User talk:Brampton 2006

Brampton Election Watch 2006

This article already exists at the properly named Brampton municipal election, 2006. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 00:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every single addition to this page will require a reference in order to stay. Please also make sure that the additions are encyclopedic--platform statements (like "campaigning on a platform of badly-needed change") will likely be removed even if referenced. Please make the necessary changes. Thank you. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 01:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove link to candidates withen WP. Almost all do not have articles linked. Thanks.
Eggman64 04:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to all the footnotes?

Did you remove them in your rewrite? Are we going to have to revert all your edits to correct this? _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 13:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing relevant in them and generally biases propaganda. If anything is noteworthy in them whoever put them on can add new ones to reference something unbiased and nutral.

They were relevant. The point is that all additions need to be cited. It is not another's job to correct your mistakes. Please add them back yourself. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 14:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree on their relavancy. The ages and deragotory way candidates were discribed was non-sense and plainly biased propaganda pushing the incumbent mayor. It was not netral material and contained nothing noteworthy.

You don't seem to understand: This is an encyclopedia. We need to reference all facts included--we are not a primary source. If it says that Susan Fennell was on some board, we need to prove that with a reference. Otherwise, all sorts of incorrect information could be added. Please make ALL the necessary changes, or all your work will be reverted. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 14:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you cite it on this article. Seriously. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 15:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"such as the 170 out of 174 in table hockey tourny" - personally, I don't think that's derogatory--it's stating he's 170th in the country. It's a good thing. But it's also not so important. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 15:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you also go back and copy-paste from the section before you removed all the footnotes? They were in proper footnote style and now they're all at the end of the section looking really bad. I think it would be best if you reverted all your changes and started over, actually. You can copy the current version into another file to look at when re-editing the old page. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 15:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the ones I could. Some where not functional links orther refered to derogatory irrelevant cites about candidates finishing 170 out of 174 in a table hockey tournament or about how a report used the work "entreprenuer" as if questioning the use of a word. The article was ripe full of propaganda and non-sensical tarnish blaintantly pushing incumbents. Brampton Guardian is notorious for manipulating information and selective reporting for political gain. It is not a reliable source of political commentary in any event. I don't see the big deal with the look. Its likely going to change a lot in the next two weeks as the election unfolds and more issues come forward... as ususal in elections. This format makes it easier for editors to make edits. The references are more combersome to create and maintain. I hope you agree.

I don't. Which sites reference which information? This is an encyclopedia we're writing here, not some bloke's website. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 16:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please make sure that everything you have added is also cited. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 16:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please state who you are

While you have a right to be anonymous, are you by any chance affliated with any of the candidates, or with the City? -- Zanimum 17:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not.Brampton 2006 17:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you previously contribute as User: WikiWoo? JChap2007 20:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No I did not.Brampton 2006 23:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your claims of vandalism

Nobody's vandalising here. Zanimum and I are attempting to source the article and remove unsourced statements. We are fully within our rights to insist that all additions are sourced, and to remove those which are not. This is an encyclopedia, and as such it should not be the first place information is found published. If your additions are well-sourced as well as encyclopedic, they will not be removed. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 18:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as noted in the edit summary of my revert, your claim of a broken link is in reference to a citation from a paper article, which is perfectly acceptable. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 18:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I searched the Brampton Guardian site and could not find it. Since it contains disparging reference to a living person running for elected office, I edited the derogatory irrelevent parts out.Brampton 2006 23:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR violation

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Your edits on Brampton, Ontario violated 3RR. Also, putting a link as its own section at the top of the article is poor writing (which is why several editors have changed it). Please stop. JChap2007 00:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you are talking about. I have done nothing wrong. Other have reverted my work after hours of cotributions. Please explain yourself.Brampton 2006 02:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted three times in twenty-four hours on the Brampton, Ontario article. See:

[1]
~~[2]~~[3]
[4]
[5]

Please read WP:3RR. JChap2007 02:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something is wrong with your links... Your point #1 is at 23:10 on the 27th... Your Point #2 is the same as your point #1.... Your point #3 is 2:09 28th... Your point #4 is 23:56 28th. You have made a created a false accusation of 3RR and you have vandalized my talk page with it.Brampton 2006 04:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. The second link should have been the following: [6] , which you made at 1:41 on the 28th. So, to be more specific, take the version in the first diff as the baseline version. You reverted back to that version three times in 24 hours: 1:41, 2:09 and 23:56. I hope that clarifies things for you.

The allegations of vandalism and attempts to hide information from the public that you made on my talk page remind me of a certain former editor here .... JChap2007 14:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your are grapling at straws and twisting events. Some of those are deletions that had been reverted and others are information moves that were changed back. I see from your user page that you are a lawyer. This is basic fabrication of evidence by misrepresentation facts.Brampton 2006 15:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV

Statements like this: "The most notable" are POV. The most notable by whose standards? Yours, apparently. Others may not share your point of view.

Also: "The tightest race". Just because there will only be two candidates does not necessarily mean it will be the tightest race. Maybe one candidate will receive 92% of the vote? It's not up to you to decide what the tightest race will be.

I'm removing such statements. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 19:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"It is not meant to be encyclopedic"

Pardon, but this is an encyclopedia. Of course it is meant to be encyclopedic. If something's not encyclopedic, it doesn't belong here, it belongs on a blog or something. You can't cite it anyway, and even if you could cite it (or parts of it) to a specific person, you could only include it in something to do with that person--they're not universal issues. I'm again removing it. Please do not re-add it. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 20:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you will review and think (using some intelect) about the purpose of having a page about an on-going election for people to update as the election campains heat up, it make every bit of sense that the issues of the election be itentified. This is kind of like a public service offering by Wiki to help document a historical event in Brampton (and others that have similar pages and similar issues identified. Why don't you research and post the issue of the election yourself if you don't agree those are the main issues Brampton needs to deal with. The inclusion of the section is necessary and proper in keeping with the purpose of the Article as a running summary of dynamic historical significants to the people of Brampton. I am sure that everyone in Brampton is interested if they knew it was there. You seem to have taken quite an interest with it yourself.Brampton 2006 20:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]