User talk:Trackratte

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

Please comment on Talk:Compulsory sterilization[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Compulsory sterilization. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

The edit war at Monarchy of Canada[edit]

The edit war continues despite the attempt at discussion on the talk page. As there has been no consensus and editors continue to alter the images, I will have to bring any further changes to the banners being displayed to WP:ANEW. Please note that I am notifying all editors involved in altering the banners, and that this notification can be considered the equivalent of {{uw-ew}}. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 00:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC unclose[edit]

Please undo that RfC-reopen, you are only making things worse. Now there are two RfC's ongoing on the same topic, how do you think we should deal with that? --OpenFuture (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Ask for an admin or an uninvolved editor to close them. trackratte (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
That was already done. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Then wait for them to do it. trackratte (talk) 20:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Flag of Northern Ireland[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Flag of Northern Ireland. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Monarchy of Canada[edit]

FWIW, those heads up notes that you've removed at Monarchy of Canada, are also present in the other Commonwealth realm articles :) GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I can see why it's there for Monarchy in the United Kingdom, but it seems completely redundant within the Monarchy of Canada article. Regardless, there is no requirement for all those articles to be exactly the same, in fact I think doing so would be grossly counter-productive as they are all different subjects on different countries. trackratte (talk) 16:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Cool :) GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United Kingdom general election, 2015[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United Kingdom general election, 2015. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2016 Orlando nightclub shooting[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2016 Orlando nightclub shooting. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2016 shooting of Dallas police officers[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2016 shooting of Dallas police officers. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Defence Team Organisational Structure 2014.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Defence Team Organisational Structure 2014.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Singapore[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Singapore. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Frankfurt School[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Frankfurt School. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 25 September[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Trackratte. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Trackratte. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

New 10,000 Challenge for Canada[edit]

Hi, Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/The 10,000 Challenge is up and running based on Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge for the UK which has currently produced over 2300 article improvements and creations. If you'd like to see large scale quality improvements happening for Canada like The Africa Destubathon, which has produced over 1600 articles in 5 weeks, sign up on the page. The idea will be an ongoing national editathon/challenge for Canada but fuelled by a contest such as The North America Destubathon to really get articles on every province and subject mass improved. I would like some support from Canadian wikipedians here to get the Challenge off to a start with some articles to make doing a Destubathon worthwhile! Cheers. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 4 December[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry![edit]

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:10, 24 December 2016 (UTC) Lights ablaze.JPG

Some reading[edit]

I see by the post on my page your a bit off on how the history of Canada is told...below are some books (not websites) that many university students use in research. -- Moxy (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

The first book is cutoff at the area in question. "Cartier made his first voyage in the King's service in 1534...Nevertheless, Cartier returned to France with glowing tales of the wonders of Canada" (p. 32/34, p 33 is cutoff)
The second one has no text available, so I do not see how you expect me to read it.
The third, there is no text available for the portion of the book that pertains to this period, so there is nothing for me to read.
The fourth seems to me to be a very short summary in that it glosses over everything from the English to French in just two paragraphs. "Jacques Cartier made three voyages in 1534, 1535, 1541...Cartier returned to France with iron pyrite (fools' gold) and quartz crystal-hence the expression for something fake, voila un diamant du Canada (that's a diamond from Canada".
The fifth is the same as the third.
So in total you have provided two books that can be read for this period. Both of which support the fact that Jacques Cartier discovered an area in 1534 that was called Canada ("returned to France with glowing tales of the wonders of Canada", and "that's a diamond from Canada". This combined with the two books and one academic (written by a PhD) sources I cited in the Canada article that are explicit that "Canada was discovered in the year 1534", as well as one Government of France Source which supports Jacques Cartier coming to Canada in 1534 as well.
All in all, I'm not too sure what your point is. Are you saying that Jacques Cartier was not in Canada in 1534, that he did not perform a cross raising ceremony to claim the land? Or are you arguing that this ceremony was not the beginning of New France? Both of which are readily verifiable in a number of sources, including in published books. I simply don't know what exactly it is you are arguing against, save for repeatedly telling me to "read a book", which is a thinly veiled insult, to which I offer I never stopped. You're the one removing published books from article reference lists, and I don't see why. trackratte (talk) 01:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Canada[edit]

Try to follow WP:BRD. You seem to not understand the problems being raised ...no one is disputing the facts of the addition....thus sources are not needed at all...as its all sourced in the article. What I do have a problem is the naming of 2 people in the lead that had very little affect on Canadian history. Pls take the time to read WP:LEAD....as it explains the lead is a summary not a detailed account....nor do we need sources for things that are sourced in the article. I am puzzled at why your trying to bully in changes to the lead of a parent article that is of FA level and been stable for years and years. Simply unacceptable behavior for an article of this stature.Moxy (talk) 01:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Stop attacking the editor and reverting everything. You have passed 3RR twice now over the past week or so, and had to self-revert twice. If you have no problem with the content being added, then it is a style issue. Copy edit the text to make it flow better, or make it more succinct. No policies are being broken, so continuously reverting simply because you don't like it simply doesn't cut it. And what is the best for the lead is your opinion, the copy edit changes are perfectly inline with policy.
Something being stable for years is also not a reason not to improve things.
The only reason you have offered up for your constant reverts is that you simply don't like it. trackratte (talk) 01:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
As regards specifically to the lead, what is exactly you think is against policy? The lead provides a summary and "should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic". Your wholesale removal of the formation of Canada removes a critical part of Canada's history that is covered in more detail in the main body. Because the topic is covered in the main body is not any reason to remove it, as the lead must be able to stand on its own without reading the article main body. In addition, the lead should "be carefully sourced as appropriate", your removal of basic facts and their references is inappropriate. trackratte (talk) 01:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
When multiple editors are concerned with your edits. ....this is when its time to sit back a question if your on the right path. And to be clear I have not removed anything that is not already in the article almost word for word with its own sources. At this point you will have to convince editors your new choice of wording and adding regurgitative sources is better then the longame standing versions. Having the same problem on many articles with many talks going on all with editors concerned with the same POV being presented is a bit much. I have added an edit notice in hopes you will search the archive to see how we got to the current usage of terms and the dates that apply to those terns. --Moxy (talk) 08:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
As you freely admit, the facts added are already in the article, and that you agree with the content added just not the place, thus there is no POV issue, or if there is, it is the same POV that the article currently has. Either you are misstating or hiding your own issue with the content, or you are just flinging groundless accusations.
Your stated opinion is that these facts should not be in the lead section because they are in the main body. However, the purpose of the lead section is to provide a standalone summary, as per WP. So, providing a thoroughly referenced summary of the facts within the article is inline with this policy, you agree with the content itself, and once again the fact that my additions to the lead section are "already in the article almost word for word" is incompatible with "POV pushing". trackratte (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Just read the edit summaries all over ...like at History of Canada notice how long tine contributors to that article have a problem with the wording used...look at the most recent replies to you by other people at the Canada talk......there is real concern about your usage of terms and POV. I think it's best others explain....as they have been. So far I see 6 editors editing what you have done in 3 articles....this is a hint.....slow down....read the concerns raised in talks and edit summaries in all these articles. --Moxy (talk) 00:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
You speak as if I have been running around recklessly reverting articles and inserting falsities, when it is in fact you which have broken 3RR on at least two different occasions (and I commend you for your step back each time). I have been adding and copy editing others work inline with and with the addition of verifiable and reliable published sources, not wholesale reverting (save for your removing of sourced facts and all of their references). And everything I have inserted has been factual and verifiable. Why are you insisting on carrying on with your accusations of POV? What I have added is already, apparently "word for word", in the Canada article and has been for years. So, if you are saying that the FA Canada is not undue POV, then my additions are also then not POV as they are nearly "word for word". Also, if a point of view is verifiable through reliable sources and conflicts with other sources, it isn't POV but in fact the difference of sourced perspectives must be mentioned inline with Wiki policy, which is not even the case here as the sourced content itself is not even in dispute in the first place.
If you wish to continue on with a productive discussion, and work together in improving the articles in question inline with verifiable and reliable sources, I suggest you stop accusing me of undue POV which is clearly not the case, stop insulting me by vaguely referring to various policy which I am in fact perfectly inline with, and stop insulting me by offering the "read a book" response as if I haven't been inserting various books and academic articles into the articles as references. Of course I am not new here, I have been volunteering my time here for nearly 14 years, and I don't appreciate being insulted for my efforts.
Given the fact that we have worked together perfectly productively before, likely perhaps the first time we have had any difference of opinion at all over the past 6 years despite the fact we generally focus on the same articles, I see no reason why this cannot be so going forward oncemore. Insulting another editor's intelligence, unfounded accusations of some vaguely referred to policy, and focus on me personally vice the issues at hand will not get us anywhere. I recognize your patience and good will in volunteering your time here, and am perfectly willing to work towards building the most accurate, neutral, and factual encyclopedia in my realm of expertise/interest with you. Now if you are quite ready, let me know, and we can get on with it in resuming our normal professional and hopefully friendly relationship. Now, if you feel that my additions have somehow personally offended you, I freely apologise for whatever grievance you may be harbouring. trackratte (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I think I get it[edit]

I think I have a solution....I think I understand what your saying. We are arguing to different points....you like to use and link the term and I like a linking to articles with infomation for our readers...thus....See New France talk.--Moxy (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Moxy, it's presently unclear to me what your proposed solution is. I agree, we are arguing different points on different subjects. I think it would be helpful to try and outline a stance so that we can compare them, as I am not entirely certain what the discrepancy even is.
Topic 1 - Linking: When discussing a specific polity, ie Canada is the early 1800s, we should link to the Canadas as that is the entity in question. The same logic applies to Canada in the 16th and 17th centuries, where we would link to Canada (New France) as this polity was a specific thing, a French colony, as two examples. This need not be mutually exclusive to linking with the wider and more general articles, such as BNA or New France, for example "Canada, New France", or the Canadas within British North America" or something to that effect, giving the reader both the specific article under discussion with the relevant sentence or paragraph, as well as the more general and wider ranging topic, being essentially the best of both worlds. You agreed with this before, then it seems to me you changed your mind.
So, do you agree with this logic? If no, what specifically is problematic?
Topic 2 - Evolution: France discovered an area along the Canada River (now known as the St-Lawrence), called it Canada, and claimed it in 1534, thus officially beginning French claims to both Canada (specific geographic area along the St-Lawrence), and New France (which at first were one and the same, however New France later expanded to form several different colonies such as Acadia and Louisiana of which Canada was only one). Although there were temporary settlements, permanent habitation did not take hold until 1608. Canada was later ceded from the French to the British, and was briefly known as Quebec before becoming the Canadas (like the Carolinas, the Californias, the Virginias, etc), then the Province of Canada, all of which were British colonies known as Canada, occupying the same space as the French colony of Canada, and which continued to be inhabited by "Canadians". Canada then joined with two other British colonies to form a new British colony known as the Dominion of Canada (a new polity). Canada grew and became coequal with the UK in 1931, and gained full independence in 1982. These are all verifiable facts.
Do you agree with this broad history? If not, what exactly is problematic?
If you could post using the same headings, hopefully we'll have a clearly picture of both stances, what the deltas are between them, and what can be done to bridge them. As as it stands now, it is all quite fuzzy. trackratte (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UrbanNerd[edit]

Hi, I saw that an IP reverted your edits on the Montreal and Quebec City articles. Not sure if you had run-ins with UrbanNerd or his previous sockpuppet accounts of PhilthyBear, Po'Buster, etc. If you did, you may find the edits to be similar of the blocked sockpuppet. If so and you have additional evidence, feel free to chime in. Hwy43 (talk) 06:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Quebec City infobox[edit]

FYI, this is actually correct per WP:CANSTYLE#Infoboxes. Quebec community articles are really the only ones in which this consensus has not been implemented yet, partially because of some arrogant editors being offended by the usage of a French (i.e., Ville de) on English Wikipedia. Hwy43 (talk) 00:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey Hwy, thanks for the heads up. I'm aware of the common usage, however in this case I have always applied WP:COMMON in that it seems faintly ridiculous to have "Quebec City" in the title, "Quebec City..." in the lead sentence, and then "Quebec City | City | Ville de Quebec" in the first three lines of the infobox. Basically, the article would then be (ever so subtly) pointing out to the reader that Quebec is, in fact a city, by saying it five times in the very top cm of the article alone, which in my mind is extremely redundant, if not a bit untoward regarding the readers' ability to "get it".
In my mind, the common sense solution is to simply have the article title in line with WP Common Name (Quebec City), have this repeated in the lead, and then have "Quebec | City | Québec" in the infobox for common name, entity type, and official name respectively. Of course the same logic applies to Montreal, as an argument can be made that its official name is "Ville de Montréal" as seen on its website, or perhaps "metropolis" now? Ha, anyways, obviously this is a style issue not a hard policy or verifiability issue, so of course editor consensus is all that matters, and of course saying "City" or "Ville de" a few more times isn't going to do any serious harm.
What are your thoughts on the matter? trackratte (talk) 02:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Trackratte, I had a more substantial response but lost it accidentally while pasting using an iPad. So in the meantime, I'll just provide the following and circle back to try again tomorrow once rested. The consensus to populate the three parameters has existed since 2010. It was reaffirmed in late 2014, and when the challenger was unsatisfied with the result a formal RFC was opened in late 2015 further reaffirming the consensus by a significant margin. Back again tomorrow. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 08:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Hwy, thank you for the background links as I was not aware of these discussions held by the five of you. Since you are coming back anyways, I imagine my response would be a simple request for your own opinion. Ie. do you think that in this case, pointing out the fact that Quebec is a city five different times within the top of the article is actually pertinent and useful to the reader vice pointing out this fact a "mere" three times instead?
If your answer is yes, that it is pertinent and useful to the reader to have the same piece of information given to them five times before they've even reached the second sentence, then there is little point in proceeding, as the difference is likely irreconcilable.
If your answer is no, then there is little reason to enforce something that doesn't make this specific article better or simply doesn't make sense in the case of this case (keeping in mind I am not talking about changing the wider consensus regarding CANSTYLE, just that it cannot be applied blindly).
If your answer is "no...but it has been decided that standardization..." then I would simply say that editor consensus does not trump the five pillars of Wikipedia, namely that there cannot by "any firm rules". Once again, the current convention may be the best one, however I would disagree that it is the best one for this specific article as it is needless repetition for no specific or actual reader benefit that I see. Look forward to what you think. Cheers. trackratte (talk) 02:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Here is the lost portion of my reply from Jan-26: Infoboxes are intended to summarize the key attributes of the article's subject. Lead sections are intended to introduce the article's subject and summarize its most important contents. Both are integral parts of a complete article on a community and have similar purposes. There are other attributes in community infoboxes that are also mentioned in the lead, such as province, country, population, etc., yet they are not removed based on challenges of redundancy. An incorporated community's given name, status and official legal name are among its most basic and important attributes. Provincial orders to incorporate these communities set out these three attributes specifically before diving into additional information if necessary. Lead sections nearly always immediately set out the community's given name and status in the first few words. Redundancy here really is only an issue of perception due to the close geographic proximity of the top of the infobox with the opening paragraph of the article. Everything in the infobox is, or should be, repeated somewhere within the prose throughout the article, which is no different than the situation we are discussing here. Hwy43 (talk) 05:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
I believe it is quite pertinent and useful to include all three attributes in the infoboxes of community articles per the above, but I will elaborate further. As infoboxes summarize the most basic attributes of communities, readers come to rely on them for quickly absorbing basic attributes without having to dive into the prose of the article. It gives us all the important facts right up front without having to wade into the story to find the facts. Another thing is consistency. All other cities across Canada have these three parameters populated except for in Quebec. I've yet to implement it due to the reason mentioned above, and not having the time to focus on responding to controversy that may arise from English users challenging implementation of "Ville de Foo" format for the official legal name parameter (my understanding is Quebec only bestows official legal names in French, so translating it to "City/Town of Foo" is actually incorrect and improper, though there may be a case for including the English translation used by the municipality itself in addition to the actual official legal name in French). Inclusion of all three is also very beneficial in understanding unusual configurations of municipal status types and official legal names. For example, look at Delta, British Columbia, Wood Buffalo, Alberta, Grandview Municipality, Haldimand County, Municipality of the District of Argyle, etc. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 05:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)