sense to say: these people are looking for a neutral, balanced article on this organization and I, as a member of the organization, should not be involved in directly writing the article. We do welcome your help and sources that can help write the article, but it is difficult to be neutral when writing about something you are involved in; even things on a sub-conscious level or from a perspective that you are not aware of can slip in. In any case, I will review the article later today or tomorrow and see if there is anything that needs to be taken out - I don't see a need to remove all of the edits, but I think once I go through it and maybe add a tag or two, everything should be good, so don't worry! Cheers, CP 20:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Last male from GB athletics team in 1936 has died

As per Athletics International newsletter #31 "Frederick Richard ‘Dick’ WEBSTER (GBR) (b. 31 Dec 1914) died in October, aged 94. He was the last male survivor of the British athletics team at the Olympic Games in 1936...". These newsletters often have obituaries for Olympic athletes aged 90+ almost all of whom are not on your list but hopefully the "last survivor" comment will help. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It does, at least a little: we now know that Bernard Prendergast has died. Thanks for the heads up! Cheers, CP 18:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Barbara C. Freeman

Thank you for adding the date of the death to the article. I couldn't find it myself; could you add the reference? Oh, and could you look at the article and see if you know what is meant by "peacock terms"? It could be the description of the artwork, but I added an image - I hoped the two things would justify each other! Thanks. Robina Fox (talk) 08:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The year of death can be found in the link that I added under "external links" - it's a record of her death from the England & Wales Death Index. As for "peacock terms", these are essentially words that describe something with very positive traits, but do not explain why. A more detailed explanation can be found here. In general it's best to let the facts speak for themselves: instead of saying someone is really important or the greatest, explain what actually went on and let the reader decide for themselves. Reading through the article, the only sentence I could find that might be troublesome is "Her artwork is both clean-cut and winsome: an unmistakable style.", which doesn't sound very neutral or encyclopedic. Other than that, everything is very factual, so if that is cleaned up, I think the peacock tag can be removed. Cheers, CP 20:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

That message you sent

Its my talk page and my user page, I can do what I want with my stuff, I dont tell you what to do with your pages, if I was trying to commit sockpuppetry then i would have put keep votes on both my name and ip address. Longevitydude (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Update for your list

I saw Howard Odell on User:Canadian Paul/Nonagenarians listed as "unknown". He passed away in 2000. Location (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the update! Cheers, CP 20:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Louie Lawless

Hello! Your submission of Louie Lawless at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Geraldk (talk) 17:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Responded on nomination page. Cheers, CP 18:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Simone Schaller

On November 2, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Simone Schaller, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 06:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC) 07:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Louie Lawless

On November 4, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Louie Lawless, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royalbroil 14:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Walter Walsh

I've reviewed the article for GA status, see the review for the necessary changes. Cheers,--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 02:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Im not trying to be ugly or personally attack anyone so dont accuse me of doing that , but, DONT DELETE THE ARTICLE LET IT BE ITS A PERFECTLY GOOD ARTICLE AND THERE IS NO GOOD REASON TO DELETE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 74.249.136.165 (talk) 14:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)