User talk:CJCurrie/Archive 5

Pat Martin

I'm not certain why you feel I need to show patience for references that had been waiting, when my previously added comments about the criticism of him living away from Winnipeg were removed instantly by you before I had a chance to get the citation. It was criticized by other candidates in the recent election. NPOV isn't just for Kevin Lamoureux. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.126.163.20 (talk) 17:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vic Toews and the IPs

FWIW, the two IPs which reverted your edits on Vic Toews over the last couple of days turned out to be Tor nodes. One's already been blocked and I've reported the other. Just a heads-up, there. --Calton | Talk 13:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Yeah, I'm not touching anything but the film summary. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Palestine-Israel conflict

Please see the above link as I have requested arbitration for a dispute that you are involved in. Feel free to contribute there. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite 17:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 22:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Katharine Reimer

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Katharine Reimer, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 02:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Israel-Palestine sanctions

Hello,

I've responded to your proposals here. Comments are welcome. CJCurrie (talk) 00:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I responded and added a few more proposals. -- tariqabjotu 03:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

I have proposed a mediation on the underlying issue at New antisemitism. The request is here. It's up to you whether or not you want to participate. I am asking everyone who has been extensively involved in discussions on the talk page. *** Crotalus *** 05:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

This arbitration has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The area of conflict in this case shall be considered to be the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted. An uninvolved administrator, after issuing a warning, may impose sanctions including blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. The Committee shall convene a working group, composed of experienced Wikipedians in good standing, and task it with developing a comprehensive set of recommendations for resolving the pervasive problem of intractable disputes centered around national, ethnic, and cultural areas of conflict. The group shall be appointed within two weeks from the closure of this case, and shall present its recommendations to the Committee no later than six months from the date of its inception. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed images and Wikipedia:No original research

Hi CJCurrie,

I've proposed an amendment to Wikipedia:No original research that would strengthen (or more accurately, reiterate) the requirement of editors to reliably source interpretations of images in articles. This would particularly apply to depictions of allegorical or symbolic artworks or artifacts, where the meaning was not immediately clear or was subject to differing interpretations. You can see the text of the proposed amendment at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Interpretation of images.

Another editor involved in the discussion has suggested providing an example of "an actual ongoing dispute to illustrate the problem". I know you're active in editing or monitoring articles in controversial subject areas, and I was wondering if you were aware of any such ongoing disputes. It would specifically have to concern something like an illustration of unclear meaning which editors were disputing what it represented, maybe because of a lack of reliable sourcing about the image itself or about its meaning. If you've come across anything like this scenario, could you please chip in at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Interpretation of images? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/New antisemitism.

For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 18:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Communist Party candidiates, 1981 Ontario provincial election

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Communist Party candidiates, 1981 Ontario provincial election, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Communist Party candidiates, 1981 Ontario provincial election. Phoenix -wiki 14:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Marc Emery

There is both evidence in the media and on file by lawmakers that Emery did, indeed sell cannabis seeds which are to all accounts drugs. He was a merchant of marijuana seeds by way of the Internet, and made millions of dollars. All personal thoughts are aside from this issue, and I will merge your edit with mine. There are no personal matters to this... please remember to keep neutrality on Wikipedia with your contributions. This would not classify as 'slanted' text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by E1foley (talk • contribs) 04:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: What one calls a 'terrorist' has much to do with perspective. A person who merchants drugs is a drug dealer. A person who delivers milk is a milkman, a person who delivers mail is a mailman, a person who educates is an educator. This is not an example of slanted text, nor am I calling the subject a terrorist. There is evidence all over the place that he did indeed sell drugs, accept the profits, and file taxes with the profits. A man or woman who deals drugs is a drug dealer. We can argue this, but the fundamental principle of the term can be determined by any dictionary. Please stop vandalizing this article and keep your perspective to a neutral contribution.

Some have called you a drug dealer? Have you ever sold pot or seeds to somebody else? If you have, you can ask anybody without bias... you're a drug dealer. If that IS the case, don't use Wikipedia to find sympathy amongst others who have found an idol who has set an example for such a group - as such a notion is illegal and immoral. (Granted this isn't about morals) It would, however, give away your position on this argument and invalidate your contributions for this particular topic.--E1foley (talk) 07:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My point, however, is that the term drug dealer carries particular connotations, and that describing Emery in these terms violates WP:NPOV. Everything else is a secondary consideration, at best. CJCurrie (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Rick Boychuk

I have nominated Rick Boychuk, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Boychuk. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Boychuk

Unless this politician has risen above the level of city councilman, or has done something notable or infamous while in this office, it is highly unlikely he will meet notability standards, no matter how much you write. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three articles in the local newspaper does not make him notable. Virtually every city council member can get thta over their political career. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless he's done something to make him stand out from other politicians of that level of office, I still don't think even two dozen article will do the job. I work for a newspaper, and we mention just about every member of the city councils of our area communities at least once a month, but that doesn't make them notable. Boychuk is just another city councilman, unless you can show me how he stands out from others. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Haggerty

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Ray Haggerty, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 07:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:ManElec3

A tag has been placed on Template:ManElec3 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:Ministry box office header/2

A tag has been placed on Template:Ministry box office header/2 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Washington International University

I have nominated Washington International University, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Washington International University. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Guy (Help!) 23:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Richard Warman

You removed what I believe were valid entries in support of the of criticism of Richard Warman.

You claim that the entries are not "encyclopedic". Please explain what you mean, provide an example, and a Wikipedia reference in support of your position. Note also that one of the references was to another article in Wikipedia.

I am going to assume for the moment that you are acting in good faith, and will not censor valid criticism. Then there should not be too much difficulty in finding criticism of which you approve, since Richard Warman's complaints before the CHRC are currently one of the most widely discussed topics on Canadian blogs. I provided just two references, whereas there are hundreds of others.

The entries you removed are:

Critics have charged that Warman abuses the intent of the Canadian Human Rights Act by personally appearing as the plaintiff in the majority of CHRA section 13 "hate speech" cases which have been brought before the Commission, a former employer of Warman. [1] - - Critics further charge that many CHRC "hate speech" complaints such as Warman's have had a chilling effect on the human right to freedom of expression. [2]

I look forward to your prompt, reasoned response. Thank you. Freedom Fan (talk) 08:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:Alleged Humour

A tag has been placed on Template:Alleged Humour requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Amyotte

I see you've encountered Roesser and his/her tenacious defence of the Earl Amyotte article. Good luck with that. If I can be of any help, drop me a note. Best wishes :) Xdenizen (talk) 07:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pallywood

Could I have some backup here? I'm trying to deal with a POV-pushing newbie who's obviously ignorant of basic NPOV requirements, but it's an uphill struggle. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Election candidate lists

I've been mulling an idea I'd like to run by you, which could potentially provide a workable solution to the current set of flaws in creating merged candidate lists for Canadian elections — specifically, the problem created when people have stood as candidates in multiple elections.

Basically, what I'm thinking about is that instead of creating lists organized by election, perhaps we could organize lists by letter instead. So instead of having to copy-and-paste Gerry McIntaggart, frex, into multiple election articles, instead he'd be in just one list, perhaps named something like "List of New Democratic Party politicians - M" or something to that effect. That way there'd be just one target article, and all the relevant articles would thus link to the same place. This would also have the benefit of eliminating the by-election problem — Rebecca Coad, for example, would go on a C list instead of a by-year list that's technically the wrong place for her.

Do you think this might be a potential solution, or does it just create other problems? Bearcat (talk) 00:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New antisemitism mediation

Heya CJCurrie.

I would first like to apologise on behalf of the Mediation Committee for the delay in this case being dealt with, which is due to a shortage of available mediators. I have expressed interest in taking this case to help with the backlog and to assess my nomination to join the committee. As i am not currently a member it is common practice to for the involved parties to consent to mediation of an RfM from a non-committee member. To give your consent for me to act as mediator for this case please sign as you have for the acceptance of the case on the case page. I look forward to working with you and finding a solution to the dispute.

Seddon69 (talk) 17:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Democratic Party candidates, 1987 Ontario provincial election

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article New Democratic Party candidates, 1987 Ontario provincial election, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 06:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Update

Just to let you all know, the case has been started. I have created a little navbox for you to navigate between pages and will be expanded as the case goes on so that its easier for you to navigate. The first page you need to visit in this case is here so you can give youre opening statement. There i have left a few questions for you all to answer. For those that have been busy and unable to confirm their participation in the mediation, they are welcome to join the mediation at any stage.

I can be contacted in several ways in the event you need to. I am normally present on the wikipedia-en, wikipedia-medcab and wiki-hurricanes IRC channels at some point between 15:00 UTC and as late 02:00 UTC depending on college and real life commitments. To find these channels and instructions on how to access IRC go to WP:IRC. Throughout the day, even when i am in college, feel free to email me using the email tool or by emailing the email address on my user page or both to make sure. You can also leave a message on my talk page which again ill do my upmost to reply to as soon as i can. Seddon69 (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heya. I noticed that you hadn't left your statement here regarding the New Antisemitism case. Its important for the success of this mediation that you stay involved in this otherwise i cannot guarantee that your views will be taken into consensus agreed upon by the parties. I hope that you will be able to participate soon. Seddon69 (talk) 22:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is nor formal time limit but the sooner we get this done the sooner the case will be over with and get to some sort of agreement :) Look foreward to reading your statement. Seddon69 (talk) 09:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The mediation im getting rolling as its been a long time waiting so i think its best to get moving. Most of the mediation will be on the talk (discussion) page. so make sure its in your watchlist. Seddon69 (talk)

Re: Talk:Joe Volpe

For my Wikipedia friend:

(Shown walking up to a bar called The Little Black Box)

Homer: The last bar in Springfield. If they don't let me in here, I'm gonna have to quit drinking.

Homer's Liver: Yay!

Homer: Shut up, liver!

(Homer punches his liver)

Homer: Ow! My liver hurts!

Have a drink and keep a cool head. GreenJoe 01:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GoldDragon

I'd be prepared to co-certify a WP:RFC/U on him, if you think that will do any good. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Antisemitism Mediation

I think thats its time we got moving. A couple of the points have been raised before and felt they were the foundations to the dispute:

Firstly whether the picture can be confirmed to have been taken in the rally in San Fransisco.
Secondly to come to an agreement on what new antisemitism is and then to decide what the image is depicting and whether it purely illustrates New Antisemitism or whether it also addresses other issues which could be confused with new antisemitism by new readers.
If we cant confirm the those then we need to find a viable alternative.

A point i would like to raise is that at some point a lead image might need to be found if this article got to FA. The image in question is not free and couldn't be put on the main page with this article as todays FA. Although not an immediate point a long term solution might wish to be found so that this article could feature on the main page with a viable alternative.

Does anyone have access to Lexis Nexis? It might help as a search on the network could uncover something not readily available on the internet. Reliable sources that use the image would be helpful. Do you reckon that there would anyway of finding third party images that might possibly contain the poster/placard? Also i would be grateful if images of other placards at that rally could be found to find whether this was a small minority at this rally or perhaps a larger group.

Whilst that is being done i wanted to find out on what the consensus view is on what New Antisemitism is? I have read the article and the previous discussion and attempted to get a proper understanding but i wanted to ensure that this was current.

PS any sources you find can you please post in the section at the top of the mediation talk page. Seddon69 (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

be careful

Please stop deleting the article on "Bible Study with Jimmy Carter." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.207.212 (talk) 00:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Watch it!

Excuse me, what do you mean by "Kahanist"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mazeartist (talk • contribs) 00:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the Jewish Press had Rabbi Meir Kahane as a longtime columnist, but to label the newspaper as Kahanist is like shooting a messenger for telling the truth. The article accurately describes Carter's biblical misinterpretations. Furthermore, the AJC is considered to be a mainstream organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mazeartist (talk • contribs) 01:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Jewish Press is not a "small publication," it is the most widely read Jewish newspaper in the US. I understand that you are looking for other souces dealing with Carter's tapes, but other newspapers did not cover it, only the Jewish Press did.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

Following discussion at the mediation talk page, i would like to bring up a suggestion that until the end of the mediation to remove both images from the article. There is currently no real consensus on the images so in the interests of fairness it seems best to simply have no images. If you have any suggestions or comments then please come to the mediation talk page to be discussed. The discussion will be open for around 5 days if there are no problems. But the discussion will go on if there is ongoing discussion. ŠξÞÞøΛ ^talk 00:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fletcher

CJ Currie I have offered compromised wording taken directly from the Manitoban. If there is an insistence to include what is a very minor event why not use the compromised wording? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newzealandwanderer123 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Userlinks3

Category:Userlinks3, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. VegaDark (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-17 Muhammad al-Durrah

Hello. I'm going to take over this MedCab case and try to work this stuff out. I posted in the talk page what I would like all participants to do to start. Hopefully this all works out well, I have zero intention of leaning towards any one side in this dispute, and I only care about getting it taken care of. Wizardman 18:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad al-Durrah

Hi CJCurrie, just as a reminder, there is currently a 0RR (no revert) restriction on this article. but you seem to have been making some revert-like changes to the lead. Some of these were definitely fine, as you were removing unsourced information (though your edit summary could have been a bit more clear). This current exchange with Wikifan12345 is starting to veer a bit much into "edit war" territory though. As such, could I please ask you to be careful of this, and for your next edits to be more in the nature of changing information, rather than just reverting? Thanks, El on ka 00:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka, I think it's worth pointing out that the "alleged" terminology is something that a couple of editors have been trying to force into the article for some time. There is no consensus to use it, and as far as I know Wikifan12345 has not participated in any discussions until now. The use of "reported" vs "alleged" has been discussed many times before, and Wikifan12345's very aggressive attitude on the talk page indicates rather clearly where he is coming from. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fête nationale du Québec article

I've put in a request to change Fête nationale du Québec to Saint Jean Baptiste Day. You may wish to join the discussion at the Talk Page. I anticipate a long one. --soulscanner (talk) 06:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad al-Durrah reverting

Please do not revert any more of my work on this page. The article is subject to 0RR, and your writing "not a revert" in an edit summary does not change that you are, indeed, reverting. This edit of yours reverted this edit of mine just half an hour after I'd made it. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 08:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I do not agree with SlimVirgin's interpretation of events. For details, please consult this statement. CJCurrie (talk) 08:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PGFTU

I recommended someone start this article and your research is comprehensive beyond my wildest expectations - yet comprehensive as an encyclopedia entry should be. Where did you get your background on this issue? Were you previously familiar with the PGFTU? I thought I was until I read what you had gathered.

Another source you or I should probably add is Yosef Sayigh. He writes about the Sumud Period and the funding of trade unions. I have a little bit written up about it, but need to find the time to insert it.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ZionismOnTheWeb

Hi CJCurrie,

As you are aware there was a discussion you initiated about both myself and Zionism On The Web here [3]. Following this, and with clear indications that there were objections to your proposal to declare Zionism On The Web an unreliable source, a non notable source, etc. you seem to have gone and deleted all reference to it from Wikipedia anyway. As you are aware, I raise a complaint about this in my evidence here [4].

As the case was already closing and arbcom members didn't look at it, I'd like to ask you to please go and undo the changes you made. There was no agreement for the removals and you used different "reasons" many false (I've documented this), for different removals after discussion explained that mass removal were not appropriate. This approach may look like a small change to anyone looking at an individual page, but IMHO it is a mass vandalism spread across many pages.

I realise things may have been heated during the arbitration, however I would like to see this resolved and have no interesting in getting into an edit war with you over hundreds of articles (most of which I had not seen until I sent through your deletions after noticing the first few references vanish). That said I want valid reference restored, as we discussed before only a small handfull were placed by me... but you have left Wikipedia worse off with these edits.

Please drop me a response on my talk page, thanks. Oboler (talk) 12:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Casual readers should note that I don't share User:Oboler's assessment of this situation. I have no further response. CJCurrie (talk) 23:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CJCurrie, I see you are stalking me and removing references to my work on the "The Jewish Internet Defense Force" article. I would kindly request that you stop this. The first link you removed is an academic paper published by a well known think tank. You had no grounds for removing it. The second link you removed was to the New York Week article, you removed this as there was an issue with the link (something about one of the variables). This would have been easy enough for you to fix rather than to simply say "broken link". I can't help but feel you are again engaging in a personal attack against me. Oboler (talk) 12:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Casual readers should note that I still don't share User:Oboler's assessment of this situation. CJCurrie (talk) 04:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"accusations that you know cannot be refuted without going into private discussions"

Feel free to try to refute them via e-mail, then. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This misses the point. I don't need to justify my actions to you, and I don't think it's appropriate for editors to make public accusations that I cannot refute except with reference to private discussions. CJCurrie (talk) 03:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot refute them because they are true; not for any other reason. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, I don't need to justify my actions to you. For the benefit of other readers, Jayjg seems to be forgeting a key exchange that took place between us a while ago. CJCurrie (talk) 03:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of the readers, I have no idea what you're talking about. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm ... maybe you really have forgotten the discussion in question. (Whatever ...) CJCurrie (talk) 04:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if I said I don't know what you're talking about, that's because I don't. Feel free to e-mail me, as I said before. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, I don't need to justify my actions to you. Look through our old email exchanges (if you still have them), and you might find the answer. CJCurrie (talk) 04:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Markus Buchart

What an absurd situation. Don't you think that this has reached the point where the article should be edit-protected from anons? Skeezix1000 (talk) 01:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal comments

I have removed your pejorative speculations regarding me from the AfD discussion. Discuss the article, not me. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My response: [5], [6]. CJCurrie (talk) 03:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My response was to remove the pejorative speculations regarding me yet again. If you think "it's not essential one way or the other" then don't add it. Focus on the article, and stop speculating about me. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My response: [7], [8], [9]. CJCurrie (talk) 04:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The matter before us =

You wrote on the talk page of the apartheid AFD: "Perhaps we should move on from epic battles of the past and focus on the matter before us." I completely agree. If you delete the references to epic AFDs of the past, that'll be a great way to demonstrate that you also walk the walk. --Leifern (talk) 18:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't "move on" from something if you don't know something about it's history. And history is sadly relevant here. CJCurrie (talk) 22:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Zionism /Racism revert

I reverted your revert of Telaviv1 [10] for reasons I comment on on the associated TALK page. Tundrabuggy (talk) 23:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nahum Shahaf

CJ, I'd appreciate a second opinion on an issue that has been raised concerning Muhammad al-Durrah - please see Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah#Nahum Shahaf. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Kinsella

Just a friendly word of caution: Please be careful not to break the 3 revert rule with your edits to Warren Kinsella. You are not in imminent danger of doing so, but you should know that extended periods of reverts can result in page protection or a block even if the 3 revert rule isn't broken. I have advised the other party as well. I suggest that this be taken to the talk page or dispute resolution. Thanks. Okiefromokla ^questions? 15:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I didn't realize you were an administrator until I looked it up just now; I apologize if the above notice seems patronizing — I'm sure you're aware of the situation. Nevertheless, I'd still like to see a discussion at talk:Warren Kinsella rather than reverts. The other user has raised some arguments on the issue, and I'd like to hear your take on it. Thanks. Okiefromokla ^questions? 23:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In case you weren’t aware, I protected Warren Kinsella a few days ago until the dispute is worked out. A BLP violation may also be an issue here, so if you could explain your side of things at the discussion on Talk:Warren Kinsella, we could hopefully get things settled as soon as possible. Thanks. Okiefromokla ^questions? 00:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of apartheid

Hello, I notice you've recreated this page as a redirect. May I ask why? It's not directly related to the Israel and the apartheid analogy article, and I think the project would be better off without the page entirely. CJCurrie (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is related, in the general sense —don't suggest there is no relation. I'd like you to prove one way or another why Wikipedia will be better without it. -Zahd (talk) 23:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NAS

Thanx for the message, taking a look now. Seddσn ^talk ^{Editor Review} 23:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented, I must ask you not to revert again on this issue and discuss it on the talk page. Seddσn ^talk ^{Editor Review} 00:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Parliamentary Caucuses from Manitoba

Just a suggestion. At present, we have two sets of senatorial lists, one grouped by province and one grouped strictly alphabetically, which list all past and present senators — but for MPs we only have alphabetical lists. Though I'd agree with the assessment that the Manitoba list isn't that useful as currently constituted, it would absolutely be worthwhile IMO to compile by-province lists of MPs which include all past and present MPs. What say you to that? Bearcat (talk) 21:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I mean — table form, with columns for name, party, electoral district and term in office. A list with no other information besides the names would duplicate the category listing, yeah, but lists aren't inherently redundant with categories, precisely because the list can be augmented with supplementary information in a way that the category can't. Bearcat (talk) 01:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JIDF

Hi CJCurrie Please share your point of view--Puttyschool (talk) 18:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Lemire article, etc

Hi CJCurrie,

Looks like "someone" is sock-puppeting now with these two usernames:

RachaelMartinez FairnessFairy2

He has been vandalizing the content of the Marc Lemire article and the Shane Ruttle Martinez article. Could you please a moment to make a report about this, and keep an eye on these two articles? Thanks very much friend!

Best regards, Frank —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Pais (talk • contribs) 12:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Claim

Hey...I noticed that you claimed that Uncle Moishy is Canadian-born. For some reason, though, one of the sources I found claims that he is indeed American-born. If you could please find a source to back your claim -- thanx! DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No no, do not understand me -- I'm just trying to find out where he was born. I found a source that indicated he was American born, and since you were the one who stated that he was Canadian-born, I figured you either had first hand knowledge or a citation of some sort. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silly question

Am I crazy for thinking that the flurry of attention on Kwame Kilpatrick right now means we should whip our article on Eddie Francis into better shape, if only because the fact that he has a minor role in the Kilpatrick mess (i.e. the tunnel meeting) means he'll probably also get more Wikihits than usual in the next few days? Bearcat (talk) 03:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laugh...No worries. Though I do think you've added enough detail that at least some of the councillors — at least Craig and Davey, maybe Gasparini too — could probably stand as independent articles now (since, after all, the whole notability thing for politicians hinges far more on the presence of verifiable reliable sources than on what level of government they served in...) I've already added a bit of content to Windsor Eddie's article today, but of course relying primarily on Google News — the very reason I haven't actually put more effort into the Sudbury council! — does give the current version a slight whiff of Kwame-centric recentism. Bearcat (talk) 03:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It also amuses me greatly that even the cursory effort I've put into Kenneth Cockrel, Jr. — about whom I know absolutely nothing except what he and Eddie said about each other today — is, at this moment, more than anybody else has. I swear I'm becoming an utter parody of myself. Bearcat (talk) 03:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've got to be kidding

This edit was really not what I was talking with regard to the massive NPOV issue in the Hebron article. I added a new section to the talk which clarifies my point, but you probably know this already. --Einsteindonut (talk) 08:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of municipal politics...

There was a relatively recent series of edits to Toronto Computer Leasing Inquiry by User:Batman1962, which completely eliminated any mention whatsoever of the roles of both Tom Jakobek and Jeffrey Lyons — basically turning the article into a generic fluff piece that can literally be summarized as "things went wrong, but nobody in particular was at fault, la-de-da, everybody's off the hook." So that one's also going to need a major cleanup and ref-up job as soon as possible. Bearcat (talk) 08:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:CanElec13

A tag has been placed on Template:CanElec13 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image permission problem with Image:Liz.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Liz.jpg, which you've sourced to http://election2004.communist-party.ca/candidates.htm (linked via Internet Archive). I noticed that that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 18:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby Dhalla

Please discuss your removal on the article's talk page of the Maxim magazine reference. 71.110.101.102 (talk) 01:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Ron Parker

I have nominated Ron Parker, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Parker. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD of Lorne Gershuny

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lorne_Gershuny#Lorne_Gershuny

--Mista-X (talk) 03:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Kay

:You wrote: I took out the "response" section because:

::(i) It's clearly stated at the beginning of the WP article that the "Barbara Kay controversy" involves *all* of her articles written in this period.

(ii) The section of the WP article that introduces the controversy *already* includes quotes and citations from all of the articles in question, including the one that you've cited as her "response". (In fact, one of the quotes that you used in your "response" section had already been used earlier in the article.)

(iii) If all of her articles from this period are to be considered as a "collective statement" (as this article does), then we cannot also use one of the articles as her *response*.

:I've already integrated some of the text from your "response" section into the section that introduces the controversy, and I'm prepared to add more if necessary. I understand what you were attempting to do, but I don't think it fits with the existing framework of the article. CJCurrie (talk) 04:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)''[reply]

It appears you are correct. I initally thought this only referred to the initial article but I now agree with your assessment. Feel free to modify my contributions as you deem necessary. My concern was that Barbara Kay was not being given the chance to explain her position in response to the criticism section - but I suppose your configuration of the article will satisfy this requirement.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks. I'm pleased that this didn't escalate into an edit war. CJCurrie (talk) 04:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been through some nasty editing conflicts recently with several wiki contributors who are extremely biased and adversarial. I'm glad that you take a more sagacious approach to wikipedia.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 06:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Coming in loud and clear

The statement on your user page speaks directly to, and for, me. Nice to know of one more editor who's tired of the sucker's game that's continually played over Israel/Palestine articles. Thanks. Your page did the most for my wikimorale since finding WP:TRUTH. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 20:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of Israeli apartheid article

Thank you for correcting my error of a few days ago. I had intended only to delete the chart, which represented the consensus of the talk page discussion. I am not sure what happened; when I previewed the edit, the deletion appeared to me to be limited to the chart. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 23:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of John Angus (politician)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article John Angus (politician), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. RMHED (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Louise Dacquay

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Louise Dacquay, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. RMHED (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Terry Duguid

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Terry Duguid, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. RMHED (talk) 22:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Pearl McGonigal

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Pearl McGonigal, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. RMHED (talk) 22:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Bernie Wolfe

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Bernie Wolfe, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. RMHED (talk) 22:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Harold Taylor

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Harold Taylor, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. RMHED (talk) 22:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Guy Savoie

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Guy Savoie, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. RMHED (talk) 22:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarion Fund

You did almost exactly what I was doing to the LRB bit when I hit an edit conflict with you. Thanks. Suggestions for the wp:npov problem? The AP article on the CAIR filing is no longer available. Why did you remove the cite to the letter to the FEC? -- davidz (talk) 02:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. But as the paragraph explicitly refers to the AP, I'd leave the reference in until we can fix it or rewrite the paragraph. Thanks. -- davidz (talk) 06:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Guy Savoie

I have nominated Guy Savoie, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guy Savoie. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. RMHED (talk) 22:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Terry Duguid

I have nominated Terry Duguid, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terry Duguid. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. RMHED (talk) 22:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of John Angus (politician)

I have nominated John Angus (politician), an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Angus (politician). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. RMHED (talk) 22:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Harold Taylor

I have nominated Harold Taylor, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harold Taylor. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. RMHED (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Hughes (judge)

Well done and much needed. Thanks for doing it --KenWalker | Talk 04:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a-Z I'm thinking

I believe I could do a pretty good re-write job, but a-Z is not the fight where I want to spend my time. The first ‘to discuss it fairly’ would be tough to write in a short sentence, the second could be done in a flash, however, and is truly needed for informative balance. Further, a re-write should try to minimize those, count ‘em, 8 ugly refs for the first sentence; same old, same old, when considered in light of what Freidman and EUMC say, and my comments on them. Isn’t this WP:undue or something? From a debating stance, I’d say, if others feel so obviously forceful and some do, then it would be neutral to add that those who posit the concept, as specifically ref’d, are predominantly Jewish/Israeli/Zionist. Pick your words carefully, but it is a statement of fact, as ref’d. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 05:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Computer Leasing Inquiry

Our Jakobek-whitewasher is back again. Could you work a bit of your database magic when you get a chance? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question and answer

Not that they're about the same thing, but still...

The question: at least to me, once a person has run in more than two or three elections, the string of "electoral record" tables begins to look obtrusive and ugly, especially given that they're not always consistently formatted. Do you think it would be possible to discuss and work out an alternate way to present them, such as making the tables collapsible like navboxes?

The answer: it's not easily sourceable, because nobody went on the record with it, but what I'm hearing through the rumour mill is that Bartolucci really, really wanted Marleau to shuffle off into retirement — like, so badly he could taste it — so that he could install his own preferred puppet as the new federal MP in Sudbury. Not that I've been able to figure out who the puppet is that he had in mind or anything. Bearcat (talk) 08:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that could be...the rumour that I was hearing was that Rick was trying to install someone who'd be unequivocally Robin to his Batman, and I'm not entirely sure either Courtemanche or Gasparini would be quite so willing to take on a sidekick role, but until we know more that's probably as good a guess as any. Bearcat (talk) 01:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for references for Canadian politicians

Hi, I came across several articles that you created or expanded and was wondering if you could help me find references for them. Specifically, I am working on List of University of Waterloo people, and a lot of articles that you created say that the person graduated from the University of Waterloo, but I can't find references supporting this fact. Could you point me to where the information that you added the information to these articles came from, so I can use those as references for the information? These are the articles in question:

Thanks in advance! Gary King (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Quebecois page move

Looks like we're revisiting this issue: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Québécois. As your commentary was pivotal last time, please comment, if only briefly: Talk:Québécois#Requested_move.

PS. Thanks! --soulscanner (talk) 02:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]