Talk:St. Catharines/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Various mumblings about apostrophes

Is there an apostrophe in this name? -- Zoe

Nope. Jfitzg

Agreed that there's no apostrophe -- but why not? Is there any logical reason that an apostrophe has never been included in the city's name? 172.132.253.169 03:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Many roads and towns lose their apostrophes along the way. Local examples include St. Catharine's, St. David's, Lyon's Creek (IIRC), Smith's Falls, Ball's Falls, St. Mary's (IIRC), St. Jacob's, etc. The common element is that the word 'town' or 'settlement' or 'city' is omitted from the title, eg. "St. Catharine's City" or "The City of St. Catharine" would be grammatically correct, but the root name 'Catharine' can then be used in a posessive sense or not. It may have been the wish of the powers that were, at that time, to have everyone call it in the posessive sense -- 'St. Catharine's City' -- but that would be too cumbersome, so it gets shortened to "St. Catharine's", but then we're left guessing at 'what' is hers, and it looks incomplete, thus 'St. Catharines' is created. This is just an educated guess, but I've heard this is how it goes down in some scenarios. Sugarbowl 06:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Largest Employer

General Motors operates two plants in the city and up until recently was the city's largest employer.

Okay, who IS the largest employer now? Radagast 20:43, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

See http://www.st.catharines.com/forbusiness/ecodevt/eco_dev_statsandfacts.asp. DSBN is Number 1, GM is Number 2, NHS is Number 3, Brock is 4 and SITEL Corporation (a call center) is 5. Snickerdo 19:32, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What is the density of St. Catharines?

or how many sq kilometers?

Transportation

I cut out a portion from someone's previous entry regarding transportation and put it in a new Transportation heading, I thought the city should have its own Transportation heading. - Trappy

Pictures

I think we need a professional wikipedian to view this article and arrange the pictures in a new way to be more visually appealing. Some recent changes (although very good and informative!) have off-set all the photos and the entire page is in need of a re-arrangement of its photos in my opinion. --Matt0401 00:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is really starting to look GOOD, I think we do need more photos though and I agree they do need to be arranged in a professional manner. --Trappy 17:21, 22 March 2006

Well, I myself added a photo I personally took (hey, atleast now I can't run into copyright issues unless god patented the sky when he chose to colour it blue :P). When I added the photo I placed it well so it looked good. But now that more and more info has been added, it's offset things and the article is in need of a rearrangement by soming who REALLY knows how to arrange photos well on Wikipedia. I also agree with what you stated about more photos. My brother bikes a lot around the city. Maybe sometime I'll get him to take a few more shots of things around the city (probably important places). --Matt0401 21:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Could we move some of those pictures and maps to Commons? I want to use them in the Alemannic article. --Chlämens 14:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I published my photo of Walker's Creek to Wikimedia Commons for you to use. Here is a link. --Matt0401 16:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm wondering if the flag and coat of arms can be moved to Commons or if they aren't sufficiently licensed. I might just take a few pictures myself as well. --Chlämens 19:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I believe that Wikimedia Commons is only for items released into the public domain by average joes such as ourselves. The copyrights of the Coat of Arms and Flag appear to be under "fair use", so I doubt they can legally be placed in the commons. However, I know 100% that any photos we personally take or graphics that we produce having to do with the city are eligable for placement in the Commons. I think the next photo we get should be of the Fairview Mall. (The shopping section of the article is in need of a photo. --Matt0401 20:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
You can upload anything on Commons as long as it's free of copyright; which is hard to find. I'm guessing the flags come from the city website but if someone redraws them and releases them they are free, or we could ask the city for permission ("please, can we use your flag for Wikipedia?"). If anyone uploads stuff on Commons, please add Category:St. Catharines, Ontario. --Chlämens 00:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I am so glad that this is a discussion topic because I believe that most of the pictures that I have uploaded are in need of proper categorization, touching up and good description. Therefore I am going to delete a few of them off Wikipedia, fix them up and upload them again for future use. Please do not be alarmed as they will return! (Trappy 20:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC))
If you are going to upload more pictures it would make it easier if you would do so on Commons so that everyone can use them. --Chlämens 22:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I really like the recent changes and additions to the photos in this article. The article now looks very well-developed! I prefer the new location of my Walker's Creek photo in the "Parks and Trails" section of the article better than in the History section. --Matt0401 23:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I moved a few pictures to Commons: Category:St. Catharines, Ontario. I also finally finished the Alemannic article which is now probably about as detailed as the English one.--Chlämens 00:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I added more pictures to the article, however, it might look a bit too cluttered or disorganized. If anyone has a solution for a better arrangement, please feel to use it...or just send me a msg if you think its better to delete any of my photos. Trappy 20:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Government & Law

Can someone with knowledge in politics start a subsection on Government & Law (or something similar to that) in the city's article? There is no real description of the municipality's structure and how the city is represented at the local, provincial and federal levels. Other major cities have sections that describe the ward system in their communities for example, or whether or not there is a court house serving the area etc. St. Catharines needs a section like this. Trappy 17:28 22 March 2006

I plan on eventually getting to that. Trying to expand on the information that is already there first. Snickerdo 03:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The section is done. Feel free to update and/or edit as needed. Snickerdo 10:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Notable figures

Not my article, but I'd say the Notable figures section is getting a bit long and the paragraph-per-person format isn't the easiest to read. Perhaps we should start populating Category:St. Cathariners instead? Or perhaps a spin-off sub-article with a list is in order. Just a thought. --Qviri (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned it up a bit using bulleted lists. Looks much better now. Snickerdo 03:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Communities

What about those areas that are shaded yellow on the map of the communities? Are they autonomous or something? --Chlämens 00:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Nope, they're a part of St. Catharines, but presumably lack a distinct identity. They're just St. Catharines. --Qviri (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
That's sad. So do the communities actually have any administrative function or are they just based on identity? --Chlämens 00:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
The communities as outlined on the map do not have self-government per se — the closest that comes to that is that ward system that elects councillors to the St. Catharines city council. --Qviri (talk) 01:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
And even then, the ward boundries are more historical, and not based at all on the local communities. Some communities have more identity than others - for example, even though The North End isn't really a community in the strictest sense, the term is used by residents far more than Martindale or Facer are used. Merriton and Port Dalhousie used to be their own towns that were annexed by St. Catharines, while the rest of the communities for the most part developed seperately from the main core of the city, and therefore received their own name for the neighbourhood. The smallest three communities - Barbican Heights, St. George's Point and Michigan Beach - are commonly grouped together with their larger neighbours, but the terms are still used by reisdents of St. Catharines to describe each one individually. Snickerdo 10:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Geography and Climate

I added much more information to this section, however I wasnt able to include the 'degrees' symbol in the temperatures. Can someone please add the symbol to the numbers, or include any specific average temperatures that I wasn't able to find on the internet? I picked up the 27C in July info from the weather network website. (Trappy 21:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC))

Shopping

The shopping section is in need of work. Does anyone have information pertaining to st. catharines role in niagara's retail industry? I remember reading that, statiscally, st. catharines has the largest number of retail options per citizen (or something like that), with one writer even calling the city "Ontario's Shopping Capital" (??). There is also the history of the Niagara Peninsula Shopping Centre (now The Pen), and information related to Lincoln Mall, technically its not a mall anymore, now that its been torn down and revamped as a plaza with Walmart and Canadian Tire. I also remember hearing that Fairview Mall was Ontario's first enclosed mall. Furthermore, how can we include other St. Catharines tidbids like its large number of donut shops (the donut shop capital), or the fact that we have the worst levels of obesity in the country...though grim, this is a fact we can not deny. There is also the problem with graffiti in the city (an Issues section may be worthwhile). Trappy 14:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I took it upon myself to update this section, please free to add to it or modify it. Trappy 02:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Spelling of St. CathArines

I swear, if I see one more person mis-spell St. Catharines with an E... ugh Snickerdo 23:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not like it's wrong. I could put "St. Catherine's" all day long and it still would be technically right. 72.38.4.249 15:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Tell me about it, and I don't even live there. Recently I've been patrolling wikipedia courtesy of google (site:en.wikipedia.org catherines ontario), and making corrections, but not only does google index some articles slow, people keep on making that mistake over and over. I should make a bot to make these corrections... --Qviri (talk) 02:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Newspapers

I notice that some people have posted online news sites in this section...I believe this section was referring to published newspapers that are circulated in St. Catharines. Perhaps someone could create an online news category? Trappy 14:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Demographics

The demographics section is very long. I could put in some charts to make the section smaller, but still have all the important information on the page. I will add the reference as well Galati 20:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC) Galati

I search help

This I wrote for Trappy originally, but he live no longer in St. Catharines and can not help. That is why I place it here. Can You help my?

Hallo, I am sorry, I have two invocations:

  • 1) I am searching free images for article about Kristen French (and for cs: verzi). Please, can you help my and make pictures of Kristen's grave and monument to Kristen's memory on beginnin of Green Ribbon Trail? (both images are on web, but probably not free ( here ). And from Czech Republik is it in St. Catharines "a little long way".
  • 2) Can you your images to locate directly on commons? En: is not only wikipedia with article about St. Catharines. :-)
  • 3) I am very sorry for my horrible english.

Cinik 03:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Maps from The Commons are all wrong

Whoever is moving/re-linking images from the Commons is doing a very poor job. The Neighbourhood Map was two revisions out of date, and the Location/CMA map was using the old colour scheme. If items are going to be moved to the Commons and then re-linked, it's best to ensure that the correct versions are being used, otherwise don't bother at all - it makes it difficult for us to clean up. Snickerdo 17:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Sister City

How long has Port of Spain been our Sister City? Ceris 23:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

From what my mother told me, it has been since the early 1970s. She was involved in the ceremonies when the twinning officially occurred. Snickerdo 03:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Why was the Falcons logo removed? Does this logo not qualify under fair use as a corporate/team logo? Snickerdo 09:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use is a bit ambiguous. As far as some people are concerned, a team logo qualifies as fair use only on the article about the team itself, and not in any other article whether it's related or not. I'm not one of those people, but I'm not prepared to say that they're wrong, either — WP's fair use policy is in a lot of flux right now and may be kind of ambiguous on this point. Bearcat 09:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Fattest City

I really don't think that it's appropriate to include St. Catharines' "Fattest City" title in its opening paragraph. Yes, this infamous title was published in Canadian newspapers back in 2001, but it would be more appropriate to place this under a City Issues paragraph. This title was given after one study published 6 years ago showed the largest number of people afflicted with obesity in our city, that hardly qualifies it as an official title (if anything, it just mocks this serious city issue)...it shouldn't be in the opening paragraph. Trappy 21:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

There really isn't a template to follow regarding this sort of thing, however I've gone through other city pages, and lead in sentences are often the place for statistics or notable things about the city like "fastest growing city", "has a reputation for coffee consumption", "one of the oldest cities in Canada" or "a focal point for individuals who are attracted by its liberal lifestyle" - so I don't see how this differs. And there are more sources than one 6-year old study. PETA also has St. Catharines listed as #1 [1] and it's noted in a November 2006 article here [2]. I don't think that because this could be a potentially negative thing it should be excluded from the lead in sentence, as Wikipedia isn't a tourist guide. I think if it's notable enough, good or bad, it can be included in the lead sentence. Yankees76 00:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I moved it to demographics as an issue like this is not worthy of an opening paragraph, though it could certainly be included in the demographics section. I totally agree with Trappy that it doesn't belong at the beginning. Yankee76, I suggest you back off and stop calling people 'vandals' for working hard to preserve the quality of articles they have worked on for many years. Your arrogance, as well as actually using PETA as a source of data (hahahahahaha) gives you very little credibility in this situation. Snickerdo 03:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, I thought I'd just add, that this PETA crap looks identical to the StatsCan data from 2001. It should also be noted that the data is at a CMA level - this includes the entire Niagara Region - and not St. Catharines itself. One could argue, rightfully so, that Welland and Port Colborne are loaded with fat people and everyone in St. Catharines are skinny. I would argue that this information should be included somewhere on a re-worked Niagara Region page, but including it on St. Catharines is nothing short of mis-information. Snickerdo 03:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
First off drop the hostile tone, stay calm, assume good faith, and remain civil. Secondly, I would suggest you give WP:OWN and read and realize that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. The information added is notable, of a neutral point of view and easily passes for inclusion based on WP:VERIFY - meaning that the material added to this Wikipedia article has already been published by a reliable sources - which CTV News and the Globe and Mail are. This is the threshold for inclusion of material into Wikipedia - and any editor may add it to this article, regardless of the time spent editing it previously. I'm more than willing to debate whether or not it warrants inclusion in the opening paragraph, however your deliberate blanking of the material based solely on your own original research and POV is unacceptable. Yankees76 06:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Upon second thought, considering this is a regional statistic, I have removed it all together. If someone wants to add it to the Niagara Region page, that's up to them, but adding it to St. Catharines both dilutes the statistic, and robs the rest of the region from the 'honour' of enjoying a few extra pounds on their belly. Snickerdo 03:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
It should be noted that the source given for the material clearly states St. Catharines, not the Niagara Region. A second source, (FATTEST & FITTEST by Andre Picard, July 21, 2001 Globe and Mail) also confirms it was the city of St. Catharines - not the Niagara Region. In fact the article quoted Tim Rigby, the mayor of St. Catharines, saying that he "reacted with disbelief to the news that he presides over the fattest city in Canada". Another article [3] also states that St. Catharines was the fattest city in 1998 as well. Even Brock University mentions it on their [4] website saying "St. Catharines is the fattest town in Canada, and we ought to be concerned about our health" - again no mention of this being a regional statistic. The only debate we should be having is where in the article the information belongs. Yankees76 06:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I had suggested that the issue of St. Catharines high obesity rates be included in a City Issues section. We could also include Graffiti, the Port Tower and Greenbelt legislation within this section, as they are pressing issues in St. Catharines. If you look further up on this page, you will see that I mentioned the Fattest City statistic back in April 2006 (under the title Shopping) - I had wanted it included in the article but didn't know if the statistic was still relevant or not. I am still not fully convinced that a new study has been conducted to ensure that the numbers have remained since 2001. That doesn't mean we can't include this issue in the article. More personally, I was not happy to read a suggestion that we are turning this wikipedia page into a tourist guide, no tourist guide would use a picture of the low-level parking lot as the first photo you see scrolling down the page - surely we are trying to capture the essence of what is St. Catharines, I lived there my whole life and know it well. I just don't see how saying St. Catharines is known as "the fattest city" immediately after stating its geographical location, its main industries and its official nickname (adopted by the city)...IMO, it looks unprofessional. I think that we are trying to make the introduction a little more formal here, if we wanted to include random nicknames that have not been officially recognized by the city then we would have to also include Donut Capital, St. Kitts (which we did at one point, but it was removed), Garbage City (that nickname published by the Globe and Mail is a perfect addition to a City Issues section) in the opening introduction too. I will start a City Issues section, feel free to add information to it. Thanks Trappy 17:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Why would the statistic not be relevant? St. Catherines was named Canada's fattest city in studies in 1998 and 2001 - and to the best of my knowledge a further study has not been completed since then to suggest otherewise. If there has been another that shows otherwise, then the information should be changed to reflect "was" the fattest, not "is". Also, looking "unprofessional" is not really a criteria that Wikipedia uses to determine where well written and properly sourced prose goes in an article. I think your non-neutral point of view thinks it looks unprofessional because it can been seen negatively. I doubt we'd be having this conversation if the information was about St. Catharines being Canada's wealthiest city. See WP:NPOV. With regards to some other issues; I merely stated that Wikipedia isn't a tourist guide, not that you were turning the article into one. Again, another instance where you and Snickerdo are not assuming good faith and I've intiated discussion with an administrator with regards to this. I think before jumping all over someone who is including notable and verfiable information on a topic, it might have been a good idea to politely discuss the information before simply deleting it or writing it off because it doesn't agree with your point of view. For now the information is fine in the city issues section. I would suggest the two of you work on your Wikiquette in future dealings with other editors. Yankees76 17:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
God Yankee, you can't even spell the name of the city correctly. Also, if you actually read the Statistics Canada data, you will see that it is based on the St. Catharines-Niagara CMA, not the city itself. A government source easily outweighs your sources (such as PETA, ahahaha, I still can't get over that). Stop trying to tell -us- we're the issue here, you're the one coming here and stirring up crap. Two against one. I have to say that you are over-ruled on this point. Invite the 'administrator' in. This talk page quite clearly shows that the contributors to your article DO NOT want your changes to become a permanent fixture. You, sir, do not seem to understand the value in multiple contributors and how :talk pages such as these are instrumental in coming to common consensus on pages. If you don't like consensus and fell that you should be able to crap on any page you like, I'm sure there are many other pages, such as Lambton County, that you can destroy with your own views on Good Faith and the like. *rolls eyes*
And yeah Trappy, if you believe it should be bit in City Issues or Demographics I would agree with that, but it should not be included along with the city's official nickname. I'm sure Yankee, a wonderful resident of Petrolia, wouldn't want us coming in there, mis-spelling the city name and calling it a horrible hole within Lambton County (because PETA says so!) on his city's page, either. Frankly, I am getting sick and tired of the arrogance and bullcrap on Wikipedia that comes from users like Yankee. I am an inch away from revoking all rights to every image I have ever made, pulling them off Wikipedia, and being done with this place. I remember when Wikipedia was a fun community where people got along. We didn't have users littering our :talk pages with graphics and pictures to try and emphasize a point that we, old users, were instrumental in creating. There. My rant is done. Snickerdo 02:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Your strawman arguments (a couple of spelling mistakes, the tired PETA argument - something I've not even referenced in the article, and even dragging in a town that I've never even lived in that you pulled after a casual glance of my user page) carry absolutely no weight here. If these are your best arguments then you're wasting Wikipedia resources. And where is this information from StatsCan saying Niagara Region? I've posted numerous sources that say city - not region, and they're reliable, verifiable, published secondary sources - something Wikipedia requires wherever possible. Secondly, read WP:OWN again - this isn't your article. If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. One would think that two years of editing on Wikipedia would have taught you that, and how to properly dispute a statement. You might have been here two years, but your actions say otherwise. And your idle threats about revoking your "rights" to any article is laughable and again, not even relevant to this discussion. Lastly the information I've added to the article was published by numerous reliable sources, simply because you and a buddy object to any negative information being included into "your" article because you're unable to edit with a NPOV, does nothing to the validity of the information presented. And you know what, I think I will bring some administrators into this - thanks for the suggestion. I'll start by pointing them to the uncivil behaviour and personal attacks in your previous posts both here and on my talk page. Yankees76 04:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Yankee, you are not an administrator. Stop trying to act like one. From now on, all content from you on my :talk pages will be removed (along with a note stating that comments from an abusive user was removed) and your edits, after being involved here in a talk with two other users who disagree with your point of view, are now getting abusive. You want to get an administrator involved? Bring it on. I look forward to having someone other than you to bitch at about this.
It is quite clear that there is no dispute on the statistic, albeit there are some schematics regarding who exactly it applies to. There are disputes related to 1) how it is worded 2) where it is worded 3) how it is presented. Another user - not just me - totally disagrees with how you are doing this. STOP being ignorant and stop trying to make a point where there is none. I have already checked, you are not an administrator, stop trying to act like one and maybe, just maybe, myself and Trappy would be more receptive to your ideas.
Snickerdo 08:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
You're within your right to remove warnings after reading them, however it does not hide them from administrators. It should be noted that one does not have to be an adminstrator to warn other users when their behaviour becomes uncivil or tag their talk page when personal attacks occur, or even flag them when they remove cited content from an article. Again 2 years of "editing" should have taught you this. This dispute goes way beyond the statistic and where it should be placed, it involves your behaviour and interaction with other Wikipedia editors (which an administrator has now warned you about on your talk page), and your crude methods of disputing a statement.
With regards to your conensus - you removed the material completely without discussion, stating that If someone wants to add it to the Niagara Region page, that's up to them, but adding it to St. Catharines both dilutes the statistic, and robs the rest of the region from the 'honour' of enjoying a few extra pounds on their belly.. How is this reaching consensus? How is this even a legitimate reason for removing cited material? This simply you pushing your point of view on article. Saying the information "robs the region of the "honour"? How is that even encyclopedic or NPOV? And the key to all of this, is that you did this in the middle of a civil discussion on the issue between Trappy and myself, during which each of us had made just one post about the information. Did you attempt to involve yourself with a valid argument or consensus solution at that point? No, you simply came in and removed the information - first from the opening paragraph stating, without a valid reason, that "this is not worthy of an opening paragraph", then deleting it completely shortly after - again without a valid reason for doing so. If you want to talk about "strongarm tactics" - take a look at your own edit history during this dispute. Yankees76 14:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Mediation/Outside Involvement

I have initiated to have outside involvement brought in to mediate the situation. For the time being, I would recommend that all users involved in this situation back off, stop editing the article and let mediation take its course. We have all lost our temper over this situation and it cannot go further. Backing off and waiting for mediation is the best thing we can do. Snickerdo 08:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I should point out, this also applies to User:talk pages, as well. Snickerdo 08:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

Ok, well, I'm from the Mediation Cabal and my name is Jem. I'm here to try and sort out this dispute.

Having read the article, the first thing I want to assert is that all users involved are experienced editors and have a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies. It appears that both Yankees76 and Snickerdo have both become a little heated about this article, and as such I'd ask you both to obviously remember civility and personal attacks etc. etc. Therefore I think it's best from now on to keep all related discussion on this talk page.

The way I have read the article, there is little dispute that the fact about obesity levels is both correct and verifiable. It also appears that a consesnus has been reached so far as that the term "fattest city" may not be appropriate. The controversy stems from the idea that the wording edged on being POV. For example, if someone was to write the city was "full of rich people" as opposed to "a wealthy city" it would probably be questioned. In a similar vein, the dispute about fattest vs. obesity may give rise to controversy. This is however a moot point as this issue seems to be resolved.

The main issue that I can see just revolves around arguments on the talk page surrounding previous events, and surrounding material of obesity. I therefore propose the following compromises, and your views on them would be very much appreciated.

  • The wording of the comments on obesity levels should remain NPOV and be discussed on the talk page before posting future changes. The current wording seems to be agreed upon.
  • Whilst edits regarding the general feeling of inhabitants of the town may in fact be true, policy states that they must also be verifiable. Therefore it may be condusive to a better article that they are left out or tagged with a fact tag until corroborated by an independant source. This "fact" tag is not a personal attack, but merely a warning to readers that whilst true, there is no supporting evidence. After all, many users of wikipedia are those involved in researching a topic and may be required to source their material from a place other than wikipedia itself. However, it may be unnecessary to tag every single slightly unsure point, and would be better discussed on the talk page before tagging.

Please feel free to add any other points of controversy you feel I have missed. Jem 15:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Just some background - the term "fattest city" was coined originally by CTV News[5] and again by Globe and Mail Public Health Reporter Andre Picard [6]. This would be two reliable sources, which is why I used the phrase in my first edit [7]. Also, the term "Fattest City" has been used widely through the media since then.
The other source of dispute (though I don't feel we reached the dispute phase, as only two civil posts were made on the subject) was wether or not this information can be included in the first paragraph. I placed it there initially because it did not seem to fit in any sections of the article at the time. As I mentioned, I'd gone through other city pages, and lead in sentences are often the place for statistics or notable things about the city like "fastest growing city", "has a reputation for coffee consumption", "one of the oldest cities in Canada" or "a focal point for individuals who are attracted by its liberal lifestyle". As this is an encyclopedia and the information is both notable and well-referenced, I beleive that it can be placed in the opening paragraph. Before the discussion between myself and Trappy could be continued in this vein, it was hijacked and pulled in a completely different direction. Yankees76 16:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I accept your point about the placing of that peice of information, and I agree it never really reached dispute, which is why I didn't feel that I should discuss it as such. Furthermore, consensus has been reached about the placing of that information at present under "City Issues," which is a good thing. If you feel that its location at present isn't right, then feel free to throw it back up for debate.

As for the phrase itself, whilst I can see your reasoning behind its origin from a quote, it may be argued by some that the phrase is simply "journalese;" that is a media induced rhetoric on that fact. Therefore such people may feel that this media-ism does not belong on a agenda-free encyclopaedia. Moreover the belief could be held by some that where in some articles the fact is referred to as "obesity levels" here it is perhaps "fat levels" and may be misconstrued as POV, in all good faith. This is why I raised it as a point for discussion; to find to root cause behind the dispute not to point the finger of blame. None of the points above are what I believe to be true in this case, incidentally, just reasons I have seen as to how the phrase may be seen as controversial. Jem 16:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the City Issues section has since been created to accomodate information such as this, which is one good thing that has come from this. However, I think that the section should be broken down like the Sports and Leisure section to address each issue, rather that it being lumped into one small paragraph. Once this is done, the term "fattest city" can be qualified and attributed to a source, and the information be presented more thoroughly (there is more notable information related to this, including quotes from the mayor at the time). Yankees76 17:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Snickerdo's Comments

First off Jem, I would like to thank you for your involvement in this situation. It is nice to get fresh (and cool-headed) perspective on what is going on. I am not disputing that there is a documented obesity problem in St. Catharines, as there is in many other cities within Canada. Obesity is a national issue, not something that affects just St. Catharines. My issue was with its location at the beginning of the article, and the use of the term 'fattest city' rather then using less biased term, such as obesity issue or fitness problem. Upon removing it with my explanation that I felt it did not belong in the header of the article, I was called and labelled a vandal on my talk page, something which caused me to become defensives, become uncivil and lead to this whole situation. I am not here to point fingers. I am here to come to a consensus as to how we can appease all parties involved and put this all behind us.

I feel that 'Fattest City,' while something that is certainly be documented StatsCan perhaps placed in the same section as demographics, does not warrant an entire section dedicated to one of many issues that affects The Garden City. I am even against placing it in a City Issues section as I believe the Demographics section would just as easily suffice. While I can in no way confirm this, I do feel that Yankee76 may have some personal basis for his emphasis on wanting to link St. Catharines as the 'Fattest City' in Canada, just as I have a personal basis for wanting to keep the article about my home town and life-long residence to be as professional and as "un-tabloid" (to coin a phrase) as possible. I believe that official, unbiased sources such as Statistics Canada should be used in this article related to St. Catharines' obesity problem. News articles, and obviously-biased propoganda such as that from PETA (of which I still cannot believe was cited as a source earlier) should not be used when an official government source is available. StatsCan never called St. Catharines the fattest city and therefore, I feel the term should not be used.

Jem, I would certainly like to hear your views on the subject as an unbiased outsider. I do fully admit that I am biased in wanting to keep this article as professional and encyclopedic-like as possible. I feel that others may have biases for other reasons, and I have to wonder why I, who is quite clearly listed as one of the main contributors of this article, was targeted as a 'vandal.' Why would I vandalize something I quite clearly have worked extremely hard to make it what it is now?

Again Jem, thank you for your time. Snickerdo 01:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Response:

Snickerdo, I took exception to you removing the material based on the fact that 1) You blanked it completely, you didn't just move it, you completely removed cited, verifiable information, 2) You removed it without a valid explanation in a manner I considered out of line and uncivil [8] and, 3) There was already a civil discussion taking place regarding the inclusion of the material that would have probably worked itself towards a peaceful consensus.

With regards to the term "Fattest City". The basis for inclusion of well-written, cited prose into Wikipedia is not based on how "professional" it makes the subject appear. Yes, it should be written professionally and you're right in that aspect, but the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. I think we've all agreed that the information is verifiable beyond the shadow of a doubt. It's also been clearly demonstrated that the information is not original research, and I've followed that policy's rule as well by adding information and citing "reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhering to what those sources say." Note the final six words there. Perhaps the only thing my original edit was guilty of was sensationalism, by not attributing the term "Fattest City" as being words coined by another entity. Instead of simply stating that St. Catharines is Canada's 'Fattest City'. I should have qualified the statement by stating that "Based on research performed by Statistics Canada in 1998 and 2001, CTV, the Globe and Mail and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation have dubbed St. Catharines as Canada's 'Fattest City'" (and then adding the 57.3 stats along with 3 citations). The information can be expanded upon later in the article, as there are a number of Globe and Mail articles on the topic, and some CBC sources as well.

So, indeed, you don't hold Wikipedia to the same content standards you would hold to any other encyclopedia? You would certainly not expect to see fattest city in Canadiana or Britanica and you would see actual statistical data cited, not news articles with bias that can change with the blowing of the wind. You seem to be holding Wikipedia to a lower standard. I, however, take this quite seriously, and do not feel that such items should be used. The term fattest city can also be considered discriminatory, as there are a number of human rights issue that exist when using terms such as that. If you want to cite obesity rates that is fine, but there is an obvious derogatory tone with the fattest city term. Snickerdo 05:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and this information does not fall into any categories outline by WP:NOT#IINFO
I'm holding Wikipedia content to the Five Pillars aka WP:FIVE, that define Wikipedia's character, one of which states, that I can be WP:BOLD in updating articles provided, as long as I follow the policies and guidelines laid out by the consensus of the community (which I have - see above) Yankees76 06:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Since there isn't a style guide for cities that list what can and cannot be added to the first paragraph, arguments can be made both ways for inclusion into the lead paragraph. Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy states that all Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias. I don't believe that something this notable is going be represented fairly by burying it in a section about demographics. Perhaps if the city was ranked 5th (like London, Ontario) I would agree completely, however this is not the case here.

Again, this issue is resolved. No need to further discuss this. Snickerdo 05:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

For one final time, I'm going to address your claims of me calling you a vandal after you first removed the information. Please, don't lie - it's considered uncivil, especially during mediation. The first template I placed on your talk page after you blanked cited information, without first discussing it on the article talk page, is a standard boilerplate warning used by Wikipedians throughout the site, and it states "If you continue to do so, it may be considered vandalism." Here's the diff.[9]. Note how polite the tone of the warning is (may be considered), and the "thank you" at the end. All I added of my own text was my signature. How does that standard, templated warning, approved by the Wikipedia community warrant this response?[10]

Your tone offended me. You could have messaged me, asked me why I removed it and worked with me to discuss this issue instead of taking this to mediation, getting an admin involved and both of us retaining member assistance. Instead, you assumed bad faith, and instantly labeled me a vandal and posted it onto my :talk page. I have -never- been labelled a vandal in the past, despite several disagreements with other users. I have always worked out issues on a person-to-person basis. You offended me, and I took this personally. Rather than assuming I was a reasonable individual who was willing to work with you in good faith, you instantly slammed a label on my head and got admins involved. This made me assume that you were a one-in-the-wind, caused me to get emotional and lose my temper. If you would have, for just a moment, actually posted something along the lines of "Hey dude, why did you remove my fattest city comment?" or asked if we can come to a common resolution rather then the instant label, we would not be in this situation right now. I would recommend that you, in the future, attempt to discuss issues with without instantly labelling someone. Only after you have discussed the issue with them on a one-on-one basis should you get others involved. Snickerdo 05:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Again it was not a vandalism warning - I tagged you with a "removal of wikipedia content" warning, which is not my "tone" because it's a template created after a consensus discussion. With all due respect, I'm not sure if you fully understand the Wikipedia warning system. There are multi-level templates: The first warning assumes good faith, and the second does not have a faith assumption. So I most certainly did not assume bad faith by placing one on your talk page. See WP:UTM for details. You blanked cited material without what Wikipedia considers to be a valid reason - twice - which is worthy of a 1st or 2nd level warning - the language in both being fairly civil and polite. I've done nothing wrong or even out of the ordinary here. And me choosing to use a templated method of interacting with you versus typing out a query certainly cannot be used as justification by you for your own actions throughout this dispute.
If you were getting emotional, you should have simply backed off and cooled down and perhaps taken a look back at why I tagged you in the first place instead of engaging in the laundry list of personal attacks and uncivil edits you did. And I didn't instantly get admins involved. I privately approached an admin over MSN for advice regarding the notability of the material only, and then only brought in a different admin after your attacks went beyond a simple dispute of content. (Plus, you challenged me a number of times to bring one in - so I did - why are you surprised at this?) Yankees76 06:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

With regards to your claims that I have "personal basis for his emphasis on wanting to link St. Catharines as the 'Fattest City' in Canada", you couldn't be further from the truth, and I don't think you'll find any evidence to support such a claim. I take pride in adding material to articles that represent all sides and ensure all significant published points of view are presented. I came across the information and deemed it notable enough to warrant significant inclusion into the article. As I mentioned earlier, I beleive that had the polarity of the information been reversed and the study showed St. Catharines residents to be (for arguments sake) Canada's 'smartest' or 'healthiest' city, I doubt we'd be having this dispute. This is why I beleive editing with a neutral point of view on Wikipedia is considered paramount, and why I do not personally extensively edit articles on subjects with which I have emotional attachments to (like my country, city of residence, company etc.).

Why, then, are we in this situation right now? If you did not have some sort of vendetta, I do not feel that you would have instantly called me a vandal, and just the same get all four corners of the Wikipedia admin involved to somehow make me out to be an evil individual out to destroy the integrety of Wikipedia. You talk about Good Faith versus Bad Faith. I must say, with the utmost respect, that you have quite a bit to learn in this department. Snickerdo 05:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Yet again, I did not call you a vandal - see above.
We're in this situation because of your insistence on engaging in personal attacks and uncivil behavior throughout the dispute, right from the beginning - rather than focusing on the content, you focused on the editor - right away in your first post on this very talk page you attacked me. Even after I politely asked you to calm down and remain civil, you continued. And you spread it to other users talk pages adding claiming you would "keep removing the reference and keep telling him to go to the :talk." [11]. What reaction do you expect from this behavior? I brought in administrators because you boldly challenged me to. Again it should not come a surprise that an admin would see this and talk to you about it. Yankees76 06:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Next, please show me where I included PETA as a reference in the article. Provide a diff - because otherwise why do you insist on dragging it up again? It was introduced as an example only - before I also introduced other more applicable sources - and is about as unbelievable as your initial reasoning for removing the material in the first place - which was, and I quote, "adding it to St. Catharines both dilutes the statistic, and robs the rest of the region from the 'honour' of enjoying a few extra pounds on their belly."

Yankee76, you should know that PETA is a controversial organization that can offend many people by its mere mention. This is what made me believe you had an agenda and a bias by editing the St. Catharines article to use the term fattest city. When PETA gets involved, regardless of the situation, it instantly causes a loss of credibility in many people's eyes, mine included. Snickerdo 05:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
It was used as an example on the TALK page. Not the best choice, but also far from the only evidence I offered which it appears was also conveniently ignored while you continued to dwell on the PETA link long after it's usefulness as a debate tool had ended. Yankees76 06:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Jem, this is what concerns me about this entire dispute. While I admit my tone has not been perfect or the pillar of WP:COOL, I believe I've done due diligence with regards to upholding Wikipedia standards to the best of my ability in this situation, without letting personal bias enter into the dispute. If we're to have a consensus, statements like those above regarding me using PETA as a "source" and my calling him a "vandal" need to cease completely - otherwise we're not going to agree on anything. Yankees76 05:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yankees76, I would argue that you have not used simple reasoning skills to prevent this issue from occurring. As I posted above, had you come to me as an individual wanting to work with me, rather than posting template after template on my :talk page as if you were some fly-by-wind user, we would not be in this situation right now. Instead, we are are now both retaining Wikipedia member assistance, and I have a fight on my hands to clear my name due to a situation that could have easily been avoided by discussing this personally with me rather than the instant label of vandal. Snickerdo 05:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
A first or second level warning for removing content (not vandalism) is a perfectly acceptable course of action for the situation as it presented itself. And again, my using this template instead of typing out a query myself certainly does not absolve you for your ensuing behavior. A discussion was already taking place on the talk page before you were even involved in the situation - it was your choice to either blank properly-cited material or civily participate in the discussion. You chose to remove the material. Yankees76 06:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm now going to follow my own advice and cool off for 20 hours or so. Jem, please leave any inquiries here and I will respond later. Thanks. Yankees76 06:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Mediator's Response

Sorry for my delay in replying, it does seem that we have some time zone issues.

I think it is a good idea that we all cool off. If both of you truly have the interests at the article at heart, then arguing over what has happened previously is of no consequence and will impede communication. As such, I think that we need to put behind us any previous accusations. Whilst justified by wikipedia guidelines, the posting of user warnings is not always condusive to civility and good communication; similarly labelling someone as a vandal has much the same effect. Perhaps now is the time to finally put all of these personal attacks aside and keep discussion to the article. No hard feelings?

My role here is not to impose a judgement as to who I believe to be correct. I am here to propose a solution that is both acceptable to Wikipedia and all concerned parties. As such, can we agree on the following points? You are free to disagree and respond with alternative arrangements.

  • The fact about obesity rates should remain in the "City Issues" sections. Whilst justified in the demographics section, it is not strictly population. Moreover, we have all agreed that the term carries potentially negative connotations, and as such it is perhaps best placed in a section dedicated to the city's problems.
  • The term "fatetst city" should not be used in isolation. The phrase suggested here:
"Based on research performed by Statistics Canada in 1998 and 2001, CTV, the Globe and Mail and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation have dubbed St. Catharines as Canada's 'Fattest City'". This could be preceeded with a phrase along the lines of "St. Catharines has a noted obesity/health problem etc, and then adding the 57.3 stats along with 3 (agreed) citations.
This would be appropriate, as it reports on media speculation and also factual information.
  • Lets stop all of these personal attacks once and for all, and move on for the good of the article.

So, Responses? Jem 08:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Response to the Mediator

Overall, I do not disagree with the views brought forward by Jem. While I don't expect to suddenly be friends with those involved in this overnight, I can put the issue behind me so long as we can both agree to avoid each other whenever possible, as we seem to have a personality conflict that just doesn't work for either of us.

I do feel that I must voice my concern with the fattest city phrase, however. I am willing to live with it, but I feel that it may be interpreted in a prejudicial or derogatory manner. The Canadian media over the last few years has been notoriously insensitive to those with weight/obesity issues - I am not afraid to say that I am sick of Lloyd Robertson telling us every night that we're all gonna die and bring this country to its knees due to our weight issues - and I am concerned that including a phrase like this - regardless of whether its a newspaper quote or not - in an encyclopedia article validates their insensitive views. Obesity is something that can deeply affect one's personal life, and lumping St. Catharines into that category may offend every member of this community who struggles with a weight issue each time they read this article. Yankees76 believes that Wikipedia isn't out to make people feel warm and fuzzy (or at least that's how I interpret his responses). I argue that Wikipedia should neither offend nor be biased to support one particular view. If fattest city must be included for this mediation to be successful, I am willing to concede. Still, I do feel though that I must voice concern over the tone of such a phrase, and feel that further discussion on this matter is necessary.

Snickerdo 10:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I know I have not weighed in on this issue lately but I have barely had the time to visit the site in recent days. Fortunately, Snickerdo and Yankees76 have been doing an admirable job of stating their POV's consistently and thoroughly. After reading Jem's comments and the current City Issues section (as of 4:10pm on January 30), I can say that I am satisfied with the way the paragraph has been worded and the inclusion of the City Issues section has added a new dimension to this article, which was needed. I agree with Snickerdo in that the tone of a nickname such as "fattest city" is insensitive, but the current wording in the paragraph does a good job at avoiding this. I hope things can carry on as they did previously, this is an admirable article that is a result of years of hard work. Keep it up. Trappy 21:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Jem, I'm fine with your proposed compromise above. Wikipedia's job isn't to be politically correct at every turn and avoid potentially sensitive issues like obesity, and in fact if I'm not mistaken, there aren't any guidelines that I could find regarding avoiding the addition of verifiable information because it may potentially be offensive. The sentence is certainly not given undue weight, and is properly attributed and substantiated, and as far as I can tell is free of weasel words. Had this been an editors own choice of wording and done spitefully with the intent of adding their own point of view, a re-write would be warranted, however that is not the case here. Yankees76 23:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad a consensus has been reached. I've taken the liberty of drafting a compromised City Issues paragraph, in fact, the only issue here that has been changed is the wording of the obesity argument. I have left in the two uncited remarks at the end; this is up to you to decide whether or not they are necessary and to find the relevant citations if so.

Like most large Canadian centres, a number of social issues affect the city, and St. Catharines is no exception. Since 1998, St. Catharines has had the highest obesity rates of any centre in Canada. A 2001 analysis by Statistics Canada showed that 57.3 per cent of its residents were overweight.[12]. This has caused some elements of the media, including CTV[13] and the Globe and Mail [14] to dub St. Catharines as "Canada's Fattest City." St. Catharines also has a chronic shortage of social housing, causing hardship on low-income families.[15]. Downtown St. Catharines also has an unusually-high vacancy rate of 10%,[16] causing The Globe and Mail in early 2005 to call St. Catharines the Garbage City.[17] Many have factored the decline of General Motors in the city as the chief cause of these issues, while others claim it it has been a secretive and unreceptive city council. [citation needed] In 2006, many of these issues were brought to the forefront during municipal elections, with the hope that many of these issues can be addressed and changed in the coming years. [citation needed]

This is obviously a rough outline and have a tweak with it as much as you like, but if you are all agreed with the proposals then this is how I envisage a compromised paragraph. I recognise that the resolution of the dispute won't cause everyone to suddenly become the best of friends. However, it is clear that you all have a lot to contribute to this encyclopaedia, and it would be a shame if those contributions were to be marred by something that really shouldn't cause too much disagreement. So pending the acceptance of the above paragrpah of similar, hopefully we can put this issue to bed. I'll still mediate until the new text is in the article and everything is finalised; that's just me- I like to see things through to the end :) Jem 00:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The CBC should be added. I also made a minor tweak as to more closely match the cited source, which I bolded.

Like most large Canadian centres, a number of social issues affect the city, and St. Catharines is no exception. Since 1998, St. Catharines has had the highest obesity rates of any centre in Canada. A 2001 analysis by Statistics Canada showed that 57.3 per cent of its residents were overweight [18]. This has caused some elements of the media, including CTV[19], the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation[20][21] and the Globe and Mail [22] to dub St. Catharines as Canada's "fattest" city.

St. Catharines also has a chronic shortage of social housing, causing hardship on low-income families.[23]. Downtown St. Catharines also has an unusually-high vacancy rate of 10%,[24] causing The Globe and Mail in early 2005 to call St. Catharines the Garbage City.[25]

Many have factored the decline of General Motors in the city as the chief cause of these issues, while others claim it it has been a secretive and unreceptive city council. [citation needed] In 2006, many of these issues were brought to the forefront during municipal elections, with the hope that many of these issues can be addressed and changed in the coming years. [citation needed]

Please review. Yankees76 04:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
As an aside, I considered putting in the CBC but I didn't have the appropraite citations. As mediator I have no issues with any of the amendments. I'm assuming that the bold "fattest" is just for clarification purposes here? Jem 07:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I just bolded changes in text from your version to mine. Yankees76 16:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The wording of the section works for me, as it makes quite clear that the fattest city phrase was coined by the media, not residents of St. Catharines itself. I will try to find a source for the election issue. It was certainly an issue in this past election, but it is difficult to find St. Catharines news older than 30 days.
I do, however, feel that Wikipedia should observe a level of political correctness, as there are a number of people of many different views who read material on this site. I do not believe that it should be overly PC by any means, but I do feel that it should not go out of the way to be insensitive just because of a media article, and should always at every time remain as netural as possible - if neutrality cannot be achieved, both views should be presented. In fact, some have argued that the obesity rates in St. Catharines have to do with with fact that we have the third-oldest population in Canada and the poorest of large senior populations, though I certainly cannot source anything on this matter and wouldn't dare put it in the article. The aging population is something that should also be added to the city section - One of the highest aged populations in the country, causing strain on a health and social services, though this is beyond the scope of the cabal.
Snickerdo 02:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Update as of 02/02/2007

It appears that Yankees76, as indicated on his talk page, no longer wants anything to do with the mediation process or myself. I have waited several days for his reply to continue the process, and it appears that he just doesn't want anything more to do with it. If that is the case, I respectfully submit that Yankees76's position be withdrawn, and that Trappy and myself be left to work on this issue together without the assistance of mediation.

Please let me know if there is any objection, or if you, Yankees76, would like to continue with the mediation process. Posting stuff on my talk page during a mediation process - specifically when I requested that we avoid contact - and showing bad faith toward the mediation process on your own page is hardly very becoming in a situation like this. Jem has offered time and services to help us in this situation, and I must say that the attitude displayed on both my and your :talk pages is a slap in the face. If you no longer want to continue mediation please let us know, rather than dicking us around.

Thanks Snickerdo 00:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I declined to persue my AMA request [26] (I referred to it the "issue") in my post, when Geo asked if I still needed an advocate. I declined because there is no point yet adding another mediator, especially since you're asking for potentially a third through this request here [27]. I don't feel we need to waste the time of three mediators. The reason I posted on your talk page was to ask you why you feel to need to post things that are untrue about the events leading up to this in the request above, as I don't take kindly to defamation, as I'm sure Glen S doesn't either. Please comprehend all the relevant material before jumping to conclusions. Yankees76 00:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I would be very, VERY careful when making accusations as bold as libel, especially in regards to others who you, as far as I can tell, do not speak for. Tread carefully. Snickerdo 02:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
If I'm making a false claim, you'll be able to prove that by providing the differences that show:
  • 1) I posted vandalism templates on your talk page. ("Yankees76 then posted a vandal template on my :talk page and restored the line to the exact same place in the article. I removed the item again, recommending that the user see the article :talk page if he wanted to discuss its merrit in the article. Again, he continued to post templates on my own :talk page")
and
  • 2) You were threatened with being banned from Wikipedia by an administrator. ("I was threatened with a final warning saying that I would be banned from Wikipedia.")
Let's see them. If you can't, please don't make WP:LEGAL threats. Yankees76 05:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I already provided you with proof from Glen_S who told me, based on what he had read (and later apologized for) that I was on my last straw. That has since been retracted, but the fact remains that it did get to that point. This information was provided to you on your :talk page, and the AMA advocate will be able to see that.
And again, for god's sake Yankee, STOP ACCUSING ME OF THINGS I DID NOT DO!!! _WHEN_ did I make a legal threat? I told you to be very careful when accusing people of something as serious as libel, of which can be construed as a legal threat from -you- against me, not the other way around! Perhaps you should actually read WP:LEGAL before having the audacity to say that I am posting a legal threat? It is your stunts like this that caused the whole situation in the first place with you and your overzealous attitude, and for the sake of Jem, Dfrg.msc, and everyone else involved I am going to stop and take a breath right now and stop trying to figure out what the heck is going inside your head - I'll let the AMA deal with that instead. Snickerdo 07:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Glen's exact text "You removed my comment so you obviously read it, yet as noted by Mel above your incivility continues. Consider this a final warning. Either tone it down a notch or action will be taken." does not threaten a ban from Wikipedia. I'm still looking for differences that show I posted vandalism templates on your talk page as per your frequent accusations. Yankees76 04:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

And upon reviewing further, your accusations are ridiculous. I took a couple days away from this article thinking the dispute was pretty much wrapped up - a happy medium had been hammered out and a final post was all that was necessary. In the meantime, you're requesting another mediator and posting things that aren't even factually correct about other Wikipedia users in the process of acquiring one (including claims that an admin threatened to ban you from Wikipedia). You can see my talk page if you're unsure as to what I'm referring to with regards to things not being factually correct. And I'm the one showing bad faith? I was at least upfront about my requests from administrators and mediators. You're simply using this as an weak excuse to void the mediated agreement. Yankees76 00:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for actually posting and being involved, it would have been nice to see some input from you over the last few days if you had time to go around ranting and raving about other things. I don't have to answer to you when it comes to my own doings on Wikipedia, but if you are serious about what is going on here you shouldn't send mixed signals regarding the validity of this mediation. Snickerdo 02:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for having the "patience" to wait 72 hours while I attend to other things and take a step back from dealing with you. Yes, the above resolution is fine. Jem did a good job mediating (considering what he was working with). The only that I ask is that you allow the use of proper references (for all the detail this article has, it would fail GA criteria because of this). Instead of simply external linking the sources, they should be added using < ref > tags. Yankees76 05:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I apologize for jumping the gun with regards to your participation, but an update would have been nice, especially since you had the time to post ignorant comments on my talk page, and mentioning things like 'giving up' on your own talk page without even so much as a note in the cabal. Considering the situation, you should be much, much more clear when something like this is going on.
Oh, and please, if you're going to mention St. Catharines on yours or someone else's talk page, please spell it correctly, or at least make an effort to correct past mis-spellings. It is a major stickling point with St. Catharines residents when the city is spelt as St. Catherines, especially those who should otherwise know the correct spelling or have been corrected multiple times. Simply put, it's growing offensive. Were this anyone else, and were the situation not escalated to the point it is now, I would correct the mis-spellings myself and add a note to the users' :talk page. Snickerdo 07:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
It's a common spelling error and it was not done purposely. If you're in the mood for checking spelling errors. Count the number of times you've referred to me as erroneously as "Yankee76" since our first interaction. Thanks. Yankees76 04:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I seem to have disappeared for a few days and the personal attacks flared right back up. It's nice to see that it's died down again, I think. Anyway, there are but two things I have to say. Firstly, these personal attacks, if continued, are going to end up in people getting blocked. It is a grave shame to see that after working out some kind of agreement there are more arguments. The Cabal, being a voluntary mediating service, can only do so much, and this consistent arguing makes my job nigh on impossible. Secondly, I'd just like a succinct agree/disagree from all parties regarding the proposed changes, and if any of them are fundamentally disagreed with. This way the changes can be implemented, and with any luck this issue might cool down. Jem 09:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree though as per the style guide, using Footnotes (using <ref> and <references/>) to cite sources. Thanks. Yankees76 04:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Agree with the proposed changes, inlcluding the use of <ref> tags. Snickerdo 15:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. Well if one of you would care to implement the proposed changes as above then we can close this. If you'd like myself to implement the changes however, just say, and I can do that. I am somewhat perplexed as to the involvement of the AMA at this penultimate stage of the preceedings, but I'm sure we will see what comes of it. Jem 18:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll do the edits - expect to seem them sometime today. Yankees76 14:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Done. If you have any minor tweaks (spacing etc.) - be my guest. Thanks. Yankees76 04:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Great. Assuming all is agreed and well, I'm going to close this MedCab case. Good luck with editing the rest of the article, and if you need my help with anything else, don't hesitate to drop me a line. Jem 07:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for the help and for your patience. Yankees76 14:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Picture of Downtown St. Catharines

I noticed a while back that the latest image of downtown St. Catharines (under Communities and development) which I personally photographed, was replaced with the older version that I had also photographed, a year prior. I thought that this was perhaps a glitch (as I had requested that the orginal photograph be removed from wikipedia and replaced by the update), but now I can't seem to find the new version anywhere on the site. Why was a photograh that I had requested to be removed from wikipedia returned to the article? And where has my lastest version gone to? The new version appeared in the article for quite a long time before it was replaced by the old one. Any comments on this? Trappy 21:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

My guess is that the old image was moved to Commons, then you replaced the old one on en.wikipedia with a new one, which was then deleted because someone thought that it was the same one as the one on Commons. Confusing, but all you have to do is upload the new one here. --Chlämens 22:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I show that picture of downtown St. Catharines to friends of mine who don't live here to show them what a dump this place is. They laugh at the crumbling buildings. It looks like WWII Dresden with the windows blown out. Dresden is beautiful now...209.29.95.198 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Notable Figures and Clean-Up

I think the time has come for us to transfer Notable Figures of St. Catharines to its own article. This page is getting too large and I would like to start tightening things up a bit, making the whole article more "to the point" and efficient. I'm going to start with the Shopping section as it's too wordy and there are now article links to the shopping locations listed (which wasn't the case before). What do you think? Trappy 03:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I moved Notable Figures to its own page entitled "People from St. Catharines, Ontario" which states that "The following people were born in, residents of, or are otherwise closely connected to the city..." I also moved much of the information from the Shopping section to each mall's individual articles. I originally introduced the shopping section to this article a while back because the city's malls at that time did not have their own articles. Now that they do, the information is a bit too redundant, hence the change. The Shopping section can now work more as a list of popular retail destinations in the city. Feel to express any concerns/opinions on these changes. Trappy 22:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mississaugaicedogs.gif

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Mississaugaicedogs.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Icedogsnewlogo.png

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Icedogsnewlogo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)