User talk:SimonP/Archive 5

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



I'm just wondering what you meant by this edit: [[1]]



Shawn Mikula[edit]

Hey Simon, I said the article was just a stub. I don't understand why you remove it?

Iranian Revolution[edit]

Is there a reason why you revert the edited article back to its previous version? Regards, User:sassani (talk) 16 September 2005

Matthew 5:36[edit]

I created a brief entry on Matthew 5:36, any expertise you could lend, or info you could add, would be appreciated. Thanks. freestylefrappe 03:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Peristeria (orchid)[edit]

I just put up the Peristeria (orchid) page a few days ago. I came back to it today to add to it and it has been since deleted. Please explain the reasoning for the rapid delete. (Brett Francis 18:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC))


Simon, can you take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kdbuffalo please? Dunc| 19:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Double redirects[edit]

Hey, when you moved Miles O'Brien (Star Trek) to Miles O'Brien, you left a whole flock of double redirects (all pointed at Miles O'Brien (Star Trek)). Do you want to fix them, or shall I? Please make sure to check the link provided on the "move succeeded" page for this whenever you move a page. Thanks! Noel (talk) 00:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

PS: You like, really need to archive your talk page! In addition to it just being plain big, do recall that every edit keeps a copy of the entire page (at 1/8th MB per edit), and we're going through disk space like mad on the server....

PPS: You also didn't move the talk page to keep the talk page for the article on the character with the character's page! Come on! This one I will fix right now, before someone edits the wrong talk page. Noel (talk) 00:05, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Long requested articles[edit]

Hi Simon ... keep adding to the Wikipedia:Articles requested for more than two years, and I'll keep trying to create them. ;) Proto t c 14:57, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

School listings on AfD[edit]

Are you aware that listing schools for deletion is about the most controversial thing one can do on Wikipedia? Are you aware of Wikipedia:Schools, which states that one should refrain from listing schools on AfD, and instead should be bold and merge short stubs. If you object to schools in general please add your comments to Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments, rather than wasting everyone's time with yet another AfD on the subject. - SimonP 13:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I was slightly aware of some possible controversy but didn't feel it was a scarlet letter kind of thing. Thanks for the Wikipedia:Schools link. I hadn't seen that one. I'll read it over. Thanks for your opinion. Dismas|(talk) 13:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Simon, you have probably seen the {{historical}} tag on WP:SCH. Anyway, there used to be a hard-won consensus/truce/gentlemen's agreement on AfD that high schools were unlikely to get deleted and thus should not be listed. Elementary schools, OTOH, were considered less notable and actually likely to get deleted often. This seems to have failed, thanks to the effort of several editors making a WP:POINT. Pilatus 15:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Palazzo Pitti[edit]

Thanks for re-arranging the pictures ay Palazzo Pitti, I just can't get the hang of how to do it, I just stick them in and hope for the best. It's much better now. Thanks. Giano | talk 07:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

France ?[edit]

Hello! Why did you remove from the article the two formats: G8 & Security Council? Thanks! --Vlad 10:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

The Iranian Revolution[edit]

Thanks for your response. This article has a lot of flaws which I will disucss with you at a later time when I am less busy with work. Regards, User:sassani (talk) 23 September 2005

Generalitat Valenciana[edit]

The "Valencian Generaliad" (Generalitat Valenciana (va) or Generalidad Valenciana (es)) is an institution of the "Government of the Autonomous Community of Valencia", but in no case it is the "Valencian Community" (Comuninidad Valenciana). Gabri-en 15:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

See: Generalidad Valenciana in Spanish. Gabri-en 15:25, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


Just to say thanks for supporting my RfA. Please let me know if you see me screw up. --Doc (?) 19:01, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Cold War[edit]

Hi. Sorry I wasn't around earlier to work on the Marshall Plan peer review... By the way, if you have time, could you please take a look at Cold War (1953-1962). I'm having more and more trouble there dealing with a tendentious yet very uninformed editor who has been mutilating the article on almost a daily basis. I'm hoping that someone else might have more luck in dealing with him. 172 | Talk 21:28, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello again. Never mind. It looks like things are beginning to get under control. 172 | Talk 03:04, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

The Shins[edit]

I've reverted your changes because you have not offered any contribution to the current discussion on the talk page, as to whether or not these stubs should remain to give people a chance to add to them and expand them in the future. At the moment, only I and one other wikipedian have discussed this, and we both agree that the stubs should stay, I'd invite you to join in all this at Talk:The Shins before making any other changes. Cheers. --Brendanfox 01:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Read my lips: no new taxes[edit]

Great work on the article. I check the FAC and it said that the sound file works now. Anything else that could be done? Zach (Sound Off) 02:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

What's the point of these mindless verify tags - if there is something you don't believe, spell it it out or leave things alone. I'm fed up with these unthinking and negatives actions, and your timing is bad after my run-in with your friend above. jimfbleak 19:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, sorry. I was in a really foul mood because of User:Zscout370 deleting images marked as my personal photos without any consultation, so I was a bit trigger happy, sorry again Jim

Forgotten Realms template[edit]


Regarding your text Forgotten Realms warnings, the request is now in the template for deletion request for FR-template. Reply to David Latapie 20:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


Please don't revert this again. I will be turning this into an article about the GD Mauler missile. That's why I said the redirect was innappropriate.

The only reason it existed in the first place is because someone though a fictional weapon from a little-played videogame deserved its own article, and this was all that was left after the single paragraph was merged into the Perfect Dark article.


CHNM Interview[edit]


I’m a historian working at the Center for History and New Media at George Mason University and we are very interested in digital, peer-produced works of history, including history articles in Wikipedia. We’d like to talk to people about their experiences working on articles in Wikipedia, in connection with a larger project on the history of the free and open source software movement. Would you be willing to talk with us about your involvement, either by phone, a/v chat, IM, or email? This could be as lengthy or brief a conversation as you wish.

Thanks for your consideration.

Ken Albers

kalbers at gmu dot edu

Ottawa Hospital pics[edit]

Love 'em, great job! --20px Spinboy 21:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. There has been some perfect weather for getting good pictures recently. - SimonP 21:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't agree with replacing User:Earl Andrew's CHEO pic, so I put it back in, just further down. Both are appropriate since they are different angles of the building. --20px Spinboy 21:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


Hi Simon,

Could you give Microsoft a peer review when you have a chance? Anything would be appreciated! Thanks! Ryan Norton T | @ | C 16:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! That was very hulpful! Ryan Norton T | @ | C 22:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


Hi there, thanks for leaving a message. I counted 8 keep votes, 17 delete votes and one vote to merge. I consider merge a hybrid -- it's saying the content is worthy but shouldn't have its own article, so I evaluate them case-by-case. Sometimes I count it with either keep or delete depending on the person's comments. In this instance I kept it in its own category. To me he was not saying anything specifically about the merit of this particular article's content, but rather suggesting a way to conglomerate all of these types of articles, so I didn't count it toward either tally. Given that, the result (17 delete, 8 keep) results in a 65.4% ratio to delete, which was close enough for me. You're welcome to list it on VFU if you want though, since it was a close one. Best · Katefan0(scribble) 18:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to hear it -- I understand what you're saying and agree with the principle. What I was suggesting is that if 66% is the acceptable threshold for consensus, then 65.4% is close enough to me to consider it a consensus. I'm sorry you disagree, but respect your concerns! · Katefan0(scribble) 19:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and I would be remiss if I didn't add that I am always open to talking about anything at all, particularly if it's a concern someone has about me or something I've done. So please don't hesitate in the future (and I'm glad you didn't in this instance). All my best · Katefan0(scribble) 19:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Summary table Gulf War[edit]

Hi Simon! Your three barnstars impress me. They also make me wander why you revert my changes on the Gulf War page. I find the summary table of too little value. You counter-argument is it is tradition on war pages. However, most pages on war I encountered, do not contain such summaries. Second, I believe tradition is not a principle of Wikipedia. Could you please respond directly to my motivations? Jurriaan van Hengel 23:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC) Waiting for your response.

WikiProject Business and Economics[edit]

Hi, you did some great work on the Marshall Plan. Would you be interested in joining WikiProject Business and Economics? It was started recently, so it requires some people to chip in. Thanks. --PamriTalk 03:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment, I'll certainly join. - SimonP 03:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

uncategorized template[edit]

I'd like to request that you place the {{uncategorized}} template on the article page instead of the talk page, so that it takes one edit instead of two to remove it. This would save a lot of time when categorizing a large number of articles. Thanks! -- Reinyday, 16:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually that template should always go on the talk page. As Wikipedia:Templates makes clear, any template only of use to editors should go on the talk page. Meta messages should be kept out of articles. - SimonP 16:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I understand, but it takes twice as long to add the category to the article page and then delete the template from the talk page. Since you are the only person that uses it this way, and since articles are regularly and actively being categorized, I again respectfully ask that you place it on the article page. If you put it at the bottom, where the category will go anyway, it is quite unobtrusive. -- Reinyday, 16:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Category:Totalitarian dictators[edit]

Someone removed this category from CfD, claiming that there was "no consensus." There was no consensus in the sense that there wasn't the absence of a single vote of opposition, but deletion, of course, only requires a solid majority, which was clearly established. The editor who made this call also went on to randomly add the category to a bunch of articles, which makes me suspect that removing it from CfD was a sneaky trick. 172 | Talk 22:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. I'd still wait to get another opinion. Just about all categories with similar levels of support for deletion get deleted. The fact that admin who made the call went on to repopulate the category also does not inspire much confidence in the impartiality. It'd be like either of us stating or perspective on the CfD and then going on to delete the category ourselves. 172 | Talk 22:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


I've noticed your reverts on Toronto and am becoming very tired of reverting the boosterism myself. User: appears to be one culprit. Can you block? Incorrect, unsourced, unwikified info. A load of it. I'm picking through his edits but its tiresome. Marskell 00:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

His first edit since is to move Toronto up a rank improperly on Global city. Obviously not going to stop. I don't know how the block works--don't want to cut off half of Toronto but I think this anon should go. Marskell 00:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

University of Michigan - a second look[edit]

Though the peer review is closed, can you look over the article and note if anymore changes are needed? Thanks. Pentawing 03:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. As for the picture, that couldn't be helped since I was trying to get two residence halls in one shot with a digital camera with limited functionality. More changes will come to the article soon. Pentawing 03:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
I was wondering if you can get a chance to look over the article and comment on it further? Thanks. Pentawing 20:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Template:UN Security Council[edit]

My mistake, sorry about that. It can stay on the Security Council page though, no? I'm proud of that lil' template. Also some countries (China, I see, right off the bat) have no 'ties' template. Staxringold 12:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

    • That's fine, but what do we do with Nations (China, for example, or Benin) which have no 'ties' template? Staxringold 18:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Blech, I did them up for the permanent members and Romania, but I've got other work to do now. Staxringold 16:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Theodore Roosevelt[edit]

I made the changes we discussed already on FAC. Would you mind taking another look at the article and see if it meets your standards? Johnleemk | Talk 14:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


You work very hard on Wikipedia. Just thought to let you know your work is really appreciated here. Have an excellent day, and happy Wiki-ing! -- 20:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. - SimonP 22:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Mayors of St. Louis[edit]

Thanks for your help categorizing and organizing the Mayors of Saint Louis list. You may have inspired me to write a few more articles on earlier Mayors! TMS63112 21:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, and it would be great to see more such high quality articles. - SimonP 22:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I belive History Eygpt is under your watch.[edit]

Hi. If you do not mind, and I give my promise not to delete anything, I want to make a small change in the structure. I'm working on the Ottoman Empire and I would like to integrate this section under the main page. However, The French sub-heading is making it difficult. I would like to upgrade the French one higher level and make it a section of its own. If I do not hear anything from you tomorrow, I will continue with that process. Thanks!--tommiks 21:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, you can be sure I will be on to it. Also, I will correct the timeline problems. --tommiks 22:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
My english is not very very good, there is a difference in Turkish between rise and growth. You can see the same type of difference in math. There is a geometric growth (rise) and aritmetic growth (growth). Official Turkish history is more sensitive, as you can expect. --tommiks 22:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Also from Turkish perspective, Kavalalı Mehmet Ali Paşa, is a Turkish Pasa, who was controlling a vassal state. There were some conflicts between him and Sultan, but Ottomans percieve that period as an Ottoman Period. In this perspective it should not be seperate section. Obviously text is an Western view. I'm sure there will be an Eastern view too. I was just trying to modify it without changing the rethoric, so that I can fit it into a pro-Ottoman rethoric main page. I will give a time, and see if I can come up with better design. --tommiks 22:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


Hi, you've reported copyright infringements to WP:CP in the last week, a new measure was recently passed to allow the speedy deltion of new pages that are cut and paste copyvios. Please follow these instructions if you come across this type of copyvio. Thanks. --nixie 00:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Blatant copyright infringements may now be "speedied"

If an article and all its revisions are unquestionably copied from the website of a commercial content provider and there is no assertion of permission, ownership or fair use and none seems likely, and the article is less than 48 hours old, it may be speedily deleted. See CSD A8 for full conditions.

After notifying the uploading editor by using wording similar to:

{{nothanks-sd|pg=page name|url=url of source}} -- ~~~~

Blank the page and replace the text with

{{db-copyvio|url=url of source}}

to the article in question, leaving the content visible. An administrator will examine the article and decide whether to speedily delete it or not.

Microsoft questions[edit]

Hi Simon - thanks for your comments on the Microsoft article. I just had a few questions in regard to the business end and whatnot:

  1. I've looked through the investor's annual, proxy and worldwide citizen report but I can't seem to find out how the employees are distributed... any idea where I should start to look for this?
  2. If the microsoft is ambigious about what the board of directors does, does that mean I should be ambigious too :)?
  3. In terms of better images, do you think maybe product images etc.? Maybe a "blue screen" for the criticism section :)?

Thanks again for your input! Ryan Norton T | @ | C 02:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


Please see the discussion I've been having with Philip Baird Shearer at User talk:Curps#Ubeda -- Curps 16:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Merged "Air Blue" with "Airblue"[edit]

Salam, Greetings from Pakistan! Thought I should drop you a note, I've merged the newer article with the older one at Waqas.usman 01:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Good work, thanks. - SimonP 01:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Alamo Heights High School Page changed[edit]

Simon, I was wondering why you deleted a large portion of the content off our school's wikipedia page.

Just wondering, cause we put a good deal of effort into putting the info on Wikipedia.

Eastern vs. Central Europe[edit]

You may read detailed description about it on Central Europe page. Pavel Vozenilek 02:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Microsoft updated[edit]

Hi Simon, I updated Microsoft with most of your suggestions :). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 22:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Jewish National Homeland[edit]

Hi, I see you have redirected this page to Land of Israel...-but did you read the Talk:Jewish National Homeland before you did? (That discussion is copied from Talk:Balfour Declaration, 1917.) Then you would have seen why I did not redirect it. Could you please answer on Talk:Jewish National Homeland? Thanks. (Actually, I don´t have any very strong feelings about wether it should be redir or not,- -just thought a redir created too many illogical statements.) Regards, Huldra 15:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Usman dan Fodio[edit]

A long overdue move. Thanks for making it! --Dvyost 00:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

User talk:[edit]

The link you removed from Stockholm was defect (the last slash made it not work) but not spam; it actually went to a website of a museum in Israel: [2] Uppland 21:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Removal of link as spam at Berlin[edit]

Hi, please refer to --Tickle me 21:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Weston High School, Massachusetts[edit]

23:43, 12 October 2005 SimonP deleted "Weston High School, Massachusetts"

Want to bet that this gets restored? (Note: This is in no way a criticism of your speedy, but a commentary on school madness.)
brenneman(t)(c) 00:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe, but not in its current form. I've already killed one "school article" that was a test. Yes, it is quite the madness - of course I think SimonP is has sort of extreme inclusionist tendencies himself so I don't think you'll get much sympathy here, LOL :). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 00:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm just trying to claim another scalp. - brenneman(t)(c) 03:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

lists of sponsors and speakers[edit]

As I mentioned on IRC, we are lucky to have two major universities competing to host what is only our second conference...

There are things that will help make it a great event wherever it is held. Most speakers who could make it to one of these cities could also come to the other. I've started to list a few universal sponsors at m:Talk:Wikimania 2006; this might be the right place to list potential speakers as well. I would be glad to hear your thoughts on these matters, ideas for people to invite, etc.

+sj + 12:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Featured article[edit]

I see that Liberal Party of Canada leadership convention, 1968 is finally a featured article. Congratulations. You put a lot of excellent work into that article. Ground Zero | t 17:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. - SimonP 19:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Re your question on my page[edit]

Yes it is; I'm putting it together to orchestrate a prank. It's one of my two nihilartikels. I'll give you a hint on the other one: its title starts with M and has 8 letters, and it's in the application software category.

Zezima article[edit]

Please stop deleting the Zezima article; as soon as you do this, it is continually re-created by vandals. Jayjg (talk) 21:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:RM request[edit]

Hi, someone requested on WP:RM that Germanistics be renamed and moved to German Language and Literature - you were the only one who commented on the page but your answer was kind of ambigious.... do you think it should be moved? Thanks for your time :). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 07:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


Please reply on Template talk:CanadaCopyright. Thanks. Superm401 | Talk 18:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Voter turnout[edit]

OK, that interests me FAR more than the military history of Canada. But I have a few articles on my plate, so give me a little while. Tony 14:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC) Click here to leave me a message.


Hi Simon, @ Vovinam you moved the "martial arts project" template to the discussion page. I have placed lots of those templates in other articles. So, if moving one I'd move all of them, depending on your reason. Was there a reason why you moced it ? Thomas 18:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

As I just have seen you allready did that - moved "martialartsproject" to ALL of the talk pages. The article look somewhat cleaner. I like it. Is it common to place this template to talk ? Thomas 18:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


User:Earl Andrew thinks you're a hero for Ottawa. Anyway, on Saturday we're probably going to have a meetup here in Ottawa, and if you aren't on the email list, I wanted to invite you along. Stop on by the group and check out the calendar for details! --20px Spinboy 03:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I may cancel Sat, I'm not sure yet, but there's a poll up to ask what day of the week is best. So far coming Sat is me, Earl, and one other. I've met Earl before at the first meetup. --20px Spinboy 04:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

about Category:Ancient Greeks[edit]

Hello! I've noticed that you are removing articles from that category ("trying to reduce the size of Category:Ancient Greeks"). I don't have the time to check through your edits, so I just encourage you to check them yourself thoroughly, to be sure that each of those articles are in a category that is a sub-category of Category:Ancient Greeks (if that's the case then the bigger categorization of an article at "Ancient Greeks" might be redundant). Take care. +MATIA 19:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Elections tables[edit]

Simon, I notice that you have been deleting the "%" and "% change" columns from tables on the riding pages. While I would hope that some day someone would populate those columns, I realise that is wishful thinking. I just wanted to let you know that, following your cue, I have changed the table template that I am using to one that does not include these columns. See Russell (Ontario electoral district) for what the future holds. While it would be straightforward to change all of the previous tables I've added so far by changing "Template:Election box begin" to "Template:Election votes only", I'm going to press ahead with my project to add tables to as many defunct ridings as I can before I expire. Regards, Ground Zero | t 14:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree the "LASTNAME, Firstname" is not as good as "Firstname Lastname". The data come in the former format. I tried switching it to the latter, but it was doubling the amount of time I spent on each riding, so I abandoned that for the purpose of getting the data in. Don't worry about editing my hard work. As it says below, "If you don't want your writing to be edited and redistributed by others, please don't submit it." I am happy when you improve on what I've done. Switching the template reduces the work for you and others who want to clean up these tables in the future. I have also been changing "NDP" to "New Democratic Party" because standard style recommends avoiding initialisms unless they are universally understood, or if you define the initialism at the first use. "NDP" won't mean much to a non-Canadian. I'll just keep plugging along from here.... Ground Zero | t 14:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


Thanks for the help with the title page and the categories. It's much appreciated!!


What is a "shenaynay" ? Jkelly 01:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

No idea, though I hear Canada has a lot of them. - SimonP 01:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I'll keep an eye out. Jkelly 02:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


Barnstar of Diligence.png Working Man's Barnstar.png For working harder on Wikipedia more than anyone else. Molotov (talk) California state flag.png
16:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Why do you revert this reference?[edit]

Final decision[edit]

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/-Ril- case. →Raul654 02:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Expand tag[edit]

Hello, in the future, could you add the {{expansion}} tag to the article page instead of the talk page. Otherwise it is unlikely to be noticed and the talk pages show up in the category and not the articles. Here are the instructions from the category page.

These articles should be marked with {{expansion}} at the top of the article page. Comments on the additions required may be made on their talk pages.

Thanks, -- Kjkolb 18:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

In that case, the instructions should be changed to match. I don't know what the consensus is, but most of the tags appear to have been moved from the articles to the talk pages by you. Perhaps there is a consensus, but nobody else is willing to do the work. The alternate instructions do say to add it to the talk page after all. However, it doesn't make sense to me to add the expand tag to the talk page, as it will probably go unnoticed. If people are bothered by the tag appearing on the article, why not make the tag add the article to the category without the notice? Another option would be to use the light blue color for the notice and have it added to the bottom of the article instead of the top. What do you think? -- Kjkolb 19:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

RE: Scarborough Centre image[edit]

Hi there! I hope you're well. Thanks for adding an image for this article. One comment, though: the city map appears to be missing Scarborough East in eastern Scarborough. You might want to revise it and or before using the related image template systematically. Thoughts? Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 21:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Great! Forgive me for characterising the riding incorrectly; the map just looked incomplete to me. (By the way: I'm somewhat adept at creating maps, if you need any.) Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 21:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. Oh: a possible solution for including the merged Scarborough/Pickering riding on your map: use a dotted line (instead of blank space now or a solid one) on the eastern border.
As for maps, EAndrew has doen a lot of great work! As well, I might be able to help: I can create or extract maps from official documents (e.g., PDFs, which I can open and modify). That may make things easier. Yes: maps are time-intensive (note this one, for instance, of the Toronto subway system I created and collaborated with others regarding), but the proof is in the pudding. :) Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 06:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


There were 3 of us today. I come from the very south end of the city, Earl lives off of Alta Vista, and Mark lives out near centrepointe, so downtown could prove challenging, I'm afraid. However, drop me an email if you have a few ideas for future locations, and I'll certainly consider them as I plan to move it around the city. --20px Spinboy 21:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

How would the Royal Oak at the Petoria Bridge, Main St and Colonel By be for you? --20px Spinboy 22:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I've been to it before, there's lots of street parking and limited parking in the back there, so it would be a decent location. I may put the next one there, and then the January one (assuming we go to every 2 months) would probably be somewhere else again. unless everyone loves the location. --20px Spinboy 22:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I was disappointed you weren't there, Simon. Hope you can attend the next one :) Yeah, Spinboy likes to hold these things way out in the middle of nowhere. Oh well, the royal oak at the Pretoria Bridge would work well. I might even walk there. (Would be a bit of a walk though) -- Earl Andrew - talk 23:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Expand tag[edit]

hey Simon- I was wondering why you moved the expand tag on Contemporary French literature to the talk page? I have to agree with the comments by Kjkolb above: moving the tag to the talk page makes the request for expansion invisible to the casual reader. -- NYArtsnWords 01:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

About the revert in References[edit]

I owe you an apology, because I confused myself with the title, and I used "References" like "Bibliography". In any case, I strongly recommend the two volumes of the Rothbard's History of Economic Thought and I think that both books are very important for the students interested in mercantilism and the next evolutions of the economic thought. And you're right with the second option: the collection it's unavailable ("When these volumes first appeared, they were celebrated in Barron's and by top scholars around the world [...] Right now, however, you can hardly get them. The shortage began years ago, and now they are only intermittantly available in the used market, at prices that keep rising."), but not anymore thanks to the Mises Institute. And I guess that a large number of people can find useful the austrian analysis of mercantilism. And for that reason I've created a new section in the page for both books (Further Readings).

--Burke 16:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Henry the Navigator[edit]

An article that you've edited before (Henry the Navigator) is nominated for Biography Collaboration of the Week. If you want go there and vote. Thanks. Gameiro 20:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

PlayerPlaza Chess link[edit]

Hi there,

I got your message about the deletion of the PlayerPlaza Chess link in the external link section of the Chess page. I just wanted to plead my case to have the PlayerPlaza Chess link included on the Chess page in the external link section. It is not an advertising effort. I sincerely feel like it should be included. It is no different than having the other Online Chess sites listed in that section. How did those other commercial sites get listed? Please include the site. I went ahead and added the link again, so if you won't allow it please delete it. Please include the link. I would really appreciate it. Thank you for your time.

Felice Beato[edit]

Hi, regarding my FAC on Felice Beato, I've rewritten the lead and other sections and I've added some images (thanks for the clarification of copyright!). How does it look to you now? Pinkville 11:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Smallville - About the Category[edit]

Hi SimonP, Nice update! But some of the links there are not used anymore. How can I edit the category page? Thanx --Charlie144 15:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for all your work on the 2006 Wikimania Toronto bid[edit]

Hi Simon. It was only late last night I found out Boston had won out. Just wanted to express my appreciation to you for all your hard work trying to bring the '06 WM gathering here. Like the Maple Leafs, let our cry be "next year, the Cup!" :) Cheers, Madmagic 09:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


Hi, SimonP. I wanted to let you know that almost all of the articles you recently marked for wikification are copyright violations, if the "A" articles are any indication.

Thanks, -- Kjkolb 11:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Canadian elections templates[edit]

Simon, I like the new templates that you have created for the party colours and names. THe one problem that I have is the use of initialisms for parties. Standard writing style is that you don't use an initialism unless you define, or, if everyone can be expected to understand it already (TV for example). For non-Canadians, NDP will not be readily understood. As well, "New Democratic Party" takes up less space on the line than "Progressive Conservative", so there really isn't any need to shorten it. The Eglinton—Lawrence article, for example, does not explain anywhere what NDP is. For other parties, "Party for the Commonwealth of Canada", it may be necessary to shorten the name for space reasons, but I am sure that we can find a shorter version that does not get us into the "alphabet soup" of political parties. I have been using "Commonwealth" in creating articles for defunct Ontario ridings, but am open to other suggestions. Ground Zero | t 13:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I've switched NDP, one advantage of the new system is that the party names can be changed across all articles by editing a single template. - SimonP 14:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. Do you have a list of the templates you've already created? I'm working on block of 34 defunct ridings (it's faster for me to do a large block over a couple of weeks than to do them individually), so I'd like to start using your templates. Thanks. Ground Zero | t 15:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Do you have any objection to me adding to the list? Ground Zero | t 15:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Deleting categories[edit]

Was there any reason why you deleted the categories from the Atlanta Braves article and Category:Atlanta Braves? I am going to restore them unless you had some reason. Have a good one!--CrazyTalk 03:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, you probably know more about the Wikipolicy than me, but you also removed the city category. I am not sure, but it seems to me like if we had to delete either the Category:MLB teams or the team's own category, it would be better to take off the team's own category and leave MLB teams. It would be easy to remove the team's category because that is on a template and can be removed from all of them in one fell swoop. But, I can almost give you 10:1 odds that somebody will re-add whatever category is removed. Let me know what you think......--CrazyTalk 03:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Bounty Board[edit]

Greetings. You've recently been involved with working on get articles up to featured status, so I wanted to let you know about a new page, Wikipedia:Bounty board. People have put up monetary bounties for certain articles reaching featured status - if the article makes it, the bounty lister donates the stated amount of money to the Wikimedia Foundation. So you can work on making articles featured, and donate other people's money at the same time. If this sounds interesting, I hope you stop by. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 13:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

x (math) -> x (mathematics) redirects[edit]

Sorry to bother You (it's a long time). I'm rather new on English wiki, active on Polish one, so I don't know the en: policies. I found an inconseqence in redirects:

We've got:

matrix (math) -> matrix (mathematics)

expression (math) -> expression (mathematics)

base (math) -> base (mathematics)

but we don't have:

degree (math) -> degree (mathematics)

cycle (math) -> cycle (mathematics)

identity (math) -> identity (mathematics)

radical (math) -> radical (mathematics)

I think that matrix, expression, base (the last of which I marked {d}) redirects should be deleted. If they stay, then we should create degree (math)/cycle etc. Also, I think that there should be degree (maths) in that case. I just looked into several articles, there are surely many more articles x (math) -> x (mathematics) to delete. (Or: many articles x (math) to create) Could You do anything? --Googlpl 21:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


Since it was unprotected thepage has been blanked 5 times in an hour. Brandt has askedon his wikipedia watch site "Who will rid me of this meddlesome article?"

As a result, he and his friends are vandalising it systematically. What to do?

Azat party[edit]

Hi, I've bolded the title - otherwise I'm not sure what wikifying you're suggesting. Dlyons493 Talk 17:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

OK - see what you're saying and it makes sense. I only created this article to give a bit of background to another article mentioning the party's flag. It was very difficult to find even that amount of online material, so I'm certainly not the person to expand as you suggest. By all means replace the wikify tag. Would it be worth adding this conversation to its talk page (must admit I didn't think to read that)? Dlyons493 Talk 17:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[edit]

I saw your comments in User_talk: and the user is still spamming articles with exteral links to what I assume is his site. What is the correct course of action to get him blocked. I'm a bit new to Wikipedia procedural stuff. --waffle iron 17:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Removal of link from Zimbabwe article[edit]

Hi Simon. Can you tell me what criteria you used to determine that the openDemocracy link in the Zimbabwe article is spam? There's advertising on the page, yes, but people need to pay their hosting bills somehow and the site clearly deals with the issue of Zimbabwe. --Craig (t|c) 23:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

... and also this openDemocracy link, which is an insightful article by a well known academic, from Iran and weapons of mass destruction. Looking at your contribs it looks like you've removed openDemocracy articles from many articles. Please do explain. -- Rwendland 01:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
.... but having now looked at User talk:'s contributions, I do see why - sorry! Just that the extlink he added to Iran and weapons of mass destruction was pretty good. But I won't re-instate it, as I don't want to encourage self-publicity. -- Rwendland 01:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I too see now. The Zimbabwe article does not suffer with the removal of the link, so I'm not going to encourage the spammer by putting it back. Thanks Simon. --Craig (t|c) 04:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Why 29A article is deleted?[edit]

Hello SimonP,

I was looking for Wikipedia article on 29A (Czech virus writing team), but found out that you have deleted this article. Do you have any reason for doing it? Is this covered in some other article? If the, shouldn't we make a redirection from 29A to that article?

11/04/2005 Yaz (Tuomas Kaikkonen)

Wikimania chat tonight[edit]

Hello SimonP, I hope you can join us for the open Wikimania chat tonight. I appreciated all of your work and comments during the bidding phase (and was looking forward to visiting Toronto, when I was sure your bid would win :); and think everyone would benefit from your ideas. Cheers, +sj + 19:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Red screen of death/Blue screen of death[edit]

Hello. The merge of articles is disputed. I much appreciate your opnion, thanks. --Mateusc 02:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


I noticed you have added to the demographics section of the electoral districts project. Since Mindmatrix, Luigizanasi, you, and myself seem to be the only ones interested in this section, I proposed to Mindmatrix, and now you, that we each try to design a prototype section. Links to StatsCan electoral district profiles are on the page. If you don't want to mess around with code, then just a sketch of how you see the data, tables and graphs (infobox?) being laid out will be fine. Since the articles will focus much more on election results, this demographic section is just really just a sidenote to help put the results in context but it has the possibility of consuming a lot of room. So at this point I'm interested in seeing how this section will be laid out. At the sametime we can see what data is realistic to include and what is just too burdensome. How does this sound? --maclean25 06:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Chris Buors[edit]


If you get a chance, could you took at the discussion at Talk:Chris Buors? CJCurrie 20:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The uncategorized template[edit]

Hello, SimonP. I can see above that someone has mentioned this to you before, so I'll be brief. As you know, the {{uncategorized}} template is a cleanup template; and at Wikipedia:Cleanup templates, it says "The following tags should be added to the articles needing cleanup, not to their talk pages." Plus, templates intended for talk pages are usually in a different style (that brownish color, like at Wikipedia:Template messages/Talk namespace). Just thought I'd mention it. HollyAm 21:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough; carry on :-) HollyAm 21:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

your removal of the entry "AIM Software"[edit]

Saimon, just wanted ask you why you did remove the entry "AIM Software" due to copyright suspicion. The entry "AIM Software" is a company description. Our company, AIM (Advanced Information Management) Software, was founded in 1998 and we are engaged in software developing for reference data and risk management. We are the author of all external documents we posted on the "AIM Software" page. Please revoke your removal of the page "AIM Software". Thank you AIM Software

Geographical bias - improved?[edit]


Re: the tables here about Rwanda, Belgium etc.

The situation seems to have improved since then, though this might be an artefact of changes to search engines. Is there a way of seeing these ratios over time? Say, from 2 years ago, in monthly increments? I don't know how to search old versions of Wikipedia - or if it's even possible.

See also here

- Xed 19:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Atilla Altžkat[edit]

Hi, "Atilla Altıkat" was a Turkish person, however the title "Atilla Altžkat" consists of a letter "ž", which is not of Turkish language. That was the reason for moving the article to the title "Atilla Altıkat". Is it possible to change the title by preserving its history? CeeGee 12:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I have done so. - SimonP 14:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks so much. CeeGee 15:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veterans of the First World War who died in 2004[edit]

Could you give more details about your vote to keep it? I am so intrigued, that I might change my vote. Renata3 15:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I've expanded upon my comments at the AfD debate. - SimonP 15:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


Hi Simon,

I just wanted to check with you if you had ever received the release form for our interview. We are hoping to be able to use it, but if you have changed your mind, please let me know also. If you never received it or have misplaced it, again please email me and I will send it again.

Hope all is well.

Take care, Ken

kalbers @ gmu dot edu

PWDS response[edit]

Thanks for your input on the pure wiki deletion system. In response to the objection raised by you and many others, the proposal has been modified to say that contested PWDS blankings should go to AfD. Does this address your concern any? rspeer 19:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Alanis Morissette[edit]

Hi SimonP. Regarding the article on Alanis Morissette - please don't remove the {{unreferenced}} tag. I didn't put the thing there in the first place, but I agree that the article doesn't cite its sources. The page has a bunch of external links, but they don't include a lot of the information in the article. Thanks. --Jtalledo (talk) 14:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Left Behind[edit]

I was going to come back and add to these articles... and considering that half of them made the NY Times bestseller list individually it would be worth it to have articles on each of these books. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Leonardo da Vinci paintings[edit]

This may seem like a niggling, pedantic point, but might the category 'Leonardo da Vinci paintings' be better named 'Leonardo da Vinci artworks' because The Virgin and Child with St. Anne and St. John the Baptist is a cartoon? Sorry to be a bother. – Ham 17:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Changes to April 2004 articles[edit]

Hi Simon. Please note that the day articles April 1, 2004 etc. are transcluded into April 2004 - and your changes make that page look very peculiar. I think we had better go with something in between what you did and I what I did - unfortunately I have to go off line right now so can't make the change myself - will do tomorrow if you don't get there first. Thanks, Pcb21 Pete 23:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC).

Ah, ok thanks. That makes me realise that if we do transclude, we need some way of signalling that fact on the transcluded page (an HTML comment I guess). However I like what you have done with the April 2004 and so transclusion may not be necessary. Two points
  1. The reason I kept the transclusion was that some users requested it - I think this was more fear of change than any particularly solid reason about the wiki getting worse!
  2. It is not clear enough from your April 2004 page that the day pages exist (they are linked just from the calendar?) What is the best way to make the links more explicit? Change the links on the LHS from April 1 style to April 1, 2004-style? What do you think? Pcb21 Pete 09:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Category:Alleged relics of Jesus[edit]

Hi. You took part in the discussion over the renaming of this category when I nominated it for renaming on 14th September. I think that everyone agreed that it needed to be renamed, although there wasn't any agreement over what to rename it to. I've nominated it again and I'd be grateful if you could consider my new proposal to rename it Relics attributed to Jesus. Thanks! --G Rutter 09:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Template:Philosophy topics RfC[edit]

We have a content dispute issue. Please comment on the talk page. This message is being sent out to everyone who didn't vote Delete in the last TfD of the template, ie: User:SimonP User:Pjacobi User:thames User:Michael User:Christopherparham User:FranksValli User:Silence User:Andymussell User:Moosh88 User:Rick Norwood User:Izehar


Tnx for pointing me to the talk page of this template. If external links are in fact references, they should be labeled them as such, as they are not the same thing. I have been following the (Wikipedia:Cite_sources#External_links.2FFurther_reading which states clearly that ==External links== or ==Further reading== section is placed after the references section, and offers books, articles, and links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader, but which have not been used as sources for the article. Thus I concluded that if article has only elinks or further reading, it has no references, and this template should be added (it is a much clear case then larger and uglier copyedit templates, IMHO). In addition, one of the most common critique of Wiki is that our articles have no references - I hope that this template will make our contributors realize what is missing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

More power to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check and Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards projects, then :) I have started adding this template to articles about a week ago, and so far it has resulted in several reference additions - so I think it is working. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
As I don't want to start a revert war, can you revert yourself (i.e. your removal of unreferenced tags)? Or provide a rationale why do you think those tags don't belong them (when we leave such an ambigious monstrosity as {{copyedit}} lying around?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
I hope that adding it to fairly popular articles will have better result. What do we have to lose, anyway? Check my userpage for a nifty text to put in the summary box :)--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
The day we start hiding our weaknesses, this project will die. The world already knows one of major weaknesses is lack of references. This tag shows everybody we acknowledge this weakness, can spot articles that need improvement in that regard, and last but not least, notifies original contributors (who likely watch this page) that there is a problem with their article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:57, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

TV Program lists[edit]

Would you consider it a WP:POINT issue if I were to look up all those lists and nominate them, then? I wasn't aware it's "standard practice" to have such lists, but it's a practice I'm wholly opposed to. The Literate Engineer 05:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Test case, huh? I think I like that idea. I guess this illustrates a downside to nominating things I ended up at through the "random article" link. The Literate Engineer 05:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's a disheartening rejection. The Literate Engineer 17:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Steven Harper[edit]

That's funny, I changed "misuse" to "dreadful lack of oversight" because I thought "misuse" is definately POV and I thought I would be accused of POV if I changed it to simply "lack of oversight". The Auditor General said: "I think this is such a blatant misuse of public funds that it is shocking. I am actually appalled by what we've found. I am deeply disturbed that such practices were allowed to happen in the first place. I don't think anybody can take this lightly." Which I think is a little more than simply "lack of oversight". I'll leave it up to you (or others) to decide exactly what to say, but "misuse" implies intentions on the part of the party, which I think has been shown to be clearly POV.Flying fish 20:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Important AfD[edit]

Hi. If you have time please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of modern day dictators. I'm a bit worried that the main protagonist for the keep side is threatening to reverse the long-established consensus against creating historical categorization schemes on Wikipedia based on editors' original research. If you are interested, arguments against generating such a list have been stated and restated over the course of several years at Talk:List of dictators. Thanks. 172 21:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Category:Railway stations in the United Kingdom[edit]

I have proposed a reform of this category that you might be interested in commenting on. See Category talk:Railway stations in the United Kingdom for details. Thryduulf 02:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Please read[edit]

[3] BrandonYusufToropov 14:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

University of St. Michael's College[edit]

What's wrong with having an entry about Murphy Hall and why do you keep deleting it? It's a perfectly legitimate part of the campus. --Murphoholic 05:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Please read the Wikipedia guidelines - your message and claims make no sense.

My to do list[edit]

Thanks for leaving the message. I was going around fixing some of the short-cuts I kept finding in Canadian politics articles because of my worry that somebody would turn those short-cut pages into dismbig pages referring to articles about other orgs with the same initialisms. Then I moved on to other things. I am, by the way, a big, big fan of your riding maps, and of the fact that you do former boundaries and not just curent ones. Keep up the great work. Ground Zero | t 18:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


Instead of reverting all of my changes, how about discussing it first? — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-1 15:41

  • Those template "Guidelines" are just one person's opinion about where the template belongs, they are not Wikipedia policy. I've never seen this template used at the bottom of a page, or on a talk page. I've only seen it used at the top of an article page. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-1 15:57
    • See Template_talk:Unreferenced#Usage_revisited, and also note that "discussion" does not imply "consensus". You will have to cite specifically where consensus lead to the guidelines that {{unsourced}} must be on the talk page. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-1 16:04
    • Also, I wish you would stop reverting my changes while we are having this discussion. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-1 16:05
    • It makes no sense to require readers to check the talk page for this template before knowing whether the information can be trusted. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-1 16:09
      • From that template's talk page, I don't know how you got the impression that the template should be on talk pages. It looks very different to me. Consensus is not for either way, so you are essentially just overruling my choice in the matter. How about finding other articles that need sources, and placing the template wherever you want, rather than wasting edits on the same articles. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-1 16:13
        • Those 2 templates you cite link to the same template. I think they can be interchangably used with {{unsourced}}, since they essentially say the same thing. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-1 16:17
          • I'm not saying the article shouldn't be trusted, or that the content is useless. Stop redefining my opinion. I am simply acknowledging the little-enforced policy of WP:CITE, and acknowledging that people may find our content questionable without sources. We are not in the business of doing original research, so we should not make it appear that we are. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-1 16:40
            • Yes, I did not specifically say that I didn't think the content could be trusted. I was simply supposing what a reader is likely to think. Since this is one of the most common objections to Wikipedia (that the content can't be trusted), my supposition has at least some foundation in reality. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-1 16:45
          • Also not that there has been discussion about having NullC create a bot to place this template on the rest of Wikipedia's articles which do not have external links or anything resembling a source. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-1 16:42
            • I wasn't talking about that discussion. That proposal is much more severe than simply placing {{unsourced}} on page. Also, it has not been "thoroughly shot down". I've gotten support from members of Arbcom and Wikimedia about this, regardless of whether they have bothered to get involved with the usual people who frequent the mailing lists. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-1 16:49
            • Yes, and on the chance that a bot is accepted, a human doing the same would also be alright. And so, we have shown that there is no point in supposing about future events. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-1 16:57

I don't think it's really resistance, so much as quick reaction by people on RC Patrol. In any case I've already discussed this enough that I am comfortable going on with it, regardless of the number of people who resist it (though I am not disregarding their comments, I am disregarding their number. People are more likely to oppose something if they see others opposing it as well).. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-1 17:06

  • I really wish you would stop wasting your time moving my changes to the talk page. If you are interested in marking unsourced articles, that would be a better use of your time than to get picky about a template's position. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-1 17:09
  • Consensus is built through discussion, not through numbers or simple suppositions. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-1 17:14
  • Considering that I only planned on going through the first 1000 most-linked articles looking for unsourced ones, and I am basically finished, I don't think you will see me adding it to more articles. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-1 17:16

Well done on the unsourced move. I understand what Brian is trying to do, but think he is doing it completely the wrong way. The reaction on his talk page shows it. FearÉIREANNIreland-Capitals.PNG\(caint) 17:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Template removal[edit]

SimonP, I wonder why you'd remove the template? With POV articles there is a template refering you to visit the talk page...this one does the same thing along with giving a warning to anyone who thinks they'll just mess around with the date system. Chooserr

Fine, if wiki policy backs you sobeit. Chooserr


"If every major contributor simply went through their own contributions and added any references they remembered using, we would be a great deal closer to our goal of a well referenced encyclopedia."

  • I am currently only one contributor. My point is to do exactly what you are suggesting, motivate people to reference the works they contributed to. Those first ten articles you mention were my first ten contributions, back when I was ignorant about the whole thing. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-3 21:35
    • Two of those articles already had references. The third I forgot to add the {{1911}} template to, and the Zork one, as I said, was one of my first contributions. Of course, I can easily reference them all, but as I said, I am still only one contributor. I am talking about addressing a widespread problem on a large scale while you are talking about doing it on a small scale by specifically bugging me about my own articles from over a year ago. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-3 21:50

Andrievs Niedra[edit]

Can you explain why you added your comments to the Andrievs Niedra page? What exactly do you mean... please give detailed explanation of what you think is incorrect. Auseklis 04:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I have put in links to historical sources throughout. Which of the ones did you not understand, is there a footnoting format that you think needs to be improved? Also, publication dates of books... how should those be documented? Auseklis 04:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Can you be a little more specific? I mean if your going to tag someones article like that, maybe you could give a suggestion. What do you want me to do so you can take your tag off? Auseklis 04:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I made some changes, changed the introduction and added more documentation. Auseklis 04:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Flatiron Building (San Francisco)[edit]

Simon, Thanks for keeping me honest. I grabbed some info from Google. I will go back and cite the references. Schmiteye 04:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Les Crane references[edit]

Ya got me, Simon.  :) I was going to add an external link/reference when I had to sign out. On my way to fix it. - Lucky 6.9 04:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Western RR Museum[edit]

Simon, thanks for the nice msg re RR Museum. I left a source on there from the railroads main page. I expect to come back later and clean it up/expand. I'd like to use a source template but I'll have to look that up later. Rhallanger 04:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Frank Pick[edit]

Simon thanks for the message regarding the Frank Pick article. I had hit the save button instead of the preview button and was not quite finished. The rest of the article is now added including sources. DavidCane 05:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Buddhism in Kalmykia[edit]

Hi SimonP! Thank you for your message. I am no expert on Buddhism in Kalmykia, so I just patched together this stub based on information in Kalmykia and Kalmyk. I hope someone can knowledgeably expand on it. Best regards PHG 10:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Holcus / citing sources[edit]

Hi Simon - thanks for the note; the details I got were just from several very general sources (in this case the RHS Dictionary of Gardening, Collins Field Guide to the grasses of Britain & northern Europe, and the list of species from the Kew checklist of grasses (which I linked on the family page Poaceae).

Citing the Kew list on the genus page is tricky as it is just a list of all the species in the whole family (about ten thousand species), though with each name linked to a species page. I'm not too sure what's best to cite here - it would be either the full list of all the species in the whole family, or else adding eight links, one for each species (might not be too bad for Holcus, but for a large genus like Poa, it would mean 500 ext links). Obviously the Kew species pages can be linked for each species, I'll do that for the two Holcus species that have their own pages.

Of the books, my feeling is that general sources like those two (which could readily be replaced by any of a dozen other similar titles) aren't worth citing, that only more specialised (less widely known) original sources are worth citing (if e.g. there had been a recent monograph on the genus). I see too many references on wiki of the type (reductio ad absurdam, but only somewhat so!) "The dog has two eyes". Reference: My First Counting Book, School Learning, Inc., Redneck City, Oklahoma, 2003 - hardly what one would call the primary source of the information. Where does one draw the line? Any suggestions as to what would be best? - MPF 10:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Neorealism (art)[edit]

Hi, at the moment I'm improving the quality of theories of International Relations, like Neorealism, Realism in international relations, Hans Morgenthau (a realist), Kenneth Waltz (a neorealist), etc. Neorealism was a page about neorealism in international relations "and" about neorealism in literature and film. I think it was confusing for the reader, so I moved the smallest part (i.e. neorealism in film and literature) to a new page. I did not add or remove anything. There weren't any references. Mjolnir1984 11:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


Hi Simon. I noticed you left comments on several users' pages urging them to provide references and I'd like to thank you for this effort. I agree very much that Wikipedia is lacking in this respect, and it is often not that hard for editors to do. Cheers, Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Sources for Rock 'N'Roll Suicide[edit]

Ah, cheers! I'll thatt that intomy articles

Tom Prankerd 13:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Complex reps[edit]

Dear Simon, thanks for your message. I would love to tell you where I learned this elementary stuff about the complex representations but unfortunately it's hard to remember. Is there some controversy about complex representations going on? ;-) So far, unfortunately, I can't give you more guarantees than the fact that the stub "complex representations" was written by an as. professor of physics at Harvard U. Best wishes, Lubos --Lumidek 16:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Sources for 358 Apollonia[edit]

Hi. All the sources I used are already found in the asteroid table. I wonder if they should also be included in a references section, or would that be unnecessary repetition?--Jyril 16:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Sources for Vogl[edit]

Hi Simon! yes, I remember, and I'll add them. And hey, while I'm here, keep up the good work! Antandrus (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Tipping Fee[edit]

thanks for the thanks. i didn't add any cites because the information is generalized from foreknowledge and basic searching of many websites. if you elide it because there's no bibliography attached you'll be doing wikipedia more disservice than service. if you can't counter a fact, allow the fact to propagate until it is countered. encyclopedia or not, that is how knowlege operates. i will provide reference lists on articles where references are necessary. again, thanks. 17:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

postscript: i have no problem if others wish to provide citations, so long as the article doesn't look silly thereby; i mean, this is the wikipedia and if you can't take editing you're in the wrong place. i only created the article because i found "tippage fee" in one of the lists of wanted articles, then realized that not only was it a rare term with a more common synonym, but the synonym deserved annotation as well; think of it as reforesting the information tree... 21:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Sources for Paul Montauk[edit]


Most of the information I used for the article on Paul Montauk was taken from an old copy of the paper the Militant (his obituary from October 1998). Being the paper of the SWP, the communist party Paul Montauk was a life long member of, of course the text was VERY partisan, so I tried to ignore the commemorating parts of the story, and I hope I managed to make the article as neutral as possible.

Bronks 4, december 2005.

  • I added references to the article. Bronks
    • Many thanks. - SimonP 18:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)



  • Have a wikithanks. I slowly drive myself mad whilst you get up and do something. Thanks, you have put me to shame. Steve block talk 18:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I didn't liketeh way that read when I read it back, it seemed sarcastic and it wasn't meant to be. Sorry. Steve block talk 18:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    I didn't read it that way at all. Many thanks for the high praise. - SimonP 18:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


I see I'm not the only one you've asked for sources recently :-) I've added a couple to Thornton and Allerton & I'll do similar to the other wards of Bradford. I also used some print maps & personal local knowledge which is a bit harder to cite. The two I put in should cover most stuff. If you could cast a critical eye back over the article & sources and confirm you're happy as an outsider (I presume you were looking in recent changes rather than lookin at stuf you already had an interest in) that will be reassuring. --MGSpiller 18:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Excellent work, Simon. Your approach has my full support. FearÉIREANNIreland-Capitals.PNG\(caint) 18:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

ironically enough, i've just been fixing the article on argumentum ad populum, so there's no safety in numbers, even on wikipedia. (not meaning to start a fight, just perhaps quell a little overzealousness on the part of a perhaps bored admin-type; i'm all for making the wikipedia "better", but "more inclusive" is a better form of "better" than "more anal" is, imo). 20:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Re Jean-Baptiste Moens[edit]

Sorry, I don’t usually keep much in the way of notes from minor articles so all I have is a reference note to sorces where one can start or e-mail such as Robert A. Siegel Auction Galleries (Encyclopedia of Stamps). I also have a cross-reference to the 1905 Larousse plus as a website Sorry, whatever else is long gone after all these months. Do you want me to insert these? Thanks. - Ted Wilkes 19:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you trying to bring some credibilty to Wikipedia content? If so, I wholeheartedly support it and suggest you seek volunteers to assist in what is a massive effort. Form another darn committee, if need be! The problem, however, is not the referencing of sources, but the reliability of the sources referenced. - Ted Wilkes 20:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Dominion of India[edit]

Hi Simon, Thanx for the message -- I will really try and get some sources and cite them. But really, the little information I have put into that page is only common knowledge. Anyway, I will do as you advice. - ImpuMozhi 20:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Sources for Black River (South Carolina)[edit]

From Talk User:Pollinator

Hello, sometime ago you added a fair bit of content to Black River (South Carolina). As you may be aware, we are currently trying to improve Wikipedia's accuracy and reliability by making sure articles cite the sources used to created them. Do you remember what websites, books, or other places you learnt the information that you added to Black River (South Carolina)? Would it be possible for you to mention them in the article? Thank you very much. - SimonP 15:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you have any items of information that you challenge, or you regard as unreliable? Is so, change it or, let's discuss it on the talk page.
But to put a blanket requirement to verify is over the line, and is an insult to an editor. I have reached an age, where I have collected a great amount of information; with, I'm sure, a high degree of accuracy, but sometimes from sources clear back to boyhood. I am not about to retrace all my steps to find all those sources. I only reference material I write for Wikipedia, if I feel that it is controversial and likely to be challenged.
If an editor puts "off the wall" edits on wikipedia, then they can be reverted or modified. But a writer with a long history here, and with a lot of good solid edits, should not be subject to the kind of insult you have just given. Pollinator 21:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I caused any offense, but it has been Wikipedia policy for some time that all entries should be referenced. - SimonP 21:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
It needs to be applied with common sense. On many topics I could throw in some references that would be of significantly lower quality than what I wrote. I've seen some ridiculous "reference wars" in some articles, simply because some take a rigid or even twisted approach on this. I usually just throw up my hands, sigh, and skip those articles.
One page I watch has long been dominated by an editor who meticulously references everything he puts on there, but he's put some things on it that are dead wrong, because his references are wrong. One "expert" quotes another, and is in turn quoted, until the version becomes the standard, but it was flawed from the beginning.
Take a look at a Wikipedia editor's past efforts and reputation before jumping on this bandwagon. Insulting and discouraging good long term editors is also a good way to lower the quality of Wikipedia. Pollinator 22:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The term for that is argumentum ad verecundiam, in this form of which the authorities are simply wrong about their own subject. It's good to have citations where citations confer truth, but fallacious to think that citations confer truth. Wikipedia policy should be to encourage citation, not to demand it, however politely. Even asking for it on minor articles where anyone can google the few immanent keywords to obtain corroboration is onerous, especially when it comes from decorated (and therefore politically connected) officials of the order. 01:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

re: Sources for Wonderful World (song)[edit]

The Wonderful World (song) article is not an original article, but a split. The song was originally included as part of the What a Wonderful World article (inappropriately, they're separate songs). The only information I added was regarding the RS500 list. However, I'd be happy to add one source which I know mentions the song (which I used on the A Change Is Gonna Come (song) article). Also, if you'd like to check out ACIGC article, I'd greatly appreciate it. Eventually, I'd like to push that for FA status. Volatile 22:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean in regards to the images. "A Change Is Gonna Come" (cover of its single is used in the info box) is a song written and performed by Sam Cooke (photo of Sam Cook included in "Legacy" section to even out photo distribution) and included on his album Ain't That Good News (photo in Recording section). It seems kind of self-explanatory, but perhaps I'm missing something. Thanks for looking over the article, btw. :) Volatile 22:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


Your comment acknowledged and answered on my page with a question for you. alteripse 00:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

good link. SimonP, I get where you're coming from, now. Yes, the "unreferenced" tag is more onerous than what you're doing. But what you're doing comes across a little heavy-handed, as though your suggestion is a veiled threat to follow up with officious intervention. How about instead handing people a link to a page where you explain the reason you're doing what you're doing (the history of it)? Then they'll be able to decide if it's appropriate to the level of their article. 01:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Feel free to make any changes you would like to Template:Unref-talk. I'm reluctant, however, to have it link to reasons why I personally support this, because other users have already begun using it and they certainly have their own reasons for doing so. Perhaps we could create a Wikipedia:Wikiproject Bugging People about References, where an explanation could be collectively created to explain what is being done and why. - SimonP 01:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

General Conference[edit]

Thanks for your comments on my talk page re: article on General Conference. I do have references for this one, it's just that practical considerations (i.e. need to sleep...) prevented me from adding them yesterday when I wrote the article; I'll add them shortly (tomorrow perhaps, if that's not prevented by office firewall). Also, I note that there already exists an article on General Conferences in mormonism; I'd like to create a disambiguation page but I'm not 100% sure as to the way to do that.--Nicsilo 03:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


Thank you for your complement RE: the "Samantha" article. I can see by your user page that you are working in the best interest of keeping Wikipedia a sourced and well written reference. However, I think it is important to remember that common knowledge does not need to be sourced in Wikipedia. For example, no one needs to source the statement "Cher is a singer and actress." In this vein I feel like the majority of the content of the "Samantha" article falls under common knowledge. To calrify, common knowledge doesn't nessicarily mean that it is commonly known by ALL people, but commonly known by those "in the know" of the topic in question. All of the statements made in this article are common knowledge, and not really things that would be challenged as fact. That being said, I *will* add a link to the IMDB entry for the film, which could be considered a "source" for the information. Cheers! Pacian 03:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Pete Van Wieren[edit]

Thank you for reminding me about the citing sources deal, I've added my sources of information to the page, if that's not the correct format I can change it. AdmiralTreyDavid 05:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

K. Waterschei S.V. Thor Genk[edit]

Hi! Thanx for your message. I had neglected the references since it wasn't talking much about the subject. I added them now. See ya, Julien Tuerlinckx 12:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Exponential factorial[edit]

I learned about it thanks to an anonymous user who added something like "9 = 3^2^1" to the article about nine and then I think a logged in user deleted that line (or maybe that was 108, the hyperfactorial, I don't remember exactly). That got me thinking about power towers, so I calculated the first ten terms and put the first four into the OEIS, and OEISA049384 came right up. That had a link to Mathworld, though that article didn't tell me much I didn't already know (I already was pretty sure the sum of the reciprocals had to be an irrational number, though I do need to learn more about Liouville numbers).
The short answer to your query is that I will add a link to Mathworld in the exponential factorial article. PrimeFan 15:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

((unsourced)) in Talk pages[edit]

Hi. In this edit, you moved the unsourced tag to the Talk page. I'm confused. Which fixup and cleanup tags belong to Talk and which belong to the article page? -- Perfecto 04:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Talisman Energy[edit]

Hi, Simon. Can you please provide sources for this article. I am in touch with representatives of the company as well. Danny 15:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Danny 16:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)



This has nothing to do with Canadian politics, but I'm wondering if you could look over the discussion on Talk:Gregory Lauder-Frost.

I have reason to believe that a small number of people have been attempting to use Wikipedia for narrow partisan ends, writing glowing articles on figures from Britain's far-right. This is potentially a matter of some importance for Wikipedia's credibility.

Thank you, CJCurrie 18:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Rigoberto Alpizar[edit]

DO NOT remove afd headers from article pages. This is vandalism. User:Zoe|(talk) 06:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


I am removing your signatures from the copyright tags because it causes the pages to show up on Special:CrossNamespaceLinks . Hope that is OK. Fplay 19:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

No trouble, I did not know that the special page existed, it is quite a useful tool. - SimonP 00:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Northfield (town), Vermont - possible copyright violation[edit]

Would you mind taking a peek at this article: Northfield (town), Vermont? I found a site that is word-for-word in the History section. The anon contributor did put this link: *Welcome to Northfield, VT. And the History section is a link off of that page. I put info in the article's Talk page and also on the User's talk page. Thanks! --Schmiteye 20:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again! This was the first blatant copyright violation I have found,

so I wanted to make sure it was handled correctly. --Schmiteye 01:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Image galleries[edit]

You recently commented at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Proposal_to_modify_WP:NOT_an_image_gallery. In a related development, another, in my mind, valuable Image gallery is up for deletion (AfD. Please comment as you see fit. Dsmdgold 15:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

BD2412's RfA[edit]

Thanks for your kind comment in support of my RfA, SimonP - I'll do my best as an admin to help the reality of Wikipedia live up to the dream! BD2412 T 16:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Deleted articleAbol tabol[edit]

Hi, I put this article Abol tabol which was marked rightly as copyright violation by you and another user.True that I copy-pasted many lines on the areticle.However,now I have enough materials myself that I can re-institute the articles without copyright violation.

But the tag in the page tells not to edit the article at present.Can I edit the article?You can later check it out for copyright violations,if any.

I have started the article in Abol tabol/Temp

Thank you.Bye


University of Toronto Graduate House[edit]

Thanks for reverting my edits, sincerly. I obviously was getting info from an unrelated website. I made further edits to correct my blunder. By the way, please summarize your edits. It would save others time checking your edits. Later, Cafe Nervosa | talk 18:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Election Candidates[edit]

  • I was unaware of Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates, as it does not appear to be mentioned in any of the other recent AfD's for Canadian federal candidates that I have seen. I welcome your advice, but do feel that the curt/lecturing tone of your post could have been avoided. Frankly, I don't care whether non-notable candidates are deleted or not. I do believe that it's essential that there be some consistency, however. I got beat up over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Swanson for suggesting that candidate articles be kept, and that article looks like it's about to be deleted. As for listing candidates one at a time, it doesn't appear as though any consensus has been reached at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates, so I do not think that I have committed any error or breached any guideline in listing some non-notable candidates for deletion. Each candidate is different, and their articles should be assessed separately (until such time as consensus has been reached that all "credible" candidates merit an article). I note that the Siobhán Coady article has already been edited, and it looks like she is notable above and beyond her candidacy; that might not be the case for all of the articles I have nominated. I just want to be helpful, but I am really concerned about this haphazard approach to deletions, where some articles are kept and others are not. If Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates results in a new guideline, that's great. Skeezix1000 15:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • No offence taken. You're right that Michael Swanson was deleted because of copyright, but Uncle G disagreed strongly with the opinion that credible candidates merit an article, and took me to task for suggesting that we not delete the articles. Then you took me to task for doing the opposite (so I apologize if I came across as easily offended). All I believe is that we should do one or the other. I don't want to get involved in some big battle over this, so I think I will just wash my hands of it. But thanks again for the advice. Skeezix1000 22:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:V citations[edit]

You may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Citation format poll: Format of citations and WP:V examples, and WP:FN. (SEWilco 16:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC))

Bible verses[edit]

We've been through this before. Why are you reverting my substitution of WEB for NIV? You yourself seem to have been using mostly WEB in the new articles you have contributed, and it is a strong Wikipedia policy to use public domain material when it is available. Moreover using NIV on these select articles makes them inconsistent with their "neighboring" verse articles--if we have separate articles at all, they should at least have a modicum of consistency. If you cannot give a good reason why it is necessary to include the NIV translation, I will change it back. NTK 03:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Using the WEB as a standard is a good idea, because it is free. Theologically, however, it is a hundred years out of date. With a verse such as Matthew 2:1, having two older versions presents an interpretation that is at variance with virtually all modern scholars. - SimonP 06:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC) Retrieved from ""
"Theologically" WEB is 100 years out of date? How can this possibly be an NPOV assertion? I assume that you mean since it is largely based on ASV it has missed out on 100 years of scholarship. I will not argue with you on the relative theological or scholarly merits of NIV vs. NIV (except to mention there are many cases where WEB has been updated versus ASV besides language). However in Matt 2:1 the only real difference is "Now when" versus "After" and the insertion of the word "saying" (which in NIV is implied by the insertion of quotation marks). Nothing in your article even mentions these differences, so I am putting WEB back in Matt 2:1. I am concerned that are unwilling to give up your sense of authorship over these Bible verse articles, which at this point are pretty much all solely authored and edited by you and look a lot like original research. Are there any substantive changes you would not revert? NTK 13:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Outsiders' opinions wanted[edit]

Hi, I just though I might ask you. Currently there is a debate whether to move Partitions of Poland to Partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The first one is shorter and looks like it is more commonly used. The second one is politically & historically correct. Could you voice your opinion on the talk page? Because now it's all Lithuanians and Polish who fight each other :) We need someone "unbiased." I would very much appreciate it. Renata3 12:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Road street names[edit]

Please check out Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(places)#Road_street_name where I ask for policy on use of common or official names. I think User:Darkcore is over doing it in using common names. Thank you, Cafe Nervosa | talk 20:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Questions about the vote[edit]

Thanks for your time.Travb 19:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

We cross paths again[edit]

I just got done with a nasty fight over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Promises of troop withdrawal by American presidents, which I will most certainly lose. Endomion suggested merging the article into Election promise, which I have begun to do. I was looking at the page history, and it appears like you created this article, so it looks like we will be in contact a little more in the future.Travb 11:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposed WikiProject – Organized Labour[edit]

Hi Simon, I've seen you around the CAW page and thought this might interest you.

I've put a proposal together (User:Bookandcoffee/Sandbox), and will start trying to find interest for it, but I was hoping you might take a quick look and give me your opinion before I started. (You are busy, I know, so whatever time you can spare will be appreciated.)--Bookandcoffee(Leave msg.) 03:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. The one thing that has made me hesitate about starting this project is my own limited knowledge. I am, however, interested in the subject, and as you say, there is a great deal to do. Cheers. --Bookandcoffee(Leave msg.) 05:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


Just a quick note to tell you WikiProject Organized Labour is off and running. And speaking of running - good luck in the ArbCom elections. --Bookandcoffee 16:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Anthony Reale[edit]

Please STOP posting false slanderous information and your vandalism of the Anthony Reale article.--Eyeonvaughan 19:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I also I thought I should mention because of a comment I you lefta whileback on the Anthony Reale article. The Thornhill riding provincial is one of the closest rding in the province, federally it has been liber because of the strong representation of ELinor Caplan, since she is gone it is now back to being a close riding. With Susan Kadis as the Liberal candidate who has been involved in numerous scandals over the past year, this makes Thornhill a conservative rinding now. Susan Kadis was rumoured to be ousted from the Liberal party, it was even mentioned on CTV and in the Toronto Star newspaer that she was being replaced. Dan Samson stepped aside for star candidate Anthony Reale because Thorhill is now a safe seat for 2006 election. I would suggest before you post information on any articledo some research to see if it is accurate. --Eyeonvaughan 19:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Alex Munter[edit]

Thanks for the comments. Alex told me when we went over it that sometimes people would just print out the Wikipedia entry and read from it. He was a bit disturbed by the "his most notable achievement was getting condom dispensers installed..." comment.

As for the photo, I cropped it so that his left eye was dead centre in the picture, though if you feel like it you can crop out the orange bit. Cheers! - RealGrouchy 22:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Year-related categories[edit]

I notice you created Category:Governor General's Awards, Category:Lists of United Kingdom leaders by year and Category:Years in television, all containing articles whose titles begin with years. If you have time, could you please go through and make sure the articles are sorted in their respective year (or year-in) parent categories using sortkeys as outlined at Wikipedia:Categorization#Year categories? (Don't forget to start the sortkey with a capital letter.) If you've done this already, thanks and sorry for bugging you about this. I plan to go through a ton of such pages early next year; it would be nice if some of the work were already done... - dcljr (talk) 01:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Anthony Reale[edit]

Please stop posting false information with no source on the Anthony Reale article.--Eyeonvaughan 05:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

RE: Canadianism[edit]

Hello! I hope you're well. I've a question. I recently changed the Canadianism redirect into an article, with the intention of beefing it up as a subarticle of sorts for some of the top-level notions in Culture of Canada, Canadian English (which can be pruned and also has a section on 'Britishisms'), Canadian French, Canadian slang (huge!), et al. A similar, though different, take on this can actually be found in a unique article entitled Britishisms. The spartan definition (as is) was only meant as a placeholder until I can muster the time and cull and collate the other articles for germane information.

I've been swamped ... so much so that I almost missed its VfD! I noticed that it has been voted for translocation to Wiktionary (and I'm not challenging the vote per se), but I still think Canadianism can be a worthwhile article and intend on enhancing it. So:

(1) if I were to beef it up sufficiently in the coming days, would it be improper for me to do so (given the vote) or, conversely, that it be transwikied after being enhanced?
(2) if I run out of time before it's transwikied, should I still enhance it and change it back after it's moved? (For example, I'm working on this article in my 'private' space and will 'publicise' it in days once I round it out.)

I'd appreciate your feedback. Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 16:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

City, State[edit]

Would you mind weighing in at Talk:Los Angeles, California on the page move I requested? I noticed your comments on Talk:Toronto and couldn't help seeing some strange parallels between the two - strange, that is to say, in that certain people insist every American city has to be named that way. Even if you vote to oppose, I'd appreciate your input. Thanks! Jibbajabba 09:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


If WP:Importance is deprecated then I won't have any guideline that reflects my philosophy, and also we'll end up with notability as the guideline by default. Kappa 00:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


In regards to this template, I realize that I can easily expand it with much more informaiton for older elections, such as percentage vote, percentage change, and expenditures (for the more recent elections, such as 37th). This is good, however if I were to actually edit that template, it would create a mess throughout the entire elections Canada project. Do you think I should create a new template for the time being, as I go through all the electoral districts, updating the information from previous elections? I have create a possibily of what the template may look like here. Give me your thoughts. Cheers --Omnieiunium 23:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Yah, I was thinking the same thing. What would be an approriate name though. CanElec4? Any ideas? Cheers --Omnieiunium 00:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Well I'll be, someone has all ready done CanElec4, oh well. I will use that and keep it in mind if I have any future problems. Cheers and thanks for the help. --Omnieiunium 00:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Stop hand.png This userbox may pose a risk to international security and should be reviewed by a Wikipedia administrator.

I should have done this a long time ago...[edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif for having over 87,000 edits, and be a Wikipedian that I look up to.

...Also giving you a watch for the countless hours you have spent here,


Take care, εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

No, it shows your continued dedication to the site. Keep it up! εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 00:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


Please see the article Hidden Lake Academy and the discussion page. --Yodamace1 02:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I am going to be leaving for a very long time--with G-d's help--on Sunday, so I must ask you to keep that article in check or ask someone else to keep it in check. I would be very much obliged. Thank you.--Yodamace1 17:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Islamism Talk page=[edit]

I would appreciate if you would comment on my objections of using words Islamism and Islamist in Islamism talk page. .--User:Siddiqui 19:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

International ties template[edit]

I liked the international ties template, and I support replacing the geographical templates in country articles. It would also be better if we create one standarised template (maybe {{Country ties}}) to put in all country articles. CG 16:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Wolfgang Hildesheimer[edit]

Could you take a look at Wolfgang Hildesheimer and see if it makes sense to you. Its my first translation. John (Jwy) 20:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Reason for opposing[edit]

Someone else already asked me, so in case you'd like to know - see User_talk:R.Koot#SimonP :) WhiteNight T | @ | C 01:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Reason for Neutral[edit]

Hi there, I just want to take a step to explain my vote on the Arbcom business. I think that your editing record looks superb and your answers to the questions are very well done. Unfortunately, I have haven't heard of you at all on the admin pages so I dont' really know your attitudes and how you deal with people. I hope my neutral doesn't hurt your chances. Best of luck novacatz 05:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Need your help with List of U.S. foreign interventions since 1945[edit]

Hello, I noticed that you have made some contributions to List of U.S. foreign interventions since 1945 (in fact you created the article), since your contributions, as you probably noticed, there has been over 5 pages of deletions by apologists. Your additions were probably deleted too. I listed most of the 5 pages of deletions here, in the entry on the talk page, "The memory hole". This page has been vandilized so much, I can't possibly do this alone. I was hoping that you, and others who contributed can help rebuild the page, adding back the information that has been deleted, but this time citing the information that you put back to avoid future apologist's attacks. Thanks in advance for your time.Travb 06:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Commiserations on Bible verse AfDs[edit]

Hi, just want to let you know that I'm sorry you've had to deal with all these (IMO) silly and unwarranted AfDs for your Bible verse articles. Though I'm not someone who would participate in writing these articles, I can certainly foresee looking to them for information, and it seems self-evident to me that they well-exceed Wikipedia's threshold for notability. I hope all of them are kept and you can continue doing your very excellent work. Thanks, Babajobu 23:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom candidate userbox[edit]

Greetings. I've made a new userbox for arbcom candidates to show on their userpages so that visiters will know they're running.

{{User arbcom nom}}

If you'd like to place it on your userpage, feel free. Regards, – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 02:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Unable to notify you[edit]

In your role as an Administrator, I need your help with Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#SEWilco blocked from commenting on William M. Connolley, which forbids me from issuing to you and other Wikipedians a notification required by anti-spam procedures. (SEWilco 05:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC))


Now, about you learning to listen to the community;

--Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 19:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


I don't know if you read the Metro, but they quoted your work twice this week on their page 3. They quoted the articles on the Justice Annex and the Elgin Theatre. I know I was delighted to see my work on the Ottawa Curling Club in it. :) -- Earl Andrew - talk 05:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Britannicizing country leads[edit]

Hi. There has been a proposal to have every country lead follow the EB model of: [conventional shortform], officially, [conventional longform], though a few modification are being discussed. If you're interested, the discussion is here. Regards, El_C 21:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

template:bio-stub protection[edit]

It's been nearly six months. Please consider unprotecting this or at least down-grading it to semi-protection.

I wanted to change the biography link to point to Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography, which IMO is a much more useful and helpful link to point to, rather than our actual article on biographies. pfctdayelise 05:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


My condolences Congratulations on your election to the Arbcom! May it be as thrilling and fulfilling as you'd imagined. I sure am glad you made it to this esteemed position - better you than me! :) – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 21:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Congrats from me as well, and you'll be sure to hear from your local Signpost reporter soon... ;-) Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations, and now the work begins... --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 03:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for verification[edit]

Simon - Could you please verify that that you recieved the introductory email I sent to all the new arbitrators yesterday? Raul654 05:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The Role of Wikibooks[edit]

Since you seem to be a fairly active Wikipedian, I'm trying to get some feedback on something that has your name on it. I just came across a Wikibook module at b:Albania and Greece that appears to be a transwiki from Albania and Greece. I do want to let you know that for the most part content that is not acceptable on Wikipedia because of NPOV or original research purposes should also not be moved to Wikibooks either. There are several other problems with this article that also violate b:WB:WIN and I would like to ask you to make sure that similar content does not find its way to Wikibooks in the future.

At the moment I have the decision to either dump it back on Wikipedia or simply delete the content altogether. I hate to make that kind of decision, or reopen another VfD but this time on Wikibooks. Unfortunately that is most likely what I have to do, which is a waste of my time and yours. This has also been sitting in a backlog of stuff to be dealt with on Wikibooks, where we get overwhelmed with content like this and not enough admins to be wading though all of the stuff dumped on Wikibooks. We are getting better, which is why there is only a 8 month backlog at the moment. --Robert Horning 00:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

2 Kings 1:8[edit]

Can you give a possible direction for expansion? Is there significant scholarly attention other than its relationship to the line from Matthew? I got there through the Tanakh stubs and this one seemed like low-hanging fruit (which, according to the law of modern Israel, may be picked freely but only for immediate consumption). --Mgreenbe 20:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on the garb; do you know a good source? I'll look in Cogan's analysis (Anchor Bible, what I used for a course on Kings) when I get a chance. As for interpretation/translation issues, what's the inclusion policy? Is it "seat of your pants" (or girdle, or loincloth, or...)? --Mgreenbe 21:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
You're right, I would enjoy a belt vs. girdle debate; I've been caught. What I meant by my question, however, is: where do we draw the line for interpretation/translation issues? I realize there's no policy or guideline, but can you recommend a precedent? --Mgreenbe 21:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
"Overly obscure" seems pretty accurate to me; that was my reason for the initial redirect. I have vague concerns about every bible verse being in Wikipedia, but that's a ways off. I've found Wikipedia:Bible verses and Wikipedia:Merge/Bible verses; the whole debate doesn't seem worth the time. Oh, and congratulations (or whatever it is you say to people going on a suicide mission joining ArbCom)! --Mgreenbe 23:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Operation Medak pocket[edit]

Please don't blank large sections of this article, while adding unreferenced and POV statements. - SimonP 04:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC) My changes are based on recent facts which were made public (Croatian and Serbian war documents, some documatation of the Canadian army). If you have any objections to my changes, you are free to point them out (or at least put them on the Medak pocket discussion page). And as I'm not natural speaker of english, I'd like to know what does shorcut POV means:) Ceha 10:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Wheel warring[edit]

Since this was one of the issues during the election, I would like to hear the opinion of the new arbiters regarding wheel warring, as discussed in this ArbCom case, this quote by Jimbo, community opininon on the subject (summarized in the Signpost) and the draft Admin Code of Conduct. Please do not take this as an attack or request-for-censure of the people involved in that case I mentioned, but rather a question on the general principle whether something can be done about the increasingly prevalent wheel wars. Radiant_>|< 11:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


It isn't, strictly speaking, a motorway. should it have a category box on it saying it is, therefore? ElectricRay 23:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Raymond Samuels[edit]

If you have a moment, could you look over the discussion on this page. An anon has been trying to add information based on what appears to be original research. The subject matter is trivial, but I have some concerns about the use of sources (and possible defamation). CJCurrie 02:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Operation Medak pocket[edit]

Please don't blank large sections of this article, while adding unreferenced and POV statements. - SimonP 04:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC) Case study, Operation Medak pocket Ceha 10:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC) That is just the first page [4] look further,there is a whole case study in it:) Ceha 01:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Administrators are responsible to the community[edit]

I wrote the Administrators are responsible to the community section from the Freestylefrappe case; since you commented on it on a page I can't edit, I thought I'd explain here. What I meant was that although all editors are expected to be courteous, but administrators must be willing to explain their use of admin powers if they're going to use them. -- SCZenz 06:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Another comment re the Freestylefrappe case[edit]

You seem to have raised some concerns in voting that I haven't seen before in the case; if they'd been brought up at the workshop page I would've commented on them, but clearly the case has moved beyond that now. Anyway, in addition to the clarification above, I've asked a question about your reading of the evidence at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Freestylefrappe/Proposed_decision. Thanks in advance for your response; I'm sure it's not easy jumping into being an arbitrator in the middle of the case, and I hope I'm not giving you too much trouble. -- SCZenz 06:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost interview[edit]

Hello, SimonP/Archive 5. I hope you don't mind taking a few minutes out of your busy Arbitration schedule to answer a few questions for the Wikipedia Signpost.

  1. How do you feel about getting the opportunity to serve on the ArbCom?
  2. What do you think of the election? Do you think they were conducted properly? What could have been improved, in your opinion?
  3. What would you say to those who supported you? Opposed you?
  4. What do you think of the other Wikipedians who were appointed along with you?
  5. What do you think of Jimbo's decision to re-appoint three Arbitrators (JamesF., Jayjg, Fred Bauder)? Do you support this?
  6. After a week on the job, what are your initial thoughts?
  7. What do you think are the strengths of the ArbCom? Weaknesses?
  8. If you could change anything, what would you change? Why?
  9. What are your thoughts on the clerk's office? Do you support it? Why or why not?
  10. Do you plan on finishing your term? If you had to make a choice right now, when your term expires, would you run for re-election? Why or why not?
  11. If there's one thing you could say to the Wikipedia community, what would you say, and why?
  12. Is there anything else you would like to mention?

Congrats on your recent selection. By no means feel obligated to answer all (or any) of the questions; though we'd appreciate it if you did. An article featuring your responses will be published on Monday. Thanks a lot, and don't hesistate to ask me if you have any questions at all! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


I saw your name on the Articles for Deletion page for this article. did you know that even though the article was voted for deletion, that it is still around?

TheRingess 17:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanx for the prompt response. I went ahead and created the 2nd nomination.

TheRingess 18:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

policy proposal[edit]

I thought you might like to see this:

--Victim of signature fascism 20:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

What was -Ril-'s old name. I can't find the arbitration case. I haven't notice him much. Not sure what he is doing that would upset anyone. Fred Bauder 23:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess it needs to go through arbitration. Fred Bauder 01:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Another one...[edit]

It seems -Ril- has found yet another conflict to get involved in: diff. I don't see why this this disruptive troll wasn't permanently banned already last summer. Uppland 13:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I never had any personal interaction with CheeseDreams. As for Ril, I think he is disruptive enough on his own, regardless of the CheeseDreams connection. The Polish Biographical Dictionary thing indicates that he looks for places where there are already conflicts and makes provocative edits – such as in this case completely erasing the only and correct (Polish) title of the (Polish-language) reference work the article is about, when the majority of active editiors of the page clearly opposes Elonka's previous move of the page to an English title, as do I). It seems he has been going to other pages listed at RfC as well, but I haven't looked at his edits.
I see people claiming that he has done useful edits, but I really haven't seen any. Where are they? Uppland 21:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a note[edit]

I'm not sure whether Henry Albert Harper is on your watchlist or not, but I notice you created the initial article. Just wanted to let you know I was in Ottawa a few days ago (and got a couple nice images of the Galahad statue), and did some work on his article today. Just thought you might be interested to see the changes, and such. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 18:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Good work. - SimonP 18:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The irony, oh the irony[edit]

JTKiefer deletes my evidence[5]. JTKiefer tells me to shut the fuck up[6] Instead of just blocking him, which I knew would only result in NSLE or Karmafist, or some other admin unblocking him, I left a note on WP:AN. NSLE and RobChurch said they agreed with him and expressed their happiness that I was going to be desysopped. Ambush Commander said I was being silly. This kind of nonsense is same old same old as far as I'm concerned. Im switching over to a new account to avoid the endless harassment, but in the mean time I'd like at least a recognition that hes not allowed to harass me quite to the degree that hes doing. freestylefrappe 02:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of state-named Avenues in Washington, D.C. (second nomination)[edit]

Thanks for being patient and voting twice on this article. For some reason R. Fiend keeps trying to unlist this article on the grounds that the first deletion discussion (which was a no consensus keep) is being appealed on DRV. This is going to be rather tiresome, but I think it's pretty shitty that he's relisting a discussion where so many people have decided that they want to keep the article. Do you have any thoughts on how to deal with this? I don't want to get nto an edit war over this. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for re-adding it. Now he's just gotten more bloody, reverting you and closing the nomination, falsely claiming that it was made in bad faith. Oh well. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I've explained my actions at WP:AN. Perhaps you're right, we might be having this discussion in a few days anyway (likely weeks, there's a backlog at DRV), but maybe we won't. Maybe a huge majority of people will decide that the closer was wrong, and, if AFD really is a discussion and not a vote, the article should have been deleted (then the AFD becomes meaningless, I guess. Or the DRV does). Or (more likely) a majority will decide that 52% isn't a consensus, and that's all that matters end of story, and it won't be rerun at all. In any case, if it is rerun, it should be done the right way at the right time, not with some insincere nomination with a preordained result. -R. fiend 06:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Please, R. Fiend, I am asking you again to stop making these personal attacks. I assure you that I am as sincere in my wish to see this issue discussed on AfD, here and now, as you are to have it discussed on DRV. AfD works by consensus, and I want to see this issue discussed on a consensus-based forum. I made a good faith nomination, recommending a keep vote. Please stop falsely claiming that my nomination was made in bad faith. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


I was wondering, seeing your edits on Etobicoke (electoral district), if you knew where online I could see a map of the electoral ridings in 1974? Thanks for your time.Habsfannova 05:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


You're welcome ;) ..I agree. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 16:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Dyslexic agnostic and T-man[edit]

I thought you should be aware of the latest developments: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dyslexic Agnostic/Evidence#Fourth asserion. Dyslexic agnostic 16:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I HAVE HAD IT WITH CONSTANT ATTACKS BY T-MAN. The arbitration is just a further opportunity to attack and attack and attack, a relentless illegible onslaught. PLEASE JUST MAKE IT STOP! Dyslexic agnostic 05:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew[edit]

I've removed your 'ignore this discussion' comment from this page for what should be obvious reasons. The standard processes were followed here, the entire community was given a fair chance to say their piece, and, if you read the actual discussion, the consensus was VERY clear. Like it or not, until another discussion says different, that page should be considered an official guideline. --InShaneee 18:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

  • First of all, it's been established that wikipedia policy can change over time and thus, as long as a clear consensus can be reached, the most current discussion should be considered the most relevant, and the only one to be used as a guideline. Secondly, this discussion was hardly clandestine, as it was posted on Wikipedia:Centralized discussion for weeks, which also means that any visitor to AfD could take a look at it. Incidentally, this is how I came across it, not because of any sort of advertisement. I have not removed your text again yet, but unless I hear a compelling argument, I plan to soon. --InShaneee 03:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Looking around to see what's been going on, I hope you forgive me for saying that I don't believe you may be acting in good faith here yourself. Without getting dragged into this mess myself, the long and short of it is simply that you were quite recently involved in a dispute with -Ril-. Also, it sounds ("He would also have contacted those who actually worked in the area") that you certainly have a vested interest in the topic as well (and for the last time, I don't CARE one way or the other on the topic, and I came across this on AfD as I'm sure others did). So, I'm still planning on removing that statement, but I would like to hear from someone not involved in all of this. I'll look into it on my own if you don't in the next few days. --InShaneee 03:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
      • You're missing my point. Now that this discussion is over, speedy reverting any such changes would be the innapropriate thing to do. Either way, I'm passing this issue off for a third opinion, but I still am going to recommend that the comment be removed. The bottom line remains: this discussion was put out for the whole community, and the results are plain to see. --InShaneee 21:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Question about 1993 Canadian election article[edit]

Hi, I was wondering which edition of Canadian Democracy by Stephen Brooks you used for the article Canadian federal election, 1993. I have the 3rd edition (published in 2000), but my page numbers don't sync up. Thanks, please leave an answer on my talk page. Andrew Levine 04:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


I know that both the -ize and -ise spellings are used, but according to the Wikipedia MoS, the spelling of proper names should be retained. This applies to the British Labour Party, but also to the World Trade Organization (z) and to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (s). There are style guides that don't see organisation as a proper name, but this is a matter of perception. The Wikipedia guideline is very clear. NATO is officially spelled with 's', the organization even explains this policy on its website. SpNeo 23:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

NATO itself freely uses both. If you search the NATO website you actually get more hits for "z" than you do for "s". - SimonP 23:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Many of the search results link to US-related NATO documents. If you look at the press releases, the "About"-section, the charter... you'll find that organisation is used consistently. SpNeo 23:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
You seem to be right about the fact that both spellings are considered official by the organization. I'll stop changing the spelling in articles where -ize is used. But I'd still say that the -ise spelling is the preferred one. If you have a look at the main page at [7], you'll see that it's used in the title and all the sections of the website that are easily accessible. I guess it's NATO's house style to use organisation for the public and organisation or organization in internal documents and treaties. In the FAQ section, it says:
By tradition, NATO uses European English spellings in all public information documents. Common examples where differences occur between European and North American usage are the words “defence” and “defense”, and “Organisation” and “Organization”.
They are not quite right about that though, organization can also be used in Commonwealth English.SpNeo 09:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Arab League template[edit]

Hi, then why did some countries such as Jordan and Tunisia already have the template to begin with? Some of the countries already had the template on there, so I figured I should add it to the rest of the Arab League nations to be consistent.

Also, why is the Gulf Cooperation Council template allowed but the Arab League template is not? This is double standards.

Thanks (MEA707 03:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC))

Toronto municipal elections[edit]

Excellent work on these new articles. Thank you for your amazing contributions to Wikipedia. Ground Zero | t 16:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey Simon, I've been checking these out as well. Good job. However, I have one comment about the maps... the older maps show the 401, the DVP and the Gardiner, when I don't think they were built at that point. -- Earl Andrew - talk 13:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)