User talk:CJCurrie/Archive 8

Proposed deletion of Roger Woloshyn

The article Roger Woloshyn has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unelected candidate - no notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ϣere SpielChequers 16:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Stephen Zaretski

The article Stephen Zaretski has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unelected politician

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ϣere SpielChequers 16:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commission de la construction du Quebec

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Commission de la construction du Quebec, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.ccq.org/fr/index.htm.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 06:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of William A. Ferguson

The article William A. Ferguson has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Mhiji 03:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Toronto municipal election, 1980/Position/Toronto City Councillor, Ward Five (two members elected)

Template:Toronto municipal election, 1980/Position/Toronto City Councillor, Ward Five (two members elected) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. — This, that, and the other (talk) 04:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Disputed humour

Template:Disputed humour has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Communist Party of Canada candidates, 1974 Canadian federal election

The article Communist Party of Canada candidates, 1974 Canadian federal election has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A list containing one person, who is non-notable. Serves no obvious purpose.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Robofish (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Diane Johnston

The article Diane Johnston has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Long-term unreferenced biography, with no indication that the subject meets the notability criteria for politicians

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AllyD (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Ronald Eddy

The article Ronald Eddy has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No in-depth coverage of this person appears to exist. Currently fails WP:GNG

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 11:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Amyotte

I reversed your reversal of my reversal of Kalibird. In this case "pro-life" is more appropriate than "anti-abortion" since it referes to to groups with "life" in their name. Anyways Kalibird, a new registrant, has been systematically going thru many prolife articles and replacing "pro-life" with "anti-abortion" without regard to context. Clearly he/she is pov motivated. Roesser (talk) 04:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of James Allum

The article James Allum has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced BLP about a failed election candidate. No significant coverage found. It's been here since 2004 and needs some evidence of notability if it's going to stay much longer.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Michig (talk) 13:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of ALS Society of Ontario for deletion

The article ALS Society of Ontario is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ALS Society of Ontario until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI...

Please see User_talk:EdJohnston#User:Medeis. Viriditas (talk) 20:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just to follow-up, it looks like you've got enough eyes on the page now, so no need for me to comment or join the discussion. Thanks for the invite, though. Viriditas (talk) 04:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Owen

I see you've written a lot of articles about Canadian politicians. But you didn't list Bruce Owen on that list, although, if I've read the history page correctly, you are the first contributor to Bruce Owen's article. Nevertheless, there are no citations to the article. I've looked for it online, but couldn't find it. Could you add them up? Ratibgreat (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Scott Bell

The article Scott Bell has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced BLP, fails WP:POLITICIAN (never held political office), no indication of substantive coverage via Google News and Google Books

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your request

You recently wrote that, "As I've said before, I'm not opposed to the creation of a Saudi Arabia and the Apartheid Analogy page (beyond the current redirect) if there are enough valid sources to back it up" I believe that I have written such an article. I hope that you will take a look, Apartheid in Saudi Arabia. I would have no objection to a title change to Saudi Arabia and the Apartheid Analogy.I.Casaubon (talk) 01:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of James Stock (Canadian politician)

The article James Stock (Canadian politician) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable; unsuccessful political candidate, never held office; nothing found at Google News

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. MelanieN (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity

I didn't revert your last edit. I added new referenced content. Your edit has been undone [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jack_Layton&diff=426832285&oldid=426831322 here by a different IP. I would undo. But I don't want to be mistaken for a 3RR violator... which, so far, I am not. 142.167.92.94 (talk) 03:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you geolocate the IP 174.94.36.8 it indicates it is in Toronto Ontario. And has 2 previous questionable edits concerning Mr. Layton and Ms Chow. 142.167.92.94 (talk) 03:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUE

Do you think this qualifies as WP:UNDUE here? Just wondering? To me it's no different than trimming the content about the Toronto Councillor calling the Layton defence a lie. It leans toward bloating the defence side rather than maintaining the neutrality that the article had. 142.167.92.94 (talk) 19:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates in templates

Just so you know, during the time that you weren't active the consensus shifted away from allowing candidate lists to be compilations of "full article" style biographies, and toward formatting them like Liberal Party of Canada candidates, 2011 Canadian federal election, where they consist only of a list of names, with very little biographical information desired beyond the absolute basics. While not all of the older lists have been reformatted that way yet, ideally they're all supposed to — so there's no longer any real point in wikifying names which exist only as redirects to lists, because most of the time a repeat of the name is practically all the information the list is actually supposed to contain anymore. Bearcat (talk) 01:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my question here would be whether there's any point in actually bothering to add any "extended" information about an unelected candidate beyond what the columns in the template already ask for. If they're not notable enough for their own independent articles, then is it really worth spending any time at all on turning the lists into long compilations of biographical mini-articles instead of plain "name and riding" lists?

And a lot of the older lists do actually have to be heavily pruned, as well, because much of their "extended" biographical content is either wholly unsourced or sourced only to campaign websites (which are inadmissible primary sources even when they do still exist, which often they don't) — which means that they're still violating WP:BLP. Bearcat (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As another example of what the problem is with putting "extended" biographical info into the lists, I'd ask you to go to one of them, find a table which has at least one such section, click on one of the sorting arrows at the top of the table to resort the list in any order other than the one in which they were originally arranged on the page, and watch what happens: the "extended info" sections all separate themselves from the candidate's main entry and get bumped up to the very top of the table.

As for "electoral record" info, if all the lists were properly completed then we could simply provide a text link to the person's entry in the appropriate lists for their prior candidacies. Inserting a complete electoral record template next to every individual list entry for a person who's run more than once contributes to the bio-separation problem I noted a moment ago, so it's really just needless clutter given that there's a much less complex way to provide the same information. Bearcat (talk) 22:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Please stop with your recent edits, on Thomas Mulcair [1] (whereby you reduced the entire section documenting Mulcair's comments on bin Laden to a subsection of his federal politics, which is strange especially given how you even agreed on Mulcair's talkpage that a title should be given for the ) and the whitewashing of Brosseau's interview incident [2] (where you did not give a reason deleting the original quotes from the Globe and Mail and National Post describing the incident, and replaced it with NPOV wording) as they are completely unwarranted. If you are going to make the edits, discuss them on the talkpage first. Sleetman (talk) 09:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Readers may note that I completely disagree with this interpretation of events. CJCurrie (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NDP and socialism

When you get a chance, could you take a spin through Category:Canadian socialists as a whole? There are a considerable number of names in there besides Brosseau's that I find rather problematic for pretty much the same reason that hers is. Bearcat (talk) 01:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tag Team editing

I've reported you here on AN/I for your tag-team editing with Bearcat and DigitalC a la your recent edits on Thomas Mulcair and Libby Davies. Feel free to disprove the charges. Sleetman (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Electoral templates

Hi,

I removed the percent change row from Masse's templates since I noticed that other MPs' templates, such as Harper's and Baird's, lacked the statistics for percent change for federal elections before 2011. I'll restore them if necessary. — Schrödinger's Neurotoxin 03:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see...I'll restore the percent change rows in Masse's article then. Thanks for letting me know. — Schrödinger's Neurotoxin 03:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What should I do with {{Canadian federal by-election, May 13, 2002/Electoral District/Windsor West}}? It doesn't seem to have a row for percent changes. — Schrödinger's Neurotoxin 03:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chow in Paying For It

Ummm...the fact that Chester Brown, who ran against Chow in two consecutive elections, depicted her in a highly-publicized book, in a 2008 debate they both attended...is not worth noting?

You're sure you don't want to discuss it and try to reach a consensus before reverting something like that? It was sourced and everything. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 10:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Dennis Rice

The article Dennis Rice has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:POLITICIAN as an unsuccessful candidate for office, unable to find significant coverage in third-party reliable sources.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hut 8.5 21:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of John Laschinger

The article John Laschinger has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Doesn't meet Wikipedia:POLITICIAN guidelines, and lacks evidence of notability. He has been a campaign organizer several times, and not terribly successfully, one would note.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PK T(alk) 11:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits on Ruth Ellen Brosseau's page

I've responded to your recent edit on Ruth Ellen Brosseau's page on the Not a weasel word quote section under the Talk:Ruth Ellen Brosseau page.Sleetman (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ignatieff and Layton

I half agree with your reversion of the May 2 date at Michael Ignatieff and Jack Layton. At the moment the best source we have is Parlinfo, which simply says May 2011., but if you look further down that list to the last time an election resulted in a change to the Official Opposition without a change in government, it says Preston Manning replaced Gilles Duceppe on election day. Therefore it is quite possible that at some point it will say Layton took over on May 2. You said in your edit summary that Leader of the Official Opposition is a parliamentary office, but it is also a creature of statute that defines it as the leader of the largest party not in government. Since Canadian law is pretty vague about when MPs take office and silent on when a party become the largest, election day is one of several reasonable dates to go by. -Rrius (talk) 01:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Social Democrats, USA

Your flagging of POV-pushing was a good edit. Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting Canadian electoral district articles

I am soliciting opinions on how percentages should be shown in electoral district results tables here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Electoral_districts_in_Canada#Formatting_results_tables. Your opinion would be welcome. Regards, Ground Zero | t 02:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Matt Jelly for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Matt Jelly is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Jelly until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. freshacconci talktalk 19:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phyllis Chesler

You are invited to a discussion regarding the article "Phyllis Chesler". Kaldari (talk) 18:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Mary Deros

On 14 July 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mary Deros, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in 2007 politician Mary Deros of Montreal helped prevent an historic city avenue from being renamed after Robert Bourassa, a former Quebec premier? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Rod Stephenson

The article Rod Stephenson has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable politician, according to the article he has not won an election.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Independent Citizens' Election Committee

The article Independent Citizens' Election Committee has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Lacks references; no indication or evidence of notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PK T(alk) 14:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gord Perks

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Gord_Perks, you may be blocked from editing. Timharper068 (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC) (please stop removing content) Other content was properly sourced and not part of the edit you claimed you were making[reply]

Readers should note that I completely disagree with this assessment. CJCurrie (talk) 00:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Layton

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Jack_Layton, you may be blocked from editing. Timharper068 (talk) 00:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC) (please stop removing content) Content was properly sourced and relevant to the subject at question.[reply]

Readers should note that I completely disagree with this assessment. CJCurrie (talk) 00:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peggy Nash

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Peggy_Nash, you may be blocked from editing. Timharper068 (talk) 00:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC) (please stop removing content) Content was properly sourced and relevant to the subject at question as it is relevant to her historical position.[reply]

Readers should note that I'm currently pondering the meaning of "vexacious." CJCurrie (talk) 00:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet

Maybe you like to know this: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Timharper068 Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, having to pretend there was any legitimate doubt on this front was a bit irritating. CJCurrie (talk) 03:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

rfc

Sorry, I did not intentionally remove the RfC, I was only trying to reply to the comment after it. You are, of course, utterly in the wrong here. But at least your RfC seems to be neutrally worded. μηδείς (talk) 05:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I rather think my other comments have been neutrally worded too. In any event, I wasn't certain if the RfC removal was deliberate; I simply added the exclamation point to ensure it would not recur. CJCurrie (talk) 05:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:GregoryPolskyJr

Were you planning on blocking them? They appear to be a vandalism only account. Crazynas^t 03:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was just checking WP:BLOCK in case there were any policy updates I needed to be aware of. CJCurrie (talk) 03:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although it's odd, I didn't realize the account was created in 2010... and blocked once before, how odd.Crazynas^t 03:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should move protect Dalton McGuinty as well... don't ever see a reason it should be moved, plus it is a BLP. Crazynas^t 03:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Abunimah

Hi. The link to the discussion between Pipes and Ali Abunimah could also be found on the site of Ali Abunimah's organisation (just compare [3] and [4]. Would a link to BOTH pages for this discussion be acceptable? Only the latter would violate the WP:SELFPUB-rule, thus I chose for the version of Daniel Pipes' website. After all, the "Notability of Daniel Pipes and 2002 debate"-discussion was never clarified, I had no reason to believe that there was any consensus created to remove it from the article. Anyway, I hope I'll hear from you soon. Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 20:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello CJCurrie/Archive 8! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your amazing work on Canadian politicians and related pages. Well researched, well written and very useful encyclopedic content. Bravo! — CharlieEchoTango — 05:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, you may want to archive your 2010 correspondence, the page is getting pretty big. Just a friendly suggestion. Cheers! — CharlieEchoTango — 05:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Sylvia Stark for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sylvia Stark is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sylvia Stark until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 21:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:CanElec11

Template:CanElec11 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Bulwersator (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:CanElec13

Template:CanElec13 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Bulwersator (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Gilles Duceppe

Hello, CJCurrie. You have new messages at Talk:Gilles Duceppe.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Peter Burtniak

Do you recall the reference source you used for the above article. The article is currently unreferenced but I'm expecting that you had a good source. If you can assist, it would improve the article. Thanks. Stormbay (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]