User talk:Spinboy/Archive 3

Multiple floating infoboxes

Here I had thought I had figured out a good way to stack the right-aligned (style=“float:right”) infoboxes since they were starting to pile up for the various Green Party articles. Then I noticed your edit on the Green Party of Ontario article, so decided to investigate further and discovered, much to my chagrin, that my ‘trick’ has ’‘undesirable’’ results in some browsers. Sigh. I went in and fixed all the other articles so to take out the code I had put in and just moved the second info boxes down in the article.

Have I mentioned lately how frustrating I am by the wide variations in HTML and CSS implementations across web-browsers? GrantNeufeld 21:36, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charities of Canada

Hi Spinboy–I’ve noticed your newly created Category:Charities of Canada. Unfortunately a category for the same purpose already exists, Category:Canadian charities. The latter follows the naming conventions generally used in Category:Charities, such as Category:Australian charities and Category:British charities. I’d like to list Category:Charities of Canada on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion, and also propose there that its contents be moved to Category:Canadian charities. Do you have any objections? Thanks, Kurieeto 04:29, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Disambig

If all the high schools are deserving of articles then a disambig page is perfectly appropriate. Many people looking to read about Canterbury High School will not be looking for the one in Ottawa, and hopefully they might start a page on one of the missing ones.–SimonP 02:45, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages with only one, or even no, created pages are perfectly acceptable and hundreds exist. They are important as they encourage the creation of the missing articles. Most new users do not know how to deal with disambiguation. Moreover Ottawa’s Canterbury was already at a disambiged name. If a page has a disambiguation note like “(Ottawa)” in the title it clearly implies that there is a need to be disambiged between other pages.–SimonP 02:58, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

OUSA

The site appears to be behind as far as updates are concerned. I can personally vouch, seeing as the Ottawa-being-out information was related to me directly by the new OUSA president when I stopped by her office two weeks ago. :) -The Tom 16:49, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My sense is they’re not switching on account of ideological reasons—just a general lack of gung-hoedness about provincial representation and so on. The bilingualism thing was long a problem, too... when UofO first did the membership dance a few years ago they offered to become full members, but only if OUSA immediately agreed to start translating everything they released into French. Considering OUSA’s Toronto office, is, well, a room (a big room, mind you), this was a non-starter. -The Tom 17:09, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Welcome!

I appreciate your kind welcome, and I’ll be sure to pour over the wiki-specific details (I’ve contributed to e2 in the past). RealMontrealer 07:17, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

I’m sorry but you can’t leave an NPOV tag up indefinitely. Either deliberate on the talk pages, start an RFC on the page(s) or drop the matter. Just leaving the tag up and doing nothing is not an option. Sorry. AndyL 03:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That you put up an RFC and failed to elicit comments that support you suggest you have no support. NPOV is not somthing one’s supposed to use as a personal veto. State your remaining objections on the talk page or step aside.AndyL 03:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The fact that you have not deliberated on the talk pages for three to four months, have not responded to comments there for that period of time, suggests you are unable to sustain your argument. Your insistance on maintaining an NPOV tag in spite of the absence of any deliberation, or any desire on your part to deliberate, suggests you simply do not like the contents of the article but are unable to identify any actual NPOV problem with it. If you continue to insist on maintaining a four month old NPOV tag while refusing to deliberate on the talk pages you’ll leave me little choice but to take the matter to arbitration. If you cannot back up your position I suggest you step aside. AndyL 05:06, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just suggested a compromise. List the schools that left CFS. As long as the schools that have left CASA and the ones that have joined CFS are also listed (ie as long as the information is complete and not selective) there’s no problem. AndyL 08:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I’m a bit perplexed at your describing the AMS at Queen’s as a “founding member” of CASA when, in fact, the AMS has never been a member of CASA. I think they were observers for a while but *never* members. AndyL 08:41, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I’ve added a full list of current and perspective members of the CFS. Feel free to add a list of former members and we can consider this NPOV dispute over and remove the tags. AndyL 15:22, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

UPEI

The CFS website lists UPEI as a member. A google search reveals a 2004 article stating that the UPEI student council was considering leaving CFS but no later article indicating that they had done so, certainly none stating there had been a referendum and its results. Until we have some definitive proof that UPEI has left CFS I don’t think we can say it has. The precedent is the CASA article where Spinboy insisted the article could not state that a university (can’t remember if it was Manitoba or Saskatchwan) had left CASA until we could cite something other than a discussion board entry verifying this had occured. If Spinboy insisted on such criteria for a school leaving CASA, he should have the same standard in this case. AndyL 18:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

3RR on Green Party of Canada

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. Kelly Martin 04:18, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

I accept your apology! Let it not be said that Ben does’t forgive those that err against him.

Have a Benstar! (image pending) —ben dummett 06:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ben again! Har! It’s also original. Not how you spelt it! Had me confused for a little while! Toodles! —ben dummett 06:41, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Quite alright chap! After all ’‘errare humanum est, ignoscere divinum’’! Jolly good show what! Toodles! What! —ben dummett 06:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

lots of edits, not an admin

Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list, although there is certainly no guarantee anyone will ever look at it. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:19, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people

(Having buggered it up the first time round) I've just moved all of us Wikipedians who were in Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people into Category:Queer wikipedians, in an attempt to avoid self-references. Hope you don't mind; apologies if you do. — OwenBlacker June 30, 2005 16:53 (UTC)

Canadian passport image

Hello. I changed it because the new one looks better than the old one. I think eveyrone would agreee. Colour > B&W.

File:Can passport1.jpg vs

But I see that you've reverted it back to the B&W. Alright.. happy ? Ok. sikander July 2, 2005 22:44 (UTC)

Honest to god the image that was on the page was B&W. That's why I went and took a picture of mine and uploaded it. I overwrote the original file thinking that it would update the thumbnail as well. But it didn't. So, I uploaded it separately and changed the links to the new image. Weird. Even now the original image that you reverted to is black & white in the thumbnail. Is your computer/eyes showing you the image on the left in colour ??? sikander July 2, 2005 22:53 (UTC)

Reverted back to original image that is black & white.. not in colour. I'm serious. It's black and white. There's no colour.

--- Thanks :) sikander July 4, 2005 15:45 (UTC)

Soil

Could you please re-read soil and make sure it has been cleaned up to your expectations... if not, please leave me a message. I think the article is rather well done at this point in time, but I'd rather not move it from my desk until it is approved by all interested parties. DoomBringer 04:33, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Canada flag large.png

I think I am starting to notice something: the vandal is using accounts that is using the names of various American presidents as screen names, such as LyndonJohnson, TheodoreRoosevelt. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Memory Alpha

Hi,

Why are you deleting Memory Alpha links for Star Trek articles?

Cheers,

Acegikmo1 21:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I'm not sure why their not linking back to Wikipedia justifies deleting them. BBC sites don't link back to Wikipedia. Neither does StarTrek.com. Yet we keep these links. Is there another rule for other wiki sites? Is there something I'm missing?

Cheers,

Acegikmo1 22:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is your massive removal of Memory Alpha links something you've discussed with others before embarking upon it, or is it something you've taken upon yourself? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:13, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I have to second this. If you're just wholesale deleting the articles for no good reason, this could be considered vandalism. I have started a discussion thread regarding your action at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek if you wish to pick up this discussion, otherwise in all likelihood your deletions will be reverted. I'd do so myself but I'm waiting to hear if some consensus has been reached that I'm not aware of. 23skidoo 22:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your Memory Alpha deletions. This is vandalism, and creating a lot of work for everyone else. - Chairboy 22:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your deletions have been fully reverted. That's five minutes of my life I won't get back. Mass deletions of links without reason borders on vandalism. --Golbez 22:46, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

"I disagree with you. It is not vandalism, they are vandalizing WP by adding the links, when they don't link back to WP" It really helps, Spinboy, if you read my entire comment. I said without reason. --Golbez 03:20, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

User Categorisation

You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Canada page as living in or being associated with Canada. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Canadian Wikipedians for instructions. Or just add the following to your user page:

[[Category:Canadian_Wikipedians|{{subst:PAGENAME}}]] [[Category:Wikipedians in Ontario|{{subst:PAGENAME}}]] [[Category:Wikipedians in Ottawa|{{subst:PAGENAME}}]]

- Korivak 19:42, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Borough survey

Are you aware that under Montréalais' compromise communities that are seperated from other built-up areas would retain the provincial suffix? Therefore Hull, Quebec and Aylmer, Quebec would stay as is. Farquard 02:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Spinboy

What's with External link on Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools.

What's up this addition? Shows a motor cycle? [1]

See History

Thanks

Scott 14:53:01, 2005-08-27 (UTC)

Looks like he misspelled the link, on a hunch I tried msacs.org and it went to some site about the titular subject. I fixed the link. - CHAIRBOY 15:58, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chairboy,

Great Thanks did not want to cause any problems since I have a link to the page and happened to just notice it. "Keep in touch"

Scott 16:06:04, 2005-08-27 (UTC)

My user page

elements cross-posted

I'm sorry... whut?

James F. (talk) 23:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

canada-edu-stub

Hi Spinboy - you wrote: Why was this redirected?

Because it didn't fit in with the education stub hierarchy, and overlapped another long-existing stub category. With the exception of Hong Kong (which will also be changed soon) all countries with separate education related stubs have two parallel stub types - university (for any tertiary institution) and school (for primary and secondary). So there is Australia-school-stub and Australia-university-stub, UK-school and UK-university, US-school and US-university, and Canada-school and Canada...-edu. It also made for confusion because the Canada education stubs category contained a lot of stubs that should have been in the Canada school stub category. At the moment there's discussion at WP:SFD as to whether to leave Category:Canada education stubs as a parent category for the school and university categories (and add similar categories for the other countries) or to get rid of it entirely. I'd slightly favour the former, since there are one or two articles which don't really count in either category. Grutness...wha? 00:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome

Thank you for the warm welcome! I appreciate your gesture and will read all the appropriate litterature... and officially join the Wikipedians! AirOdyssey 19:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey

Just wanted to drop by and give you this barnstar for your work on Wikipedia.

Take care, Molotov (talk) 20:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Marriage, unions and partnerships by country

You don't need every Canadian article in your new category, it already has one, and you've put the category itself in your new category. -- Spinboy 05:54, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, but I wasn't adding every article, just the main one, and the one about Parliment. -- Reinyday, 05:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Huguette Labelle

Hi,

I noticed you added the "unencyclopedic" tag to this article. What's the problem? Not only is she the Chancellor of the University of Ottawa, she was a promiment civil servant, and she is a Companion of the Order of Canada (the highest level). I admit it still a stub, but do you have reasons for adding this tag?

--YUL89YYZ 22:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

> "Yes, she's a Chancellor, and a recipient of the Order of Canada, but there's nothing in the article that makes her stand out or noteworthy."

Ok, I'll add some more info tomorrow. In the meantime the "expand" tag is more appropriate. --YUL89YYZ 22:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Airlines of Canda

I'm sorry but I fail to see why this needs to be moved anyway, you say it is to preserve the history but Template:Airlines of Canada is the original and therefore contains more and better history that the spin off one you created. I see no need to get an admin involved to move this back, seems a total waste of their time, all they'll be doing is moving a copy back over the original and messing the history up even more. Ben W Bell 06:56, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really a move, it's a revert to how it was originally, but I'll put the notices up for the Admins to move it then. As for why am I interested as I'm not from Canada. I'm interested as I'm interested in aircraft and airlines and have personally flown on the particular reason the conflict started on several occassions. As for not being from Canada, you don't need to be to have an interest, and anyway I get my Permanent Residency for Canada in a few months. Ben W Bell 16:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Parkway1.jpg

I hope you're planning to take the pictures, I don't know any Wikipedians who get out there to take a picture themselves. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 18:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually not my problem. The point is that it is (as far as I know) reasonably possible for someone to go out there with a camera and take a picture, which makes that image replaceable. Kelly Martin 18:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know it's reasonbly possible if you haven't been there yourself? And if you're willing to put that tag on, you should also be willing to take the picture, IMHO. Don't judge it without being willing to do it yourself. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 18:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, based on the law and Jimbo's express policy, any nonfree image of a still-existing building or of any commonly available object can and should be replaced with a free image of the same. This building, as far as I know, still exists, and so the image should be replaced. I'm sorry if you think it's too inconvenient to follow the law, but the test for fair use includes "the availability of acceptable substitutes", and here there's an available substitute. Kelly Martin 18:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AFD

Please don't add more then a few afd requests at a time. I know of several admins who would probably speedy keep those. --Phroziac^(talk) 23:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and sorry, but those aren't speedyable. And, I don't exactly agree with the deletion of the one i actually looked at, but I'm too lazy to vote on them. I'll assume the right thing will happen. --Phroziac^(talk)

23:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quick hello

Hi Spinboy - thanks for the useful array of links and for the welcome - thanks again --Serenome 19:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver municipal election

<form letter> I've posted something that may be of interest to you at Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/discussion#Vancouver municipal election. Hope you can comment there. </form letter> -The Tom 22:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]