Jump to content

Talk:Blair Wilson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Old post

[edit]

I deleted:

Blair narrowly defeated Mr. John Weston in the race for MP he lost just over 1%! In early polls Mr. Weston was seen as if he was going to win. Alot of NDP voter stragticily vote for Blair just to keep the Conservatives out.

This is not correct. Weston lost by about 1.5%. Early results in this riding always swing around a lot due to the huge differences in demographics in different parts of this riding -- nobody seriously thought Weston was going to win based on a few polls reporting and actually Blair took the lead quite early in the night. Despite many people urging strategic voting by NDP supporters, it does not appear that this was a signficant factor. In 2004 the NDP had 13156 votes, in 2005 the NDP got 12766 votes. For a difference of 390 votes, Blair won by 986 votes. It should be noted that in 2004 the candidate was a more prominent candidate (who is now the MLA for a portion of the riding) whereas the current candidate was virtually unknown before the election and that could easily explain this small difference in votes more than strategic voting. -- Webgeer 18:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are a fool Webgeer what the hell do yo mean by MLA do you mean mp? HD 123321 07:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This just in Liberano$ suck.

? some one seem a bit stupid today

[edit]

Guess what fool 1.5% is just over 1%!!It is not even 2% it is just as close 1 as it is to 2!!! get a dam life you fool.As well Blair "unfair" Wilson suck bum anywho Liberanos sucks. HD 123321 02:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we both can agree that blare "unfair" wilson of the Librano$ is a loooooser as well as a mobster.

User:HD 123321 try to keep your personal political views and language under wraps. Try just approaching facts objectively minus the personal attacks. It is also Wikipedia official policy to adopt a NPOV. It would also help if users sign your talkpage edits. Luke 05:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm not really interested in getting in an edit war, so I'll just leave this alone and let someone else figure out what should be done with the article. If I was going to get into sematics I would point out that 1.5 is actually 50% more than 1.-- Webgeer 06:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are in a way you are right about it being close to two, but no matter what there is a number in there that starts with 1 it 1.5 notice the one. You are a fool same with you luckyluke I hope you are not very lucky and besides liberano$ suck. HD 123321 23:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what to do with this page. Let's try to keep it civil - Mr. Wilson is now a member of parliament and we should accord him the respect he deserves. I have updated the election results as per the currently posted results on elections.ca and taken out some material I felt was not a NPOV. A narrow win is still a win. 08:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

FYI, the link to the election result was also incorrect. I have fixed it so it reflects the 2006 results. Mamboman 09:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No matter what you say he is Blair Wilson a liberal. He went to afghanistan last year after LOSING the election for a photo op on tax dollars and cost the town forty k. Who is the dumb sh**t who said that Mr. Weston was stupid he should be banned.24.82.136.103 06:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually quite interested to know where you heard/read that he went to Afghanistan. I haven't heard/read anything of the sort. It could be something to include in the article. Luke 07:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well look for them in newspapers. Talk to the conservatives about it they would know. I heared it from a source that would like to remain privite. Do some reseach. 24.82.136.103 01:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Blair did go to Afganistan, as part of a non-partisan inititive to support the troops. Prominent businessmen were invited from across Canada to go, including Blair, and Ted Haney, the Calgary Head of the Canadian Beef Export Federation.

Blair Wilson Interview

[edit]

Why did you delete this documented video interview?

I'm sorry but this is very relevant to the article.

I vote that this interview should be added to the Blair Wilson article on the Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.233.183.20 (talk • contribs)

The interview consists of a shaky camcorder (or similar hand held device) recording at what appears to be the City of North Vancouver Canada Day celebration at Waterfront Park. It is not a professional interview - Wilson is asked a few questions, there is no cross-examination or follow-up, just a series of long answers. There is also no indication as to whether or not Wilson has agreed to, or is even aware of the use of the video. In short, it is not appropriate and fails Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. --Ckatzchatspy 06:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Ahem, he did agree to do it on camera, and just because the camera is "shaky" doesn't mean it's a documented event. It is very appropriate there's pretty much nothing you can do to keep it down. The fact whether the interview has a follow up or not doesn't change the fact that he asnwered questions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.233.183.80 (talk • contribs)
Look, this has nothing to do with spurious accusations about "keeping it down". There's nothing in the interview to "keep down" - in fact, there's nothing particularly notable about the interview at all. If Mr. Wilson had said something controversial, then perhaps you might have a point. However, a politician answering questions - or in this case, a politician having what amounts to free airtime (or "webtime", I suppose) to explain his policies - does not qualify under Wikipedia's guidelines for notability, external links, verifiability (how do we know Mr. Wilson didn't arrange the "interview"?) and so on. If you think that there is something of note in what you recorded, take it to the local newspapers. If they find something print worthy, you'll have a rationale for posting it. However, as it presently stands, you don't. --Ckatzchatspy 09:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(replying here, because the IP keeps changing and thus there is no personal talk page)
Keep it up, and you'll be blocked for vandalism. Please show some respect for Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Ckatzchatspy 17:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for a POV check

[edit]

I feel like a lot of this article is poised to present Mr. Wilson as a man filled with issues with the law and private persons. Therefore I believe this article needs a POV check as well as some reorganization. The article appears a bit jumpy between information, and perhaps subsections should be created. I'll attempt to get a free image for the article shortly.

Furthermore, perhaps it'd be wise to disclose on the article that various news organizations in Vancouver have slandered Mr. Wilson, and their publications were subject to bias (after all, they had 21 untrue allegations that eventually attributed to his lost seat). —Forgott3n (talk) 03:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and got a bio picture for the page. I've also changed the page from a POV check nomination to a NPOV dispute. —Forgott3n (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV dispute

[edit]

I feel like this entire article has been written with bias, as some users appear to have had some politically charged motives or slants. This entire article portrays Mr. Wilson in a particular light that does not abide by Wikipedia's standards. The paper, The Province, used as a cited source appears to have continuously slandered Mr. Wilson with no less than 24 allegations. Most of which have been resolved by Elections Canada to be untrue. I believe that this article should be rewritten from the angle of a living person who served time as a government official in variety of political parties and make mention of his controversies with the paper. —Forgott3n (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

[edit]

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Blair Wilson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blair Wilson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blair_Wilson&oldid=1206437334"