User talk:Ground Zero/Archive 5

Bloc and such

Hello again. Thanks for your last message. First, on the sovereigntism thing. The question about the question(s) is a big debate... I will certainly not try to solve it with you now, since many have tried for many years, but I would point out that while the "association" after a Yes is uncertain, a "distinct society" reform after a No is at least as much uncertain and history has shown that it has twice been promised with little results and, for a *part* of the federalist side, with little true intention (Trudeau and Chrétien). Polls show that between status quo and sovereignty, people choose sovereignty, so there may be something blurry that the federalist side uses also. You bring about the example of the 1967 Tory debate on the Quebec nation subject. Thanks for bringing it to my attention; I will check on the article. I am aware of the fact that, in *that* time, the idea was less controversial. I believe Tommy Douglas, Robert Stanfield and Lester B. Pearson all recognized it (Pearson spoke of a "nation within a nation") but Canada seems to have become, since "Trudeauism", more weary about it. ...which is the opposite route of the United Kingdom, for example, that is less and less shy of recognizing Scotland as a nation.

So, about the vision of Canada of the said sovereignty movement, I will rephrase the question. Is it difficult (or has it been rarely considered) for Canadians to imagine that sovereigntists might not be motivated *first* by the idea that something went or goes wrong, or that they "hate" Canada (I certainly don't), but by the simple fact that it is normal and even necessary, to their eyes, for a human group with a "national conciousness" to have the national tool of a sovereign state to be better heard and recognized and appreciated by the peoples of the world, *including, first and foremost*, by their Canadian neighbour and (as fellow nation of the Americas) brother? ...and to be spoken to as equals? Canadians, who know about the hurt of identity crisis (I'm refering especially about Canadian identity vs. USA), can they not imagine how even harder it can be for a young Quebecer to be born in a nation for which her name and flag, even her very existence, is ignored (or held in contempt) by so many in the world; how it can breed the inferiority complex generation after generation? Fourty years after "French Canadian" has become obsolete (and even sometimes a term of insult), people in Canada, the US, or others, still use it, showing this rift between a non-sovereign nation and the world the lack of sovereignty brings about. As bad as Canada is unfairly misunderstood in the world, could we imagine a massive load of people still talking about Canada as, let's say, British North America? People like René Lévesque, who loved the English-speaking world, often presented his project as actually a *better* way for Quebec and Canada to eventually get along and respect each other, like, for example, the Scandinavian nations have better understood and respected each other after they were interdependent, but free. ...to *bridge* this rift I spoke of. I think the way many sovereigntists see things is this... Canada surely loves... Germany, for example. Does that obligate them to want to become the next German länder? I think many souverainistes see sovereignty not (to come back on the "marriage" imagery) as a divorce, but as a marriage to the world (and the current situation as the separation). In that way, sovereigntists are as much "separatists" (another word never used in Quebec but used profusely in Canada) as the feminists and suffragettes were, wanting to have "separate" votes and wanting to become "separate" individuals. That was not done in hate of the other (men, in this case), but in self-respect and hope of a better, equal relationship with this said other. What I'm trying to say with this is: I feel the source of the misunderstanding (and the horror story status sovereignty seems to have in Canada) is that Canada and Quebec think they are talking about the same thing but, unbeknownst to them, are not.

So now! About the small parties. No, I meant all parties really, past or present. About the créditistes, I think the expression "trials and tribulations" is right and it made me laugh at first read. When I think about it, their history is not that well known by younger people today, in Quebec. When they are spoken of, really, it tends to be to have a bit of fun about their questionable beliefs ("Don't have enough money? Print some more!") or about the illustrious and ineffable Réal Caouette and Camil Samson, and their singular public speech abilities. Now, have you seen or heard of the brilliant, brilliant documentary Le Confort et l'indéférence by Denys Arcand? It is a sharp analysis of the 1980 referendum campaign through the theories of Machiavelli. I suggest you rent it (subtitled, not dubbed!), if only to see Camil Samson show his speech (and screaming) talents. "It reminds me of the time when I was young and we used cheese in mouse traps!!!"... such are the allegories of the master poet. If I find more info on them, I will directly tell you but now, I don't see what I could teach you that you wouldn't know. If you have even more specific questions (like "when did this party disband"), I have a big dictionnary-like Quebec history book here that has lots of such information. *I* would ask you a question on the subject, though. Every time I try to read about the Social Credit ideology, I try to understand and end up shaking my head in incomprehension ans disbelief... ;) Can you explain how the Social Credit system is supposed to work? ...Regards. --Liberlogos 22:00, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha... Yes, yes, yes, I heard of the quote you speak of before; a simple marvel. I heard a Quebecois actor on a great talk show say once that, as a kid, their dad brought them to Samson's public speeches, but as if they were going to a humorist's show... About the rest of my message, I did not want to start an argument and if it seems so, I did not intend to... Let's not get into anything bitter. ;) I was only wondering if Canada can see the movement as something else than reactionary. And, on the other hand, I am not saying that the past should be whitewashed and forgot, but that it's not the main, base issue for a great number. With my respects, Liberlogos 03:23, 5 May 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Good On You

Reading your article amused me, especially your reaction to vandals. Good on you and continue with your attitude and you shall go far and piss many morons off with your resiliance Mike 03:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mike. I aim to irritate. (Vandals, at least.) Regards, Ground Zero | t 18:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too good not to share

Talk:Stuart Smith. CJCurrie 22:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Double spacing

Do you know if Wikipedia has a double-space function? Some of my recent footnote-heavy pages are looking a bit unbalanced ...

On another matter, have you seen User:GroundZero? CJCurrie 03:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the identity theft. I was unaware of it until now. I'm not sure what you mean by double-space. You can add in line-breaks with <br> or spaces within a line using Ground Zero | t 17:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain it was identify theft -- the poster in question didn't do anything that was directed against you, and didn't even operate in the same field areas. It may have just been a coincidence. Still, it seemed best to inform you.

As to the other point -- I'm familiar with line-breaks and spaces, but manual entry of the same would result in an even worse visual on some screens (depending on the text size chosen). I was thinking more a pure <double space> function for certain paragraphs ... and I don't think we have it. CJCurrie 19:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warman et al

I strongly suspect that "Imstillhere" is User:Dogmatic, or an associate. I'm not certain if a formal ban has been imposed, the name notwithstanding. CJCurrie 02:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed CanCon barnstar

I have proposed the creation of a new barnstar to recognize Canadian contributions of significance. I thought, given your support of CanCon at Wikipedia, that you might be interested in commenting.

--JTBurman 12:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skeena vs Skeena-Bulkley Valley

You'd think I'd recognize the name of my own federal riding. I got a little over excited that Andy Burton was listed as my MP from 2003 to present. At least I got that part of the edit right. Thanks for correcting my error... Steve.cottonwood 22:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'm glad you caught the error in the previous version. It took me a while to figure out why a riding that was abolished in 2003 elected a new MP in 2004. thanks. Ground Zero | t 22:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- wasn't it something else before, too, i.e. Skeena-Prince Rupert or Skeena-Cassiar; the latter is provincial, I guess, which is why it sounds familiar.Skookum1 02:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Four ... Horsewomen of the Apocalypse?

Forever the optimist (which some of my friends would severely doubt!), I think things will turn around for the best ... but likely not as much to the left as I'd like.

As for other winds of change, I don't think there's any cause for concern: if you read, I think it's an eminently practical and consistent approach for the leads of country articles. You'll also note my insistence that the proposal deal with exceptions ... like keeping the 'Canuckistan' article, etc. as is (which seems to be agreeable to others). If you feel compelled to weigh in, please do. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: early in that discussion, I noted Canada as an example of what can happen when there are various points-of-view, regardless of citations to the contrary. Also another participant evinced a logical fallacy to substantiate opposition, which was later commented to be more in jest. Uh-huh. ;) The topic will be resurrected ... only over my dead body. :)

Speaking of which, I do take medica-shun, but I'm not so sure about the final election result. The disparity in polling figures seems to be narrowing (somewhat?) and, at the 11th hour, I think a heck of a lot of people will scare at the prospect of "stand[ing] up for change", instead choosing to vote for the devil we know.

Time for my pills ... gotta go! :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Thanks for weighing in on electoral candidate genders. As someone who works in the HIV/AIDS field, what of ... ambiguous individuals? ;) I agree: as you can see, mine was a "flip-flop", through and through! :)

Now for matters possibly more murky. As an active contributor to the election pages, would you care to weigh in on this template/retention? I popped off prematurely at the onset, largely because I was stupefied that it was nominated, but support its retention/inclusion ... as does a consensus currently. Also feel free to wordsmith the template. In any event, thanks for your input! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, Enza Anderson isn't running this time, so we don't have to worry about it. Ground Zero | t 19:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for weighing in: I appreciate it. As well, note that the template might be apt for a brief period beyond 03:00 UTC ... edited of course to reflect the reality of the election at that time. In any event, it is ad hoc. :)
- And I know her, him ... whatever! ;) Let me know if you've questions. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, the article lists her as a drag queen when, in fact, she reportedly went under the knife. Ah well! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Can you take a peak at the template and see if any wordsmithing is required? I've provided a link to the two versions (my prior and current) which I think should hold (unsatisfied with intermediaries) :) I only suggest tweaks, as some have suggested possible possible wordsmithing ... but if you're OK with it, that's fine with me!

Also as a perfunctory, I've created a results article (consistently named with others); please review. Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 00:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: you were right (I also think the Liberal campaign was mishandled), but I'm hopeful that the neocons will be ousted before not too long. Ah well. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsements

I'd keep them separate personally, otherwise it gets confusing. I'd remove the newspaper endorsements from that page. CrazyC83 17:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I think all the entries can be included in one article. The problem, currently (I think), is formatting: the use of the colourised table headers for each party (though nice) currently precludes the proper categorisation of such entries in either article (e.g., TOC uptop). If only text headings are used for each party and items organised then by type and then again alphabetically, I see no reason why we can't keep all the endorsements discrete yet organised in one article. Make sense? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heureusement, ici, c'est le Ground Zero

Well, I stand corrected. Looks like some chump at BQ HQ is all about the literal translations.

Normally, I would agree that translation requires interpretation and finesse. However, in the context of providing insight into what the French slogan might be saying to French voters, higher fidelity is required. (This is especially so when the English slogan is provided alongside.) Otherwise, who would have noticed the pun on "pour vrai"?

That said, I agree with you. (My translation of the Bloc's slogan --"Fortunately, here, it's the Block!" -- was removed.) But I didn't go to war over it because who is to say that my interpretation is the most appropriate? A more extreme example: I had considered adding a note about the Liberals' slogan, which could be interpreted to say something like, "After you screw up our country, we'll be here." But I thought that might not be NPOV. JTBurman 22:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My French isn't good enough to pick between "fortunately", "thankfully" and "happily". They all look reasonable to me. I like your POV translation best of all. Ground Zero | t 19:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prime-minister designate?

Well, I'm sure it will happen, but that's still premature isn't it? Martin hasn't conceded has he (or did I miss a bit when he was in French, and the dubbing make it all inaudible). Nfitz 05:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well maybe, but I still think one should wait. Though I can see why ... Nfitz 05:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I guess he's conceded now. Nfitz 05:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Martin

I just made a change in the Paul Martin's page. In the sentence about General Governor Michael Jean, it is said that SHE had some relation with former terrorist group FLQ. I corrected this statement as this is her husband who had some relation, as a cinematographer, with Quebec's separatist movement. This reflect with more accuracy the debate about Mme Jean and her husband. Alkimyst.

Holocaust Denier

I really do wish you'd keep your opinions to yourself. David Irving has committed no crime in Great Britain and inserting inflammatory comments like "holocaust denier" is simply completely political and utterly non-neutral as far as Wikipedia is concerned. You would be the first to have a go at me if I did something like that. Robert I 14:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I can interject: that David Irving is a "holocaust denier" is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact. CJCurrie 23:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I don't see how it is inflammatory to say that he is a Holocaust denier. He denies that the Holocaust occurred, ergo, he is a Holocaust denier. How can a statement of fact be non-neutral? Ground Zero | t 02:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Samuels

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 02:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Election results tables

Sorry...I didn't realize there was a definitive consensus favouring one over the other. I was just going by what's usually the expected format for chronological lists. Bearcat 19:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say that it was a definitive consensus; it was a fairly hazy one. That's why I suggested that you re-open the discussion if you wanted to do something different. Ground Zero | t 19:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem?

Actually, I think the RfA might be close to resolution. I'm not sure if you've been following the ArbComm voting or not, but five members have already voted in favour of Fred Bauder's proposed resolutions -- with no dissenting voices so far. [1]

I suspect it's only a matter of time before someone moves formal closure.

(Incidentally, the situation on the Raymond Samuels page has more-or-less been settled, but you may still wish to check the page out for sheer entertainment value.) CJCurrie 22:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Light of the World

LotW implies that he is a BNP supporter in one of his recent edits, while Robert I hasn't done this at any time in the past (to my knowledge). He could simply be a Lauder-Frost/Isherwood/Millson associate who's been roped in to the discussion; let's see if he loses interest after a day or two. (Btw, I've corrected Provencher.) CJCurrie 00:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GST/HST

GST/HST are not sales taxes. You will have to change this and please put back my other changes, which have nothing to do with your assertion. May I enquire what education and exprience you have in the Canadian tax industry, if any. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 23:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have worked in the tax industry for many years, although not in the sales tax/GST area. I understand that the GST is commonly called a sales tax, although I will verify that. The section of the article in question covers the GST, the HST and provincial retail sales taxes, so "GST/HST" is not appropriate. As well, acronyms should not generally be used in headings because they are of no use to those who don't already know what the acronym means. If "Sales taxes" is not an appropriate heading, then let's put our heads together and come up with a heading that covers all of the taxes discussed in the section. With regard to your other changes, the further explanation that your provided on HST was a useful addition to the article that I deleted in error. My apologies. I have restored it with some elaboration. I have not restored the links to the years because the Wikipedia:Manual of Style discourages links to ncomplete dates, i.e., it is okay to link October 23, 1988, because that allows a user to see the date formatted according to his/her preferences, but not October, or 1988, or October 23. This is not my rule, by the Manual of Style that says this. Ground Zero | t 00:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consumption tax Cordially SirIsaacBrock 01:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Consumption tax" is a term that people in the tax biz use. I think that "sales tax" is the more common term, and therefore more appropriate for Wikipedia. On what basis do you say that the GST is not a sales tax? I ask you to consider the following points:

The HST is called the "Harmonized Sales Tax" in three provinces.
Michael Wilson's 1987 White Paper on Tax Reform proposed a value-added tax as one of the options for "multi-stage sales tax".
The part of the Department of FInance that deals with the GST is the "Sales Tax Division of the Tax Policy Branch".
The Wikipedia article on Consumption tax, which admittedly is not very good, says: "A Consumption tax is a tax on the purchase of a good or service. Usually a consumption tax is no different than a sales tax."
The Wikipedia article on Sales taxes in Canada includes a discussion on the GST and the HST.

Regards, Ground Zero | t 23:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, if your interested in the tax industry and tax laws, please go to school as there is to much to teach here. You can start by doing searches here 1 this is my final word on the matter. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 11:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not cordial at all. You seem to be saying that GST is isn't a sales tax because you say it isn't. I have provided good reasons for saying it is, so I will make the change back, and post this conversation on thetalk page so that others can comment if they wish. Ground Zero | t 12:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same-sex marriage on FAC

I have nominated the article Same-sex marriage in Canada as a feature article. Ardenn 19:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Flag of Canada 1964.svg

Got any use for this? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 02:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. I've added this to Flag of Canada. Thanks. Ground Zero | t 02:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Welcome. I finished the other two entries, Image:Canada Pearson Pennant 1964.svg (Group A) and Image:Canada flag Group C Finalist.svg (Group C). I used the book "I Stand For Canada" as my source for the designs. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 03:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added the Group C flag to Great Flag Debate. The Group A flag already appears there. Do you have the Social Credit/Ligue pour un drapeau national proposal? This one was divided diagonally from upper hoist to lower fly, red above white below, with a green natural maple leaf in the centre? I've never seen a colour rendition of this. Ground Zero | t 12:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alberta Non-Partisan League

Hi Ground Zero, I found some interesting things while scouring up some stuff for a different project that lead to the creation of this article on a 1917 provincial fringe party known as the non-partisan league. I thought you might be interested in taking a look, the sources are from a website that has tons of old clippings and fonds records posted, I even managed to find a logo. --Cloveious 05:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simpson's

Hi. I assumed that the reference to a Simpson's at the Cat Centre was just a product of wishful thinking, bad memory, vandalism or confusion with the old Simpsons Sears store at Kingston Centre. Given that the Cat Centre was built in 1982, a few years after The Bay had purchased Simpsons, and not long before they started closing or converting Simpsons stores outside of Montreal and Toronto, I thought deleting the entry was a no-brainer. So thanks for setting me straight. I learned a new piece of Kingston trivia. Skeezix1000 12:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samuels vandalism

No problem at all. I don't know if you've been following events at the RS page, but our vandal has apparently turned up on Wikinews and Wikibooks as well -- posting more-or-less identical messages each time. This might be grounds for semi-protection of your user page, if you're so inclined.

Incidentally, this isn't the first time I've reverted vandalism on your page -- click here to discover another entry for your vandalism compendium. CJCurrie 23:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help on Canada page

Hey Ground Zero, I was wondering if you could help find references for the Canada page. There's a list of sections that needs references on the Talk:Canada page, and people are signing up to find references for each section. Thanks. -- Jeff3000 18:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking for another opinion:

Harper Attack ad seems to be just a partisan screech, and a few facts...think it should be listed for deletion?Habsfannova 13:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, again, I just had a question. In the John Turner, it mentions that he was often depicted in cartoons with "Knives in his back". If I could find a copy of a cartoon like that, would that be considered "fair use"?Habsfannova 01:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Miller

Could I request that you revert some of the recent changes by User:Gold Dragon? I've already reached my three reverts for the 24-hour period.

I'm particularly concerned about this line: "noting that a fiscal self-examination was overdue while spending on new programs was rampant", which seems to be a deliberate misrepresentation of the source material. CJCurrie 19:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A secondary question on the same topic: could you let me know if I'm going too far in my criticism of GoldDragon? I've become extremely vigilant about his changes to the Miller article, largely due to some obviously POV edits that he's made in the past ... he doesn't seem to be taking my hints, however, except in that he's become slightly more subtle. I've reverted so many of his changes that I'm starting to worry if I'm losing perspective (even though I stand by my decisions). CJCurrie 02:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Date formats

Hey Kevin, I partial reverted your edit to the Liberal leadership article to maintain dates formated like [[Month Day]] [[Year]]. This is because if it is done it that fashion, the Wiki will render the date to which ever format is the users preference. See [[2]] for more info. :) - Jord 21:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Omitting the comma is something new in the MoS. I did not notice the change when it was made on March 9. No explnation is provided on the talk page for it, so I hope that it is correct. Previously the MoS provided a choice of using [[Month Day]], [[Year]]</nowiki ''or <nowiki>[[Day Month]] [[Year]]. I will keep an eye out for a definitive answer on this. Ground Zero | t 22:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm interesting. It was pointed out to me some months ago, though I didn't refer to the manual of style, someone just showed me. - Jord 00:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion

It was unintentional. My restoration of the removed material occurred simultaneously with yours, and your edit was lost in the process. You'll note that I've replaced your version. --gbambino 22:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't disagree with the move at all. --gbambino 23:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UCC

Could you point me to a specific edit so I can figure out precisely what is being disputed? Thanks.Homey 22:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner. As you can see form the talk page, there are numreous points of contention, some of which are being addressed. The anon user is going to identify soon what s/he considers the outstanding issues to be. I think we will have a better idea of how to handle this when that happens. Thanks for your help. Ground Zero | t 13:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UCC

Hi Ground Zero. As an advocate I speak on behalf of my client, yet personally I am more than happy with all your admin actions. From what I can tell this was a case of no one realising the newbie was actually wanting some serious changes, and by the time it was realised there was some bad blood. I think you did really well to manage the evolution of the conflict. Things seem to be manageable now. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff

Oh, and one more thing, as an advocate, I do think a couple of the items on 96's WP:V list should be taken a little more seriously at some stage. Whatever his motives are, some of items on the list may have merit (at least as a discussion that includes neutral 3rd opinions). Perhaps when the ethnicity section is done Homey can help filter a couple of items on the list to be discussed? Peace ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 01:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Metta. I am going to try to step out of the content discussion for now, and focus on trying to calm the dispute down. Your participation in the discussion has been very helpful. Ground Zero | t 13:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comments and how straight-up you've been all along. It might be prudent to request a checkuser on this band of new users that is fast growing on the page: WormwoodJagger (talk · contribs), Blunders of the third kind (talk · contribs) and the following IP's:

Best wishes. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 16:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Crummey

This article is being turned by Mr. Crummey into an off-topic personal and family history. He has taken the surprising measure of personally phoning me to complain about my editing it to stay on topic. To avoid an edit war between myself and Mr. Crummey, I'm requesting some other active Wikipedians monitor the article and help bring it into line with Wikipedia standards. (I'm posting this request to some of the people who've previously edited the article.) Thanks. —GrantNeufeld 17:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your editing work on the article. It looks much better now. We'll need to keep an eye on it—I expect that he will try to put back all that off-topic family history again. —GrantNeufeld 21:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

High

Sorry your user page has been vandalised so many times. Please note that most americans think highly of canada and i am sure the visa versa is also true.

Q though for you, 16 June 2005 -- an anonymous editor wrote "FUCKING CANADIAN", and gave as an edit summary, "LIBERAL PIGS". Note the incorrect use of the plural.

where is the incorrect use of the plural? please explain, i cant see it and its driving me nuts. Also, congrates on your adminship, although its a few months late, congrats nonetheless.--Geppy 07:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing. Please be aware that, at least in the US, many different styles of writing are taught throughout the country (MLA, APA, Chicago, etc) and that styles of writing can vary. This, however does not make a certain style incorrect. --Geppy 07:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, last thing i promise. As a child of the 1980's, living in Canada, how exactly did you live under the threat of a nuclear war?--Geppy 07:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Geppy, I'll try to explain.

There is only one of me, so "Liberal pigs" doesn't seem to fit. I don't count the voices in my head a making me grammatically plural.
Which style point have I asserted do you think is not generally accepted? I don't like to be bossy about things if there are other styles. I am very careful, for example, not to impose the quirky Canadian system of spelling (e.g, "labour organization" and "tire centre") on non-Canadian articles.
Living along the shortest route between the USSR and the US is one reason. Living just a few hundred kilometres from the US, as most Canadians do is another. Being a member of NATO and NORAD. The biggest reason though, is that in a full-out nuclear war, we would all be cooked, not just those in the countries directly involved.

Certainly a lot of the griping you may hear from Canadians does not represent their true respect and affection for Americans. Regards, Ground Zero | t 12:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UCC

No problem. Reading through that talk page was quite painful, and wasted more of my time than I expected. I think some of the original points were valid, and seem to have been addressed by you and others; but there seems to be no merit or basis for the recent gripes from the anon users. I have the page on my watchlist, and I may leave a comment or two if the issue doesn't recede. Mind matrix 16:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I'm watching you! :-) Mind matrix 16:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]